Inside a Chinese Test-Prep Factory | Hacker News Reader

Inside a Chinese Test-Prep Factory

nytimes.com

34 pointsGabrielF0014 comments

That's real sad and all, but the root cause of the problem is far too much demand for a limited number of seats at the most prestigious schools. Until that underlying issue is solved (maybe through something akin to America's land-grant colleges?), the problem won't go away. Changing the admissions process will simply cause cram schools to be replaced by essay tutors, interview schools, students taking on an insane number of extracurricular activities, etc.

This is a good point and we have this problem in the US and England currently. I was recently talking to my aunt (who lives in London) about her son's school and extracurricular activities. He's around 11 and has tutors to prepare him for his entrance exams for the next level of private school (I guess this is the equivalent to American high school?). He has German and Spanish tutors who he meets with several times a week, singing lessons, soccer/football practice, piano lessons, etc.

It seems like a really awful way to grow up.

I would argue the culture around education and what it takes to be successful in China is more of the driving force around the enormous pressure students face with the "gaokao". Although it is true there are way too many students than available spots at top flight universities, the perceived notion of success will never change in China unless success is redefined by something other than either having a really good education or making tons of money.

This definition of "success" is pretty widespread. In the US, a college education is widely seen as a prerequisite to a middle-class lifestyle (never mind skilled trades or trade schools). Highly prestigious employers (especially in the financial or tech sectors) tend to show favoritism towards students with degrees from prestigious universities. There are analogous problems in Europe and India (e.g. the oversize social importance that IITs, grandes ecoles, Cambridge/Oxford hold). Trying to convince people that success should be defined by happiness or personal fulfillment, rather than social standing or wealth, is a very difficult problem.

Another factor is that a lot of parents in China either experienced significant material deprivation themselves, or are one generation away from people who did. So to these parents "success" through wealth (and hence security from poverty) takes on disproportionate importance. This sort of dynamic can also be seen in a lot of first-generation Asian-American households, often to the detriment of the relationship between the parents and their children.

My impression from reading the article is that the gap between the lifestyles you can expect if you get into college or not is really wide in China. It seemed to mark the difference between comfortable white-collar work or being a laborer, with nothing much in between. If Chinese society were a hospital, it would have surgeons and janitors and nothing else.

Perhaps the parents who were interviewed for the article overstated the difference, but here in Canada the situation is a bit different for a couple of reasons. First, we send so many students to college that getting into and through the less prestigious colleges isn't particularly impressive. Second, the jobs available to those who couldn't quite make it into college are still pretty good. Electricians, mechanics, locksmiths, and paralegals don't come cheap around here. So there's a lot less pressure all around.

While the definition of "success" is pretty widespread, how "success" is defined in China is probably a more rigid and narrow idea compared to what "success" would mean in some Western countries. Some people in places like the US or England would define success as doing something they love to do everyday, which doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a good education or have a lot of money. From living in China and talking to a fair number of people there, I'm postulating their more narrow-minded views of success is imposed by the culture and to a varying degree by the government.

Isn't the root issue that the main value a degree from a selective school provides is valuable social connections and social proof rather than the transmission of a valuable body of knowledge?

And perhaps beyond that that the economy is such that many degrees from less selective schools are worthless regardless of how much a student learns to earn it?

Learn how to read and think first. Then perform the college ritual and learn the secret handshake if it gets you want.

>too much demand for a limited number of seats at the most prestigious schools

Prestigious schools are desirable explicitly because most other people were rejected by them.

Just creating more schools is not going to solve any problem. The real problem lies elsewhere: lack of opportunities if you don't go to top tier schools.

Look at similar test-prep crap going on in the states. It is very easy for a california resident to get into a community college or a state university like San Jose state, San Diego State, etc. It is even easy to get into UC Merced, UC Irvine, etc.

Who are happy to send their kids to community colleges and state universities in California? The kids of those who work in the service sector. Like hispanics, african americans, etc. Esp those who did not go to college are happy to see their kids at community college or state schools.

If you look at folks who work for tech companies in the silicon valley, you see a different pattern: these parents want to send their kids to HYP (harvard, yale, princeton), S(stanford), etc. And these parents don't want their kids to become worker-bees (also known as engineers); they want them to succeed (of course, financially).

What is financial success in the states? How many of valley engineers have succeeded financially? Most of them end up with nothing after mortgages, day care, 2 hours commute, etc. So, they look at those who have made it. Usually, it is in finance and law; even here, we have to be selective: the local branch manager at Bank of America is called VP, but without any financial rewards. So, it boils down to jobs in PE (private equity firms like KKR, Blackstone), HF (Hedge funds like the defunct SAC), IB (Investment banks, esp blue chip ones like Goldman Sachs), etc. To get jobs in these elite companies, a normal person (those without wealth or prior connections) can try to get there via HYP undergrad, or HS business schools, HYS law schools. Many parents, if given a chance, will try to push their kids there: if the kid is not doing well, they can't push him that much.

Just go to collegeconfidential.com and see what American kinds are after. They are just playing like the chinese kids: extra curriculars, well-roundedness, sports, (fake) volunteering. If they get admitted to HYP, then they look for ways to get top grades: buy note prepared by earlier students or take easy courses.

I knew a girl who went to UC Irvine. ANd she wanted to get into one of HYS (hardvard, yale, stanford) law schools. She got a nice LSAT score. Yet she took one year off, went to India to work for some NGO there, only to boost her chances of getting into top schools.

>The real problem lies elsewhere: lack of opportunities if you don't go to top tier schools.

There are loads of blue collar skilled trades jobs which pay decent middle class wages. Those jobs are also not going to be sent anywhere. Not everyone needs to be a senior director.

Sure, tell that to any Indian or Asian parent in the valley or in NYC.

You left out any parent. (See your prev. comment)

Oh, I know about that...

It's hard to find any actual example questions from these tests. Now I realize that my Google being biased to english sources and my inability to read or understand mandarin has something to do with that, but still.

Pretty much the only questions you find are inane essay tasks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com