5 ms·

This sort of thing is not unique to China or "Asian cultures" but to all underdeveloped countries with too few good schools, where going to the wrong school can

by Jun8 16y ago

This sort of thing is not unique to China or "Asian cultures" but to all underdeveloped countries with too few good schools, where going to the wrong school can be a career death sentence. Personal experience: I am from Turkey and had to go through two testing periods that determined my life: One, at 11, that determined which secondary school I could go to. Every private school had its own exam, so as a kid you had to take 6-8 exams in about two weeks (the system has changed since then, now there's a single exam). The worse one was the university entrance exam (actually two exams, a couple of months apart): close to a million people took it with me. The top department in the top university admitted only about 50 students each year! These 2-3 hours really determined your future, since if you couldn't get admitted to the 1-2 popular universities your job prospects were pretty much doomed. I still remember the hordes of anxious parents waiting outside the building where the exam was held. The level of math and physics you had to know/memorize was mind boggling; compared to that, the math part of SAT is a joke. I used to both envy the US students who didn't have to go through such a grueling, trial by fire selection process to go to good universities and also think that our selection process was much superior, since it it made you learn much more. After finishing my PhD in the US, teaching classes here, and working professionally, I now know that this is not true. This forced feeding approach to eduction mostly produces socially awkward, nerdy people who are experts but are not creative. I know, this is such a cliche, but believe me, I can back it up from personal observation in the workspace. I think, neither the relaxed, "it's the job of the professor to make me learn" US college attitude nor the extremely competitive test based approach elsewhere is ideal. However, I think the correct approach is much closer to the former than the latter. EDIT: Just remembered a personal experience that illustrates the point: I recently interviewed at a software company. One of my interviewers of Asian origin asked me an algorithmic question. I came up with an approach (admittedly not very good) and tried to give my reasons; he wasn't satisfied. At the end, he got up and declared "The answer is ..." He wasn't interested in a method or approach, but the answer. I think the worst thing that a test-based education can enforce is this "answer worship", since that is such a warped way to view problems.

mlinsey 16y ago
The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career lead to a ton of stress and probably aren't a good measure of overall learning, many frequent tests that each individually aren't consequential allow kids to get a sense of their progress with less of the stress. I really liked the Prof's Cizek's quote in the article: "What’s best for kids is frequent testing, where even if they do badly, they can get help and improve and have the satisfaction of doing better,” he said. “Kids don’t get self-esteem by people just telling them they are wonderful.”
- Jun8 16y ago
  You're right, the PC, "every child is special" approach in the US (esp. in colleges) is not doing the students any good and some level of rigorous reinforcement of knowledge is beneficial. However, tests let the kids focus only on the "answer" for a narrowly specified question. This may be good for school but is a horrible way to approach real-life problems which are broad and do nor have clear answers.
- wisty 16y ago
  The other point is that the tests should be "formative", which is educationalist babble for "just for fun". Frequent summative (non-formative, i.e. stuff that determines which uni you go to, or whether you can progress to the next level) tests are bad and dangerous, as they force the kids to conform every day of their lives. If kids want to blow off a formative test, then it's no big deal. If a kid makes a few silly mistakes, they don't have to beat themselves up. They shouldn't have to (or even want to) stay up to 2am cramming. They should be having fun with friends, learning to cook, playing sports, learning an instrument, or hacking on their graphics calculators. But if they flunk, it means they aren't learning, and something needs to be done.
Charuru 16y ago
You're mistaken about the article... The testing way that is being discussed is NOT about the university test (which nobody is arguing for, it's pretty stupid), but frequent testing early in life. This is already gaining significant traction in the US, as is said in the article.
- Jun8 16y ago
  I think test taking becomes a culture after a while, defines the education. Do you really expect to have no/less tests later in life, e.g. for colleges, once it's firmly instantiated early in life? Why is university entrance exams is deemed to be stupid and not similar tests for five year olds?
  - yardie 16y ago
    I don't think that's the case. Atleast not in the US. Traditionally you were asked to take 2 tests to get into university, SAT or ACT. Around the turn of the century some of the schools dropped that requirement. What changed? The realization that 12 years of school couldn't be summed up in one saturday afternoon test. Good students were being overlooked for good test takers. The article is saying that summative tests are their not to help the student but to help the university. It really should be the other way around.
  - Charuru 16y ago
    I didn't and the article certainly didn't say anything about university entrance examsesque tests for five year olds. They said frequent testing, and the more tests you have, the less important each individual test becomes. If you have a test every week in every subject, then at the end you won't need a gargantuan test that supposedly summarizes a couple of years of knowledge. You have a ton more data to look at a student from. I don't see why you would ever want NO testing. What you want is CONSTANT testing, like we have Google Analytics on all the time, not just for 2 hours to 'test' some situation.
    - Jun8 16y ago
      I never proposed having no tests (so you're no stranger to strawman arguments after all :-). My point was that constant testing was wrong. Judging by your naive comparison to Google Analytics, I think that you haven't been subjected to a brutal regimen of constant testing, starting at 7, as I was.
beaumartinez 16y ago
The case is similar in Spain; our universities are barely in the global top 200. The system used is: accept too many students in university to weed out those who can't memorise all the irrelevant material we teach them. Spain ends up with people who regurgitate facts, but can't think.
- faragon 16y ago
  I disagree. Being Spaniard myself, my education has been based in reasoning, at least in High School and College (engineering degree).
  - Sms2everyone 16y ago
    http://sms2everyone.com/sms-in/shayari-sms/ http://sms2everyone.com/sms-in/shayari-sms/
  - beaumartinez 16y ago
    Certainly in a very technical engineering school. But you can't honestly compare GCSEs to ESO or A-levels to selectividad: reasoning is far less important that just repeating facts (this was especially obvious to me with history, for example).
    - faragon 16y ago
      For the UK/US-equivalent Secondary, in Spain I did BUP (Secondary) and COU (College orientation course), and not ESO (new Secondary Education arrangement). Younger people at work seem to be OK in reasoning (computer/software engineering field). However, I do not endorse current "ESO+Bachillerato", as in my opinion it is easier than previous "BUP+COU". From my point of view, Goverment of Spain should copy the Finnish or German secondary education system, as it's been proved to be better.
Charuru 16y ago
I can't believe people are still voting this comment up when clearly he did not read the article and is making a strawman argument.
- Jun8 16y ago
  What I can't believe is why you are so riled up: I have read the article, part of my comment was about testing for young children. If you care to read my comment, you'll see that the point I was trying to make was that constant testing, as the article proposes, leads to a toxic educational atmosphere where students learn greedy optimization for each test. Here's another point: You have to learn to be more civil in arguments, even those you don't quite agree.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    You've confused me. Let me explain. The article doesn't talk about huge tests that determine your future, but you are. You say: > part of my comment was about testing for young children The only bit you seem to have about testing you children is this: > One, at 11, that determined which secondary school > I could go to. Every private school had its own exam, > so as a kid you had to take 6-8 exams in about two > weeks This is exactly what the article is not talking about. The article is talking about exactly the opposite of this - it's talking about having tests, small ones, fast ones, fun ones, literllay every week, if not every day. You claim: > constant testing, as the article proposes, leads > to a toxic educational atmosphere where students > learn greedy optimization for each test. The article says this doesn't happen, and you don't appear to provide any evidence that it does. You don't talk about that situation, you only talk about the major testing periods that are critical. Finally, you say: > You have to learn to be more civil in arguments, > even those you don't quite agree. I don't believe he was being incivil. He said that your arguments don't appear to apply to the article. Your arguments appear to be about situations other than in the article. In that, he appears to be right. I agree with your comments. I think most people here will. The huge pressure, incredibly important, major testing periods to determine your future are toxic. But that's not what the article is about.

by Jun8 16y ago

mlinsey 16y ago

The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career lead to a ton of stress and probably aren't a good measure of overall learning, many frequent tests that each individually aren't consequential allow kids to get a sense of their progress with less of the stress. I really liked the Prof's Cizek's quote in the article: "What’s best for kids is frequent testing, where even if they do badly, they can get help and improve and have the satisfaction of doing better,” he said. “Kids don’t get self-esteem by people just telling them they are wonderful.”

Jun8 16y ago
You're right, the PC, "every child is special" approach in the US (esp. in colleges) is not doing the students any good and some level of rigorous reinforcement of knowledge is beneficial. However, tests let the kids focus only on the "answer" for a narrowly specified question. This may be good for school but is a horrible way to approach real-life problems which are broad and do nor have clear answers.
wisty 16y ago
The other point is that the tests should be "formative", which is educationalist babble for "just for fun". Frequent summative (non-formative, i.e. stuff that determines which uni you go to, or whether you can progress to the next level) tests are bad and dangerous, as they force the kids to conform every day of their lives. If kids want to blow off a formative test, then it's no big deal. If a kid makes a few silly mistakes, they don't have to beat themselves up. They shouldn't have to (or even want to) stay up to 2am cramming. They should be having fun with friends, learning to cook, playing sports, learning an instrument, or hacking on their graphics calculators. But if they flunk, it means they aren't learning, and something needs to be done.

Charuru 16y ago

You're mistaken about the article... The testing way that is being discussed is NOT about the university test (which nobody is arguing for, it's pretty stupid), but frequent testing early in life. This is already gaining significant traction in the US, as is said in the article.

Jun8 16y ago
I think test taking becomes a culture after a while, defines the education. Do you really expect to have no/less tests later in life, e.g. for colleges, once it's firmly instantiated early in life? Why is university entrance exams is deemed to be stupid and not similar tests for five year olds?
- yardie 16y ago
  I don't think that's the case. Atleast not in the US. Traditionally you were asked to take 2 tests to get into university, SAT or ACT. Around the turn of the century some of the schools dropped that requirement. What changed? The realization that 12 years of school couldn't be summed up in one saturday afternoon test. Good students were being overlooked for good test takers. The article is saying that summative tests are their not to help the student but to help the university. It really should be the other way around.
- Charuru 16y ago
  I didn't and the article certainly didn't say anything about university entrance examsesque tests for five year olds. They said frequent testing, and the more tests you have, the less important each individual test becomes. If you have a test every week in every subject, then at the end you won't need a gargantuan test that supposedly summarizes a couple of years of knowledge. You have a ton more data to look at a student from. I don't see why you would ever want NO testing. What you want is CONSTANT testing, like we have Google Analytics on all the time, not just for 2 hours to 'test' some situation.
  - Jun8 16y ago
    I never proposed having no tests (so you're no stranger to strawman arguments after all :-). My point was that constant testing was wrong. Judging by your naive comparison to Google Analytics, I think that you haven't been subjected to a brutal regimen of constant testing, starting at 7, as I was.

beaumartinez 16y ago

The case is similar in Spain; our universities are barely in the global top 200. The system used is: accept too many students in university to weed out those who can't memorise all the irrelevant material we teach them. Spain ends up with people who regurgitate facts, but can't think.

faragon 16y ago
I disagree. Being Spaniard myself, my education has been based in reasoning, at least in High School and College (engineering degree).
- Sms2everyone 16y ago
  http://sms2everyone.com/sms-in/shayari-sms/ http://sms2everyone.com/sms-in/shayari-sms/
- beaumartinez 16y ago
  Certainly in a very technical engineering school. But you can't honestly compare GCSEs to ESO or A-levels to selectividad: reasoning is far less important that just repeating facts (this was especially obvious to me with history, for example).
  - faragon 16y ago
    For the UK/US-equivalent Secondary, in Spain I did BUP (Secondary) and COU (College orientation course), and not ESO (new Secondary Education arrangement). Younger people at work seem to be OK in reasoning (computer/software engineering field). However, I do not endorse current "ESO+Bachillerato", as in my opinion it is easier than previous "BUP+COU". From my point of view, Goverment of Spain should copy the Finnish or German secondary education system, as it's been proved to be better.

Charuru 16y ago

I can't believe people are still voting this comment up when clearly he did not read the article and is making a strawman argument.

Jun8 16y ago
What I can't believe is why you are so riled up: I have read the article, part of my comment was about testing for young children. If you care to read my comment, you'll see that the point I was trying to make was that constant testing, as the article proposes, leads to a toxic educational atmosphere where students learn greedy optimization for each test. Here's another point: You have to learn to be more civil in arguments, even those you don't quite agree.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  You've confused me. Let me explain. The article doesn't talk about huge tests that determine your future, but you are. You say: > part of my comment was about testing for young children The only bit you seem to have about testing you children is this: > One, at 11, that determined which secondary school > I could go to. Every private school had its own exam, > so as a kid you had to take 6-8 exams in about two > weeks This is exactly what the article is not talking about. The article is talking about exactly the opposite of this - it's talking about having tests, small ones, fast ones, fun ones, literllay every week, if not every day. You claim: > constant testing, as the article proposes, leads > to a toxic educational atmosphere where students > learn greedy optimization for each test. The article says this doesn't happen, and you don't appear to provide any evidence that it does. You don't talk about that situation, you only talk about the major testing periods that are critical. Finally, you say: > You have to learn to be more civil in arguments, > even those you don't quite agree. I don't believe he was being incivil. He said that your arguments don't appear to apply to the article. Your arguments appear to be about situations other than in the article. In that, he appears to be right. I agree with your comments. I think most people here will. The huge pressure, incredibly important, major testing periods to determine your future are toxic. But that's not what the article is about.