Hi, I'm from Shatin College and perhaps I can help shed some light on the mysterious 'brand' of the ESF.
Currently, I'm studying law in one of the top 5 universities in the UK. I wouldn't say I was on the top of the academic pile, but I managed to do fine nevertheless. I'm a native English speaker, but I am also Chinese in ethnicity. One of my largest problems is not knowing how to write or read Cantonese. My spoken Cantonese is understandable, but it very much depends on the company you keep (and whether they regularly engage you in Cantonese).
From the academic side of things, I don't think that STC is a bad place at all. Last year, the dip in IB grades (the average score being a respectable 32, and it is usually 34 - well above average by global standards) was (rather uncouthly, by the Principle's Annual Report itself) explained by the year's "unusual academic profile" - the surprising addition of 20 or so students from Phoenix secondary school. These students did not have a proper GCSE base and spoke mostly Cantonese, making it difficult to reach their full potential in the compulsory International Baccalaureate scheme. Till this day I'm still unsure why the college decided to lump in 20 more students into STC, but I suspect these ESF schematics are not let on to the students themselves.
The IB course is fairly well taught. I received a score of 37, and it is a pick-and-mix of teachers, although the overall the standard is high. They are talented and usually quite approachable. Last year, 2 students got into Oxbridge universities (with about 6 of us being asked for an interview), but there has never been a student to enter Harvard before. There have been offers for prestigious Ivy schools in America, but some students chose not to go to Ivy schools. A small percentage go on gap years or apply to Australia (the land where the university requirements are apparently 'lower', as the rumour goes); a larger percentage apply to HK universities, and quite a few to Canada (especially UBC -- huge shipment every year). Some progess to other colleges for specific courses. Very few do not go to university at all.
The teaching methods are varied. I found the Biology IB class was the most engaging and attempted to teach by many different methods. Some, inevitably, ploughed on, text-book based (such as psychology), and can be demotivating for the students. As an individual, I am a curious, creative person but I don't feel this has been necessarily cultivated by the school itself - I've been involved with many other activities outside of school. On the other hand, the wonderful CAS program with the ability to do charity work, go overseas and generally learn about the world is a great, great aspect of STC. Students can create their own societies if they wish, and the school is keen to delegate 'positions' (e.g. head of house, creativity etc.) though I warn the students do not have any real power over the running of the school - only minor, insignificant aspects that the school hails as 'proactivism'. But anyway, I am glad they are re-implementing overseas trips to the CAS program, especially after a long stint of teacher strikes due to salary cuts.
Overall teaching standard? Good. Classes in IB are very small - sometimes 4 or 5. Teachers are experienced and interesting. GCSE was well taught and there were great materials. IB is well-funded and we were able to use many resources available in the library or in the specific departments.
The structural building itself:
STC is small. Spaces are always limited, computers are hard to get to unless you book in advance or come in really early, and the stairs are crowded during transferring between classes/breaks. I am especially pleased at the new sports hall that STC boasts - beautiful, olympic-sized swimming pool with a state-of-the-art gym. Classrooms are a good size, and the library is comfortable. Books are readily available and the librarians have historically been very helpful, providing presentations on writing up bibliographies/references/effective searching. The canteen is slightly expensive but not drastically so; I survived easily on $50 a day, and I often bought snacks and lots of food. An average meal/lunchbox with a drink is around $22 (if they haven't increased the price). Queue lines for the canteen are deadly and were the bane of my existence, especially on the rainy days.
The school is trying to implement a 'greener' lifestyle by small changes such as paper recycling, turning off the lights and using reusable cutlery. The school has also agreed to some of the requests by the student council, such as going home early if a study break is at the end of the day, or design competitions for the new sports team name, and so on. Relatively insignificant, but it still gets kids excited about things.
Also, for the record: most of the students at STC are ethnically Chinese, but there are vast differences in economic situations.
Now for the things that I had slight gripes with about the school. I hope this is helpful, and please understand that they are solely my experiences, and undoubtedly they will differ from student to student:
There is a segregation between Caucasian students and 'traditional' Chinese students. This does not mean any racism of course, and the language barrier is a natural divider between the two ... all I am saying is that both sides don't often
try to mix. There is an overlap between the Chinese students who have more Western values, but I found this to be incredibly consistent from year to year. Cliques are incredibly well defined, but this is high school and is to be expected. There are students who dabble in drugs and there have been cases of expulsion (as with any school) and other scandals. These are usually extremely rare though, and occur most often in an isolated demographic.
I also feel that the PTA/school is afraid of tripping on the media's fingers... in an all-too-paranoid way. Many years back, the school somewhat enforced a policy that each student had to sell two stacks of raffle tickets for the annual STC fair, and if they didn't they'd have to see a teacher about it (it was all very ominous). One student had a mother who was in the journalism field, and published a piece condemning the school for 'forcing' their students to sell these tickets. The school backed off immediately and denied any forcing whatsoever, and from then on has been strangely lenient about anybody who doesn't even sell one ticket...
I also remember running a creative writing magazine in the earlier years, and after the sex survey scandal with CUHK, the school - desperate to not go under the scrutiny of the media, although it has no ties with CUHK whatsoever - started to cut out pieces from the magazine that may be questionnable (e.g. about prostitution etc. - and the magazine was ironically called "Voice"). The PTA sent off a message of helplessness - Sorry, we can't do anything about it, we need to be careful about what we do, you're only children - and it was just a testament, I suppose, but an altogether natural one.
To be fair, I don't have much to complain about. I found many of the students to be academic, talented, and their talents were able to find an output. The school holds dramas and orchestras ever year and they're always of high quality.
As for other ESF branches, I was under the impression that STC was labelled the "academic" one, whilst IS/SIS were musically talented and so on. KGV was seen as the rich and big branch, and there has been some playful banter between the two, nothing serious.
I hope this has been helpful. Sorry for making it so long, but I wanted to portray the school as accurately as I could. Not doing so would be doing an injustice to an overall very good school.
