Imagine, your entire life coming down to one moment- your teenage self with a few hours of classroom solitude, nothing in hand but a pencil and that fateful scantron. For South Korea’s young adults, the reality of college entrance exams is one exemplified by sweaty palms and mind numbing anxiety.
“Every year the country comes to a halt on the day of the exams, for it is the most important day in most South Koreans’ lives... Those who score well can enter one of Korea’s best universities, which has traditionally guaranteed them a job-for-life as a high-flying bureaucrat or desk warrior at a chaebol (conglomerate). Those who score poorly are doomed to attend a lesser university, or no university at all… Ticking a few wrong boxes, then, may mean that they are permanently locked out of the upper tier of Korean society.”
Sure, the SAT, GRE, and GMAT can draw some parallels, but at the end of the day, Americans have a second chance. For one, we can restudy and retake our exams, a luxury that Koreans do not have. Similarly, our students have GPA’s, class ranks, extracurricular, interviews, and college essays which sometimes play an equal weight in determining which college or business school we attend.
Do not get me wrong, I think the Korean system is a good thing. In fact, this system has worked out remarkably well for Korea’s economic miracle:
It is meritocratic: poor but clever Koreans can rise to the top by studying very, very hard. The exam’s importance prompts children to pay attention in class and parents to hound them about their homework; and that, in turn, ensures that Korea’s educational results are the envy of the world. The country is pretty much the leading nation in the scoring system run by the OECD.
So what do you say monkeys, do we take away all the nonsense in a college application and bring it all down to one day? Would American’s benefit from a similar korean system, or would we just shrivel up in the face of its demands?
Full Article: www.economist.com/node/21541713
It's a terrible way to accept students and groom tomorrow's future leaders. The main problem with this system is not so much the use of a national entrance exam but rather the fact that your entire professional future is determined by what college you went to. The great thing about America is that we are a nation of second chances and seemingly limitless opportunities. One can go to a mediocre college or no college at all for that matter and still achieve greatness through talent, hard work, and luck. We are a nation that fosters creativity while South Korea only fosters rigid groupthink.
On the other hand, however, I do have some issues with elite college admissions in the U.S., with its blatant favoritism towards legacies and the use of an affirmative action system that actually does not help the truly disadvantaged.
It's not just Korea - this is a similar phenomenon in other parts of Asia. China also operates the same way - there's one big exam that more or less determines whether a student can go to the top universities in the country.
While I'm impressed with how Asian and Indian parents have been able to bring up a seemingly unproportional number of overachieving students, I don't agree with the pure-academics focused approach of Asian countries. As we've seen, there have been a number of people who are high school or college dropouts who have become much more successful than your average colleague graduate. Academics is important, but it's only one component that determines one's "intellect" or potential. Exams don't help determine one's leadership capabilities or ability to think outside the box.
Also, someone can have an off day. If someone has an off day on the day of the exam and screw up... are you serious in telling me that one day determines their life story? There have been documentaries on kids crushed by the weight of stress from their parents, teachers, what they've been told by society and their own fears under such systems.
I agree with the posts above.
To enter a "prestigious" High school, you must take a entrance exam as well. I went through that experience and I can say that it is a stupid system (Even though I got in). All your time is wasted on studying for one exam instead of spending time on what truly interests/educates you.
foster the brain kill the personality
While no one can argue with the test scores and basic knowledge base this style of system has yielded, I do not believe it is the ideal for creating leadership nor innovation. Rather it is a great for developing an effective and efficient workforce - great at following orders.
Intelligence is multidimensional. A system this rigid prevents those who might have less "book smart" intelligence but are nature leaders, emotionally mature, creative ect. from rising up the ranks. Countless American's that have become transformative leaders and innovators were not top tier students. Additionally, countless leaders and innovators were emotional immature as youth and developed their talents beyond their formative years.
American's well rounded and second chance system will continue to lead worldwide innovation until these nations develop a more holistic system of developing their youth and talent.
leveradarb - of course there will always be some high school or college drop outs that outperform college students, but I'm just saying that the ones we've known to be quite successful (e.g., Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, etc) - by the system dictated in some Asian countries, they may not be deemed 'smart enough' to achieve what they have achieved.
My point is, academics isn't the be all end all deciding factor of future leaders or 'how capable' someone is. I was the type that got 95%+ averages too and used to believe scores should determine one's intelligence and success. But really, that's not always the case.
The second thing I wanted to point out is that the Asian education system doesn't allow for second chances (as Brady pointed), but it also doesn't factor in late bloomers. In Asia, you need to get into a strong pre-school, to get into a prestigious elementary school, which with strong testing determines your entry into a brand name middle and high school and finally a top university.
Anyway, I can appreciate the Asian education system in a sense they try to make meritocracy the prime determinant in one's occupation. And the easiest way to make something objective is in the form of a test. But as we know, exams can't tell everything. There should be a good mix of various criteria.
South Korea's system is moronic. Instead of those kids using there spare time to learn how to program or working, they are studying for an exam that becomes useless the second the put their pencils down. What a waste of resources.
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html
[quote=couchy]http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html[/quote]
Rejected for being "short with big ears". Wtf? This is the most ridiculous comment I have ever read.
Koreans also have a second chance. They can retake the test if they don't do well the first time. This exam is all memorizing, so if you study enough, you'll do well.
Don't you have to wait a year to take the next exam?
Exactly. I think the korean system is actually more fair. You will get top scores if you study hard, and every student can study. Some have more resources than others but the exams are designed so that you can pass even without special tutors etc. It basically measures how hard you study topics someone asks you to.
But not every kid/school can afford an amazing story to write about for the essay portion. Not every school has money to send kids to compete in certain competitions, or pay membership dues for students in national high school societies, or pay for dual enrollment programs, or support varsity sports teams.
Sure high test scores aren't indicators for leadership, innovation, creativity, etc. But are you really looking for that in a high school student? I can understand leadership being more important when you are looking at 20 year old college students, but highschool students? dude, we all know leadership while in HS is 90% BS and just part of the admissions game.
I agree with a lot of this, which is why I'm not entirely satisfied with the current college admissions process. Hypothetically, if I were the dean of admissions at harvard college and had complete control, I would dramatically lower the acceptance rate of legacies and require higher scores for recruited athletes. I would also get rid of any sort of preferential treatment based strictly on one's race. I find it morally egregious that a black son of surgeons has an advantage over a poor white kid growing up in rural west virginia or a poor asian kid in k-town los angeles.
Having said that, elite colleges have gotten a lot better in this regard. The admissions officers have been actively scouting for talented students in rural towns and inner cities. And the generous financial aid package offered by ivy league schools make it possible for poor students to attend.
let's see what's more fair: take an even playing ground winner takes all one-day exam, or having the US system where idiotic sons of rich parents can have their college essays professionally ghostwritten, they can get expensive shrinks to diagnose them with bullshit learning disorders so they get double time on exams, having tutors do their homework and reports for them, all so they have free time to do a bunch of bullshit extracurriculars so they can get into HYP (i guess they can go to stanford if they fuck it up).
This is an interesting topic to discuss about. I always had an issue whenever Obama praised the Korean style educational system. I think I can shed some light on this issue. The discussions above only highlights whether or not a single system is better or a multidimensional evaluation system is better. But the real issue is the process a student goes through to take the exam. I am in the office right now, so I'll write in much detail about this one.
Interesting topic / discussion...
What I find unsettling about the Korean system isn't it's egalitarian / meritocratic college entrance exam, rather what happens afterwards... i.e. the choice between being a "... high-flying bureaucrat or desk warrior at a chaebol (conglomerate)..." or being "... permanently locked out of the upper tier of Korean society.”
Should social mobility, class and your "position" in society be limited to one measure? Performance on a standardised exam in your teens... If it is true that the government and conglomerates dominate Korean society this way it's a scary thought.
Furthermore, should access to higher education be limited to those who perform well on the day, or would university/college life suffer from not having those who could enrich the environment in other ways (athletes, students of the arts, etc..)? On the other hand a standardised exam would mean more mixing of the social classes and different groups as they would all attend the same schools.
Maybe college admissions in Korea and the US simply mirror the two very different societies in terms of their economic systems, the relative importance of certain values (status, class, diversity, conformity, egalitarianism, meritocracy, etc...) and relative influence of powerful actors / groups in society
The SK way of doing things would be nice, except for the fact that some people are not great test takers and since this one test is the arbitrator of value, those kids would be fucked. In the US, even if you went a normal high school and had a lower income upbringing you can still go to a good state school and work hard to be a success.
I see no reason to place life altering stress on a kid for years up until this one make or break test. Studying is very important and I think the US could place more emphasis on it, but kids need to do more than prep for a test that has little relevance afterwards.
IMO, the USA could close the gap if we would just eliminate the summer break. It is antiquated and was only relevant when farming was a major aspect of American society. Have kids go year round with a couple of two week breaks here and there.
But if they knew they sucked at taking tests, and they also knew all that mattered was the test, then they aren't fucked. IMO fair doesn't mean equal shot for every kid, fair just means a reasonable shot. In this situation, the kid would have to admit he sucks at tests and then study his ass off to get better at it.
Practice makes perfect, and it makes sense that the kids who work the hardest deserve a spot at the best schools. (big fan of malcom gladwell here if you can't tell)
Ya, studying isn't the most important skill in the end but i think when you are just a highschool student, that's really all you have going for yourself. Ok, you could be more mature with some good life experience learning how to deal with greedy landlords or actually understand how politics affects you, but in my eyes, those take a certain level of maturity to really understand. Life in highschool is too sheltered and simple, and thats ok because highschoolers are too young.
I understand the argument of other types of intelligence. But I don't think you should capture those in subjective things like an essay or interview. Art schools ask you to submit a portfolio of your artwork, so if you want to demonstrate leadership, a 'portfolio' of well documented leadership would be better (youtube view counts for film, receipt of $$ fund-raised, . Not an essay.
But even with a portfolio, its not fair for poor kids. I had an extremely unfair advantage over other kids from other schools because of certain unique programs my school offered. Did I deserve these better than other kids? not really, i was just born in the right town at the right time. I did so much crazy shit in highschool other kids couldn't get because I was from a very rich town. studying, however, is something every kid can do fairly without prejudice .
referencing gladwell here again but he mentions how the intelligence gap between rich kids and lowerclass kids is due to rich kids being able to pay for good summer programs. Collectively over several years, this makes a huge difference. Makes sense, you can learn a lot in 3 months of completely free time.
Honestly, the entrance exam is a huge deal, but it's not the only way to get into top colleges in Korea.
They have programs that are equivalent to early decision/early action in the States called 수시 (sooshi) that doesn't actually involve taking the exam.
Rather they look at your high school achievements and interview you, much like American universities.
Korean is actually a bad example when one looks at the "Asian" education. Study Singapore and see how it combines the rigorous curriculum of the East and creativity of the West. They basically take the British A-Level system, multiply it three times harder, throw in varieties of ECAs to help students deal with stress. The downside? The hours are probably worse than IBanking. But it also keeps the students away from drugs and alcohol.
I seriously do not understand the "I'm not a good test-taker" argument. How can people not be good test takers? Especially something like this that is all memorization?
Personally, I think a test like this (or SAT/GMAT) is a better measure of intelligence and potential to succeed than completely subjective GPA's which are inflated either by institutions or by "gaming" the professor into giving you a better grade.
I think GPA is an almost worthless statistic in the grand scheme of things. It discourages (in my opinion) learning for the sake of learning, interesting open-ended class discussion, etc. so that people can focus on how to get an A+ on the exam rather than learning WHY things are the way they are or WHY this or that is the proper way to solve a problem.
fuck conventional grades. one exam at the end of the semester that determines your entire grade. i had plenty of courses that were graded like this. it's fair. and it encourages learning and discipline. ditto with entrance exams. SATs are just a lazy solution to more apps coming in. every school should administer its own entrance exams, maybe with satellite sites. you make it, you are in. if not, all your sailing lessons and legacy status won't save you.
The thing with having a standardized entrance exam to get into college is that your life direction is determined solely on how well you do on that exam. That means your life direction is determined by the decisions your teenage self makes. While I believe a standardized entrance exam is a good means in producing intelligent, hardworking individuals, it doesn't allow for the Einsteins who were mediocre during secondary school but flourished in university.
I'm sure Einstein was a good test-taker. His GPA may have sucked but I am damn sure he wouldn't flunk one of these standardized tests.
The nature of these tests (IMO) is intuitive intelligence (while studying can boost the expected grade).
einstein's GPA was actually excellent. it was a 1-6 system and 1 was the A. he got all 1s. somehow this was misreported in the histories by anglophone writers who didn't understand the german/swiss gymnasium system.
Einstein was a gymnast?
you americans are hilarious
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the simple fact that Korean kids hate their lives? They spend all their time from age 5 upwards studying. What a fucking waste of the best years of their lives...
Who cares if their school system results in a highly educated population which is good for economic growth. What's the point of economic growth if your imprisoned during best years of life?
Last I checked, success in America, and in real life in general, has nothing to do with one's cerebral capacity. Aka, HYPS isn't a farm dishing out millionaire's with every degree they hand out.
In Korea, they seem to believe this is true. However, I think, the only REAL advantage Korea has over the "American" education is it's production of students who are genuinely interested in engineering and tech. They don't let math wiz's major in fucking Art History and other bullshit humanities majors.
I have a bunch of Chinese friends who have told me horror stories about the high school and college entrance exams. That being said, anything is better than the American admissions system based on bullshit criteria such as race, legacy, sports, 'volunteering' at soup kitchen, student council group masturbation sessions, etc. A country that makes these things its top criteria is just gonna get raped in the long run by countries that value actual intelligence like CH and SK.
Surprised no one brings this up:
The international measuring systems are based on exams. If the Asians spend all their times studying to take standardized exams, it makes sense that they'd do better, but is not necessarily a reflection of greater "intelligence"? Just a thought.
In any case, i think there is a happy medium between our joke system and Korea's joke system, but its hard to settle at mediums...
These systems suck, think about it this way, this is a lot less meritocratic than the US is. Think about it this way all the lateral movement that occurs if you're good. Asia on the whole has not of late been nearly as inventive as we are. The Honor/Shame culture eschews failure hence risk taking. We in America fail frequently, but we fail forward. When you look at countries that turn out the most research, patents etc. it isn't Asian nations, but rather the US
And how many Chinese, Koreans, Indians and other assorted immigrants do you see in American engineering universities? They are all products of similar systems.
American education system is better as a whole but unfair to individuals. The Asian education systems are fairer to the individual but suck as a whole.
On what basis to you decide that they suck as a whole? In case you haven't noticed, for decades Japan has been a major innovator and was until recently the world's second largest economy. SK is also shooting up. China has made an incredible leap from abject poverty to relative prosperity in the past 30 years, and while most of that has to do with their cheap manufacturing base, once they are done reverse-engineering western tech I imagine they are going to put their armies of eggheads to work making new technologies.
Americans should travel more and see the world
No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just get your Maths up to par.
My take is that if you can find a way to get America' s education on par in terms of Maths and Sciences at the pre-University level, the US system should be able to adapt and possibly exceed most others.
Here's Jim Simons (the Hedge Fund legend and Maths Phd) as he talks about maths and competing in an economy based on maths and science
The entire system doesn't need to be made to conform to one final exam or student type. Just make it a basic requirement to achieve a certain level in Maths (a standardised test that can be retaken) for any American that graduates from high school / wants to go to a public university. Whether they want to study history, philosophy or engineering. It also doesn't mean you have to disregard all other important parts of the system (flexibility / creativity / diversity of thought).
It will take quite a bit of money and significant changes to get teachers (and retain them once they are educated enough) and the system up to the required level, but at least you'll have a measure.
If all of your undergraduates have a solid base in maths by design, they'll be well placed for any of the natural sciences, as well as engineering, CS, economics, finance, etc... If they decide to study the classics instead, at least you know that they have the basic maths skills to deal with information in the workplace and if they need to study something more practical in the future or get a professional qualification.
Literature, history, philosophy, art, politics, etc... are all part of your culture and your society and should be available to your undergraduates regardless of whether large corporations or the market has an immediate utility for them as workers / inputs to the production process. GDP doesn't measure everything that matters.
The reason so many high performing maths / science graduates from Asia / Russia come to the US is not only a function of their education systems, but also of the opportunity that the US system creates post-university; a system based on your unique history, politics, economics and philosophies.
I strongly disagree with Jim Simons's view that poor American schools are to blame. While I despise teachers’ unions, I do not think that they are responsible for the problem.
I don't believe it really matters if every student has a laptop installed at their desk or a Harvard-trained instructor. While these things may facilitate a student’ understanding of a subject, it’s only small, incremental changes. The primarily determinant of whether a student excels is whether he is motivated to succeed. Learning STEM material is a sustained, purposeful activity. Most American students just don’t have the motivation for this. This is why there is absolutely zero correlation between money spent on education and the end product. A student’s success depends on his motivation to learn, which in turn depends on his environment (how he was raised and his immediate society).
Unfortunately, no one (especially a politician seeking election) is going to get up to a pulpit and say such things. Since we live in a representative democracy, this trend will continue, and US aggregate smarts in maths/sciences will get worse (while we borrow more from the Chinese to gorge our precious teacher unions and buy union-made fancy school buildings).
To bring this back to the main topic of the thread, schools in China have nowhere near the money we do, but they run circles around us precisely because their students’ priorities are the polar opposite of ours (they value intelligence, nerds are not bullied, and social networking is not a primary activity). And this is why I fear America is screwed in the long run.
LMAO with the "Einstein the gymnast" post
Haha. Great Thead. I can emphathise with most people who've been through this kind of a system (I'm from India).
I cleared one of these entrance exams and got an admit to India's Best Private Science & Tech University (BITS Pilani). It is whispered in the same breath as IIT. The selectivity rate was insane, something around 1%. Got a double degree - Electrical Engineering + Economics. Sweet deal it was, 2 degrees in 4 years.
Our futures depended on how we performed on a set of grueling entrances tests. So yes, if you screwed up those 3 hours, you blew away all that you once stood a chance to have. This kind of pressure leads to suicides, what not... It is pretty pathetic. I definitely disapprove of this kind a system - the kids turn to slaves of their books. But what are the other feasible alternatives to screen millions of students to an elite university system whose strength is ~4000?
However, the products of these systems have done really well. Some of my classmates are going to Stanford, MIT, ETH Zurich for their Technical Masters. They have jobs with Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Texas Instruments. The Finance/Consulting recruiting works differently here, they hire Analysts from MBA Programs which admit people without work experience. So there are no Fin/Con offers for the best and brightest at UG level (there are some exceptions at the IITs though, but that number would be around ~20). Rajat Gupta, the tainted McK MD was a product of that system. Anshu Jain, CEO Deutsche Bank too. And so are many more on Wall Street/Silicon Valley who had their initial education in India.
On the other hand, I also observed some correlation of academic excellence with overall excellence - we had great actors, musicians, sportspeople come into our batch too.
Engineering in India is like extended high school for kids who are good at acads. They buy some time to figure out what they want to do with their lives. It is an insurance policy of sorts that they'll never have to worry about their basic needs - that the paycheque will always take care of. As a result, there're some outliers such as
Musician Rahul Ram IIT Civil Engg>PhD Envt Engg Cornell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Ram, Writer Dilip DSouza holds a Masters' in Computer Science from Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilip_D%27Souza Sportsperson VVS Laxman was supposed to be a doctor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVS_Laxman Filmmaker Naagesh Kukunoor Indian Engineering> Masters in Computer Science at GATech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagesh_Kukunoor
Not exactly for I banks unless youre talking about Ross, but the graduate programs are highly ranked and the quality of students has nothing to do with whether or not I banks recruit from the chemistry department or med school haha
I wasn't talking about (and wouldn't know about) ibank recruiting, I was talking about the research (in the life sciences, I should clarify, which is what I am familiar with).
I dont think they're called targets and umich is hella involved in research
My undergrad state school was also 'hella involved in reserach', and had lots of American grad students and postdocs, but that didn't put it near the first tier of research institutions (Caltech, Scrips, Stanford, UCSF, MIT, Harvard, Yale, maybe Duke).
Most Australian Universities follow a similar model to the Asian ones, in that you complete a series of standardized exams throughout the year (about one every fortnight per subject). However each student is able to choose which subjects they do (though English is compulsory), so one student who is really good at arts subjects could get the same score as someone who is really good at science, which offers much more flexibility and allows students to excel at what interests them. For instance I'm studying economics next year (2012) but studied mainly maths and science in High School.
Some Universities also have interview processes, however many of these consist purely of hypothetical situations that gauge how the interviewee thinks, not whether their rowing crew came 1st in the State and there are no preferences given to legacy students at Uni.
Both systems do a lot to negate both the bottleneck effect produced by standardized tests of specific subjects and the 'purchasable prestige' that the American system has created. Whilst it has its flaws, in a sense I think the Australian system is a mix of the American and Asian systems that allows most students to reach theirfull potential.
Alias autem veniam harum tempore. Exercitationem iure in iusto. Nihil quasi numquam soluta adipisci quia qui.
Vel quia molestiae ab tenetur eos assumenda enim. Quae eos itaque in vero. Excepturi autem sapiente repellendus dolorem a. Saepe quam quibusdam architecto ducimus sapiente quas dolor. Sed sit vel corporis qui cum nostrum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Odio dolore sed asperiores vero magni quo rem. Ex recusandae ut sit ut quia necessitatibus qui.
Debitis est id hic atque magni quos sed qui. Sit perspiciatis minus ab et provident eum. Inventore rem qui ut autem voluptatem architecto impedit. Recusandae nihil quo voluptates maxime non. Ut nulla est iure assumenda.
Ex sunt doloribus harum qui amet accusantium saepe. Sint excepturi omnis similique voluptatem voluptatibus totam. Dolore ut eveniet quod architecto. Pariatur perspiciatis iusto consectetur id sed. Voluptas vitae non architecto repellat.
Voluptas perferendis modi quisquam non. Officiis quos deserunt ea quaerat possimus laudantium. Et qui adipisci quidem enim ducimus soluta veritatis.
Quos architecto dolorem assumenda voluptatibus voluptates sint quia aspernatur. Voluptatem sint saepe laudantium quaerat id voluptatem quia.