> Yong Zhao, a professor of education at the University of Kansas, said the debate reflected widespread anxiety among Chinese parents about getting their children into top schools. In China’s test-dominated system, exam scores determine where students go to college and what careers they can pursue.
It's easy to forget how different other education systems can be.
>It's easy to forget how different other education systems can be.
Yeah isn't it weird how Europe and Asia care more about exam scores when applying to schools than how far you can kick a ball or how much money your parents have...
yeah and it's then easy to believe in that a 5yo could read 10,000 books, cause the "educational system is different". i am quite amazed that some people buy that with serious face.
It is entirely possible for a kid to learn to read by 3 or 3.5 years old, if parents are obsessive about it. In the long run life isn’t a race, and the kids who don’t learn to read until they are 6 catch up fine. But small children are quite capable if you push them.
I wouldn’t recommend it, but if you got your kid reading picture books all day for three years from ages 3–5, you could plausibly get to 10,000. Picture books are pretty short.
However, it sounds like this isn’t a literal 10,000 books. The New York Times story says the kid’s “CV” lists the 408 books he has read this year. So probably <1000 as a lifetime total.
I think the 10,000 figure from BBC was possibly hyperbole or a mistake. The NYT article says 400 books this year… which is still a ton, but less so if you consider books that can be read in an hour or less.
> In China’s test-dominated system, exam scores determine where students go to college and what careers they can pursue.
This is only true for the masses. The children of political and business elite have special privileges and greater options ( such as studying at harvard, yale, oxford, etc ).
> It's easy to forget how different other education systems can be.
It isn't so different. The education system in the US is dominated by test scores as well. The quality of jobs and career are dependent on the quality of colleges you attend and your scores.
Of course in china ( and much of asia ), they have a large population for limited opportunities and resources so the situation can get extreme.
China has the same landmass as the US but they have 1.1 billion more people.
For the elite, the same applies in the US. You can generally buy your way into the Ivys if your parents have enough money, or if your parents were students (which the could have been because their parents had been). Coupled with the general problem of high paying jobs in many fields favoring the school on your degree over actual ability you get a self reinforcing cycle.
> It isn't so different. The education system in the US is dominated by test scores as well. The quality of jobs and career are dependent on the quality of colleges you attend and your scores.
They're very different in degree. The US uses test scores in a much looser way, and they're usually one factor among many in admissions. Extracurriculars can be extremely helpful to get into a good US school, but I understand in China they'd be a waste of time and a distraction from what a student should really be focusing on: the college entrance exam.
Not that different from the US, outside the hacker news bubble. I have a high schooler and let’s just say there’s a lot of attention to three numbers right now - GPA, SAT, and ACT. Those numbers will have an outsized impact on my kid’s life. Granted though, that there are still paths to a happy life, but just a little more “alternative”.
Do you mean that the Parent PLUS loans are directly dependent on test scores or something like lower standardized test scores → less scholarships going into school → more loans?
That makes sense but my personal experience is that I was able to obtain substantially more scholarship dollars post-starting college vs anything offered off of high school credentials. I graduated high school at the top of my class (< 1%) and had strong but not super competitive test scores. I went to a public state school so perhaps different for others.
I would agree. The west had a chance to reform their education systems to become different with the new information age, but most countries choose not to. In fact they have been going the other way. Today in most countries things like housing, grades, connections and insurance are even more important than it used to be. Turns out people really do not want to compete on similar terms in the open market.
You nailed it. I continue to be shocked by the naivete of the West in all things Asia--work practices, education, rule of law, protection of IP, role of women in society. This after having lived and worked in Eastern China for 3 years. Those abroad just don't get it. And with such a behemoth as a world partner, they aren't changing fast nor need to.
FWIW: this was true even 15-20 years ago. I can't really speak comparatively, but I certainly was put in multiple years of SAT/ACT practice+drilling at home, and occasionally full summer courses. And despite coming out of that with nearly perfect scores my having a 3.3 GPA was considered so low as to preclude me from most of the top schools I applied to. (My admission rate was 3 schools out of 13, if I'm remembering right) This not to mention APs, extracurriculars, resume padding (although not on the same order of magnitude as OP)
I'd be curious to when this trend started, but it was certainly well in motion when I squeezed through the system.
16 years ago, I went to community college, transfered to a 4 year, worked internships, graduated without debt, landed a job at Big Tech Co due to my internship experience.
I never took the SAT.
Now days? Possibly more important, depends on the major. I'd say for a lot of software roles, practical experience counts more than school. I've managed teams where I hired based on experience and personal drive, another manager hired based on university credentials. I had much better luck, my team easily out performed other teams that were better credentialed.
Not to say the better universities don't do a better job at teaching. The fresh out of CMU grad who wrote a huge chunk of our OS, and who right after went to Google to work on their OS team, is a great example of the top students from the top universities being better.
But I'll pit an average student from a top university against a "driven to succeed" student from any other schooling program.
That said the one bootcamp grad (on another team) was super motivated, wrote code fast, got us shipping, but wow that code had to be replaced ASAP. :D
Best dev I had was fresh out of school, maintained multiple community software projects outside of work, and learned something new about his profession every day.
In 80s, a perfect score on ACT resulted in full scholarships plus living stipend most anywhere you’d be interested in, offering a straightforward step up from rural America to the 1% track.
That said, I don’t recall teaching to the test or test prep being a big thing then. Maybe what’s changing is the 1% working out how to keep that track in the family?
The 1% has always had a different track to get their children into the best schools and careers. College admissions are tougher now because there are more people going to college but there aren't any new top universities.
It isn't that different. If you want to go into management consulting or investment banking (the most "elite" career paths out of college if you want to pursue business) then to even have a chance to apply you have to go to a school with on-site interviews to those companies, which is basically limited to Ivy league + MIT + Stanford + a select few top public schools and liberal arts colleges.
> The competition for seats at top schools in China is notoriously cutthroat. In some cities, the wealthy and well connected pay large sums of money, sometimes described as “donations,” to secure placements in top programs.
So... exactly like the US then? This is how every top tier university operates. Ability to pay is something considered before acceptance for ALL students; and children of major donors are guaranteed entrance. It's not any different at earlier levels of education in the US either - it's pay to play.
No, not exactly like the US. Rather, it's similar for some schools. The US, fortunately, has a vast number of extraordinary universities.
At MIT for example, tied for the third best US university [1], they rank #137 on the median family income level among universities. That places them behind such schools as the University of Dallas, Virginia Tech and the University of Charleston.
Columbia is tied for the third best ranked US university. It ranks #89 on median family income. Those students are largely not elite rich families buying their way in.
The University of Chicago is also tied for third best US university. They rank #138 on median family income. Behind the university of Scranton, UNC Chapel Hill, and Xavier.
Cornell is ranked as the #16 US university, and comes in #87 in median family income.
California Institute of Technology is ranked #12. They're #105 on the median family income metric.
UCLA is ranked #19 in US universities, and ranks #353 on median family income among universities.
UC Berkely is tied for being the 22nd best university in the US. It ranks #214 on median family income, behind Babson, Mountain Saint Mary's, Vermont, and Willamette.
Carnegie Mellon is the #25 US university. They're ranked #81 for median family income.
Emory is the #21 US university, and ranks #120 on median family income.
The University of Florida is ranked #36 in US universities, and comes in #322 in median family income. You can go there for $6,000 per year in-state.
There are two dozen other top 50 schools I can add to this list, that rank far below what you'd expect on median family income.
This article (and I) wasn’t talking about median income. At any of the schools you just named, a significant donation means your child is attending. How do you think they afford to give scholarships to so many students?
The article and the quote you reference, says that competition for placement is "notoriously cutthroat" and the rich often buy their way in because placement is so limited.
That isn't the case in the US among most of the top 25 or top 50 schools. You can buy your way in to some of those schools, for most of them you do not have to. That's the fundamental difference. The top 50 US schools overwhelmingly consist of middle class and middle-upper class students.
Ok, you don’t have to buy your way in. But being ranked 300 in median family income out of 3000 universities isn’t exactly encouraging. Even at the schools you mentioned, most students still come from the top 20%, save UCLA and Florida, with 48%.
It means to hit the median family income at those universities you have to come from the top edge of the middle class at least, that is true. That's not very surprising given we're talking about the median at very highly ranked schools. It's moving the goal posts quite a bit given the difference vs the elite rich having to buy their way in due to scarcity.
If you want to dramatically improve your odds of family success in the US, you want to roughly be in the top half of the middle class bracket or above. At least based on school access.
A lot of the top 50 universities do as well or better at accepting bottom 20% income bracket students, as second tier schools do. For reference, share of students coming from the bottom 20% income bracket (ie poor):
UCLA 8.3%; UC Berkely 7.3%; MIT 6.2%; NYU 6.1%; Florida 6%; Chicago 5.5%; Columbia 5.1%; Rice 4.9%; USC 4.9%; Harvard 4.5%; Boston U 4.2%; Brown 4.1%; Stanford 4%; Carnegie Mellon 4%; Duke 3.9%; Tulane 3.9%; Northwestern 3.7%; Michigan 3.6%
Lower ranked schools (but still top ~15%):
Rutgers 6.8%; Illinois 6.1%; Texas 6%; UMass 5.8%; Florida St 5.3%; Michigan St 5%; Oklahoma 5%; Ohio St 5%; Oregon 4.7%; Georgia Tech 4.6%; Oklahoma St 4.4%; Oregon St 4.3%; NC State 4.3%; Texas Tech 4.1%; Washington St 4%; Arkanas 4%; Texas A&M 4%; Alabama 4%; Pitt 3.7%; Minnesota 3.5%; Kansas 3.2%; Kansas St 3.2%; Iowa St 3.2%; Illinois St 3%; Auburn 2.6%; Virginia Tech 2.3%
As a percentage, Chicago takes as many poor students as Oregon St; MIT takes more than NC State; Harvard takes as many as George Tech; Stanford takes more than Kansas St. And so on.
The schools that rank badly on high median family income and low access for poor students are who you'd expect: Princeton, Yale, Vanderbilt, etc. Notre Dame is a particular standout for being terrible, with a median income at $191,000 and only taking 1.6% from the bottom 20% income bracket.
I agree with that very broadly, which is why I acknowledged it's similar.
The point I'm disagreeing with, is that I don't believe it's exactly like the US. It's a bit different in the US because of the selection available. The US has dozens of large universities to choose from that would all rank among the top 100 globally. Those schools have often been established for 100-200 years or more, with the US having an opportunity to build up a lot of high quality universities over time. That isn't the case in China (yet), their growing affluence is literally only ~15 years old, it's dramatically more pressurized accordingly. China has a lot of increasingly affluent people competing for far fewer top tier universities, which is why they've been sending so many students to the US and Europe.
I read CVs all the time. 15 pages is far too long, he needs to condense it down to 2 pages max, and get a github account demonstrating his achievements. :)
44 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/world/asia/china-child-re...
> Yong Zhao, a professor of education at the University of Kansas, said the debate reflected widespread anxiety among Chinese parents about getting their children into top schools. In China’s test-dominated system, exam scores determine where students go to college and what careers they can pursue.
It's easy to forget how different other education systems can be.
Yeah isn't it weird how Europe and Asia care more about exam scores when applying to schools than how far you can kick a ball or how much money your parents have...
there's limit to lies
I wouldn’t recommend it, but if you got your kid reading picture books all day for three years from ages 3–5, you could plausibly get to 10,000. Picture books are pretty short.
However, it sounds like this isn’t a literal 10,000 books. The New York Times story says the kid’s “CV” lists the 408 books he has read this year. So probably <1000 as a lifetime total.
It is the equivalent to myriad in English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myriad
This is only true for the masses. The children of political and business elite have special privileges and greater options ( such as studying at harvard, yale, oxford, etc ).
> It's easy to forget how different other education systems can be.
It isn't so different. The education system in the US is dominated by test scores as well. The quality of jobs and career are dependent on the quality of colleges you attend and your scores.
Of course in china ( and much of asia ), they have a large population for limited opportunities and resources so the situation can get extreme.
China has the same landmass as the US but they have 1.1 billion more people.
They're very different in degree. The US uses test scores in a much looser way, and they're usually one factor among many in admissions. Extracurriculars can be extremely helpful to get into a good US school, but I understand in China they'd be a waste of time and a distraction from what a student should really be focusing on: the college entrance exam.
I'd be curious to when this trend started, but it was certainly well in motion when I squeezed through the system.
I never took the SAT.
Now days? Possibly more important, depends on the major. I'd say for a lot of software roles, practical experience counts more than school. I've managed teams where I hired based on experience and personal drive, another manager hired based on university credentials. I had much better luck, my team easily out performed other teams that were better credentialed.
Not to say the better universities don't do a better job at teaching. The fresh out of CMU grad who wrote a huge chunk of our OS, and who right after went to Google to work on their OS team, is a great example of the top students from the top universities being better.
But I'll pit an average student from a top university against a "driven to succeed" student from any other schooling program.
That said the one bootcamp grad (on another team) was super motivated, wrote code fast, got us shipping, but wow that code had to be replaced ASAP. :D
Best dev I had was fresh out of school, maintained multiple community software projects outside of work, and learned something new about his profession every day.
In 80s, a perfect score on ACT resulted in full scholarships plus living stipend most anywhere you’d be interested in, offering a straightforward step up from rural America to the 1% track.
That said, I don’t recall teaching to the test or test prep being a big thing then. Maybe what’s changing is the 1% working out how to keep that track in the family?
So... exactly like the US then? This is how every top tier university operates. Ability to pay is something considered before acceptance for ALL students; and children of major donors are guaranteed entrance. It's not any different at earlier levels of education in the US either - it's pay to play.
At MIT for example, tied for the third best US university [1], they rank #137 on the median family income level among universities. That places them behind such schools as the University of Dallas, Virginia Tech and the University of Charleston.
Columbia is tied for the third best ranked US university. It ranks #89 on median family income. Those students are largely not elite rich families buying their way in.
The University of Chicago is also tied for third best US university. They rank #138 on median family income. Behind the university of Scranton, UNC Chapel Hill, and Xavier.
Cornell is ranked as the #16 US university, and comes in #87 in median family income.
California Institute of Technology is ranked #12. They're #105 on the median family income metric.
UCLA is ranked #19 in US universities, and ranks #353 on median family income among universities.
UC Berkely is tied for being the 22nd best university in the US. It ranks #214 on median family income, behind Babson, Mountain Saint Mary's, Vermont, and Willamette.
Carnegie Mellon is the #25 US university. They're ranked #81 for median family income.
Emory is the #21 US university, and ranks #120 on median family income.
The University of Florida is ranked #36 in US universities, and comes in #322 in median family income. You can go there for $6,000 per year in-state.
There are two dozen other top 50 schools I can add to this list, that rank far below what you'd expect on median family income.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...
That isn't the case in the US among most of the top 25 or top 50 schools. You can buy your way in to some of those schools, for most of them you do not have to. That's the fundamental difference. The top 50 US schools overwhelmingly consist of middle class and middle-upper class students.
If you want to dramatically improve your odds of family success in the US, you want to roughly be in the top half of the middle class bracket or above. At least based on school access.
A lot of the top 50 universities do as well or better at accepting bottom 20% income bracket students, as second tier schools do. For reference, share of students coming from the bottom 20% income bracket (ie poor):
UCLA 8.3%; UC Berkely 7.3%; MIT 6.2%; NYU 6.1%; Florida 6%; Chicago 5.5%; Columbia 5.1%; Rice 4.9%; USC 4.9%; Harvard 4.5%; Boston U 4.2%; Brown 4.1%; Stanford 4%; Carnegie Mellon 4%; Duke 3.9%; Tulane 3.9%; Northwestern 3.7%; Michigan 3.6%
Lower ranked schools (but still top ~15%):
Rutgers 6.8%; Illinois 6.1%; Texas 6%; UMass 5.8%; Florida St 5.3%; Michigan St 5%; Oklahoma 5%; Ohio St 5%; Oregon 4.7%; Georgia Tech 4.6%; Oklahoma St 4.4%; Oregon St 4.3%; NC State 4.3%; Texas Tech 4.1%; Washington St 4%; Arkanas 4%; Texas A&M 4%; Alabama 4%; Pitt 3.7%; Minnesota 3.5%; Kansas 3.2%; Kansas St 3.2%; Iowa St 3.2%; Illinois St 3%; Auburn 2.6%; Virginia Tech 2.3%
As a percentage, Chicago takes as many poor students as Oregon St; MIT takes more than NC State; Harvard takes as many as George Tech; Stanford takes more than Kansas St. And so on.
The schools that rank badly on high median family income and low access for poor students are who you'd expect: Princeton, Yale, Vanderbilt, etc. Notre Dame is a particular standout for being terrible, with a median income at $191,000 and only taking 1.6% from the bottom 20% income bracket.
You are saying "ability to pay is not a prerequisite", whereas the prior poster is saying "ability to pay can get you in".
Both are true.
The point I'm disagreeing with, is that I don't believe it's exactly like the US. It's a bit different in the US because of the selection available. The US has dozens of large universities to choose from that would all rank among the top 100 globally. Those schools have often been established for 100-200 years or more, with the US having an opportunity to build up a lot of high quality universities over time. That isn't the case in China (yet), their growing affluence is literally only ~15 years old, it's dramatically more pressurized accordingly. China has a lot of increasingly affluent people competing for far fewer top tier universities, which is why they've been sending so many students to the US and Europe.
I’ve never seen a CV in the business world, but resumes are of course very common.
I find it hard to belive that one needs to have more than one page, no matter the civilization changing things they did.