Suneung: The day silence falls over South Korea
bbc.com
bbc.com
As a highly educated person myself, I can't deny that studying, learning and improving yourselves are fundamental parts of the process of growing up and becoming a useful member of society, but it can't be done at the expense of someone's sanity, because it totally nullifies its value. Stuffing a kid of knowledge like a pâté goose stops him or her from really enjoying probably it's most critical years to the fullest, and I just can't really see this as a positive thing.
It wasn't because of natural resources or oil.
It wasn't any modern industry that just had to recover after the war such as Germany or Japan did. South Korea had NO modern industry of any kind, higher education institution, a modern workforce, effective government agencies, etc. S. Korea was literally a hell hole of a nation in 1953.
After the WTF period Koreans went through from 1910 to 1953 (after having had a 500 years long kingdom, the Chosun dynasty), South Korea just had to do what was necessary to survive.
And only way they saw how was producing a workforce to be productive. And no, Montessori method was not a viable option.
You don't have to be a highly educated non-Korean to see the education system is not quite right or wrong. Many highly educated and even not so highly educated people IN S. Korea know the question is valid to ask. Some want a change. Many who immigrated out of S. Korea to US and other nations list 2 reasons for leaving the nation, 1) conscription army and 2) the college entrance exam, the Suneung. But it was a system created at a time when there was no time to debate, but to act quickly to produce a workforce, just to survive as a nation. And it has delivered so far.
Yes the suicides are tragic. But consider this. Far more S. Koreans have died (including newborn, young, old) from lack of basic medical care in South Korea when only select few had access to modern medical care up until 1970's, 80's. The nation and citizens couldn't pay for it, for lack of wealth, from due to lack of skills needed by a modern workforce. But now that they can afford it, a nation wide medical care system is in place. Without educating the workforce (and yes the Suneung), they wouldn't have that luxury.
Easy for you to say they should be ashamed of that. I quite disagree.
After all, without Park Chung Hee's military dictatorship, without essentially enslaving 1/2 of the population as a glorified slave with the threat of violence, without handing over the destiny of millions of Koreans to the hands of the dozen family run corporate dynasties (aka chaebols), without the massacre and denial of reparations and the censure, capture, torture and killing of dissidents,
South Korea would not be as successful as it is.
Life in South Korea during the military dictatorship which lasted 2.5 generations, was just as hard if not oppressive like the North. If you read about the Gwangju Massacre (Korea's Tianmen Square), it's pretty clear that South Korea was virtually no different than North Korea in terms of political freedom.
This is the miracle of the Asian tigers - when you don't have natural commodity, the people become that commodity, expendable, something to be taken advantage of by people with capital.
Around where I am, I see plenty of western corporations doing above, even with plenty of natural commodity to extract from.
And no, you simply cannot compare Park Chung Hee with Kim of North Korea to be equally dictatorial/brutal/etc. You simply lose all credibility when you make that assertion, while discussing Korean affairs.
Education was the single most important factor for S. Korea. And successful introduction of market based economy too, how ever troublesome it was. But without educated, competent workforce, nothing will work.
Also, you stated that S. Korea's wealth improved due to enslaving half of the population, and chaebols being given control over affairs in S. Korea.
What about N. Korea? N. Korea enslaved the entire population, with complete control that the chaebols of S. Korea can only dream about. And look where N. Korea is now. Practically a beggar state.
OK, so it's not really "one day" then.
I don't understand why.
"Instead of pitying us, I wish foreigners would think how awesome we are."
Passing exams is a pointless activity. I'm more interested in results. Those results can be measured in many ways - in power, in lives saved in surgery, in money, in kindness, in criminals caught, in lines of code, in numbers of citations in academic papers, in how many followers you have on Instagram. Korea is a fairly successful country, but it's not leaps and bounds above other countries that don't have this level of stress. It's not something I want my country to aspire to.
It's because you don't live in a highly competitive society. People try everything they can to squeeze extra points out of these exams. It's the only way to get into good universities. Why do you have to go to good universities? When thousands of people applying for one job, the company will try to find the fastest way to filter out applicants, and your degree is the easiest way for you to stand out. In an ultra competitive society, you do everything you could to stand out, otherwise you won't stand a chance.
The problem with Japanese and Korean style of achievement is that it can get you to rest on your laurels and additionally it is anti-creative, strongly promoting patterns, knowledge and effort over novel approaches.
All in all, few types, perhaps even none, of standardized tests allow novel solutions.
I'm not sure about this. From what I've read, Chinese society is more competitive, not less.
33. Heritage is concerned with the ways in which very selective material artefacts, mythologies, memories and traditions become resources for the present. The contents, interpretations and representations of the resource are selected according to the demands of the present; an imagined past provides resources for a heritage that is to be passed onto an imagined future. It follows too that the meanings and functions of memory and tradition are defined in the present. Further, heritage is more concerned with meanings than material artefacts. It is the former that give value, either cultural or financial, to the latter and explain why they have been selected from the near infinity of the past. In turn, they may later be discarded as the demands of present societies change, or even, as is presently occurring in the former Eastern Europe, when pasts have to be reinvented to reflect new presents. Thus heritage is __________________. [3 points]
① about preserving universal cultural values
② a mirror reflecting the artefacts of the past
③ neither concerned with the present nor the future
④ as much about forgetting as remembering the past
⑤ a collection of memories and traditions of a society
When I took the GREs in 2008, I received a 480 on the verbal section (which was bad given I was applying to PhD programs), and a perfect 6/6 on the written section. I actually didn't qualify for a handful of programs, because they required ESL students to achieve 500 or greater (so I was below what a non-english speaker needs to score, and I spoke english as a first language). So, somehow I was an excellent writer, but had poor verbal skills.
It's remarkable that we test people against this style of language, both domestically in the US and abroad, given the unlikeliness someone will ever stumble across this type of prose. And, if you do, you should really ask the writer why they're trying to be so convoluted in their argument.
Forget that; I'm a native English speaker, with a college degree, and I have no clue what they're looking for. Maybe 5? But that's only a guess.
The material tested in the US SATs is relatively unsophisticated compared to the curricula of many East Asian countries. My understanding is that SATs test for quickness of reasoning more than anything else. (SAT subject tests go into more depth, but are still have nowhere near the coverage of East Asian exams)
Sure, but it is completely possible to get a very high score with virtually no practice. Time constraints are an issue, but not too huge of one, so long as you are willing to trust your gut so to speak.
> The material tested in the US SATs is relatively unsophisticated compared to the curricula of many East Asian countries.
That is exactly why I think the SAT is superior.
Only if you are naturally highly intelligent. Folks of above average intelligence (but not in the upper percentiles) tend to need to work at it (many do and succeed).
> That is exactly why I think the SAT is superior.
Only if you are interested in "g" intelligence alone as a pure metric, in which case psychometric instruments like the Advanced Raven Progressive Matrices should also be admissible.
The SATs give you one metric of preparedness for college, arguably an important one. But the East Asian exams give you another: grit. It's much harder for a smart person to succeed at them without any effort. That said, I'm not condoning them since I believe the East Asian focus on exams often does go overboard and devolves into mismeasurement (i.e. how good you are at taking tests).
But intelligence, measured in isolation, is not a good metric for college-readiness especially in technical fields, where you need a certain measure of grit to do well in the material. I've known stars in high school who struggled when they had to apply themselves.... when you're used to things coming easily to you all your life, it can be demoralizing to have to work at things.
But to your other point about working hard only when it's needed, there is a class of skills (so called "bicycle skills" [1]) that have to be learned in advance, and cannot be picked up on the fly. Mastering those skills early in life can lead to compound interest payoffs later on. So I don't agree with YAGNI as a general rule.
Furthermore, even if the material you learn isn't going to be useful, it doesn't mean that the process of learning them is necessarily wasted. On the contrary, the process of acquiring mastery itself can pay dividends in the form of meta-skills. Take learning to play the piano for instance. The blogger "Ask a Korean" has this to say: [2]
"The point of learning the piano is NOT about acquiring the skill of playing the piano so that the student can earn a living as a pianist. It is about building the character of the person. Here is the thing about character -- you can't build it by explicitly setting out to build it. Character is not a skill like tying your shoelaces. If it must be put in terms of "skill", character is a "meta-skill" -- a foundational human skill that is necessary to perfect any number of mechanical skills. And the only way to develop this meta-skill is to develop at least one highly sophisticated mechanical skill, such that the student may acquire the meta-skill in the course of building the mechanical skill."
[1] https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/08/01/bicycle-skills/
[2] http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2011/05/confucianism-and-kore...
Interestingly, Korean public service exam is very similar to SAT in that it can be taken preparation-less (in fact, preparation-less-ness is an explicit design goal of the test) and similarly devoid of subject matter content.
Source: I took both Korean SAT and Korean public service exam.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. It appears that in order to force everybody on a normal distribution map, they've gone well past the original purpose of the government exams, which was originally a neo-Confucian artifact to promote egalitarianism-the idea that even peasants who pass the government exams are able to improve their social standing after a long period of caste society based on lineage.
This means students aren't tested even on rote memorization or any of the necessary skills in the real world. Instead, they've become victim to the billion dollar industry of extra-cirricular cram schools. Public schools have become completely dependent on a widely unregulated cram schools because it's become impossible to come out on top when everybody is getting specialized help. You can't fault these parents either, these exams are insane and it makes sense that there is demand for extra tutoring.
The biggest tragedy of this is that it's no longer egalitarian like in it's tradition, it's about who has the money and can pay for their child's education. Low middle class Korean families can't support the cost of raising a child in this hyper education focused culture with very little prouductivity other than elevating the truly gifted exam takers running the country with no experience other than from books.
A big reason why in South Korea, you can commit horrible crimes and almost get a slap on the wrist because of incompetent, unexperienced judges and prosecutors who have mastered the art of climbing the Korean ladder, a giant bureaucracy that permeates through every part of Korean culture. Neo-confucianism is facing significant stress and young Koreans are undergoing social change.
If my answer is wrong that would indeed be ironic... I'd love to be corrected.