Question 1 sort of feels like another essay question where the good answer [to "which viewpoint is best"] is "it depends," but the "correct" answer is "let's see how well I can support one of these viewpoints by selectively ignoring scenarios when the others are more applicable." Which reminds me of the SAT. Seems like there's some consistency between standardized testing in the US and in China -- it's crappy everywhere (although certainly done with more style in China).
I found Q2 section 3 about "An American peasant, so poor that he had no food to eat, was forced to go to odd jobs for a local rich person" somewhat funny/interesting. I would have like to see the questions associated with that prompt.
Hah, it seems silly when it's about Americans, but I remember having a bit of a jingoistic world history high school teacher (in America) who upset me very much...
When I was a kid, it blew my mind that we use Arabic numerals, but they don't use them in Arabic speaking countries. Or rather, Arabic script does not use Arabic numerals as we know them.
Basic scientific calculator or a full feature graphic calculator? At a glance, I think I would have been able to prepare just fine for that test as a high school senior with a scientific calculator (means it has +-/*, and log, sqrt sin cos etc.), but it would have been a breeze with a TI-89 (which symbolically solves equations and simplifies expressions). If graphing calculators are allowed that would give a very big advantage to the rich or anyone that knows what a big advantage such a calculator gives.
It starts with these kinds of comments and ends with every submission having an enormous pun-thread at the top. I think we all know where to go for those shenanigans.
This reminds me of the writing section of the SAT2/GRE. I'm more curious about what high scoring answers look like in relation to what a high scoring answer might look on the SAT2.
For example, does basing arguments around an obscure (but not pretentious) chinese proverb/idiom net you points in the same way you get bonus point for alluding to a literary classic here? Do long winded arguments ding you?
The other funny thing is that I hear lots of stories about how kids literally study themselves to death for these exams, yet writing an essay is an art that benefits from exactly the opposite: instead of studying hard, having lots of life experience outside the classroom almost always helps more.
It's brutal because the pressure is amazingly intense. Your test results, quite literally, will determine the rest of your life.
College admission is entirely based on your GaoKao score, grades don't matter and extracurriculars don't exist. Due to the Hukou system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system), your college attendance decides where you can live and where you can work in the future. For a peasant, a good GaoKao score is the only real way out of poverty.
To add to this, you don't get to pick your major in college. That's also decided by your GaoKao score, and your future career is decided by your major.
So, imagine if your whole life hinged on your SAT scores. Wouldn't that make the test a little more difficult?
I think it'd make the test just as easy, but more stressful. Since the questions are not difficult, I would worry that my answers are being interpreted as a test of what I think rather than how I think. Maybe this is just semantics, but I think difficulty of an exam is irrelevant of what it will be used for.
Actually, I think it's more than just semantics. Stress makes it harder in a quantifiable way. Stress impairs both memory and abstract reasoning. For the language composition portions it narrows your thinking, and strips out creativity.
Something fun like a pub quiz is measurably easier than something like the GaoKao, even if the questions are the same.
For the average person, stress seriously breaks down their ability to perform. However, there's a significant but smaller proportion of people who thrive on stress and these are the people you want at the top.
When something decides your entire life, the ones who excel at the task are going to be the ones who thrive on stress. In China this ability probably ends up putting you through the best schools in the country and either into the top ranks of corporations or into the government. Despite the system being unfair, it is probably an ideal way to select out those who are needed to manage and run a 1.3 billion person country.
Western countries either had higher education firmly established by the time the industrial and technological revolutions hit. Those that didn't, like the majority of North America, were able to grow slowly into the world with new technologies. However, China has essentially been shot from agricultural, through industrial and are now falling at terminal velocity through the technological era as they catch up with everyone else. The system in China seems amazingly stable, however the real question is what happens when they start getting bombarded by unions so big they can't quell.
You've got the general shape of it, but I've got one minor clarification about your history. You make the GaoKao sound recent, when it's basically the modern version of the Imperial Examination. The Imperial Examination started in 605, and ran continuously until the early twentieth century, so this is how China has been selecting their administrators for centuries.
We can debate the merits of Chinese higher education, but it's definitely not new.
Is that story about John Dalton true? I know he is attributed with discovering color blindness as an illness and whatnot, but I can't find any other reference about Dalton, color blindness, and christmas socks: http://bit.ly/ySNwL
I don't know if the story of Dalton is true or not. I don't think it matters for this test.
I think both Questions 1 and 2 are meant to respond to cultural value systems outside of China. I'm not sure about now, however, I can easily see a "Dalton" in China before 1990s accepting that the color of the socks are red, even though he sees it as grey and drop the matter.
Likewise, the story of the instant ramen noodles points out the persistence required for entreprenurialship, something that we take for granted reading Hacker News. On top of that, there is the political issue being that this is a story about Japan, something that is still emotionally charged (at least with my parent's generation). The story also presents the instant ramen inventor as being motivated by patriotism (or at least, humanitarian) rather than the profit motive. Finally, China has also seen several severe famines post WWII as a direct result of government policies (the government and the military has traditionally been responsible for making no one region becomes devestated by famine). The story presented an individual rather than a state organization taking it upon himself to help solve the food problem. How does that square with the current policies of the Chinese government? Should non-University-elites be encouraged with this kind of initiative?
The story about the kerosene is weird to me. My first reaction is that it appears to be grafting the old Confucian values onto an American setting. We'd have to substitute "peasant" for something else -- "menial", "indentured servent", "slave", each carrying a very different baggage. (I doubt Chinese unversity candidates would be aware of the emotional charges these words bring). Going by my gut, I'm not sure any modern American would try to correct their mistakes by demonstrating diligence (putting the wash out and carefully watching it). That kind of value system is more old-school Chinese, I think, that by demonstrating the proper diligence due to one's social superiors, Good Things Happen (the stain gets removed ... whether or not it is scientifically valided is not relavent in this story).
As for Question 1, I remember reading that story in an American self-help book. I have forgotten where it came from. It was a fable obviously demonstrated to encourage the development of strengths. It also fits in with the shift in American education towards building up self esteem (for example, see the work of Carol Dewek related to this topic). This is quite different from a cultural system where fathers would throw sons into a harsh environment just to the overcome weaknesses. The phrase, "eating bitter" (吃苦) is still in use today. I am sure many of the candidates writing this essay have memories of their parents pushing them academically, sending them through cram schools and hiring tutors if they could afford it. I'd say a good number of them would remember being the "rabbit" in one or more of the subject matters. The justification the parents (at least, my parents) tells the kid is, "you'll thank me later". So here is an essay question that gives you a chance to say, "yeah, the rabbit should be forced to swim for his own good; even I learned how to swim" or "no, I think this system is broken despite the fact that I am a product of this system".
