China's education the best in the world?

[wollery]

A report on the BBC website says that Chinese students outperformed those in all other countries tested in standardized reading, numeracy and science tests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17585201

All thoughts and comments on this welcome.

[Humes fork]

Don't Chinese (and other Asian) Americans perform very well in American schools too?

[Beerina]

This stat overrides all others put together: family emphasis on learning.

I stopped caring about the arguments about vouchers or school spending because it was nitpicking compared to the real variable.

A kid whose parents care does better in a crappy school than does a kid whose parent's don't in an awesome school.

Chinese families care. US families, lip service aside, don't. There's your answer.

Indeed, it's criminal the debate is shifted into the results-irrelevancy of public teacher dollars (both sides assume this has an impact, and want to divert dollars to "their" teachers, when it has little impact if the parents don't care.)

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Beerina

This stat overrides all others put together: family emphasis on learning.

I'd tend to agree with this. Chinese parents put a huge emphasis not only on education, but on getting the best job possible, and will invest all resources necessary to help their child do so. It is this reason why Chinese kids do well not only in China, but in every country they live in (ie. Chinese children born and raised in Canada, educated in the Canadian system, still tend to out-perform other students).

Chinese education -- well, for things that require rote learning, Chinese education tends to do quite well. Which is why Chinese tend to excel in math, or other subjects like that. However, Chinese education also emphasizes unquestioning obedience to authority, with almost no room for independent thought or creativity. Thus, the situation we have today, where Chinese tend to be good at copying others, but very poor when it comes to innovation and creativity.

The gov't has recognized this, and is making some small steps to try to encourage creativity and independent thinking in the education system...but because they don't want their population being too independent, such changes are small, and slow.

The thing I personally hate most in China's education system is the "gaokao"...the state exam to enter university. China has one national exam for all universities, which all students seeking to enter college or university must pass. Students are then assigned to universities based on their results.

The biggest problem with the gaokao is that the gov't sets the educational priorities; thus, for example, in studying English, the exams focus on writing, grammar and vocabulary...so if students can do well on this, they get good grades. Which results in hordes of Chinese who can pass a written test, but can barely speak a word of English. Teachers who try to teach their children to actually speak English will be penalized by their leaders, and by parents, because it is irrelevant to the 'gaokao'.

Just getting rid of the gaokao, and letting individual universities have their own entrance exams, would make a huge difference (allowing individual teachers greater freedom to set their own educational priorities, and allow greater diversity and creativity within the education system).

[Puppycow]

We all remember the Amy "Tiger Mother" Chua article that caused all that fuss last year, right?

[crimresearch]

So if it's the best, why does China spend millions and millions getting their students *out* of their school system and into Western universities?

Why do they groom sea turtles?

[Puppycow]

Regarding the gaokao, I like the idea of having a national test such as the SAT in America.

I hate Japan's system because every high school and university has its own entrance exam.
What this means is that in America you can apply to as many colleges as you want by taking one entrance exam, the SAT.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Regarding the gaokao, I like the idea of having a national test such as the SAT in America.

Gaokao is nothing like SAT. SAT is not an entrance exam, it is an aptitude test (thus the name, "Scholastic Aptitude Test"). The difference is huge. An aptitude test is intended to give an indication of general aptitude in a variety of subjects, but is not the sole deciding factor in admission; American schools will look at your SAT scores, but they'll also look at your high school grades, your participation in extracurricular activities, your non-academic accomplishments...in some cases, particularly for more high profile programs, they may even require a personal interview.

But an entrance exam is just that...it is the sole (or predominant) factor in determining whether you are admitted or not. Nothing else is relevant or makes much difference.

Furthermore, SAT is designed based on feedback from universities and academics, to try to ensure that it is looking for the things that are of greatest interest to the universities that will consider the results. Gaokao, by contrast, is designed by gov't officials who base the questions on their ideas of what is important, with little or no consultation with universities. Nor do universities have much say in who goes there...that determination is also made by the government (this is starting to change, but still largely true).

It is a telling fact that both high school and university teachers in China almost universally despise the gaokao...the only teachers I've ever met who like it are lazy/bad teachers, who don't much give a damn about their students, and who want their job to be as easy as possible.

An example:

I have a close Chinese friend who teaches history in high school. The Chinese way of teaching history is very, very dry and boring -- just a list of names and dates that must be memorized and regurgitated. My friend had the opportunity to go as a guest lecturer to an American college, where she met an American history teacher who brought history to life through activities, debates, etc. When she came back, she introduced the same ideas into her class...not just having students memorize names and dates, but having them role-play different historical situations, or have debates on different topics, to get them thinking not only about what happened, but to help them better understand why it happened (which in my opinion is the single most important aspect of learning about history).

The result? Her students loved it, and her class became one of the most popular in the school. Except that the time being used for these activities meant less time to focus on memorization of names and dates. And the gaokao only tests for names and dates. Once parents found out what she was doing, they complained to the school, who promptly punished her. She almost lost her job entirely, and as it was, had her salary reduced, and lost most prospects for promotion.

That's the problem. The only way to get into university is to pass the gaokao. So the last two years of high school aren't focused on education, they are focused on training students how to pass the exam. That's it.

Canada doesn't have a national exam system (or at least, it didn't when I went to university); each individual university can set it's own entrance requirements and priorities. Thus, one university (particularly one focused on the maths and sciences) may place a priority on rote memorization and concrete knowledge; while another (particularly one focused on the arts) may place greater priority on creativity and innovation. Some universities place greater emphasis on academic accomplishment, others may place greater emphasis on extracurricular involvement. The thing is, it is the university's choice. In China, universities have no such option. Students are simply assigned to them, based on gaokao results, regardless of what their personal priorities or desires may be.

Gaokao is a cancer that is almost universally hated in China -- hated by teachers, hated by universities, hated by students. It is one of the largest and most significant limiting factors in education in China, massively stifling any kind of independent or creative thinking.

[fuelair]

Is not Gaokao something of a very long and honorable system. I seem to remember reading of this many years ago (quite before my JREF days) in relation to tests for government positions re: well more than a century ago.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

So if it's the best, why does China spend millions and millions getting their students *out* of their school system and into Western universities?

First, as stated above, I don't think it is the "best". But let's examine this question a little:

Let's consider two categories of students: Chinese students going to study overseas; and foreign students coming to study in China (there are actually quite a few of these nowadays, also). For purposes of this discussion, we will talk only about graduate and post-graduate studies -- the reason being that for graduate and post-graduate studies in China, foreign students are largely able to study in English...fluency in Chinese is not a major issue.

So given my scenario, Chinese students are already at a disadvantage -- they must learn another language, English, in able to be able to study overseas; but foreign students don't necessarily need to learn Chinese to study in China (although it certainly helps).

Who performs best?

The Chinese students going overseas tend to excel in their studies, being consistently at the top of their class, outperforming the locals. The foreign students, by contrast, tend to be firmly entrenched in the middle of the pack, with the top spots being consistently held by Chinese. It is quite rare for a foreign student to be top of his class in a Chinese university.

To me, this is a strong indicator that Chinese education is better at teaching its students how to study. Why do Chinese students go to study overseas? Many different reasons:

* more modern facilities and equipment that are not available to the in China
* cutting edge technology
* the chance to learn about another culture
* the simple fact that graduating from a foreign university gives them a better chance of getting a good job

But there's one exception to my comments above -- the arts. Not only do far fewer Chinese students apply to western universities in Arts programs, but they also tend to perform more poorly...because there, they are required to think creatively and independently, something they've never been taught to do. (Foreign students in Chinese arts programs also tend to fare poorly, but for the opposite reason -- because they tend to be too creative and independent, while their Chinese teachers demand strict adherence to rote learning).

The combination of the cultural focus on the importance of education, and the Chinese educational focus on rote learning, does make Chinese students formidable when it comes to the simple act of studying. They work harder, learn faster, and remember more. And in certain fields, such as mathematics, that can be a huge advantage.

But it fails entirely to train Chinese who can think independently, who can come up with new ideas. And so long as China continues to educate it's citizens in this way, it will never catch up with the U.S....it will always be playing catch-up, as other countries invent and innovate, and all it does is copy.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Is not Gaokao something of a very long and honorable system. I seem to remember reading of this many years ago (quite before my JREF days) in relation to tests for government positions re: well more than a century ago.

Not really.

The old Imperial exam system consisted of numerous exams, at various levels, that focused primarily on knowledge and skills necessary for relevant government positions. It was an innovative system for it's time, allowing some degree of upward mobility for those born to peasant families, something that was lacking in most other feudal societies.

But there were different exams for different levels and positions...there was a great deal more flexibility in terms of what was tested for. In addition, these were not academic admission tests, they were more like an aptitude test determining if you had the necessary knowledge for a particular position.

Gaokao is much more of a Communist innovation. Back when the PRC was established, the gov't exercised massive control over all aspects of its people's lives: where they went to school, what they studied, who they married, where they lived, where they worked, etc. In fact, Chinese citizens at that time had little choice or freedom in any aspect of their lives.

Much of that has changed in modern China. But the gaokao remains as a holdover from previous regimes, and the gov't's desire to maintain control over its citizens.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Is not Gaokao something of a very long and honorable system. I seem to remember reading of this many years ago (quite before my JREF days) in relation to tests for government positions re: well more than a century ago.

The Imperial civil service exams were done away with near the end of the Qing dynasty, but Sun Yat Sen and the Kuomintang wanted them back. IIRC they are still a factor in Republic of China society.

The Gaokao type exams were more of an attempt to emulate the British make or break scholastic exam system.

And they are part of the answer to my rhetorical question... the sea turtles are often those who see any western degree as a ticket to a better status than the 'middle of the heap' Chinese school into which their test scores have consigned them.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And they are part of the answer to my rhetorical question... the sea turtles are often those who see any western degree as a ticket to a better status than the 'middle of the heap' Chinese school into which their test scores have consigned them.

As mentioned above, the fact that Chinese students seek to study overseas isn't 'proof' one way or the other of the superiority of the Chinese system (after all, there are plenty of Canadian, American, British and others who likewise seek to study overseas...because a particular university is famous for a particular field, because they want to learn another culture, etc. It is not implicitly "because their education system is better").

And in addition, like you said here, a lot of it is about 'status'. Chinese don't just seek 'foreign universities'...they seek 'famous universities'. The status/fame of the school is often a more important consideration to them than the actual quality of the education.

For example, if they have a choice of studying at Harvard, but in a major that is not one of Harvard's specialties...and where other, less famous universities may offer a better program...the Chinese students would almost universally choose Harvard. Likewise, if they had the opportunity to go to a middle-of-the-road American university, or Beijing University (China's top university), the majority would choose Beijing University...again, because it is more famous, even if its programs wouldn't be as good as the ones in the American school.

Then there's the whole status that derives from being able to study/live overseas...there is still only a tiny fraction of Chinese who have such an opportunity, and it does yield them greater status and opportunity.

And then there are the political issues...Chinese who study overseas not so much because of the education, but because they will enjoy greater freedom.

All of these are significant factors in Chinese decisions to study overseas...and none of them have anything directly to do with the "quality" of education. So your original question -- rhetorical or not -- was rather inaccurate in it's assumed conclusion.

Yes, in some cases, students may study overseas because foreign education is seen as superior. But there are numerous other reasons that have nothing to do with this particular question.

[wollery]

One area where Chinese students suffer is in postgraduate education, particularly research degrees. In most western countries students can go straight from a bachelor's degree into a PhD program, but in China they have to do a 3 year research master's degree before they can even start a PhD. Some Chinese students choose to start a PhD in a foreign country directly after their bachelor's degree, and almost universally do badly.

The reason (as Wolfman has discussed) is simply that Chinese students aren't taught to think for themselves or be creative, traits which are essential to successful research. That's what the 3 year master's requirement is for in China.

I remember one coffee break at the Observatory the conversation somehow turned to strange mathematical problems and some of the students started writing them up on the board. There were some really complicated problems, but provided they were well defined in terms of the maths required to solve them the students could do them easily, often in their heads faster than I could have done them with a calculator, and we're talking about sums including calculus. However, one problem I put on the board had them stumped for a long time, even though it was a problem I'd always considered fairly trivial, if interesting. The reason they were stumped was because it involved actually identifying the problem itself before creating some maths to solve it. After a lot of discussion a couple of the PhD students figured it out, but even after it was explained some of the master's students were still puzzled. It was simply something that they'd never been exposed to before.

Chinese students are not just unable to think outside the box, most of them have never been within spitting distance of the edges of the box.

[Doubt]

Reminds me of an argument I had in Xian in the mid 90's. The furnace I was working on needed a lot of nitrogen to purge the atmosphere in the furnace if something went wrong in during operations. The plant nitrogen generator had trouble producing enough to meet the demand.

Rather than finding a way to produce more nitrogen the chief engineer decided that our furnace was using more nitrogen than our flow meter indicated. He came up with this because there was a pressure regulator with a gauge after it showing the incoming pressure was higher than what the flow meter was designed for. But we were dropping the pressure in two stages and there was a second regulator and second pressure gauge just a foot away from the first one.

He could have seen this on the prints or just followed the pipe. Instead he picked what he wanted to believe and I had ended up embarrassing him in front of his junior engineers by proving what the pressure really was. He understood gas law well enough but had no practical skills. All book smarts and no ability to troubleshoot a real world problem.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Gaokao is nothing like SAT.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

In Japan every school has its own test but grades and sometimes interviews are also taken into consideration. The problem is that you can only apply to one public school and one private school at a time because they have the tests on the same day. I don't like the fact that you have to take an entrance exam for high school or that you can only apply to one public school at a time.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by wollery

A report on the BBC website says that Chinese students outperformed those in all other countries tested in standardized reading, numeracy and science tests.

All thoughts and comments on this welcome.

Coincidentally (or not) last week they reported a huge increase in myopia in Asian schoolchildren.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17942181

[paiute]

Originally Posted by wollery

A report on the BBC website says that Chinese students outperformed those in all other countries tested in standardized reading, numeracy and science tests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17585201

All thoughts and comments on this welcome.

Do they test every kid or just the ones not diverted to shop classes?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by paiute

Do they test every kid or just the ones not diverted to shop classes?

That was my first question, so I looked it up. They take volunteer schools and apply consistent selection criteria across the whole of the 15 year old age group based on as much information as they can get their hands on. Exactly what the selection criteria are I couldn't tell you, but it's the same for every volunteer school in every country.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Coincidentally (or not) last week they reported a huge increase in myopia in Asian schoolchildren.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17942181

I don't think this is your standardized math test that everyone's thinking it is. Sample questions and answers.....

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/10/38709418.pdf

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

As mentioned above, the fact that Chinese students seek to study overseas isn't 'proof' one way or the other of the superiority of the Chinese system (after all, there are plenty of Canadian, American, British and others who likewise seek to study overseas...because a particular university is famous for a particular field, because they want to learn another culture, etc. It is not implicitly "because their education system is better").

And in addition, like you said here, a lot of it is about 'status'. Chinese don't just seek 'foreign universities'...they seek 'famous universities'. The status/fame of the school is often a more important consideration to them than the actual quality of the education.

For example, if they have a choice of studying at Harvard, but in a major that is not one of Harvard's specialties...and where other, less famous universities may offer a better program...the Chinese students would almost universally choose Harvard. Likewise, if they had the opportunity to go to a middle-of-the-road American university, or Beijing University (China's top university), the majority would choose Beijing University...again, because it is more famous, even if its programs wouldn't be as good as the ones in the American school.

Then there's the whole status that derives from being able to study/live overseas...there is still only a tiny fraction of Chinese who have such an opportunity, and it does yield them greater status and opportunity.

And then there are the political issues...Chinese who study overseas not so much because of the education, but because they will enjoy greater freedom.

All of these are significant factors in Chinese decisions to study overseas...and none of them have anything directly to do with the "quality" of education. So your original question -- rhetorical or not -- was rather inaccurate in it's assumed conclusion.

Yes, in some cases, students may study overseas because foreign education is seen as superior. But there are numerous other reasons that have nothing to do with this particular question.

Quote:

So your original question -- rhetorical or not -- was rather inaccurate in it's assumed conclusion.

I've asked you before to please stop lying about what *my* conclusions are in my own posts. And you have refused every time.

The fact that you continue to employ such patently fraudulent tactics, leads me to conclude that the rest of what you post can no longer be accepted at face value.

[paiute]

Originally Posted by wollery

That was my first question, so I looked it up. They take volunteer schools and apply consistent selection criteria across the whole of the 15 year old age group based on as much information as they can get their hands on. Exactly what the selection criteria are I couldn't tell you, but it's the same for every volunteer school in every country.

What is a volunteer school?

[wollery]

Originally Posted by paiute

What is a volunteer school?

A school that volunteers to take part in the testing.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

crimresearch: "iI've asked you before to please stop lying about what *my* conclusions are in my own posts...The fact that you continue to employ such patently fraudulent tactics, leads me to conclude that the rest of what you post can no longer be accepted at face value."

There's a lot of that going around.

[Dr. Trintignant]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Which is why Chinese tend to excel in math, or other subjects like that.

Is this even true? I don't see that a Chinese has ever won a Fields Medal (the closest thing to a Nobel Prize for math). The US, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and others are all well-represented.

Maybe the Chinese system is good at producing accountants or actuaries. But the top levels of math require a great deal of creativity and independent thought.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant

Is this even true? I don't see that a Chinese has ever won a Fields Medal (the closest thing to a Nobel Prize for math). The US, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and others are all well-represented.

Maybe the Chinese system is good at producing accountants or actuaries. But the top levels of math require a great deal of creativity and independent thought.

We are talking mainly about the average ability of school age students.

A large proportion of Chinese students can do mental arithmetic that western students of a similar age would need to write down longhand and plug through a calculator. The average Chinese 15 year old outperforms the average American 15 year old in Maths by a pretty large margin. The average American maths PhD student outperforms the average Chinese Maths PhD student, but the Chinese postgrads are catching up.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

I've asked you before to please stop lying about what *my* conclusions are in my own posts. And you have refused every time.

The fact that you continue to employ such patently fraudulent tactics, leads me to conclude that the rest of what you post can no longer be accepted at face value.

Dude, I seriously don't know what your problem is.

Once again -- here is your exact quote:

Quote:

So if it's the best, why does China spend millions and millions getting their students *out* of their school system and into Western universities?

You later state that this is a rhetorical question -- meaning that no answer is required, that you've already reached your conclusion. That the fact "China spends millions and millions getting their students *out* of their school system and into Western universities" demonstrates that their education system is not best.

All that I did was demonstrate that there are plenty of reasons why Chinese students go to Western universities, that have nothing to do with "which system is best".

Seriously...all someone has to do is demonstrate the slightest disagreement with you, and every single time you take it as some sort of massive personal attack. Your conclusion is written right there in your very first sentence. I've responded directly to that conclusion, demonstrating with concrete arguments and examples, that this conclusion is inaccurate.

If you disagree, then either A) demonstrate that your conclusion was not the actual conclusion that, to every rational appearance, it appears to have been, or B) demonstrate that the arguments I presented are false. But stop the nonsense that every time someone actually has the audacity to disagree with you, or worse, present actual arguments to demonstrate that you were were wrong, turning it into some sort of personal attack. People are going to disagree with you, and you're just going to have to deal with that.

Furthermore -- as with every previous case -- I am providing direct, unedited quotes of your exact comments. If my interpretation of those comments is wrong, then explain how they are wrong. If "So if it's the best, why does China spend millions and millions getting their students *out* of their school system and into Western universities" isn't intended as an argument that this proves China's system isn't the best, then what the hell is this "rhetorical question" supposed to mean?!?

Quite frankly, not only in our disagreements, but in others that I've witnessed where people have the audacity to disagree with you, this seems to be your primary tactic. You make a claim, then when someone disagrees and demonstrates it is erroneous, you take it as a personal attack, and try to claim "I never said that"...despite the very obvious proof, provided in direct quotes, that this is exactly what you said.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant

Is this even true? I don't see that a Chinese has ever won a Fields Medal (the closest thing to a Nobel Prize for math). The US, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and others are all well-represented.

Maybe the Chinese system is good at producing accountants or actuaries. But the top levels of math require a great deal of creativity and independent thought.

Originally Posted by wollery

We are talking mainly about the average ability of school age students.

A large proportion of Chinese students can do mental arithmetic that western students of a similar age would need to write down longhand and plug through a calculator. The average Chinese 15 year old outperforms the average American 15 year old in Maths by a pretty large margin. The average American maths PhD student outperforms the average Chinese Maths PhD student, but the Chinese postgrads are catching up.

To add to this, I think this reinforces my arguments above. There are far more Chinese students who'd be able to understand existing mathematical theories and formulas...as wollery says, take Chinese and western students at similar levels of education, and the Chinese will generally be able to understand and do the required mathematics much more easily than the westerner.

But coming up with new theories, or new applications of math -- that requires creativity and innovative thinking. And that is the area where, as mentioned above, Chinese tend to be lacking.

[Dr. Trintignant]

Originally Posted by wollery

We are talking mainly about the average ability of school age students.

A large proportion of Chinese students can do mental arithmetic that western students of a similar age would need to write down longhand and plug through a calculator. The average Chinese 15 year old outperforms the average American 15 year old in Maths by a pretty large margin. The average American maths PhD student outperforms the average Chinese Maths PhD student, but the Chinese postgrads are catching up.

Well, actually we're talking about the tradeoff between hard metrics like the ability to perform arithmetic on a test vs. less tangible but just as important things such as flexibility of thought. I'm sure the 15 year old Chinese student is better at memorizing formulas than the American. But the American may already be far ahead in creativity. Or--more likely--the majority of American students are in fact worse off, and will remain that way, but the relatively small percentage that really love math and will need to use it are not ruined by the system they way they are in China.

Obviously, only a small number of people ever win something like a Fields Medal. I don't believe that China has a lower rate of people born to love math. But I can believe that they get mostly left alone or encouraged to move on to deeper principles in America, whereas in China they essentially must conform or die.

Anyway, I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement between us (or Wolfman for that matter). I'm basically just pointing out that "good at math" means different things to different people, and for me personally, "math" has almost nothing to do with being good at arithmetic or memorizing integration tables. Instead, it requires (for the more engineering types) creativity in application, or (for the mathy types) imagination and an abstract mode of thought. Neither attitude is encouraged by rote memorization; indeed it makes the entire subject a waste of time.

[paiute]

Originally Posted by wollery

A school that volunteers to take part in the testing.

Doesn't that method of sampling make the statistics questionable?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant

Anyway, I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement between us (or Wolfman for that matter). I'm basically just pointing out that "good at math" means different things to different people, and for me personally, "math" has almost nothing to do with being good at arithmetic or memorizing integration tables. Instead, it requires (for the more engineering types) creativity in application, or (for the mathy types) imagination and an abstract mode of thought. Neither attitude is encouraged by rote memorization; indeed it makes the entire subject a waste of time.

Agreed The ability to do rote memorization can be, initially, an advantage...people can learn basic formulas and theories more rapidly. But once one has passed the point of learning basic theory, and starting to apply that theory (or develop new ones), then creativity, innovation, and lateral thinking are far more valuable skills. Chinese education essentially builds a strong foundation...but then fails to do anything with it.

I've argued here and elsewhere that the Chinese goal of equaling or exceeding American success internationally will be impossible until they make fundamental changes to their education system, particularly to encourage and develop independent, creative thinkers.

[Wolfman]

There are also some arguments that Chinese are better at math not because of their education, but because of the way our respective languages handle numbers. In Chinese, numbers are written and spoken in a far more 'rational' manner, one that is much more conducive to mathematics.

In Chinese, numbers are written in a very logical manner. There are characters for the numbers 0-9, then a character for ten, for hundred, for thousand, and for ten thousand. Whereas in the English numbering system, we only have characters for the numbers 0-9...and then start repeating them to show larger numbers.

"Twenty" is written with the characters for two and ten...meaning two tens. "Twenty-five" is written with the characters for two, ten, and five (two tens plus five). This system continues into the hundreds, thousands, etc.

So the Chinese representation of five thousand, six hundred and seventy eight would thus be written with the characters for five, thousand, six, hundred, seven, ten, and eight. A number of studies have indicated that this system of numbering makes mathematics much more intuitive.

Consider. In English, we'd add "twenty two plus fifty three". Now, in written form, this is no problem...add the two and the three in the ones column, then add the two and the five in the tens column, to get seventy-five. But in spoken language, it's not so easy...we have to mentally 'translate' the spoken word "twenty two" into the numerical representation. This process, according to various studies, slows and complicates the process of understanding and applying math, especially where word problems are used, instead of written digits. In English, we are taught to 'translate' the word problem into digits in order to perform the necessary mathematical functions.

But in Chinese, the way it is written is exactly the same way it is spoken. There is no need to 'translate' from the spoken form to the written form. Tons of tests have indicated that when given word problems, Chinese consistently perform them much faster and more easily.

If you're having problems understanding the difference (for those raised in the English language system of numbering, it can be difficult to understand), think of it this way. Instead of reading the number 22 as "twenty-two", we read it as "two tens two", and the number "53" as "five tens three". Then, when asked to add them, we get "seven tens five". The spoken and written representations are identical, making addition (or other mathematical functions) much more intuitive.

I'm probably doing a crappy job of explaining this (I personally hate math)...but I'm sure those who are interested could google up far better explanations.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by paiute

Doesn't that method of sampling make the statistics questionable?

Less questionable than others. The sampling has to be at least 5,000 students for PISA to count it. In countries where there aren't 5,000 fifteen year olds? You have to test your entire age group - every one of them - to have your results calculated.

In Hong Kong and Singapore (the previous two traditional leaders in most of these surveys), they test the entire fifteen year old population of all schools. Would it be possible to just select the best 5000 kids? Yes. But the best 5000 is a pretty large sampling. It'd be pretty hard to assure that you got 5000 math geniuses in a city-state the size of Singapore (with only 3 million population). If the school system isn't working, the lower 98 percentile is not going to score that well.

It should also be noted from the sample questions I linked to above that the PISA questions tend more towards word problems that you have to work through to discern the mathematical principals or formulae that you need to apply. This, as Wollery noted, is the sort of problem the Chinese do not normally excel at. Yet, they're now able to handle this sort of stuff better than anyone else.

One POSSIBLE statistical anomaly.... I do not know the size of the testing group from Shanghai. Shanghai, though, is quite likely the most populous city in the world. Must be about 25 million. It'd be possible in a population of that size to come up with 5000 elite students. Less so in the rural and remote districts, and while China won't let them publish all the results, the PISA people say that the scores in those distant regions are nearly as good.

The interesting aspect about Shanghai being the top city is that they are noted for having revamped their educational system over the last two decades, and for having relaxed some of the traditional rote work and trying "different" (read: outside or foreign - they just don't like to say it) teaching methods.

[wollery]

There are certainly some changes happening in the Chinese education system. For instance, a few years ago they started teaching spoken English, although the quality of the teaching is dependent on where the school is. It has been noticeable over the last few years, however, that younger students coming for interview are, on average, better at spoken English than the older students already doing postgrad courses.

[TriangleMan]

I know that the PISA test was based on understanding and application rather than rote memorization (because who's to know what kids in Country A memorized verses Country B) but the results are still fairly consistent in that East Asian countries score well on the tests. I don't think it can purely be attributed to rote memorization. I was a bit skeptical of the Shanghai scores when the PISA results came out, because it is one of the elite cities of the country so probably has some of the best schools, but I was pleased to hear that throughout China the scores are broadly good.

Finland also scores very well on PISA, usually in the top five in each of the categories. I haven't looked at the literature myself but I am willing to bet that there've now been plenty of studies into the "secret" as to why Finland has scored consistently well on PISA. Perhaps the same factors are also behind Chinese success.

[Montag451]

Originally Posted by Beerina

This stat overrides all others put together: family emphasis on learning.

I stopped caring about the arguments about vouchers or school spending because it was nitpicking compared to the real variable.

A kid whose parents care does better in a crappy school than does a kid whose parent's don't in an awesome school.

Chinese families care. US families, lip service aside, don't. There's your answer.

Indeed, it's criminal the debate is shifted into the results-irrelevancy of public teacher dollars (both sides assume this has an impact, and want to divert dollars to "their" teachers, when it has little impact if the parents don't care.)

Totally agree, over 20 years teaching, 13 in a really tough ex secondary modern.

Supportive parents is the absolute defining factor for the quality of the kid. I've known dirt poor parents who put their lives into their kids improving their own life chances. Most of the time they end up successful. The sort of kids who are the first in the family to go to university.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

The thing I personally hate most in China's education system is the "gaokao"...the state exam to enter university. China has one national exam for all universities, which all students seeking to enter college or university must pass. Students are then assigned to universities based on their results.

Does it also assign students to specific majors? I spoke with a few students at the University of Shanghai a couple of years ago and they implied that this was the case. I asked one young lady, "If you take a class in geology and like it, can you change your major to geology?" This seemed to be a foreign concept to her. Later she returned and told me that a student who is in the top 5% of their class could change majors if they wanted to. That seemed backwards to me. It should be the bottom 5% should be able to change. I didn't tell her that because the initial question seemed to bother her.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Does it also assign students to specific majors? I spoke with a few students at the University of Shanghai a couple of years ago and they implied that this was the case. I asked one young lady, "If you take a class in geology and like it, can you change your major to geology?" This seemed to be a foreign concept to her. Later she returned and told me that a student who is in the top 5% of their class could change majors if they wanted to. That seemed backwards to me. It should be the bottom 5% should be able to change. I didn't tell her that because the initial question seemed to bother her.

Most students study what their parents tell them to study, and to such students changing majors would be a completely alien concept because it would be effectively disobeying their parents. More parents these days would let their children decide which major, but they'd still insist on having a say and vetoing any choice they saw as wrong. My wife originally wanted to study law, but her father told her to study English as he thought it would be more useful. So she did, and look where that got her!

I just asked my brother-in-law about the gaokao and he told me that if you get a good enough grade you can pick any university or major you want, but if your score is low then your choice of university and major is limited. There's no direct assignment of major.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Does it also assign students to specific majors? I spoke with a few students at the University of Shanghai a couple of years ago and they implied that this was the case. I asked one young lady, "If you take a class in geology and like it, can you change your major to geology?" This seemed to be a foreign concept to her. Later she returned and told me that a student who is in the top 5% of their class could change majors if they wanted to. That seemed backwards to me. It should be the bottom 5% should be able to change. I didn't tell her that because the initial question seemed to bother her.

Originally Posted by wollery

I just asked my brother-in-law about the gaokao and he told me that if you get a good enough grade you can pick any university or major you want, but if your score is low then your choice of university and major is limited. There's no direct assignment of major.

Just some clarification on the process. When students do the gaokao, they indicate which university and major they want to enter (usually get a choice of up to three universities/majors). If their grades on the gaokao qualify them for those particular universities and majors, then they get in. However, if their grades aren't good enough, they may end up being assigned to a university or major in which they have no interest.

Quote:

Most students study what their parents tell them to study, and to such students changing majors would be a completely alien concept because it would be effectively disobeying their parents. More parents these days would let their children decide which major, but they'd still insist on having a say and vetoing any choice they saw as wrong. My wife originally wanted to study law, but her father told her to study English as he thought it would be more useful. So she did, and look where that got her!

Yup, parents are the driving force in such decisions. Even when students are studying overseas (where they have complete freedom to choose their university or major), the decision is usually made by the parents. The three predominant criteria for these decisions tend to be:

1) Status -- it is a career that gives a lot of status, makes you important. People focusing on this tend to go for government careers, or doctors.

2) Money -- can get high salaries. People focusing on this tend to go into business, or law.

3) Stability -- the chosen career offers relative long-term employment stability. People focusing on this tend to go for accountancy, teaching, or government jobs.

Obviously, there is often overlap between some of these categories (ie. gov't jobs offer status and stability, but not that much money, at least not initially). But majors that don't fit any of those categories tend to be quite adamantly opposed by parents (thus the arts in general tend to be viewed with distrust).

The one other almost universal issue is that Chinese parents expect their children to be more successful than them. Regardless of the parents' economic or social status (peasant, factory laborer, office worker, government official, businessman, doctor, etc.), they expect their children to exceed them. Pressure on children in this regard is quite strong, but as mentioned previously, is also probably one of the most significant factors in the accomplishments of these students.