China’s College Entry Test, Gao Kao, Is National Obsession(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
China’s College Entry Test, Gao Kao, Is National Obsession
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/world/asia/13exam.html?_r=1&em
7 comments
The article's comparison to the SAT is misleading. Whereas the SAT is a reasoning test, the Gao Kao is a series of subject tests (think SAT Subject Tests or AP exams). The three mandatory subjects are Mathematics, Chinese, and a foreign language. In addition, students select one to three additional exams, and this choice depends on what they hope to study in college. Prospective science/engineering students will choose from Biology, Chemistry, and Physics; prospective arts/humanities students will choose from History, Geography, and Political Education.
"In addition, students select one to three additional exams, and this choice depends on what they hope to study in college."
Does that mean that a student must choose a major before they enter into college and stick with it throughout their education?
Does that mean that a student must choose a major before they enter into college and stick with it throughout their education?
students in China actually must apply to specific majors when they apply to college. for example, instead of applying to MIT, you'd apply for electrical engineering at MIT. it's also very difficult to change majors after you've been accepted into a particular one.
Same here in India.
Oh, and the entrance test you take has nothing to do with the "major" you choose. I'm an IT student, and the entrance test to my university had 3 subjects: physics, chemistry and mathematics. Nothing else. And no, you cannot choose.
You have a bunch of extra curriculars under your belt? Oh, so you contributed to FOSS? Well, nobody cares. Because, "academics are more important for your future, kids".
Oh, and the entrance test you take has nothing to do with the "major" you choose. I'm an IT student, and the entrance test to my university had 3 subjects: physics, chemistry and mathematics. Nothing else. And no, you cannot choose.
You have a bunch of extra curriculars under your belt? Oh, so you contributed to FOSS? Well, nobody cares. Because, "academics are more important for your future, kids".
Nor is this unique to China; the same is true in South Africa where you choose your major before applying to university and then apply specifically to that degree program, which has its own unique requirements, instead of applying to the university in general as you would in the US. And once you have started your degree you cannot (except in rare circumstances) take modules from other courses that aren't a part of your syllabus or jump easily between majors.
To my knowledge this is actually the way higher education in most countries works, with the US being a bit of an exception.
To my knowledge this is actually the way higher education in most countries works, with the US being a bit of an exception.
That's pretty much true for any country outside the US. Even in England, you apply to a programme in a college and not to a college.
As I heard this explained once, this leads to students studying biology who wanted to study computer science but could not because they did not score highly enough. I don't know if that is a flawed system because even in America - you don't always do what your major prepared you for. Still, is "Undecided" a uniquely American college aspect?
In Belgium, all engineering students are put together first for three semesters of general introductory courses, after which students choose a major and a minor out of the classical engineering disciplines.
This also reminds me of a quote from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=582698 that has been on my mind:
More serious for China's long-term prospects is that the expansion was so fast, and the pressures to pay off the debts so intense, that many of the schools turned into diploma mills, churning out poorly qualified students. Mr. Zhang got his degree from a school of traditional Chinese medicine with no history of teaching computer sciences. He looks back ruefully, recalling overcrowded classrooms and a lack of materials: "I wonder if this education was of any value?"
It sounds like there is a huge opportunity here. If open-sourced course materials (such as MIT's OCW) could be combined with a degree-granting mechanism that had credibility with employers, then ad hoc schools, study groups, online communities, and even lone inviduals could succeed where these hastily retooled "universities" seem to have failed.
More serious for China's long-term prospects is that the expansion was so fast, and the pressures to pay off the debts so intense, that many of the schools turned into diploma mills, churning out poorly qualified students. Mr. Zhang got his degree from a school of traditional Chinese medicine with no history of teaching computer sciences. He looks back ruefully, recalling overcrowded classrooms and a lack of materials: "I wonder if this education was of any value?"
It sounds like there is a huge opportunity here. If open-sourced course materials (such as MIT's OCW) could be combined with a degree-granting mechanism that had credibility with employers, then ad hoc schools, study groups, online communities, and even lone inviduals could succeed where these hastily retooled "universities" seem to have failed.
open-sourced course materials (such as MIT's OCW)
This is already taking place: http://www.core.org.cn/en/
This is already taking place: http://www.core.org.cn/en/
I think this is just unnatural. Seriously. I mean, working hard and studying hard is really great, but there must be a balance. Having rest once a fortnight and having 9-hours exams is clearly off-balance. There's a limited amount of information the nervous system can take in in a given amount of time. Studying twice as much doesn't mean learning twice as much - having spent five years in higher education I can tell that having rest and being calm helps waaay much more than, say for instance, studying on Sundays.
As for the Chinese society, I'm not sure if that helps them either. Sure they might raise professionals with a large lexical knowledge (assuming that they don't forget everything the moment they put the pens down at the end of the exam) but it seems to me that these millions of kids will grow up becoming real stresspots with all the divorce stuff and heart attack in their late forties. Is this really how Chinese people imagine their next generation of working population?
As for the Chinese society, I'm not sure if that helps them either. Sure they might raise professionals with a large lexical knowledge (assuming that they don't forget everything the moment they put the pens down at the end of the exam) but it seems to me that these millions of kids will grow up becoming real stresspots with all the divorce stuff and heart attack in their late forties. Is this really how Chinese people imagine their next generation of working population?
I was in china a week or so ago and stories about the Gao Kao filled the papers/media and there were prominent stories about cheaters who were caught and the rest. That it was the the anniversary of the Tienanmen square thing, with no coverage at all on state media, was interesting to me.
(Do you ever see much US coverage of the anniversary of the internment of Japanese-Americans?)
I've been a keen defender of the Chinese education system (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482513) and once again I applause this arrangement; I do not, however, applaud the NYT for publishing this piece - great as it is - in the news section.
The argument you give is flawed:
(1) A productive society is one with experts. (2) Expertise is only accomplished with relentless practice. (3) The most productive society will be accomplished if citizens are made to constantly work at their discipline. (made one minor edit)
You haven't supplied a definition of the term "expert". It turns out that the word "expert" is usually defined in one of 3 ways:
(a) an expert is a person with unusual skills, talent, or productive abilities
(b) an expert is a person who has a lot of experience in a particular field, job, branch of inquiry, etc.
(c) both (a) and (b)
So you can unpack your reasoning in one of 3 ways:
Using (a): "A productive society is one with productive people. Productiveness is acquired only through practice. So a society that forces its people to practice all the time will be most productive."
Using (b): "A productive society is one in which everyone has practiced a lot. 'Having practiced a lot' is achieved only by practicing a lot. Therefore the society that forces everyone to practice a lot will be most productive."
Using (c): "A productive society is one in which everyone got productive by practicing a lot. Everyone gets productive by practicing a lot only if they practice a lot. So a society in which everyone practices a lot is the most productive society."
or using commutation, the above becomes: "A society in which everyone practices a lot to become productive is productive if everyone practices a lot, so the most productive society is one in which everyone is forced to practice as much as possible."
(a) begs the question of how productivity is acquired. (b) begs the question of the value of large amounts of practice, and (c) is a tautology.
If you do much reading about the history of science, technology, or industry, you'll find that a certain level of practice/proficiency are very important, but that many of the achievements we celebrate were due as much to luck or circumstance as to doing huge amounts of extra homework every day.
So spending too much time practicing a few skills makes you worse off, because you limit the chances that you will have one of those lucky experiences that will lead to something genuinely new. Of course, you'll look really diligent and studious, and no one is going to tell you that you should work less or study less, but the economic concepts of "diminishing returns" and "opportunity cost" are valuable here.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. That was the theme of question #2 on this year's Gao Kao:
http://sun-zoo.com/chinageeks/2009/06/08/2009-gaokao-essay-q...
(1) A productive society is one with experts. (2) Expertise is only accomplished with relentless practice. (3) The most productive society will be accomplished if citizens are made to constantly work at their discipline. (made one minor edit)
You haven't supplied a definition of the term "expert". It turns out that the word "expert" is usually defined in one of 3 ways:
(a) an expert is a person with unusual skills, talent, or productive abilities
(b) an expert is a person who has a lot of experience in a particular field, job, branch of inquiry, etc.
(c) both (a) and (b)
So you can unpack your reasoning in one of 3 ways:
Using (a): "A productive society is one with productive people. Productiveness is acquired only through practice. So a society that forces its people to practice all the time will be most productive."
Using (b): "A productive society is one in which everyone has practiced a lot. 'Having practiced a lot' is achieved only by practicing a lot. Therefore the society that forces everyone to practice a lot will be most productive."
Using (c): "A productive society is one in which everyone got productive by practicing a lot. Everyone gets productive by practicing a lot only if they practice a lot. So a society in which everyone practices a lot is the most productive society."
or using commutation, the above becomes: "A society in which everyone practices a lot to become productive is productive if everyone practices a lot, so the most productive society is one in which everyone is forced to practice as much as possible."
(a) begs the question of how productivity is acquired. (b) begs the question of the value of large amounts of practice, and (c) is a tautology.
If you do much reading about the history of science, technology, or industry, you'll find that a certain level of practice/proficiency are very important, but that many of the achievements we celebrate were due as much to luck or circumstance as to doing huge amounts of extra homework every day.
So spending too much time practicing a few skills makes you worse off, because you limit the chances that you will have one of those lucky experiences that will lead to something genuinely new. Of course, you'll look really diligent and studious, and no one is going to tell you that you should work less or study less, but the economic concepts of "diminishing returns" and "opportunity cost" are valuable here.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. That was the theme of question #2 on this year's Gao Kao:
http://sun-zoo.com/chinageeks/2009/06/08/2009-gaokao-essay-q...
mnemonicsloth, thank you for the response I appreciate the time and effort that went into writing it. Both (a), (b), and (c) have been incorrectly dismissed.
(a) does not beg the question, we can see this is so if we more obviously differentiate between productive-society and productive-people; I don't understand why you confused the issue by opting for the same word. So the argument becomes:
1. A productive-society is one with productive-people.// 2. Productive-people are attained through people practicing.// 3. So, a productive-society is attained through people practicing.//
We can make this even more clear by exchanging 'productive people' for 'talented people':
1. A productive society is one with talented people.// 2. Talented people are made through practice.// 3. So, a productive society is made through practice.//
(b) does not beg the question, it is easy to equate 'Having practiced a lot' and 'Practicing a lot' given the impression of circularity. We can simplify the argument to make it clearer (also your first premise is v. unclear). Instead:
1. A productive society is one in which everyone is practiced.// 2. Being practiced requires 100,000h of practice.// 3. A productive society is one in which everyone has had 100,000 of practice.//
(c), being a tautology does not invalidate an argument.
Being a logic student I love all this, awaiting your reply.
(a) does not beg the question, we can see this is so if we more obviously differentiate between productive-society and productive-people; I don't understand why you confused the issue by opting for the same word. So the argument becomes:
1. A productive-society is one with productive-people.// 2. Productive-people are attained through people practicing.// 3. So, a productive-society is attained through people practicing.//
We can make this even more clear by exchanging 'productive people' for 'talented people':
1. A productive society is one with talented people.// 2. Talented people are made through practice.// 3. So, a productive society is made through practice.//
(b) does not beg the question, it is easy to equate 'Having practiced a lot' and 'Practicing a lot' given the impression of circularity. We can simplify the argument to make it clearer (also your first premise is v. unclear). Instead:
1. A productive society is one in which everyone is practiced.// 2. Being practiced requires 100,000h of practice.// 3. A productive society is one in which everyone has had 100,000 of practice.//
(c), being a tautology does not invalidate an argument.
Being a logic student I love all this, awaiting your reply.
Even if the methods you defend were the most effective (and they're not), you are either assuming everyone wants to slave away for the "greater good" or that they should do so regardless. In other words, you have decided that the goal of breeding "experts" ought to be paramount for everyone. I can assure you that you are not qualified to make this claim, and no one else is either.
Ms. Li’s breakfast was a favorite among test-takers: a bread stick next to two eggs, symbolizing a 100 percent score.
Education fail much? Of all the things to optimize your breakfast for...
Education fail much? Of all the things to optimize your breakfast for...
A huge number of people chasing after so few opportunities as their ultimate dream -- Wait, you are not talking about Silicon Valley?
If you fail in Silicon Valley, you go back to a great paying middle class job. If you fail to get into a good Chinese university, you spend your life in poverty.
There was a really good discussion on News.YC about this a while back:
"I was driven mad by the Chinese education system"
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482257
"I was driven mad by the Chinese education system"
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=482257