
China’s College Entry Test, Gao Kao, Is National Obsession - hko
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/world/asia/13exam.html?_r=1&em
======
markerdmann
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.

~~~
3dFlatLander
"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?

~~~
andylei
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.

~~~
GeneralMaximus
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".

------
markerdmann
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.

~~~
w1ntermute
_open-sourced course materials (such as MIT's OCW)_

This is already taking place: <http://www.core.org.cn/en/>

------
DrJokepu
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?

------
cdibona
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.

~~~
rms
what happens to the cheaters?

~~~
rms
From what I saw in official Chinese media, the penalty for cheating is being
barred from retaking the exam for two years, which I found to be surprisingly
benevolent. Those that manufacture and distribute devices used for cheating
face jail time.

------
ekpyrotic
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.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
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...](http://sun-
zoo.com/chinageeks/2009/06/08/2009-gaokao-essay-questions/)

~~~
ekpyrotic
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.

------
Eliezer
_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...

------
jerryji
A huge number of people chasing after so few opportunities as their ultimate
dream -- Wait, you are not talking about Silicon Valley?

~~~
jhancock
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.

~~~
wallflower
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>

