I don't think nationwide testing is a horrible way to handle higher education at all. Especially for developing countries. It's basically a big IQ test, so no m

I don't think nationwide testing is a horrible way to handle higher education at all. Especially for developing countries. It's basically a big IQ test, so no matter how bad your school is, the cream rises to the top. However I think cramming is a by-product of "bad" education in general. By which I mean the Asian style of teaching based on rote practice and memorization. Obviously more hours means more skill at cranking out those answers and more retention of "regurgitatible" facts. US education is concerned (to at least a higher degree) with higher cognitive skills and the ability to solve more challenging problems generally. I think this is due to having a more industry-demands-driven system. As opposed to a top-down govt-imposed system trying to drive development (i.e. Asia). And if you don't pay attention in class you can't cram your way past a bunch of hard questions. Also I think it is very hard to make standardized tests which have challenging problems. Written language is just too vague. Even the smartest students will often not understand what is asked of them unless they were taught in exactly that same wording and writing style. It's far easier to differentiate smarter students by giving easy canned problems. The usual suspects will still be at the top. But of course easy canned questions create a opportunity in that weaker students can "hack" the system by just cramming enough to keep up with the smarter students.