South Korean police impose curfew on late-night studying (2011) | Hacker News Reader

South Korean police impose curfew on late-night studying (2011)

content.time.com

88 pointsapsec11268 comments

As the article notes, this is treating the symptom rather than the problem. When you have a system which dramatically favors graduates from top schools, entrance criteria solely based on single exams, and punishment for single exam failures for life (ie if you don't do well on exam 1 you are effectively booted from the prestigious track forever), of course everyone is going to cram relentlessly for exams. If you send people home from cram schools, students will simply be forced to study at home. I'm not sure what the solution is for this (other than to create more slots at good schools or more good schools) but curfews certainly will not work.

Maybe, but it might be a nice wake up call that there is a problem.

It's not like the system is fundamentally better in other countries. In Britain there's a colossal effect from landing a place at a few good schools / universities.

We mainly handle that by setting low expectations for most of the populace (e.g. the class system) and gate it by cost.

People always criticize America for having expensive universities but I always thought it was horribly depressing when my German friends told me that their entire future was staked on a single exam. Do poorly and not only can you not get into college but you'll be a sanitation worker for the rest of your life (or similar).

How are American SATs different?

You can retake the SAT (and GRE, and MCAT, and ...) as many times as you'd like (and can afford, I suppose).

Also, the amount of weight such exams are given varies greatly by the institution here.

Edit: For the SAT in particular, most publish tables showing their historical admission rate as it correlates to the combination of high school GPA and SAT score.

You can even go to many colleges without the sat (nothing prestigious ofc)

Many top schools are no longer requiring test scores in fact. There is an argument that the test itself is somehow biased against under-represented groups. Also, less nobly, if a school makes test scores optional, their average test scores increase (which is a factor in rankings) since students will only submit them if they have good scores.

> Many top schools are no longer requiring test scores in fact.

When I applied to college, there were a number of schools that has something that was “optional” but word on the street was that you’d have no hope of getting in without it. How “optional” are these, really?

It’s probably like a lot of companies that offer remote work: if you have demonstrated already you are world class, they’ll make exceptions.

FWIW, all the people I know who went to “world class” universities did all the “optional” things.

I have been on admissions committees and there is of course the possibility in your mind that students who did not submit scores probably had bad ones. I certainly prefer having scores. But when tests are optional, plenty people will also just want to save the $50 or whatever it costs to take the thing. Particularly from poorer families. So you can't be sure and hate to reject a super candidate on this reason alone. Also there's always some people in admissions who are adamantly anti-test anyway.

They do look deeper into the high school's reputation and individual course grades to make up the missing info that the test would have provided.

It's also worth noting that the SATs are offered multiple times a year, which makes retaking them a lot easier.

The big pressure cooker exams in Korea are once a year, so if you choose to retake it (and many do) you are set back for a year.

In addition to the SAT being optional and re-takeable, where one goes to school is less predictive of success in American society than e.g. Britain or Germany or Japan. (Not unpredictive. But a second-tier degree doesn’t bar one from high office or Fortune 500 executive suites.)

To a first, second and third approximation no one in Germany gives a crap what school you went to. Germany used to have élite universities like Heidelberg, and Tübingen. This was deliberately leveled into consistent mediocrity starting in the late 60s. One German university is basically as good as another.

schools at different levels of selectivity informally have some kind of SAT percentile cutoff but it's not ever a hard requirement, or the only thing considered, and also you can get into a reasonable university with a mediocre SAT score.

It's been 15 years since I went through the process but top universities required an application packet not an exam. The SAT and your grades were part of that but so were essays, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation and so on. Some interviewed potential students as well. There were many ways to show potential excellence rather than a single one.

Isn’t that great for the middle and upper classes? Instead of having to compete in one single fair competition they have all the advantages of more money, a greater professional network and more cultural capital. If Little Abdul’s SAT results are mediocre we can get him an essay coach, send him to Costa Rica for a summer to teach the poor and arrange an internship in his uncle’s lab at the hospital.

If your goal is to optimize for equality of outcome then the only solution which works is a random lottery. Make the application process multifaceted and what you described happens. Make the application process all about one exam and you get what happens at magnet high schools in the US where 70%+ of students are middle class+ Asians and the rest are middle class+ White people. Throwing more resources / time at an application process and education in general will always yield an advantage no matter what you do.

> Make the application process all about one exam and you get what happens at magnet high schools in the US where 70%+ of students are middle class+ Asians and the rest are middle class+ White people.

37% of the students at Stuyvesant are eligible for free lunches. 9% are eligible for reduced price lunches[1]. Given those results it seems obvious that Stuyvesant’s students are poorer than average for New York.

On a separate note fuck equality of outcome. Harrison Bergeron is not a goal to be aimed for.

[1] https://data.nysed.gov/studenteducator.php?year=2018&instid=...

I stand corrected, thanks

Lunch is free for all students. But when it wasn't, 75% of NYC students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Stuyvesant students are better off than the average NYC public school.

The proposed changes would consider class rank in addition to a standardized test. How is that in any way a form of equality of outcome? Is class rank random?

>middle class+ Asians

No, they're generally poor Asians who studied hard. Asians have the highest poverty rate in NYC.

edit: Private school is where those who can afford it send their kids.

edit2: I do find it interesting how discrimination and, I'd call it, racism against Asians is tolerated so much just because they're actually getting their kids out of poverty. Punish those who achieve the wanted goal, eh?

Can you cite a study that shows that Asians have the highest poverty rate in NYC. I'd be interested to see that.

As for discrimination against Asians, what are you referring to exactly?

The city government's official site has lots of breakdowns on it[1]. Picking "Total NYC Population", "Race/Ethnicity", "Poverty" shows that Asian poverty has been the highest since 2007.

The idea that an admissions policy is unacceptable if it admits too many Asians is, I assume, the discrimination being referred to.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/opportunity/poverty-in-nyc/data-to...

>> As for discrimination against Asians, what are you referring to exactly?

This is widespread in NYC. Notice how convenient it is to "democratize" the Science High School exam procedure (where Asians took the most seats) while conveniently avoiding the democratizing of other things (where Asians did not do well.)

For Example - Bard High School and other Private-ish public schools continue to go by the old system. Asians are under represented, and the city conveniently chose not to democratize this.

For a more extreme example, what about about sports teams at NYC high schools. Asians are massively under-represented in basketball and other teams, why aren't these democratized for equal representation?

Why stop at students. Have you noticed how few NYC school principals are Asians? Why aren't these jobs democratized for equal representation? Same for a host of cushy BoE jobs/titles/positions which offer lifetime benefits -- why arent these opened up to Asians?

Basically, when Asians do well, the system is changed to demand equal representation. In places Asians dont do well, the system is kept as is.

NYC wants to change to admissions process from being based on a single standardized test to being based on middle school class rank plus a standardized test. Under the current system, some middle schools send a lot of students, some send a few, and many send zero. Including class rank into the admissions criteria would change that. The change would probably increase the representation of black and Latino students at schools like Stuyvesant while maintaining an objective measure of merit: class rank.

This change might help desegregate NYCs public schools by giving white and Asian parents a reason to send their kid to a majority black or Latino school. It could make middle schools more diverse as well.

How would we use this same form of selection to increase Asian representation on high school basketball teams? It's already a de facto class rank system: each high school's basketball team is made of its best players. What's your proposal?

They also (East-Asia at least) have the highest average IQ. Some admission process of big US universities precisely have floating requirements to discriminate against them.

If it's a test then they'll pay for private test tutors and potentially just cheat. On the other hand the homeless kid working two illegal jobs to put food on the table won't have much time to study at all but would have a great essay topic.

Sports are extra curricular activities. And recommendations are a way for a struggling student to get a second chance after grades and test scores. The privelidged would presumably have those covered either way thanks to tutors and a stable household or whatever.

However when it comes to selective schools in particular, if gifted poor and lower middle class students are being edged out by wealthy kids with average-to-above-average abilities, thanks to parental connections and "working the system", then I totally agree with you there.

Though I don't know that your list of advantages are things I think of as "middle class".

It’s far easier to game a test than it is to game your life. In a test only world, the fact that you have to work while going to school in order to support your family, etc. have zero impact on your outcome, even though these are huge considerations.

To be able to still succeed while overcoming great adversity or challenge, is an extremely strong correlator to future success and potential. While a test will completely miss out on this indicator, a holistic review of the student can capture this.

A country that chooses to use a single exam as the determinator wipes out a vast majority of their effective potential, as scores of future prodigies born into circumstances that they had no choice in are grinded away. In this way, there is both a moral and pragmatic reason for reviewing students holistically. You simply miss out on too many people with great potential otherwise.

> Isn’t that great for the middle and upper classes? Instead of having to compete in one single fair competition they have all the advantages of more money, a greater professional network and more cultural capital.

Yes, this is why it's so common for the children of Chinese politicians to go to American universities.

The SAT doesn't track you for the kind of education you can get; at best, it's just one factor to rank you within schools of the same purpose. Also, they're more typically used as a floor to simply winnow out the lower end of the applicant pool that has virtually no chance of making it in so that the committees aren't wasting their time weighing applications that will almost certainly be rejected, not hard disqualify viable candidates.

You don’t need to go to college at all to get a good job in America (at least in tech in SV, ymmv). Anecdotally Germany doesn’t have that culture, they really really care about those pieces of paper.

I’ve even had a coworker in SV who was 15 and worked remotely at night after their high school classes and over the summer.

This is bullshit. Most courses in most universities are open admission if you have an Abitur. If you have an Abitur but you want to to a course that’s in high demand and your grades are insufficient you can get in if you’re willing to wait. I met a girl who competed a three year Physiotherapy apprenticeship while waiting to get into Medicine.

If you didn’t go to Gymnasium (university prep school) you can get an Abitur in one year after graduating Realschule or you can get a Bachelor’s from a Fachhochschule and then a Master’s from a university.

Germany streams more aggressively than the US but the idea that there are no second chances is a joke.

If you have Abitur is the thing here.

You have to have that (yeah, Realschule plus FH works, too, but that’s not exactly the same and also a whole thing). To say nothing of the absolute bonkers aggressive tracking that’s happening early on. It’s not a single test and might not seem as dramatic because of that, but if you actually think about it, it’s horrific.

I think this seeming less dramatic (because it’s not a single test but rather something that happens to kids just entering puberty, long before they will ever think about going to university) makes it seem all nice and fair, but actually it’s horrible.

I have a few friends from Germany who started out in Hauptschule and later had to work hard to get their Abitur after the fact. It's possible, though really hard.

They tell me there are options to move on from Hauptschule to Realschule, etc. if that's really what you want and have the drive. The problem is the environment. Everyone around you isn't going to college, they're all going to work in some factory or as a salesclerk, and you're a nerd if you try to advance.

One other factor here is I think that it's usually the parents who decide your future early on. Yes, there's recommendations by your school, but AFAIK this is not definite and can be overridden within reason.

However, if the parents never get the Abitur or have many friends who did, they'll be intimidated, even if your grades are perfect and you got the recommendation to go on the university track. So often they put you in the same school track they took since they know what to expect.

It hinders social mobility. On the other hand not everyone wants to go to college, not everyone wants to study and rather get their hands dirty in a job that doesn't require a degree. Forcing those who don't to stay in school (if there's a single track) till the end with a lot of struggling towards the end (and then the stigma of not completing would be bad as well) maybe graduating with bad grades... that doesn't sound ideal either.

You can get your Abitur in adult life should you chose to do so, with little monetary loss. How is that an indication of a "horrible" / less fair system when compared to the American alternative?

@sibling comment: While that's a negligible thing, most conflict when chosing the advanced school track over here arises from parents that prefer to send their kids to higher than recommended school tracks rather than lower ones. Plus, these days, the lower two tiers of advanced schools often take place within the same institution and allows students to relatively flexible switch to one appropriate for them.

I never said that the American system is fair.

The horribleness of the German system can be completely explained with the power of defaults / inertia. Sure, there is some way to go from here to there, but on a societal level this is just destructive and corrosive. The system is not set up in a way to smash barriers or allow fair entry.

If you say fail the exam to enter a medical university you can try next year(or in a different city) but yeah if you prefer filtering by money rather then knowledge then what I can say is a very american way so I am not surprised.

Here in Romania they made a mixed system, there are say 50 free sports and 50+ paid spots so if you have the money you can have an advantage over the poor people (hopefully there are no many competitors rich and smarter then you)

If these children only knew what they are losing to 'win', they could respond by failing exam 1.

I can only begin to imagine the psychological future for SK. I'm already concerned for parents that would tolerate this hyper-rat-race.

Exams or not, there will be no fix as long as there is zero-sum competition for a scarce good. And in this case, there is necessarily scarcity because prestige is positional: "the top schools" will necessarily always be a small fraction of all schools. (Of course all of this also applies to western countries.)

Ah, as a Korean who experienced all of this bullshit (in middle/high school), I have a few additional points I want to make:

- Standardized test scores aren't either the culprit or the panacea for the privatization of education. No matter what the process of selecting students is, there will always be cram schools willing to exploit that process to the maximum degree. Korea in fact has another way to enter college without that single exam (called _susi_, it's basically your GPA + portfolio + cover letter), which is less well known than the default route (called _jungsi_). And guess what, there are a shit-ton of crams schools for that too. There are cram schools solely for entering International Math/Physics Olympiads, because they are one of the several ways to enter Medical School, which are the hardest type of colleges you can try in Korea. There are cram schools for art college examimations, cram schools for your high school GPA, cram schools for entering science/writing contests (so you can lengthen your portfolio), cram schools for just anything you can imagine related to college admissions.

- It's becoming more and more of a lie in Korea that simply entering a good university will automatically land you a good job, especially in the non-STEM sectors. Humanities students in top universities are now scrambling to get good GPAs, TOEFL scores, and any activities that would lengthen their portfolio, simply because jobs are very scarce even for them. A lot of them are preparing for government administration jobs which would give them good job security. And guess what, those jobs are also determined by a single test, how tragic! Same goes for law schools, medical universities, etc... As a Korean, you'll almost never leave the perpetual requirement of nonsensical tests and competitions for quite some time even after high school, it's pretty harrowing.

So the solution for this dilema would be to take more applicants into a job first and then weed out by measurable quality/output ?

Firstly - I’m sorry to hear about this experience and don’t want to undermine the pain here.

I’ll note that some of the schools I graduated from in the US (NYC) are moving from exams to a “holistic” system of entrance, and my feeling is that is even worse in many cases.

In the holistic system: - you don’t know what the criteria is - friendships and contacts matter - you can’t study to fully strengthen your chances - you don’t get feedback on what you are doing wrong - in the extreme cases is very open to bias and corruption (eg many “holistic” systems actively filter out Asian candidates)

We desperately need to move away from these education systems. They worked well when resources were limited and identifying gifted students took priority. The world is a much different place now and we should focus on individualized curriculum and mastery.

Resources are still limited.

Give free birth control everywhere and stipend to poor couples including a free state sponsored education program for stopping them from becoming poor parents. Will save the state and possible parents much more in resources to spend.

What a simple solution but of course, that won't happen because you need low tier workers in the society that the state and others can leech off from.

Rich need their prostitutes, drivers, maids, low cost labor and employees. Society need numbers, labor which they can abuse for cleaning the filth and boosting themselves in a sacrificial ceremony.

For example, UP state in india has a population density of 828 persons per km²

What good reason do you think there is not in spending money to stop poor people from having kids?

I don't get the ethical issue about it other than it being made up by people for patting their backs. Government can ban smoking, drugs, porn, video games, internet sites, alcohol, and many other things to keep you safe from "harming" yourself. Doctors can veto your opinion or voice if they think you are a danger to yourself.

All research shows kids living in extreme poverty has a dire future, lot of bad health issues and will most likely remain in poverty. Why can't we ban or at least try to spend money to that cause?

3.6k kids die due to hunger/deficiency every day in india. What if they weren't born?

Why have so many people that you need to resort to filtering for everything in life?

>What good reason do you think there is not in spending money to stop poor people from having kids?

Dystopian world where people aren't allowed to have kids, just because they are poor?

Much better is to make sure poors have enough money to raise their kids. Offer them government assistance.

That only solves one of the problems and the GP was talking about limited resources which doesn't change even if you make the income/wealth distribution equal.

One person would still need 8 litres of water, a piece of land, food and other essential limited resources.

How do you plan to let all the people have kids with an existing population density of 828 persons per km² without ruining it for everyone?

What other filter do you propose is realistic? Do you think there should be a test, higher age requirement, education background or something?

Clearly, the current population is too much here. Sure it is declining (predicted to be normal replacement fertility rate by the end of 2020) but that will take long time to materialize and then you have government doing something to stop it because failing economy. Why even set your whole structure in a way that requires numbers? This is a perverted incentive and should be stopped.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5

Optimum world population is something around 2 billion. Not 8 billion and growing.

As a counterargument, we're taking only a tiny amount of land that's feasible to develop, and even less of total area of Earth. Scarcity is caused by concentration of jobs in cities. Where there are jobs and education, there become cities. There's more than enough water to go around, but not energy to desalinate in drier places like China and India. There is a surplus of food in many areas, and most of lacking ones are limited by water.

You cannot speak of an optimum without having decided a target. It's optimum everyone having their own private jet?

You have so many options to learn now specially in Tech

That means you have to work harder, not easier, to stand out, because everyone else has the same resources you do.

Which is a good thing, earlier people did not even have access to these resources.

This reads like satire. Surely there are better ways to deal with the problem than using the police. The police probably also have better things to do. In fact, this reads like it's a parody of the US war on drugs. It's so misguided.

The article is from 2011. Has the situation improved in South Korea? Because I can see that their results in PISA 2019 were still very good.

What better way would there be than the police? This seems like just the job for them. In the US at least, it is the police's job to enforce curfew.

The situation is, from what I understand, very much the same as it was a decade ago. An interesting article on the topic is here https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-education-dram...

A curfew like that doesn't make sense. I would consider this to be extreme government overreach. In a free society you are allowed to study as much as you want and you're allowed to teach as much as you want.

At some point it’s a child welfare problem, right? That’s certainly not outside what the police should be regulating.

Of course, the underlying issue is societal and economic.

They are free to study as much as they want. The curfew is on the business itself.

As the quote in the third paragraph says: 'It's the hagwon that's in violation, not you.'

That sounds like something that is made up.

I was thinking it reads almost like propaganda. Darn kids are just so smart and hardworking, cops are forced to ride around in their stylish Kia Sorento's and make the little geniuses enjoy life and get some sleep. Was surprised to see nothing about the success of Samsung and K-pop.

What's really going on here is child abuse. The cops are trying to protect children from their parents. Sleeping in class then going to cram school all evening is silly. Obviously the parent is the one who is demanding more than the kid can handle.

I’m not going to disagree regarding the parental responsibility. However, I would point out that this is similar to college courses where the final test is 100% of the course grade. Of course the priority goes to prepping for the test. There is no benefit from paying attention in class, when performance on this test can exclude someone with a perfect GPA. The system is as responsible as the parents are in this case.

But on the bright side, it seems more fair than Jim-Bob’s dad paying Harvard a few million to get his slacker kid into school despite having worse qualifications than many applicants.

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.

This was bad when I was in Seoul from 2003-2005 and I couldn't believe how much school was thrown on to kids, like little 5 year old even. The suicide rate was rather high for those who failed their big college entrance exams because they didn't even want to think of life as a failure and cramming even more for another year to try again. I really hope they are able to change things around.

This kind of pressure is literal torture but what I find the most tragic is how it still doesn't prepare the kids to be better workers. For me, no exam has in any way reflected the kind of freelancing work environment I am in right now. If I compare exams to work:

- Clients who assign me a writing task don't expect me to know everything. I'm actually required to do research and reference other sources. If I tried writing a text without using the internet, I'd be very limited in what I can write and how.

- I'm given plenty of time. If there's a rush task, the client will ask beforehand if that's OK with me and pay extra. I can write a text in 45 minutes but then the client pays extra. The clients acknowledge that I'm existing in the real world where I might want to have time off, go on a vacation or just have a family or health crisis.

- I'll be given detailed instructions on how to succeed in my task because that's the most desirable outcome. Exams ignore the ultimate outcome or do the exact opposite and I've seen plenty of them intentionally provide vague instructions and questions to fail as many students as possible.

I feel more free when doing a single 2,000-word SEO text and cramming in 10-15 instances of "how to fix damaged hard drive" or "best baby diapers" than these kids have felt in their entire school life. This is just tragic and will have enormous repercussions on South Korea's future. I wish I could somehow reach out and tell them that it's going to be OK and they should not stress out that much about bad grades.

I had bad grades in high school because my family fell apart during that time and I was overwhelmed with emotions. No teacher asked me if I'm all right or how I'm feeling, they just blindly pushed on with the curriculum that ignores the fact kids are humans too. We'd never put a dog through this kind of stress and would hound the person who did, but for kids it's apparently perfectly fine.

To all of you stressing out about grades, find someone capable of speaking with you like an adult. I did it and I feel those mature conversations and emotional support literally saved my life.

This is what work is like for me and I wish everyone stressing out about their grades would know they can have it as well.

This is quite dated. Is there any evidence that this curfew is still in effect?

That this is so arbitrarily possible in a legal sense speaks very poorly of the South Korean government's notions about individual rights in the home.

Regulating the opening time of businesses and inspecting business locations is infringing on individual rights in the home?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com