Question 1

c word list三寶媽艾莉絲的生活紀錄 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

中英文網路資料免費分享 :FACEBOOK 社團:[好書精選] 中英文教育資源及好物優惠分享https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/大家好，我是一位目前住在美國灣區的台灣媽媽，育有一女一子(8歲、6歲)，美國電腦科學研究所博士 (電腦輔助醫學、電腦視覺、機器學習)。曾經入圍2018年信誼基金會幼兒文學獎。喜愛收集優質的教育資訊及推廣好書，希望能在此園地和您交流~ :)＊中英文各科目教育資源整理 原文網址 （持續更新中）https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/520677625605458/#中文節目  #英文節目  #台灣各公立家圖書館資源#英文學習App    #KhanAcademyKids  #中文筆順字詞學習App萌典#台灣翰林課本習作電子書#國語日報週刊免費看#未來兒童雜誌免費看#美國灣區小學線上教學軟體使用經驗🌼[YouTube免費收看:優質兒童/青少年節目整理] 中文繪本故事、英文繪本故事、運動、美術、音樂、科學魔術、科學實驗、科普知識、哲學思辨、中英雙語學習、食育科學烹飪、藝術、讀書辯論、名人讀書訪談、青年夢想實踐、漢字探討、兒童認字、保健科普等2020年三月美國開始 Shelter-in-Place 學校停課後，社團陸續整理了許多台灣優質的兒童及青少年節目，以及美國老師課堂上常使用的YouTube頻道，希望小朋友即使在家閉關防疫，也可以從這些精采的節目中習得知識並感受到樂趣。把之前介紹過的45+個節目，youtube和介紹文連結整理在此篇，希望能夠讓大家更容易找到資訊，祝願防疫順利，大家健康平安!P.S.文末也附上翰林版國小/國中/高中課文習作電子書和國文朗讀官方下載資源、台灣圖書館電子書借閱平台、英文學習App (Khan Academy Kids)、美國小學線上教學軟體經驗等資訊整理供參考。歡迎推廣本社團給親朋好友，感謝大家! :-)📍 中文繪本故事Good TV: 神奇故事屋 (+實地訪查)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaphkk9pAYCLnEJYJKI2rmbmNGbHez4DL👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/326693245003898Good TV: 烤箱讀書會 (+甜點製作)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaphkk9pAYCITBfMYF4UKu1QaQTu-dVsl👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/336377934035429 富邦文教基金會: 藝起說故事 (目前共50集，每集約10分鐘) (藝人說故事+動畫)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4S3BKKtW2jL1eAVpT08M4A/featured📍英文繪本故事Brightly Storytime (Miss Lina或作者親說，Penguin Random House出版商合作)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvQagFNHMrGgQpYunk4rHXg👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/487230112283543Storyline Online (美國藝人說故事)🔗https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVkRno2M8Jkpso5VkXR32GK8nIBBEygCa👓https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/338935907112965Story Time from Space (來自外太空的故事時間)🔗https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpotjVqWv3KfGHjWztjPKgg艾瑞卡爾博物館 (Eric Carle Museum): 繪本說故事 (知名作者:好餓好餓的毛毛蟲)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJC4ZhubfgnXk02jlRGbjIAbkMSSN9loA👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/526476528358901📍博物館探訪YOYO TV: 博物館探險趣🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo_HY74ov2N0QlGht468fvn2IHhju8n5B📍運動類MOMO 親子台: 運動練習生 (每集45分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KroRNGNi9dIrAJZsaWlWUHM👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/509871293352758Cosmic Kids Yoga (兒童瑜珈+背景卡通動畫)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/CosmicKidsYoga👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/331341251205764MOMO 親子台: 就是愛瑜珈🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KpKpu904jRKiukybfQsW88IGoNoodle (英文歌曲、動畫，運動)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/GoNoodleGames📍流行音樂舞蹈Kidz Bop Kids (美國著名兒童歌唱舞蹈團體)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKE0Xnj818IDaHvIcRiq0Bg📍自然探索、動物生態類MOMO 親子台: 動物大明星 (全五季共65集，每集22分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KoP6Rcuw3zYZio_oGEFtxCF👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/523722395300981/YOYOTV: 好好玩自然 (全三季共40集，一集24分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpVLNX2G8UIt4mm0RX9jL9BAH8yatJ9JA👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/338306687175887/大愛電視: 妙博士的異想世界  (共26集，一集24分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2SBlZyPhyFRyczbkSa5Ud12👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/386251849048037國家地理雜誌🔗 https://www.youtube.com/c/Ngtaiwan/featured動物星球頻道🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/Dogs101TW📍科學魔術類YOYOTV: 科學偵探團 (共13集，每集23分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgZx3ncZz696LsICrTuzMAB0LR7O6y9L7👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/439198003753421/YOYOTV: Hello! 瑪奇課🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo_HY74ov2N2ieJN6PTii5Zt9vpqkIXHM👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/332617654411457/MOMO親子台: 魔法小學堂🔗https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KqXcwpB254mg5Wv_SKbmuh_📍科學實驗類大愛電視: TRY科學 (目前共 59 集，一集 24 分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2RzPaNrVaRHIrgZwOOcjU9s👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/352366659103223/大愛電視: 生活裡的科學 (共 250 集，一集 24 分鐘，2013 ~ 2018年)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2Qwr7Q4G1gMgxC3qDR35cy5👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/347642409575648📍食育科學 / 烹飪 / 農業種植類MOMO 親子台: 快樂小廚房 (共20集，每集22分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Ko9wRe7s5PK8srkoIEV18fH公視兒少: 神廚賽恩師  (目前共22集，每集 25分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR9-cXLksRCsqtoAMPM8zxrgi6WnGHt9f👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/439816230358265MOMO親子台: 快樂小農夫 (全1季20集，每集22分鐘) 食農教育🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KoJSt2-8F8It8x4VUm6E101👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/524818501858037/做菜ABC (共61集，每集11/22分鐘) 中英雙語🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Krs6NwdaoAX5U424DAngxN2👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/509297763410111Good TV: 烤箱讀書會 (每集24分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaphkk9pAYCITBfMYF4UKu1QaQTu-dVsl👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/336377934035429📍哲學思辨類Good TV 貓道上的哲學家🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaphkk9pAYCKrzmPezCXTryQxtLs6KfF-👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/444048586601696📍音樂學習類公共電視: 古典魔力客 (主持人: 黃韻玲，完整三季共 39 集，一集25分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR9-cXLksRCucS4yR8pGWOUwxhUiRhwFn👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/337109500628939安迪老師 (德國漢堡音樂大學教授，指導鋼琴曲的詮釋)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZg4j8q1h0fT_j48R3aN4Lg👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/493494354990452MOMO親子台: 牛奶與麗麗 (烏克麗麗教學，共76集，每集11分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KroPNGb6a_QlmBoDaSaDnAs👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/523209112018976/江老師上大師班系列🔗第一集 (陳敏華教授)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgKboyUt3Eg🔗第二集 (盧易之教授)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjawAsvDe4w👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/520109028995651好和弦: 不可不知的基礎樂理 (21部影片)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmVjZfPp5kiNVtlRBphjzBUIH_Xa15h08Muzik 大師悄悄話 (目前共21集，一集3.5~7分鐘)(鋼琴、小提琴、中提琴、大提琴、單簧管、長笛、法國號、女高音、指揮等共21位大師精彩談話)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9OkC31rPuMaDrvfcjGQyuG3o5APk6EpA👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/479799183026636/Muzik Air 網站: 免費古典音樂 - 系統式學習與聆聽 (分有 聽樂/讀樂/赴樂/影片等四大分頁)🔗 https://www.muzikair.com/tw👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/482734636066424📍音樂會欣賞久石讓＠日本武道館 吉卜力工作室動畫25周年紀念音樂會 (高清)(宮崎駿卡通精彩音樂會)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY1XtWyKlJA(此上傳者不是官方，但有官方音樂版權聲明)👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/470230423983512📍美術類大愛電視: 小主播看天下wow 的 Oh! 這就是美 集數 (約 30集，一集 24分鐘)以下 Google Document 是我整理的有關美術的集數🔗https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-L-DwqxnsQ0zlZ2MDMPIHk5M_2xgJqyUiQvoYd5L1Vc/👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/365302857809603英文 Lets Make Art 頻道 (透明水彩、不透明水彩、壓克力繪畫、混和技法)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/c/LetsMakeArt/playlists👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/487800005559887MOMO親子台: 紙箱做玩具🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Krz5HIrzWC_fvtgXpseR6R9👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/510904863249401MOMO親子台: 一起玩摺紙🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Kp2rF49rBbiYcbSwzfgViPxArt for Kids Hub (美國小學老師也喜歡出這裡的影片當美術小作業)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/ArtforKidsHub📍中英雙語學習類MOMO親子台:學學ABC🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KrG1zik81TRYjknZOaqEvNEMOMO親子台:ABC故事屋 (各國經典故事、名人傳記雙語，真人解說+動畫)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KocjS3RsH4pd2x50mb7Q_DXMOMO親子台:做菜ABC🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Krs6NwdaoAX5U424DAngxN2👓 這三個節目的文字介紹https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/509297763410111📍綜合學習小行星樂樂TV頻道🔗https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtWocEKhgpEffPDlwwozK9Q未來親子TV🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLbYagPqVZbr1aoAU5DV4KQTED-ED 中文短篇課程🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDYWZUcGbh494_GlcJjd3SlF5p4JPAsUF📍中文識字學習MOMO親子台: 跟哥哥姐姐學國字 (共70集，每集2分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Kpq8ZOhGIJyPLZSKYdRL0zpMOMO親子台: 一起來認字 (共69集，每集1.5分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KoXclQzjy9QCF0b1qgOUKq2👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/523234642016423/📍成語故事教學類MOMO親子台: 一起學成語 (每集 4.5 分鐘，共50集)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-KoAVB287Jm1vM1UKyMdF0YDMOMO親子台: 聽聽成語故事 (每集 3 分鐘，共50集)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1IigiWrn-Ko0wLUgluV3bspykpjDqohd👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/513286399677914/📍兒童情緒教育類大愛電視: 伯源哥哥的祕密屋 (每集24分鐘) 🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2QXZsXlrqqkHqjB9_Xuf21b👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/375341600139062/📍藝術探討類公視: 藝術很有事🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8T9CzvHiDeYnwWFFKkEePFG68OxEwNl5👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/328724158134140大愛電視: 立德路2號 How ART You🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2TFepEuECTIJWNRBaeMV14k👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/477585453248009📍讀書辯論類大愛電視: 青春愛讀書 (主持人:謝哲青)🔗https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2QHyXgwobyofs2TAebZYEQS👓https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/350828785923677📍兒童/青年夢想實踐大愛電視: 熱青年🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYfJOvcvKb2S3FuOmfgqHrdU452UbKrjO👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/395788288094393公視: 小孩酷斯拉🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR9-cXLksRCv1Yft8gIDyT_IoMf5nN7uc👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/355501372123085📍知識科普PanSci 泛科學🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/pansci科普新視界🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWWBL-WFsEcHI_V0XaOsANQMinute Earth🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/minuteearthMystery Doug🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPRCRM3JKm3sw55lB_427qgBrainPop🔗 https://www.youtube.com/user/mobytherobot📍數學科普數感實驗室🔗 https://www.youtube.com/c/%E6%95%B8%E6%84%9F%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97%E5%AE%A4NumeracyLab/featured📍保健科普黃瑽寧醫師健康講堂🔗https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkha3wg7As4t9duOzre5HcQ📍漢字起源學習類大愛電視: 國民漢字須知🔗 https://www.daai.tv/program/P1391👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/474727143533840/📍人文傳記/事件故事改變世界的密碼 - 郝廣才在中視 (根據 今天 這本書，共366集，每集5分鐘)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLu_yoBy_pbO3Yi-GS1Jk6exWwXxbhvyrn👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/499774861029068📍名人訪談名人書房 (主持人: 詹慶齡  + 來賓推薦書籍)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsGup_2nYgcl9YNpACUHrfw/featured👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/326786041661285大雲時堂 (主持人: 李四端，+ 來賓享用精選料理)🔗 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLk00QFZ8-KpSaC0nPPWAJ4896dwnade8F👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/456096738730214📍台灣翰林國小國語課本 - 課文內容下載與國文朗讀影片 (官方免費資源)https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/471578433848711📍台灣免費電子書各平台整理 (HyRead各圖書館、台灣雲端書庫、華藝電子書)https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/434622187544336/📍英文學習免費App: Khan Academy Kids (包含大量優質有聲書)https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/521536162186271/📍中文筆順字詞學習App/網站: 萌典https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/467933737546514📍美國灣區小學線上教學軟體使用經驗 (SeeSaw, Clever, Zoom)https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/525375721802315📍國語日報週刊 / 中學生報/ 國語日報 近期數期  PDF免費下載「防疫自學 公益閱讀」全版報紙 PDF 下載專區https://www.mdnkids.com/MdnRead-Covid19/https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/525984018408152📍未來兒童/未來少年100期雜誌免費看https://www.facebook.com/globalkidsmonthly/posts/4415150248523235==============================其他優質節目介紹 (Amazon Prime Video/ Netflix/中英雙語 DVD)📍 兒童科普卡通: 戴帽子的貓Amazon Prime Video / Netflix / 中英雙語 DVD👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/498119837861237/📍 幼兒早期英語學習卡通推薦Amazon Prime Video 會員觀看Word World 字的世界 (英文拼字、Phonics 發音學習)If You Give A Mouse A Cookie 如果你給老鼠一片餅乾Guess How Much I Love You 猜猜我有多愛你The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That! 戴帽子的貓懂很多 (知識科普)👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/500854484254439📍 吉娃斯愛科學 (台灣製作科普卡通)YouTube 幾集 Samples / DVD👓 https://www.facebook.com/groups/326160951723794/permalink/432885827717972📍 魔法校車 (Magic School Bus)，魔法校車再度啟程 (Magic School Bus Rides Again)Netflix 觀看https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IscM4JaW7fMovb6zgUvxj4XXJU20xWqiWpMBIaRzpTY/mobilebasic

Question 2

c word list江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

Question 3

c word listScholarship for Vietnamese students 在Facebook 的評價

Accepted Answer

#HannahEdApplyTips 07 LỖI LOGIC KHI XIN HỌC BỔNG THẠC SỸ/TIẾN SỸ: TẠI SAO TƯ DUY LOGIC LÀ CHÌA KHÓA THÀNH CÔNG?

“Tư duy logic (logical thinking) được hiểu là ‘là một cách sắp xếp và sử dụng thông tin. Các vấn đề hoặc tình huống liên quan đến tư duy logic đòi hỏi tư duy cấu trúc (structure), nắm rõ các mối quan hệ giữa các sự kiện (facts), và khả năng tạo ra các liên kết (chains) trong lập luận để tạo ra ý nghĩa’ (Karl Albrecht 1984: 3). … Tư duy logic có vai trò nền tảng đối với tất cả các bước và các nhiệm vụ trong việc ứng tuyển học bổng, bắt đầu từ việc tập hợp hồ sơ, xây dựng các thành phần của hồ sơ như viết SOP (statement of purpose), chuẩn bị LOR (letter of recommendation), làm các bài luận (essays), viết đề cương nghiên cứu (research proposal), cho tới việc nộp hồ sơ, và chuẩn bị phỏng vấn. Có nghĩa là, bạn không chỉ cần thể hiện tư duy logic ở việc viết, mà còn trong phỏng vấn, và ở cả việc thực hiện các tác vụ mang tính văn phòng (sắp xếp, tập hợp file, hay format văn bản).”

Đây cũng chính là phần mở đầu mà Anh Kiên Nguyễn, PhD Student ở ĐH Monash mới chia sẻ, chị thấy bài viết rất hữu ích đối với các bạn Schofans chuẩn bị khi làm hồ sơ du học. Mời mọi người cùng đón đọc nhé ❤

“Bài viết này tương đối cơ bản, dành cho các bạn ứng tuyển học bổng cả bậc thạc sỹ và tiến sĩ. Dĩ nhiên, các bạn ứng tuyển các học bổng ngắn hạn khác cũng có thể tìm thấy đôi điều có ích. Sau đây, mình tổng kết thành 7 lỗi logic cơ bản khiến hồ sơ của bạn dễ thất bại.

1. Không tuân theo trật tự đã cho

Cứ tưởng tượng, bạn vào nhà hàng và gọi điểm tâm và món chính, nhà hàng mang ra món chính rồi sau đó mới điểm tâm. Đó là một lỗi logic sơ đẳng. Công việc ứng tuyển học bổng cũng vậy. Luôn đầy những nhiệm vụ cần phải sắp xếp tác vụ và mọi thứ theo một trật tự logic đã cho – tức theo yêu cầu của học bổng. Lấy ví dụ một công việc nhẹ nhàng nhất là tập hợp các bản mềm cho một bộ hồ sơ. Với việc hiện nay các hồ sơ chủ yếu nộp online, các thành phần của hồ sơ đều có thể nộp dưới dạng bản mềm (file điện tử). Nếu yêu cầu của học bổng là gửi hồ sơ của bạn tới địa chỉ email của hội đồng học bổng thì việc bạn sắp xếp các files này trong thư gửi lại là rất quan trọng. Không cẩn thận, bạn có thể bị loại ngay từ vòng ngày.

Ví dụ: Một học bổng PhD yêu cầu bạn phải nộp một hồ sơ gồm các thành phần sau: certificates and academic transcripts, certified proof of citizenship status, proof of residency status, evidence of English language proficiency, contact details for two Academic Referees, research case, research proposal, and list of research output.

Khi nộp lại bạn được yêu cầu gửi một tập (folder) tài liệu gồm các thành phần trên. Nhiều bạn không chú ý đến việc đơn giản này và gửi lại một folder để các file lẫn lộn. Máy tính sẽ tự động sắp xếp các file theo bảng chữ cái. Và như thế người nhận sẽ không nhìn thấy được một trật tự các file như họ yêu cầu. Điều này khiến họ rất mất thời gian để check xem liệu bạn có bị thiếu file nào không. Và nếu họ bỏ qua gửi lên hội đồng cao hơn, bạn có thể bị chấm thất bại.

Do đó, trong một folder, bạn cần biết sắp xếp nó thành thứ tự như học bổng đưa ra. Chẳng hạn, cách đánh số đơn giản giúp bạn duy trì trật tự file theo đúng yêu cầu học bổng:
1_Certificates and academic transcripts
2_Proof of citizenship status
3_Proof of residency status
4_Evidence of English language proficiency
5_Referees contact details_Mr A & Ms B
6_Research Case
7_Research Proposal
8_Research Output
Với cách sắp xếp có đánh số, các bạn có thể zip toàn bộ files trong hồ sơ và gửi đi. Khi gửi đi, người nhận sẽ nhận được bộ hồ sơ mà các files được sắp xếp theo đúng trật tự họ yêu cầu.
Bên cạnh việc rất đơn giản như sắp xếp file điện tử, lỗi không tuân theo trật tự định sẵn còn diễn ra ở nhiều hạng mục khác của học bổng chẳng hạn như việc làm bài luận. Đề bài cho sẵn những ý nào, theo trật tự gì là tương đối rõ, thì việc bạn viết bài luận để làm rõ những điểm đó cần theo trật tự đưa ra. Vấn đề này mình sẽ bàn sâu thêm ở một bài khác.

2. Sắp xếp không theo trình tự thời gian

Trình tự thời gian nói về việc sắp xếp sao cho cái nào sinh ra trước thì bỏ trước, cái nào sinh ra sau thì bỏ sau, hoặc ngược lại.
Chẳng hạn, chúng ta xem xét ví dụ sau. Một bạn ứng tuyển bậc PhD viết các nhiệm vụ đã thực hiện cho một vị trí gọi là ‘Facilities Assistant’ trong CV. Lúc đầu bạn ấy viết thế này:
 (01) Supervision of the CPA Centre including room set-up and event coordination.
 (02) Maintaining Audio-Visual equipment during events and meetings and acting as a trouble-shooter.
 (03) Meeting and greeting attendees during events.
 (04) Acting as a First-Aid and Fire Warden to ensure all OH&S and emergency procedures are followed.
Để thấy vấn đề về logic ở đây, bạn cần phải tìm ra cơ sở chung của các nhiệm vụ trên. Nếu các bạn chú ý, có thể thấy xuyên suốt các nhiệm vụ của bạn ý việc liên quan đến tổ chức sự kiện – events (ngoại trừ ý số 04). Một event thường có 3 giai đoạn chính – chuẩn bị, quản lý lúc event diễn ra, và quản lý sau event. Vậy 4 ý này có vấn đề gì?
- Ý 01 liên quan đến giai đoạn chuẩn bị (phòng ốc) cho event (1.1), nhưng lại bao gồm cả điều phối event (1.2)
- Ý 02 liên quan đến các vấn đề điều phối event gồm các vấn đề bảo quản và xử lý sự cố về equipment.
- Ý 03 liên quan đến khởi đầu event – đón tiếp khách mời.
- Ý 04 liên quan đến một nhiệm vụ khác không phải event.
Như vậy, bạn ấy đang vi phạm logic thời gian. Ý một về giai đoạn chuẩn bị ở đầu là đúng. Ý hai nói về điều phối event – tức giai đoạn giữa. Còn ý ba là thuộc giai đoạn khi event mới bắt đầu diễn ra, đáng lẽ cần được đặt trước ý hai thì lại để sau. Vậy, theo đúng trình tự thời gian ta có:
 (01=I) Prepared for events including room set-up
 (03=II) Coordinated events including greeting and meeting attendees.
 (02=III) Maintained Audio-Visual equipment during events and meetings.
 (04=IV) Acted as a First-Aid and Fire Warden to ensure all WHS and emergency procedures are followed.
Có một vài thành phần học bổng, chẳng hạn như khi bạn liệt kê các bằng cấp hoặc dự án đã làm trong CV, thì thông thường người ta liệt kê các bằng cấp hoặc các dự án mới đạt được trước, rồi đi lùi về các mốc thời gian cũ hơn.

3. Không đồng chất

Khi chúng ta trình bày các dữ kiện, nhóm vấn đề, chúng ta cần chú ý đến việc làm sao tạo ra sự đồng nhất giữa các thành phần ngang hàng. Một trong những lỗi logic phổ biến là cách sử dụng ngôn ngữ không thống nhất (inconsistent).
Trong ví dụ ở mục 2, có thể thấy, item 01 khác biệt với các items còn lại vì bạn ấy sử dụng danh từ (supervision) để mô tả nhiệm vụ, trong khi các items còn lại bắt đầu bằng danh động từ (V-ing). Vấn đề không phải cách dùng nào là sai, mà là dùng không thống nhất. Lỗi này tuy nhỏ, nhưng lại khá phổ biến và có thể đập ngay vào mắt người đọc.
Các lỗi tương tự như sử dụng lẫn lộn giữa Anh Mỹ và Anh Anh, hay lúc thì bôi đậm lúc thì in nghiêng, lúc đặt heading lúc không, v.v., nếu không phải phục vụ mục đích ‘highlight’ nào đó, thì hầu như đều tạo ra ấn tượng của không thống nhất và có thể ảnh hưởng đến chất lượng của hồ sơ của bạn. Để sửa lỗi này thì các bạn cần chọn quá trình chỉnh sửa nhiều lần và nhờ người khác đọc hộ (proofread) để phát hiện lỗi.

4. Sắp xếp không ngang hàng

Khá gần với đến việc không đồng chất là việc sắp xếp không ngang hàng do xác định sai quan hệ tập hợp. Chẳng hạn, một bạn ứng tuyển thạc sĩ liệt kê các kỹ năng của bạn ấy như sau:
 Leadership
 Interpersonal
 Teamwork
 Critical thinking
 Intemediate use of Epidata
 Proficient use of MS Office (Word, PowerPoint, Visio, Excel)
Ngoài vấn đề về tính thống nhất (lúc thì có đánh giá về trình độ sử dụng – intermediate use, proficient use, lúc thì không), thì bạn này còn gặp phải vấn đề xác định sai quan hệ logic. Đáng lẽ A là tập con của B thì lại đặt A ngang hàng với B. Interpersonal skills (các kỹ năng liên cá nhân) là một tập hợp gồm nhiều các kỹ năng mềm gồm cả lãnh đạo và làm việc nhóm. Như vậy, chúng ta không thể đặt ngang hàng một tập hợp mẹ (interpersonal skill) với tập con (leadership and teamwork) được.
Bên cạnh đó, chúng ta cũng thấy được hai ý cuối nói về dạng kỹ năng khác, không nằm trong interpersonal skills. Đó là các kỹ năng kỹ thuật/chuyên môn (technical skills). Do đó, điều cần thiết là phải phân biệt được các items thuộc nhóm nào, các nhóm này có quan hệ logic gì với nhau, và sau đó xếp đặt chúng vào một trật tự logic.

5. Tự giả định ngầm rằng A bằng/là B

Lỗi logic này liên quan đến việc bạn tự giả định ngầm rằng cái này bằng cái kia. Lấy ví dụ trong chương trình học bổng Chevening, khi chuẩn bị cho phỏng vấn có câu hỏi thế này: Tại sao bạn lại chọn học bổng Chevening (A)?
Một bạn trả lời:
(i) Vì chính phủ Anh (có hợp tác với chính phủ Việt Nam trong lĩnh vực XYZ nên việc học của tôi sẽ giúp tăng cường hợp tác đó;
(ii) Vì các đại học Anh (C) là những đại học hàng đầu thế giới.
Trong cả hai câu trả lời này, chúng ta thấy đều không hợp logic vì bạn này đã thực hiện một giả định ngầm:
• Học bổng Chevening (A) = Chính phủ Anh quốc (B)
• Học bổng Chevening (A) = Đại học Anh quốc (C)
Mặc dù học bổng Chevening có liên quan mật thiết đến chính phủ Anh quốc và đại học ở Anh quốc, nhưng các thực thể này hoàn toàn độc lập và khác nhau (A#B#C). Học bổng Chevening chỉ là một trong những chương trình/hoạt động của Chính phủ Anh quốc, và học bổng này chỉ là một trong những con đường đến đến đại học Anh quốc. Việc bạn này trả lời lý do chọn học bổng Chevening bằng cách sử dụng hai thực thể B và C là sai về logic.

6. Thiếu logic hệ thống

Nếu xem toàn bộ hồ sơ xin học bổng của bạn là một tổng thể (hệ thống) thì mỗi thành phần từ thư giới thiệu, SOP, bài luận, CV, bảng điểm và bằng cấp, các giấy chứng nhận, kinh nghiệm làm việc, hay xuất bản phẩm là một bộ phận. Các bộ phận cần kết dính với nhau một cách biện chứng, nhịp nhàng, sao cho người đọc không thấy mâu thuẫn, khó hiểu.
Tuy điều này quan trọng như vậy, nhưng nhiều bạn lại xây dựng hồ sơ một cách thiếu nhất quán và khập khiễng. Một số lỗi sau có thể tìm thấy:
- TÊN của cùng một đề tài, dự án, hoạt động để mỗi nơi một kiểu, đặc biệt là khác biệt giữa LOR, CV, cover letter;
- SOP nói bạn có kinh nghiệm liên quan đến nghiên cứu vấn đề A, nhưng trong mục kinh nghiệm nghiên cứu của CV lại không đề cập đến;
- SOP nêu lên CHUYỂN ĐỔI ĐỊNH HƯỚNG NGHIÊN CỨU của bạn, nhưng các tài liệu khác đặc biệt là CV không thể hiện được bước chuyển này qua các sự kiện;
- Kể về cùng một sự kiện để làm ví dụ, bài luận nói một kiểu, phỏng vấn lại nói kiểu khác;
- v.v.
7. Cách tiếp cận logic không phù hợp

Về cơ bản, để biện hộ cho lý lẽ mình đưa ra (claim), bạn có thể sử dụng hai loại logic lập luận. Một là logic diễn dịch (deductive reasoning) và hai là logic quy nạp (inductive reasoning). Logic diễn dịch là logic đi từ các nguyên lý chung tới các trường hợp cụ thể nào đó. Ví dụ:
- (1) Nhìn chung, A là một người tốt bụng. Vì:
- (2) Lúc đi trên đường, A thường giúp người già đi sang đường
- (3) A thường làm từ thiện để giúp đỡ những người có hoàn cảnh khó khăn.
Ở đây, ý 1 là ý chung và nó được minh chứng ra ở ý 2 và ý 3 – là các ví dụ làm sáng rõ cho ý 1.
Logic quy nạp thì ngược lại, đi từ các trường hợp cụ thể tới một kết luận chung về các trường hợp đó.
- (1) A thường làm từ thiện để giúp đỡ những người có hoàn cảnh khó khăn
- (2) Lúc đi trên đường, A thường giúp người già đi sang đường
- (3) Suy ra, A là một người tốt bụng.
Sau này khi các bạn viết luận hay viết văn academic, thì bạn có thể sử dụng logic nào cũng được, miễn là các ý phải mạch lạc và chặt chẽ. Tuy nhiên, trong bối cảnh ứng tuyển học bổng, mình thường khuyên các bạn nên dùng logic diễn dịch. Vì logic này đi thẳng vào vấn đề nhanh hơn, giúp người chấm học bổng nhanh chóng nắm bắt được ý bạn muốn nói là gì (claim). Trong khi đó, logic quy nạp có thể khiến bạn đi mãi đi mãi mà chưa thấy kết luận ở đâu. Điều này càng trở nên bức thiết khi bạn trả lời phỏng vấn. Nếu bạn nói không rõ các ý và không rõ các trạng từ chỉ báo ý và từ nối chỉ báo chuyển ý thì càng làm người nghe khó nhận biết bạn đang ở đâu và vì sao bạn lại đến được kết luận như vậy.

CHỐT LẠI, mặc dù mỗi người chúng ta, với nền tảng văn hóa xã hội khác nhau, có lối tư duy logic riêng, nhưng nhìn chung, chúng ta đều chia sẻ những mẫu số chung trong việc suy nghĩ và nắm bắt tri thức. Có nghĩa là các thành viên trong hội đồng xét duyệt học bổng có những điểm chung trong việc nắm bắt thông tin với chúng ta. Do đó, sử dụng tư duy logic mạch lạc để trình bày và truyền đạt ý tưởng tới họ là cách an toàn, chắc chắn nhất để họ hiểu đúng ý mình và đánh giá đúng (chưa nói đến việc đánh giá cao) phẩm chất của mình.

Và CÁI HAY CỦA TƯ DUY LOGIC LÀ BẠN KHÔNG CẦN PHẢI CÓ THIÊN PHÚ, MÀ HOÀN TOÀN CÓ THỂ ĐẠT ĐƯỢC THÔNG QUA KIÊN TRÌ LUYỆN TẬP. Nếu chú tâm đến logic và thực hành logic kể cả trong các tình huống hàng ngày chẳng hạn như đi phơi quần áo thì phơi quần với quần, áo với áo, thì bạn dần dần sẽ có một thói quen phản xạ logic đối với các vấn đề/tình huống phát sinh. Điều này sẽ giúp bạn trở thành một ứng cử viên sáng giá hơn cho học bổng mà bạn lựa chọn. Hy vọng rằng bài viết này đã giúp bạn một phần nào đó trên con đường chinh phục ước mơ của mình. Nếu các bạn đi qua có thể góp ý dưới đây để cải thiện bài viết thì càng đáng quý.

📚 ☘️Các bạn muốn chuẩn bị xin học bổng có cả Thạc sỹ và Tiến sỹ cần hướng dẫn, mentor đừng quên các lớp học bổng HannahEd, chương trình Mentor 1-1, review hồ sơ, tập phỏng vấn HannahEd luôn sẵn sàng để hỗ trợ các bạn tối đa với các nội dung từ a=> z về tìm học bổng, làm hồ sơ trong đó có cả viết CV, LOR, essay, tập phỏng vấn nhé:
Lịch học mới nhất của các lớp: http://tiny.cc/HannahEdClass.
Link thông tin về lớp:
https://hannahed.co/lop-tim-va-nop-hoc-bong/
http://tiny.cc/HannahEdClassInfo
Các bạn email thoải mái câu hỏi, CV về [email protected] hoặc nhắn tin cho page nhé.

❤ Like page, tag và share bạn bè nhé ❤
#HannahEd #sanhocbong #scholarshipforVietnamesestudents #HannahEdSuccessfulstories #HannahEdOnlineClass #HannahEdMentorshipprogram

關於 c word list ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「c word list」的推薦目錄：

c word list 在 三寶媽艾莉絲的生活紀錄 Facebook 的最佳解答

About author

c word list 在 江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的精選貼文

About author

c word list 在 Scholarship for Vietnamese students Facebook 的最佳貼文

About author

c word list 在 ASMR BlueKatie Youtube 的最讚貼文

About author

c word list 在 ASMR BlueKatie Youtube 的精選貼文

About author

c word list 在 EHPMusicChannel Youtube 的最讚貼文

About author

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關連結

c word list 在三寶媽艾莉絲的生活紀錄 Facebook 的最佳解答

c word list 在江魔的魔界（Kong Keen Yung 江健勇） Facebook 的精選貼文