Ah, memories

[Zanza]

The final exams are standardized in most German states too to increase fairness. However, that doesn't take away discretion of the teacher in grading as we usually don't have multiple choice questions, but rather something like "Explain the tragic situation of this figure in this drama" and then you are expected to write ten pages about that. So that doesn't make it comparable either.

Our universities also have some discretion in choosing their students and don't have to only go by the average grade but can also consider other, usually social, aspects.

[Monoriu]

The final exams are standardized in most German states too to increase fairness. However, that doesn't take away discretion of the teacher in grading as we usually don't have multiple choice questions, but rather something like "Explain the tragic situation of this figure in this drama" and then you are expected to write ten pages about that. So that doesn't make it comparable either.

Our universities also have some discretion in choosing their students and don't have to only go by the average grade but can also consider other, usually social, aspects.

The obsession with fairness is the reason why Chinese exams focus so much on memorization.  The only way to make grading consistent across the vast country is a standardized marking scheme, with fixed points for specified words mentioned.  To make the system as fair as possible, universities have almost no discretion in choosing students.  Someone who scores 87 and who sits at home all day playing computer games will beat someone who scores 86, has done 10,000 hours of voluntary work, is captain of the school football team, and can speak 10 languages.  Take away as much human discretion as possible is the only way to ensure fairness.

[Zanza]

The obsession with fairness is the reason why Chinese exams focus so much on memorization.  The only way to make grading consistent across the vast country is a standardized marking scheme, with fixed points for specified words mentioned.  To make the system as fair as possible, universities have almost no discretion in choosing students.  Someone who scores 87 and who sits at home all day playing computer games will beat someone who scores 86, has done 10,000 hours of voluntary work, is captain of the school football team, and can speak 10 languages.  Take away as much human discretion as possible is the only way to ensure fairness.

The difference being that people here wouldn't consider that fair at all. After all the 86 guy is much more qualified. So it would be fair to give him the university place.

[jimmy olsen]

The final exams are standardized in most German states too to increase fairness. However, that doesn't take away discretion of the teacher in grading as we usually don't have multiple choice questions, but rather something like "Explain the tragic situation of this figure in this drama" and then you are expected to write ten pages about that. So that doesn't make it comparable either.

Our universities also have some discretion in choosing their students and don't have to only go by the average grade but can also consider other, usually social, aspects.

The obsession with fairness is the reason why Chinese exams focus so much on memorization.  The only way to make grading consistent across the vast country is a standardized marking scheme, with fixed points for specified words mentioned.  To make the system as fair as possible, universities have almost no discretion in choosing students.  Someone who scores 87 and who sits at home all day playing computer games will beat someone who scores 86, has done 10,000 hours of voluntary work, is captain of the school football team, and can speak 10 languages.  Take away as much human discretion as possible is the only way to ensure fairness.

To call that fair is an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak.

[Monoriu]

The obsession with fairness is the reason why Chinese exams focus so much on memorization.  The only way to make grading consistent across the vast country is a standardized marking scheme, with fixed points for specified words mentioned.  To make the system as fair as possible, universities have almost no discretion in choosing students.  Someone who scores 87 and who sits at home all day playing computer games will beat someone who scores 86, has done 10,000 hours of voluntary work, is captain of the school football team, and can speak 10 languages.  Take away as much human discretion as possible is the only way to ensure fairness.

The difference being that people here wouldn't consider that fair at all. After all the 86 guy is much more qualified. So it would be fair to give him the university place.

The argument goes like this.  So you say the 86 guy should be admitted.  What if he didn't do 10,000 hours of voluntary service.  What if he did only 1,000 hours.  Now, should we let the 87 guy in or the 86?  Still say the 86 guy should be in?  What if someone has a score of 86 but only 100 hours?  Or 10?  Where EXACTLY do you draw the line?  What is voluntary service?  What counts and what doesn't?  As soon as you let the officials have any kind of discretion, the system is less than fair.  The only way to keep nepotism and corruption out is to base admisison on nothing but the exam. 

[Berkut]

As soon as you let the officials have any kind of discretion, the system is less than fair.

That is simply not true. You are confusing objectivity with fairness.

[Malthus]

The final exams are standardized in most German states too to increase fairness. However, that doesn't take away discretion of the teacher in grading as we usually don't have multiple choice questions, but rather something like "Explain the tragic situation of this figure in this drama" and then you are expected to write ten pages about that. So that doesn't make it comparable either.

Our universities also have some discretion in choosing their students and don't have to only go by the average grade but can also consider other, usually social, aspects.

The obsession with fairness is the reason why Chinese exams focus so much on memorization.  The only way to make grading consistent across the vast country is a standardized marking scheme, with fixed points for specified words mentioned.  To make the system as fair as possible, universities have almost no discretion in choosing students.  Someone who scores 87 and who sits at home all day playing computer games will beat someone who scores 86, has done 10,000 hours of voluntary work, is captain of the school football team, and can speak 10 languages.  Take away as much human discretion as possible is the only way to ensure fairness.

To call that fair is an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak.

I suspect the concern is that if there is any way to judge other than by strict objective criteria, people would game the system. In short it would work as a avenue for corruption.

Consider that half the purpose of the exam is to muffle social discontent. The "fairness" isn't there to ensure that the best students make it into university, but rather to assure poor Chinese that there exists a *possible* route to social advancement. The fact that it is incredibly arbitrary (a high stress exam relying on rote memorization) certainly will not ensure that the "best" students make it in - but it does ensure that the exam is difficult to game (other than in the obvious ways - a rich person can afford to pay for lots of memorization tuition).

[Monoriu]

As soon as you let the officials have any kind of discretion, the system is less than fair.

That is simply not true. You are confusing objectivity with fairness.

Hey, you don't need to convince me.  Try to explain this to the 1.3 billion people up there.  Even the communists don't dare to mess with this thousand year old tradition 

[Monoriu]

I suspect the concern is that if there is any way to judge other than by strict objective criteria, people would game the system. In short it would work as a avenue for corruption.

Consider that half the purpose of the exam is to muffle social discontent. The "fairness" isn't there to ensure that the best students make it into university, but rather to assure poor Chinese that there exists a *possible* route to social advancement. The fact that it is incredibly arbitrary (a high stress exam relying on rote memorization) certainly will not ensure that the "best" students make it in - but it does ensure that the exam is difficult to game (other than in the obvious ways - a rich person can afford to pay for lots of memorization tuition).

Exactly.  The rich can hire expensive tutors.  But nothing prevents the poor kid from studying 18 hours a day.  The important thing is to convince the masses that the poor kid will win if he gives the correct answer.  So far, the system works well in this aspect. 

[Malthus]

Exactly.  The rich can hire expensive tutors.  But nothing prevents the poor kid from studying 18 hours a day.  The important thing is to convince the masses that the poor kid will win if he gives the correct answer.  So far, the system works well in this aspect.

Most people in the first world do not understand the purpose of the exam system - in China it has always been about social stability; those who are poor or dispossessed have open to them a possible route to advancement. This means that they will work hard memorizing bullshit rather than stirring up trouble and revolution (and if they succeed, they get a good job, meaning they are absorbed into the existing society).

It is interesting to note that some of the worst revolutions in Chinese history were headed by people who failed their exams - the T'ai P'ing rebellion for example. Also, exam halls were traditionally supposed to be haunted by the ghosts of all the students who committed suicide under the pressure or on failure.

[Monoriu]

Because if you fail your exams, you are a failure for the rest of your life.  Unless you break the existing order. 

I must say I like the system.  I am the 87 guy who laughs at the 86 guy 

[Grey Fox]

Because if you fail your exams, you are a failure for the rest of your life.  Unless you break the existing order. 

I must say I like the system.  I am the 87 guy who laughs at the 86 guy 

I'm the 63 guy that lives in the first world

[DisturbedPervert]

If you're the 86 with 10,000 hours of community service and the ability to speak 10 languages you'd be an idiot if you didn't study abroad.

[The Brain]

I doubt that having done 10,000 hours of community service, supposedly for a great number of various minor crimes, makes you more qualified.

[Josquius]

The trouble with that approach is that different schools have vastly different standards.  In China/Hong Kong, schools have a high degree of freedom to choose students, and vice versa.  The result is great stratification of schools - the best students always go to the same schools, and the worst students are left with the worst schools.  Those who do the worst in the best schools very often beat the best students in the second tier schools. 

The single most important aspect of the Chinese exams is fairness.  The system must be perceived as fair, otherwise the students and parents will revolt against the system.  It is not fair to compare students from one school to another using school based exams.  Only a single open exam can do that.

In the UK its all marked through a centralised system over the 2 years.
Countries where its down to the school to mark the students sound a bit wrong to me...Though I would have done really well under such a system.

To make the system as fair as possible, universities have almost no discretion in choosing students.  Someone who scores 87 and who sits at home all day playing computer games will beat someone who scores 86, has done 10,000 hours of voluntary work, is captain of the school football team, and can speak 10 languages.  Take away as much human discretion as possible is the only way to ensure fairness.

That is not fair at all.
They should take into account that the rich kids can afford to spend all their time studying whilst the poor kids will have to help out on the farm or that out of two kids with the same score one has just overcame a major illness which ruined studying for several years.