<p>Read the book, you'll know why Singapore was called a Third World country (It was supportive of USA during cold-war)</p>
<p>"I think the test is the fairest way even though it is tough. Unlike here, your acceptance is greatly depended on the mood of the admission officer."</p>
<p>I agree. The SAT should be more important in US college admissions. If the SAT had a higher ceiling, the more subjective parts of the application would carry less weight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, you must read books pretty fast, because a couple posts ago you claimed ignorance that Singapore's a Third World country:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With a tone of sarcasm. And, read your previous post again. You said, "Singapore was/is a member of NAM," but now you say "it was supportive of USA during cold-war [sic]." </p>
<p>LMAO, which one is it?</p>
<p>So, two contradictions in your posts:</p>
<ol>
<li>You initially claimed that Singapore was NOT Third World, then flip-flopped your position.</li>
<li>You now say that Singapore is Third World because "it was supportive of USA during cold-war [sic]." By your definition, Western Europe would be labeled Third World. NOW do you see the ridiculousness of your definition? :)</li>
</ol>
<p>(Hint: Singapore was in the NAM, which makes it Third World; i.e., not aligned with Communism or West)</p>
<p>this thing sort of makes the SAT look cute and easy</p>
<p>You have a lot of free time.
[quote]
1. You initially claimed that Singapore was NOT Third World, then flip-flopped your position.
[/quote]
Yes, Singapore was Third world, but now is considered first world because it developed economically. You say that non-aligned countries constitute third world; then why was Singapore, a country aligned with US, considered third world (If you are too lazy to read the book, at least read the title)?
[quote]
2. You now say that Singapore is Third World because "it was supportive of USA during cold-war [sic]." By your definition, Western Europe would be labeled Third World. NOW do you see the ridiculousness of your definition? [sic]." By your definition,
[/quote]
HeHe Where did I said that third world = aligned with US? I meant that Singapore, despite being a member of NAM, was supportive of USA (or aligned). Which is true for many countries. India was the front-runner of NAM, but it was aligned with USA during sixties and USSR during eighties. Even Saudis are a member of NAM. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And now you concede that Singapore is Third World. You know why? Because, as I have said numerous times, it wasn't aligned with the West or the Communists during the Cold War.
[/quote]
Singapore was Third Wold in 70s; it was first world in late 80s. You say that it wasn't aligned with the west or communist during the cold war (I disagree, btw). Then how come it ceased to be third world despite being non-aligned (your assumption) in late 80s?</p>
<p>Interesting, in China, it's kind of like the U.S., except if you don't get into the top 10 schools, it means your life is over and your fate it sealed for failure (kind of like the U.S. too except here its not as intense, we have multiple routes for success, thank God).</p>
<p>If you ask me, I think their educational policy is ridiculous, but with their monstrous population, I guess it's the most efficient way.</p>
<p>No decent exam in India is leaked for a few thousand. Th JEE last leaked in 1997, and then they asked everyone to sit for another paper.</p>
<p>No..this test does not make the SAT look cute and easy. With both tests you are ultimately compared to your peers so they are both the same in that way. What makes this test hard is not necessarily the content, its the pressure knowing that its essentially your application. While test scores are important in America (more so than most would think) they are not your application. I would say this test makes the SAT look unimportant not easy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What makes this test hard is not necessarily the content, its the pressure knowing that its essentially your application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you find the math problem I linked to easy?</p>
<p>For reference, you can find it below</p>
<p>You can't write with a straight face that comparing the SAT to the Gaokao is not like comparing See Spot Run to Of Mice and Men.</p>
<p>I believe if it was mentioned that the Gaokao does not include calculus? (correct me if I'm wrong) Do they test for physics? I can't see how a students can go deep in math and physics without having taken calculus. Is there are reason they aren't teaching calculus? I find it pretty disturbing.</p>
<p>It does not include Calculus, but just about everything else below it. THeir curriculum goes into greater depth and covers fewer topics than those in America.</p>
<p>I think it is not so much to test one's knowledge of specific branches of mathematics but to test whether one can think systematically through a problem. For example, the question translated by the Royal Society of Chemistry (and posted on the BBC) is definitely not any easier than any of your run-of-the-mill calculus question.</p>
<p>In most provinces, you can either sit for a humanities test or a science test as one of your 4 papers (i.e. Mandarin Chinese + Mathematics + Foreign Language + Science/Humanities). The science paper includes Physics, Chemistry and Biology and can test one or more of these subjects even within a single question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't see how a students can go deep in math and physics without having taken calculus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It feels that way probably because the math covered in most high schools here is 1 mile wide but 1 inch deep. For example, anything that involves calculating angles or proof for geometry is mostly 2-D in most high schools here and the questions in textbooks are mostly fairly straight forward (to not scare people from studying math). But as that sample exam problem shows, geometry can be covered in greater depth without touching calculus.</p>
<p>all you people who said "that the gaokao is the fairest way" are idiots. complete and utter morons. just like the sat, it is inevitable that students of a higher social class will do better then those of a lower. Students from a lower social status that go to poor schools are bound to score low with the exception of those with innate intellectual brillance who just happen to be of a lower social class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
all you people who said "that the gaokao is the fairest way" are idiots. complete and utter morons. just like the sat, it is inevitable that students of a higher social class will do better then those of a lower. Students from a lower social status that go to poor schools are bound to score low with the exception of those with innate intellectual brillance who just happen to be of a lower social class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The daughter of one of my mom's childhood friends recently graduated from Beida, one of the most prestigious Chinese universities (the other being Qinghua). I can assure you that my mom's friend is not "high social class."</p>
<p>She went to Beida on a full scholarship because she was nationally ranked in mathematics. Due to her math prowess, she did not even need to take the Gaokao to be admitted to Beida.</p>
<p>My cousin, the son of my mom's younger brother, went to one of the best high schools in his province. Proportionally speaking, that school sent a very high number of students to top Chinese universities. My cousin did not too terrible on the Gaokao, but he did not do well enough to earn admission to the top schools. He's currently at a junior college that leads to the best university in his province.</p>
<p>That province is located in the South, a train day away from Beijing. The number of high social class Chinese living in Beijing and Shanghai dwarfs the number in that province.</p>
<p>How do you reconcile your strong statements with my anecdote?</p>
<p>all you people who said "that the gaokao is the fairest way" are idiots. complete and utter morons. just like the sat, it is inevitable that students of a higher social class will do better then those of a lower. Students from a lower social status that go to poor schools are bound to score low with the exception of those with innate intellectual brillance who just happen to be of a lower social class.</p>
<p>Please, O magnificent genius, reveal to us the most fair way, one in which people from higher social classes have absolutely no advantage. </p>
<p>Or in case you haven't noticed, rich people have advantages in EVERY category applicable to college admissions. It's in the Gaokao that they have the least advantages over the poor. In fact, the highest performers on the Gaokao are often from the "lower classes."</p>
<p>I disagree with "you'llsee"... I know someone who used to go to a very good school in Beijing, where there are a lot of rich kids, and is now going to an equally high "educationally statused" county-level school in another province, in the north... She says teachers in the latter pushes students MUCH harder and the quality of education there is significantly better. And not a lot of the students who goes to the school, given the geographical location, are financially privileged.</p>
<p>i'm sick and tired of people always thinking about the exceptions in life. of course not all the rich kids will do good, and not all the poor kids will do bad. BUT LET'S GET REAL. i want you to step out of your fantasy world and into reality. on average, the majority of kids of a lower economic status will do poorer on the test. and that is exactly how they want it (the gov't).....not only in china, but the US also...they want to bottom of the tier to remain at the bottom while the higher class continues to climb the socioeconomic ladder..."the poor stay poor while the rich get richer". so don't come to me with stories like, " the poor kid scored perfect, yet the rich one failed" because little exceptions here and there aren't good enough.....and until people stop settling for less then perfect and begin to challenge the system, it will never get any better. but of course, people like you don't want it to "it's completely fair"...how sick</p>
<p>Of course kids of lower social economic status will do poorer on tests. What a revelation. They will also do worse in grades, in extracurricular activities, basically anything in academia. What do you propose, eliminate any admission criteria related to academics, all in the name for equality? </p>
<p>Back in the late 60's and early 70's Mao abolished the Gaokao, and instead instituted a recommendation system to get into college. In 1977 the Gaokao was reinstated. Guess which system brought more poor into higher education. gave more opportunities? </p>
<p>You say that without challenging the system it will never get any better. But it has gotten better for China, much of it due to the Gaokao. Remember the color of the PRC's flag? The poor of China were killing for social mobility long before you began this rant against the bourgeoisie.</p>
<p>it may just be me, but i often see poorer (not dirt poor, but definitely lower middle class and not privileged) students work much harder and thus score much higher on the most important tests, thus earning acceptance into some of the best universities. on the other hand i've seen many richer, more privileged students slack off. their parents worked hard to make it, but apparently they didn't instill that work ethic into their kids. </p>
<p>i think its almost the same way in my good ol' american public high school. there's this one girl who wears the best clothes and brags about how much her jewelry costs (she makes me sick). yes she's in all honors classes but she gets Bs and Cs in them. the rest of us humble middle class students, or at least most of us, work harder than her.</p>