Re: [問卦] 當年為何要廢台灣最公平的聯考制度?消失
我一直想問
學測是有多不公平
一階是刷比例
從第一名刷到入取最後一名
你連基本的級分都沒拿到
連面試機會都沒有
你覺得真的有可能靠關係進去什麼台清交?
二階那些什麼服務證明也是沒用啦
自傳和讀書計劃大家也都知道
教授根本不會鳥
麻都是隨便給分
學測成績也會有一定比例
有錢人小孩分數有到就是分數有到
難不成窮人分數不到
因為比較窮所以讓他低分錄取?
你說有錢人家裡幼年教育會比較好
那聯考有錢人家裡教育就會變差嗎?
改成聯考窮人會比較有機會?
我覺得一直喊學測不公平的
根本是沒有實力的魯蛇根本不會讀書
只會碎念時不我與天不由人而已
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 27.247.135.77
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Gossiping/M.1507517482.A.C36.html
→
10/09 10:51, , 1F
10/09 10:51, 1F
→
10/09 10:52, , 2F
10/09 10:52, 2F
※ 編輯: KK10305 (27.247.135.77), 10/09/2017 10:53:54
→
10/09 10:53, , 3F
10/09 10:53, 3F
誰白痴?
真的有人會這樣你確定不會黑?
你今天考30級分
難不成你爸是教育部長或是郭董
就能走後門到台大?
※ 編輯: KK10305 (27.247.135.77), 10/09/2017 10:55:02
推
10/09 10:54, , 4F
10/09 10:54, 4F
※ 編輯: KK10305 (27.247.135.77), 10/09/2017 10:55:40
→
10/09 10:56, , 5F
10/09 10:56, 5F
ㄎㄎ
75級分不會錄取?
本魯在哪邊工作的你知道嗎
看到的例子就是台清交錄取絕對是看成績
滿級分絕對必正取
※ 編輯: KK10305 (27.247.135.77), 10/09/2017 10:58:02
→
10/09 10:56, , 6F
10/09 10:56, 6F
推
10/09 10:57, , 7F
10/09 10:57, 7F
推
10/09 10:57, , 8F
10/09 10:57, 8F
這就是我想說的
一群人根本沒實力
然後怪社會不公平
窮人若考75級分機會會比有錢人少?
噓
10/09 10:57, , 9F
10/09 10:57, 9F
→
10/09 10:58, , 10F
10/09 10:58, 10F
推
10/09 10:58, , 11F
10/09 10:58, 11F
→
10/09 10:58, , 12F
10/09 10:58, 12F
※ 編輯: KK10305 (27.247.135.77), 10/09/2017 11:00:02
→
10/09 10:59, , 13F
10/09 10:59, 13F
→
10/09 11:00, , 14F
10/09 11:00, 14F
112的實驗備品都是跟本魯這邊買的
熟識的教授比你還多哦
早就聊了很多相關話題
噓
10/09 11:00, , 15F
10/09 11:00, 15F
※ 編輯: KK10305 (27.247.135.77), 10/09/2017 11:02:13
推
10/09 11:00, , 16F
10/09 11:00, 16F
噓
10/09 11:01, , 17F
10/09 11:01, 17F
→
10/09 11:01, , 18F
10/09 11:01, 18F
→
10/09 11:02, , 19F
10/09 11:02, 19F
→
10/09 11:02, , 20F
10/09 11:02, 20F
推
10/09 11:02, , 21F
10/09 11:02, 21F
噓
10/09 11:02, , 22F
10/09 11:02, 22F
噓
10/09 11:02, , 23F
10/09 11:02, 23F
→
10/09 11:03, , 24F
10/09 11:03, 24F
噓
10/09 11:03, , 25F
10/09 11:03, 25F
→
10/09 11:03, , 26F
10/09 11:03, 26F
推
10/09 11:03, , 27F
10/09 11:03, 27F
→
10/09 11:04, , 28F
10/09 11:04, 28F
→
10/09 11:04, , 29F
10/09 11:04, 29F
→
10/09 11:04, , 30F
10/09 11:04, 30F
→
10/09 11:05, , 31F
10/09 11:05, 31F
推
10/09 11:05, , 32F
10/09 11:05, 32F
推
10/09 11:05, , 33F
10/09 11:05, 33F
→
10/09 11:05, , 34F
10/09 11:05, 34F
→
10/09 11:07, , 35F
10/09 11:07, 35F
推
10/09 11:07, , 36F
10/09 11:07, 36F
噓
10/09 11:07, , 37F
10/09 11:07, 37F
推
10/09 11:07, , 38F
10/09 11:07, 38F
推
10/09 11:07, , 39F
10/09 11:07, 39F
→
10/09 11:08, , 40F
10/09 11:08, 40F
→
10/09 11:08, , 41F
10/09 11:08, 41F
→
10/09 11:09, , 42F
10/09 11:09, 42F
推
10/09 11:09, , 43F
10/09 11:09, 43F
噓
10/09 11:09, , 44F
10/09 11:09, 44F
→
10/09 11:10, , 45F
10/09 11:10, 45F
→
10/09 11:12, , 46F
10/09 11:12, 46F
→
10/09 11:12, , 47F
10/09 11:12, 47F
噓
10/09 11:24, , 48F
10/09 11:24, 48F
→
10/09 11:25, , 49F
10/09 11:25, 49F
→
10/09 11:25, , 50F
10/09 11:25, 50F
→
10/09 11:27, , 51F
10/09 11:27, 51F
→
10/09 11:28, , 52F
10/09 11:28, 52F
→
10/09 12:22, , 53F
10/09 12:22, 53F
→
10/09 12:22, , 54F
10/09 12:22, 54F
→
10/09 12:38, , 55F
10/09 12:38, 55F
→
10/09 12:39, , 56F
10/09 12:39, 56F
噓
10/09 12:43, , 57F
10/09 12:43, 57F
→
10/09 12:45, , 58F
10/09 12:45, 58F
推
10/09 12:47, , 59F
10/09 12:47, 59F
→
10/09 12:47, , 60F
10/09 12:47, 60F
→
10/09 13:05, , 61F
10/09 13:05, 61F
→
10/09 13:05, , 62F
10/09 13:05, 62F
→
10/09 13:06, , 63F
10/09 13:06, 63F
→
10/09 13:06, , 64F
10/09 13:06, 64F
→
10/09 13:26, , 65F
10/09 13:26, 65F
噓
10/09 17:23, , 66F
10/09 17:23, 66F
噓
10/09 18:47, , 67F
10/09 18:47, 67F
→
10/09 18:48, , 68F
10/09 18:48, 68F
噓
10/09 18:50, , 69F
10/09 18:50, 69F
→
10/09 18:50, , 70F
10/09 18:50, 70F
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 13 篇):