5 ms·

In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they

In China there is 1 exam, the Gaokao. This exam in no small part decides your future. In the past, you had one attempt, and if you failed, tough luck. Now they let kids retake it a couple times. One exam. One billion people. One standardized metric to determine who goes where. There are flaws to this of course. The rich, with better access to tutoring and such, naturally have an advantage over the poor. But herein lies the benefit of such a system -- it is an explicit advantage. Everybody knows it. Everybody can see it. The path to obtain it is as clear as day -- "simply" have enough money. Similarly, the path to obtain success is clear -- succeed on the Gaokao (besides cheating, which is a whole other thing, and corruption, which is yet another thing). People naturally stratify themselves in competition. When you eliminate standardized metrics to distinguish people, they will find other ways. Your friend has an internship opening that your kid can fill. Your boss lets your kid work under him. You know people who can help your kid get ahead. Meanwhile, the underprivileged are still pushed down, but in a much more subtle way. It is not scores that divides them and the privileged. It is connections -- and when you are a kid, these connections come from your family. And if you are poor, you do not have these connections. And unlike the singular exam, the path to obtaining these connections is not so clear. Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. It hurts them, but because it is a subtle hurt that ties to their family's place in society instead of a loud hurt like the cost of tutoring, people pretend it is somehow better. It is not. It is worse.

TeeMassive 5y ago
It has been my impression from people who lived in China that guanxi (connections) is far more important than the Gaokao and the main difference between the have and the have-nots is whether you and or your parents have a permit to live in a city. When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.
- malwarebytess 5y ago
  Did you even read the comment?
- youeseh 5y ago
  My ex-boss is Chinese and this is what she had to say: The best universities in China are public universities. Performing competitively in the single standardized exam is the only ticket into the most competitive university programs. Everyone's results are posted publicly. The government works very hard to prevent cheating, or loss of trust in the exam or its results.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - yardie 5y ago
    It's the same for most of Europe. The best universities are public. High scores on the placement exams puts you in the best universities. Private unis are seen as second tier, when the student has money but not the academics to get into a great school.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Growing up in a communist country, the further removed from the standardized college entrance exam you are, the more connections matter. Standardized college entrance exam will get you into a good university, but connections decide your first job after graduation. It only gets worse from there.
derbOac 5y ago
Three wrongs don't make a right, though.
- eunos 5y ago
  It's much less wrong than the holistical admission procedure.
  - derbOac 5y ago
    FWIW, I've been on graduate admissions committees for many years. Standardized tests work both ways; it really depends on the admissions committee and how they use the test scores. To borrow a phrase, "test scores don't prejudice, people do." I've seen both sorts of problems. When test scores are used well, they function the way that some people here see them. They provide another bit of evidence of potential, and can help to provide some signal as to what is going on with someone who might otherwise be underresourced, or facing sociopsychological challenges, or whatever. It's also much harder to score well on a test than to score poorly, so I think that asymmetry is helpful: a mindful admissions committee doesn't hold a less-than-stellar score against someone, but will give credit for an exceptionally high one. At the same time, I've been in committees where controversies have erupted because of the stereotypical bias situation. There are minorities applying, they have tons of extra-score stuff to attest to their promise, they are coming from ridiculously challenged backgrounds, and they get a middling score, and someone on the committee is arguing that this single score, at a single point in time, should somehow override really high GPAs with challenging courses, volumes of very impressive letters, scores of accomplishments in research and the real world, etc. This is in the context of a program that has lots of experience with disadvantaged students, where you can see that they have this extra "learning the ropes" disadvantage but are equally smart, etc. This is also with committee members who, on paper, seem ultra-woke, but for some reason when it comes to stuff like this become really irrational and ultra-focused on test scores, and come across as highly bigoted. Anyway, I feel a bit torn in all of this because I've seen both sides of the test score problem and think both sides are right. The problem is that the challenge is really trickier than "are test scores good or bad", the challenge is really about how people in power use them, and that's murkier, and more complex, and fraught with all sorts of obstacles. The China example is a good one: why have any limits on how often you can take the test? What, really is the basis for that other than some kind of bigotry about human nature? Can people not change? Don't they have rough spots? We're just going to pretend that all those other sources of corruption don't play a role? That tests can't be gamed? It's not really about the test per se.
justicezyx 5y ago
China's system is not much of value in comparison. UC's problem is that there is no verification on acquired knowledge. Not standard test. You can have non standard test on how much and how well someone learned the knowledge. > One billion people If you referring to people who take the exam, it's 10.78M [1]. > One standardized metric to determine who goes where. This is just to determine the entrance to public university. Of course, the people who can afford alternative higher education is negligible compared to those taking gaokao. But there are actually a lot of people who won't take gaokao, as they entered vocational school, in 2019 6M entered the so-called vocational high school. > Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. You got it wrong. It's not about privilege it's about the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent selection. Secondary is about giving education as a means of climbing social ladder. [1] https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=adap_pc https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=ada...
kwere 5y ago
the gaokao has also equity scores, requesting lower results for minorities, foreign nationals, persons with family origin in Taiwan, and children of military casualties
sudosysgen 5y ago
Unlike the SAT in California which due to Prop 16 cannot have affirmative action, the Gaokao has affirmative action. That is the biggest difference, and UC was happy with an analogue to the Gaokao.

TeeMassive 5y ago

It has been my impression from people who lived in China that guanxi (connections) is far more important than the Gaokao and the main difference between the have and the have-nots is whether you and or your parents have a permit to live in a city. When I bring the point of the standard exam as a great equalizer they immediately laughed and told me that the US is a egalitarian paradise compared to what goes on there.

malwarebytess 5y ago
Did you even read the comment?
youeseh 5y ago
My ex-boss is Chinese and this is what she had to say: The best universities in China are public universities. Performing competitively in the single standardized exam is the only ticket into the most competitive university programs. Everyone's results are posted publicly. The government works very hard to prevent cheating, or loss of trust in the exam or its results.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yardie 5y ago
  It's the same for most of Europe. The best universities are public. High scores on the placement exams puts you in the best universities. Private unis are seen as second tier, when the student has money but not the academics to get into a great school.
angelzen 5y ago
Growing up in a communist country, the further removed from the standardized college entrance exam you are, the more connections matter. Standardized college entrance exam will get you into a good university, but connections decide your first job after graduation. It only gets worse from there.

derbOac 5y ago

Three wrongs don't make a right, though.

eunos 5y ago
It's much less wrong than the holistical admission procedure.
- derbOac 5y ago
  FWIW, I've been on graduate admissions committees for many years. Standardized tests work both ways; it really depends on the admissions committee and how they use the test scores. To borrow a phrase, "test scores don't prejudice, people do." I've seen both sorts of problems. When test scores are used well, they function the way that some people here see them. They provide another bit of evidence of potential, and can help to provide some signal as to what is going on with someone who might otherwise be underresourced, or facing sociopsychological challenges, or whatever. It's also much harder to score well on a test than to score poorly, so I think that asymmetry is helpful: a mindful admissions committee doesn't hold a less-than-stellar score against someone, but will give credit for an exceptionally high one. At the same time, I've been in committees where controversies have erupted because of the stereotypical bias situation. There are minorities applying, they have tons of extra-score stuff to attest to their promise, they are coming from ridiculously challenged backgrounds, and they get a middling score, and someone on the committee is arguing that this single score, at a single point in time, should somehow override really high GPAs with challenging courses, volumes of very impressive letters, scores of accomplishments in research and the real world, etc. This is in the context of a program that has lots of experience with disadvantaged students, where you can see that they have this extra "learning the ropes" disadvantage but are equally smart, etc. This is also with committee members who, on paper, seem ultra-woke, but for some reason when it comes to stuff like this become really irrational and ultra-focused on test scores, and come across as highly bigoted. Anyway, I feel a bit torn in all of this because I've seen both sides of the test score problem and think both sides are right. The problem is that the challenge is really trickier than "are test scores good or bad", the challenge is really about how people in power use them, and that's murkier, and more complex, and fraught with all sorts of obstacles. The China example is a good one: why have any limits on how often you can take the test? What, really is the basis for that other than some kind of bigotry about human nature? Can people not change? Don't they have rough spots? We're just going to pretend that all those other sources of corruption don't play a role? That tests can't be gamed? It's not really about the test per se.

justicezyx 5y ago

China's system is not much of value in comparison. UC's problem is that there is no verification on acquired knowledge. Not standard test. You can have non standard test on how much and how well someone learned the knowledge. > One billion people If you referring to people who take the exam, it's 10.78M [1]. > One standardized metric to determine who goes where. This is just to determine the entrance to public university. Of course, the people who can afford alternative higher education is negligible compared to those taking gaokao. But there are actually a lot of people who won't take gaokao, as they entered vocational school, in 2019 6M entered the so-called vocational high school. > Removing entry exam requirements does not help underprivileged students. You got it wrong. It's not about privilege it's about the effectiveness and efficiency of the talent selection. Secondary is about giving education as a means of climbing social ladder. [1] https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=adap_pc https://3g.163.com/dy/article/GBTPVA0U0517M6OP.html?spss=ada...

kwere 5y ago

the gaokao has also equity scores, requesting lower results for minorities, foreign nationals, persons with family origin in Taiwan, and children of military casualties

sudosysgen 5y ago

Unlike the SAT in California which due to Prop 16 cannot have affirmative action, the Gaokao has affirmative action. That is the biggest difference, and UC was happy with an analogue to the Gaokao.