Chinese Gaokao: The Most Dreadful Test on the Earth? Not Really
“NEVER EVER take Gaokao at Shandong, or you will be miserable.” It is common sense for the Chinese: Gaokao in Shandong is ridiculously harder than Gaokao in other provinces.
Before digging deeper into the common sense of Gaokao in Shandong, it is essential to clarify what Gaokao stands for to Chinese students. China has a unique college admission process, which is dissimilar to any other country’s education system. Specifically, the Chinese College Entrance Exam (CEE), also called Gaokao, is the sole criteria for Chinese universities to admit students. In other words, the higher the Gaokao score is, the better the college is. As a result, Gaokao is incredibly extremely important for Chinese students. Many Chinese students study hard for over ten years to get an excellent score in Gaokao. I am not saying that Gaokao is the only way for Chinese students to access higher education: some can study abroad by taking SAT insteadGaokao. However, for many underprivileged students, especially students in poor provinces, Gaokao is probably the only opportunity to access higher education and achieve social upward mobility. In this paper, therefore, I will first explain the problems of Gaokao. Then, I will discuss how China should learn from western education thinking and impose the Gaokao reform to address these previous problems. Finally, I will analyze the globalization trend in the Gaokao reform, and the connections between western and eastern education.
Given the remarkable importance of Gaokao, here comes the problem: Gaokao inequality. Mikaila Smith, the J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago, points out the essence of the problem: as the sole criteria for university admission, Gaokao is the most important task, not only for students but also for their families. “This inevitably means that families with more resources are better positioned to enlist tutoring assistance, preparation courses, and a whole host of other investments designed to increase a student’s score.” However, with the great urban-rural income gap, it is obvious that rural families cannot support their children financially as much as urban families do, which further leads to the different scores among rural and urban students (Smith). Mikaila Smith brings up an innovative perspective to analyze the Gaokao inequality: in China, Gaokao is not only competition among students, but also competition among families, including money and resources. In other words, Gaokao is a reflection of both students’ ability and family resources. Therefore, the difference among family resources indeed makes a difference among Gaokao scores. Also, Xinhua News, one of the most well-known national news in China, provides a set of statistics to support Mikaila Smith’s points. In its report, Xinhua News reveals the educational input in rural families and urban families. Specifically, rural families usually put 16.6% of their income into children’s after-school tutoring, while urban families are willing to put as high as 42.2% of their income into after-school tutoring (Xinhua). To be more straightforward, let’s convert the arbitrary percentage into the amount of money: rural families put 12,200 RMB into tutoring programs, while urban families can put 18,200 RMB into tutoring programs (Xinhua). Here, I am not blaming rural families for not caring about their children’s education: this difference in education input is largely due to the difference in family wealth, or the difference between urban and rural areas. Shandong and Beijing build a great contrast about the rural-urban gap, which can help explain why Shandong Gaokao is so hard. In Shandong, almost 40% of the population is rural. However, in Beijing, only 10% of the population is rural (Textor). Shandong has a far more rural population than Beijing has, so it is reasonable to conclude that Shandong students have less access to additional education resources than Beijing students have.
The root of the Gaokao problem is that it is over-emphasized as the sole college admission criteria. Policymakers, hence, want a more flexible and individualized college admission process reform by learning from Western universities. A few decades ago, the United States is a sign of diversity and individualism. We can see it in the U.S. college admission process: besides standardized test scores, students also need excellent extracurricular activities, interviews, and recommendation letters. It seems like everyone has an individualized college admission process. The diversified, individualized admission process seems like a dream for Chinese students, who “suffer” in the “inferno” of Gaokao.
However, western individualized admission is not the key to solve Gaokao inequality in China. First of all, instead of removing the wealth difference, individualized admission could lead to more corruption and inequality. Specifically, You and Hu, two scholars from Zhanjiang Normal University, concern that individualized admission leads to more subjective decision-making processes, such as interviews and recommendation letters, “which leaves more room for under-the-table deals and corruption” (You&Hu). You and Hu bring up an important point: The western individualized admission process is highly subjective, in which family resources can play an important role. For instance, Annette Lareau, a sociologist, researches how social class can affect childbearing and the future development of children. She interviews and compares a working black family and a middle-class black family. According to the interview, Alexander, the boy from a wealthier family, has a full list of extracurricular activities, such as debating, sport, and academic tutoring. Also, Alexander’s parents intend to give Alexander “a better environment”, such as advanced neighborhoods, international schools, and various clubs. However, life is different for Harold, the boy from a working-class family. Harold lives in a big family with many siblings and cousins, so Harold does not get much attention from his parents; he hangs out with kids in the same neighborhood because he does not have any extracurricular activities (Lareau). It is not hard to imagine which boy universities will prefer, excellent Alexander or ordinary Harold. Such a contract will probably happen in China if the western individualized admission process is used: wealthy children will be more privileged with advanced educational resources and opportunities, while deprived children will be less privileged in the subjective admission process.
Then, can the western admission process help us improve Chinese college admission? The answer is still yes. Wei Yue, the researcher in Tianjin Admission Office, published a paper to discuss his findings on the western admission process. According to him, it is necessary to make the Gaokao process more diverse. Wei Yue proposes to “make Gaokao test more individualized and enlarge universities’ autonomy in admission” (Yue 53). Specifically, Yue suggests that Gaokao should reflect students’ reference, so the highly standardized subjects are unnecessary for Gaokao. Besides, Yue points out that Gaokao should not be the sole admission criteria for universities. Instead, “universities are supposed to have more autonomy to decide what kind of students they accept” (Yue 53). In this paper, Yue provides a new insight that Gaokao serves as the average criteria for students’ competence while universities can have other criteria to judge students. The innovative insight, therefore, is the foundation for the 2020 Gaokao reform, which probably influenced the Chinese college admission process for years.
2020 Gaokao reform changes the Gaokao structure greatly. At first, all students have to take Gaokao with nine subjects: Chinese, math, English, Politics, History, Geography, Biology, Chemistry, and physics. Gaokao, hence, becomes an extremely exhausting test. What is worse, students have to get good scores for ALL subjects to get a great Gaokao score. For example, if a student is talented at English, but his math score is extremely low, he will probably get a low score in Gaokao. This Gaokao structure is devastating because it requires students to perform well on everything, which can lead to unimaginable huge mental pressure. 2020 Gaokao reform, therefore, addresses this problem. In the article “Comparison of Chinese Gaokao and Western university undergraduate admission criteria: Australian ATAR as an example”, Farley and Yang introduce the new Gaokao structure: 3+x. To be specific, students have to take “three compulsory subjects: Chinese, mathematics, and English…The X consists of a group of subjects tests that differ for students depending on whether they pursue Humanities or Sciences streams” (Farley&Yang 473). With the Humanities streams, students can take Geography, Politics, and History, while with the Sciences streams, students can take Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. This “3+x” policy allows students to take courses that they want to study in the universities. Naturally, this reform earns nationwide applause.
The “3+x” policy allows students to construct a clear plan for their future, such as the major in college and even the career pathway. Before this policy, many students work extremely hard to have a good score in Gaokao, but they are blind in mind: they have no idea what they want to do in the future. In other words, these students do not have dreams after they finish Gaokao. As a result, without a clear goal, many students are lost in college: they are absent in classes, sleep all day long, and waste their time with numerous videogames. However, the story changes with this policy. Today, many universities adjust their admission criteria with this policy: the subjects students take in Gaokao are relevant to what the major students will study in college. For example, the Physics Department of Peking University, one of the best universities in China, has claimed that the admission office will prefer students who take Physics in Gaokao (北京大学). Therefore, high school students are pushed to think about their future when they choose subjects in Gaokao. This early planning helps students to find a goal for their life, instead of just a good score in Gaokao. This life goal, then, motivates students constantly after they enter college. Such intrinsic motivation is beneficial in long run.
However, I am not saying that the “3+x” policy is perfect: it still has a few drawbacks, such as the imbalance in students’ knowledge. This policy allows students to study what they are good at. But in other words, students can escape from subjects that they are not good at, which deteriorates their performance in this area. Take one of my friends as an example. She applauses for this policy because this policy saves her from the inferno of chemistry. She does not know what she wants to do clearly, but she is pretty sure that she does not want to study chemistry anymore. Therefore, she abandons chemistry immediately because chemistry is not useful for her anymore. As a result, her chemistry knowledge devastates quickly because she does not learn chemistry anymore.
Granted, the 2020 Gaokao reform signals the globalization trend between the eastern and the western. China, as a big eastern country, begins to learn from the western education system. Similarly, the western can also learn from Chinese education. I am not saying that the western should learn Chinese education entirely. Instead, many people criticize Chinese education as cruel and exam-oriented. However, I want to emphasize that Chinese education has some aspects that western countries should learn from. Specifically, the efficiency of Chinese education is almost invincible all around the world. For instance, an experimental documentary “Are We Kids Tough Enough? Chinese School” gained much attention in 2015. In this documentary, Neil Strowger, the principal of a British high school, invited a few Chinese high school teachers to teach British students (BBC). Naturally, British students could not get used to such tight, intense teaching, and many students even wanted to run from the experiment. Surprisingly, though, British students’ scores improved a lot by the end of the experiment. Some students even claimed that these Chinese teachers did help them a lot to perform well in exams (BBC). This experiment proves the effectiveness of Chinese teaching, and such tight teaching is prepared for the intense Gaokao. Therefore, although many people criticize Gaokao as a cruel test, it does cultivate an effective learning process for students.
Given the surprising experiment of Chinese teachers and British students, it is worth considering that the Gaokao-based education has some benefits, and western countries, such as Britain, can also learn from China. A remark about this documentary is insightful: “the world is on the way to globalization, and there is no winner or loser. Everyone should be ready to learn from each other, and it is the key to globalization. Admittedly, it is impossible to make all British schools teach like the Chinese teachers: every country should find an education system that fits in their context. However, it is inappropriate to refuse to learn from each other.” (BBC). On the way of globalization, countries can communicate easily. Therefore, everyone needs to learn from each other and improve themselves: the key is to find the most suitable solution for their context.
Works Cited
Annette Lareau. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childbearing in Black Families and White Families.” American Sociological Review, vol. 67, no. 5, American Sociological Association, 2002, p. 747.
“BBC News 中文.” BBC纪录片：中式教学适合英国学生吗？, BBC, 4 Aug. 2015, www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/uk/2015/08/150804_uk_chinese_school.
Farley, Alan, and Helen Hong Yang. “Comparison of Chinese Gaokao and Western University Undergraduate Admission Criteria: Australian ATAR as an Example.” Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 39, no. 3, Routledge, 2020, pp. 470–84, doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1684879.
Smith, Mikaila. Institutionalized Inequality: The Gaokao Exam and the Urban-Rural Divide. 31 May 2019, www.chinausfocus.com/society-culture/institutionalized-inequality-the-gaokao-exam-and-the-urban-rural-divide.
Textor, Published by C., and Dec 7. “China: Urban and Rural Population by Province 2019.” Statista, 7 Dec. 2020, www.statista.com/statistics/1088875/china-urban-and-rural-population-by-region-province/.
You, Zhuran, and Yingzi Hu. “Walking a Policy Tightrope: The Dilemma of Balancing Diversification and Equality in Chinese College Entrance Examination Reform.” Higher Education Policy, vol. 26, no. 3, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 309–24.
Yue, Wei. “美国高校招生考试制度及对我国高考改革的启示_爱学术.” 爱学术, 天津市教育招生考试院, Aug. 2007, www.ixueshu.com/document/3190fefb494a7753.html.
物理学院招生简章-北京大学物理学院, 10 Mar. 2020, www.phy.pku.edu.cn/info/1260/4096.htm.
中国家庭教育支出有多少？调查显示收入影响教育需求-新华网, 中国青年报, 15 Jan. 2018, www.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2018-01/15/c_1122258696.htm.
