<p>Actually HKCEE had changed and they have fine grades now.</p>
<p>It's been a while since I last studied in HK. I came to the US after 10th grade, skipping HKCEE and A-level. :) I did study half the materials on HKCEE though in 10th grade. But I do remember orbital stuff weren't covered in HKCEE. But the stuff was very shallow in SAT II anyway. Other than that one area, other areas overlap a lot for phyiscs/chem and likely biology. Math2c is more or less equivalent to HKCEE math but HKCEE's additional math is beyond math2c (<a href="http://ws1.hkcampus.net/%7Ews1-kcy/ce_amath.html%5B/url%5D">http://ws1.hkcampus.net/~ws1-kcy/ce_amath.html</a> looks like they got rid of 3-D geometry that I used to have).</p>
<p>However, HKCEE is a more rigorous exam. You can cover similar materials but the exam problems can be very different in difficulty. I took physics and math 2c and I spent probably no more than 2 months to prepare and got >700on both, when I was playing soccer literally everyday and I didn't do bunch of practice tests either. ;) If I remember correctly, SAT IIs are very predictable in terms of pattern. There aren't too many variation in terms of how the problems look. If you do the review from one of those study guides and are fairly intelligent, you should be fine. The level of preparation for HKCEE is a lot higher. A lot of us would be planning to do the actual exams in the past 10 years. That's the minimum expectation we had just to have a shot for good grades and most of us wouldn't get A anyway even by doing that. The reason why people try to do 10 years of past actual exams is that they want to cover just about every possible type of questions out there so when they see take the real exam, they can be like "been there, done that" for most questions. The questions aren't usually very straight forward so if you haven't practiced much, they could eat up a lot of your valuable time and time constraint is a big factor for HKCEE. The exam authority only wants to award very limited number of A so if the exam isn't difficult, they would have a hard time to decide whom they should give the As to when too many score high marks. It's a way for them to differentiate.</p>
<p>I have friends who never cracked open the SAT II book and got triple 800s.
</p>
<p>haha... I still remember what happened for my SATII. The exam was on Saturday and I only realised that on Tuesday. Then I went to call the RELC (SAT exam board in Singapore) on Wednesday and they told me that I can pay a penalty and enter as a stand-by. Then I went to buy the SATII books on Thursday but only managed to find MathsII and Chemistry. Then I started studying for it at night. On Friday I borrowed my friend's SATII Physics and read thru. At mid-night I went to spark-notes and read thru their lenses notes (because lenses are not in the A-level syllabus), and stayed until quite late.</p>
<p>On Saturday I went to take the SATII exam on MathII physics and chem. Then I realised that I didn't know anything about relativity for physics. For the chemistry part I was getting very sleepy and took a nap. When I walked out of the exam hall I suddenly realised that I forgot that unlike A-levels, wrong answers carries penalty for SATII. I filled in answers for those questions that I was not sure of!</p>
<p>Then long long time later, I checked SAT II website and saw 800/800/800. A bit surprised...</p>
<p>Strangely, every HKer I knew of on the internet flaunt the "difficulty" of their HKCEE exam. I don't know why. May be HK people are in general quite egotistical. Then they go on to bash other more superior exam systems like SATs and GCE A-level. (esp. when HKALE is a copy-cat version of GCE A-level! The child is humiliating the parent?!)</p>
<p>Sorry but I do not believe that HKCEE is equivalent to SATII. MathII is an exceptional case because maths in the US is generally easier than British Maths at school. For physics, I don't think you learn about gravitation GMm/r^2 or circular motion for HKCEE physics, but both of them ARE in the SATII physics syllabus. </p>
<p>When did you take your SATII Phy and MathII? Immediately after you arrived in the US from 10th grade HK?</p>
<p>Practicing past papers is a routine for preparing examinations; it is hardly exclusive for HKCEE/HKALE and in no way shows its supposed "difficulty". British students practice past exam questions to prepare for their GCE A-levels. Singaporean students practice past exam questions to prepare for GCE A-levels. Student everywhere practice past exam questions to prepare for their respective exams.</p>
<p>Finally, I fail to see why HK students love to cite the TIMSS study, and conclude their good performance (over all #4 with #3 in math and #4 in science) is indicative of the difficulty of HKCEE/HKALE. [I accept the validity of extrapolating the overall cohort's ability at 4th and 8th grade (TIMSS) to their performance in GCSE/AL lvls.] But basically, all the countries that top TIMSS are Asian countries, all running different systems. Secondly, I guess Singapore tops the study, but Singapore also uses the supposedly "crappy" GCE A-level that HKer tend to despise and regard as inferior in rigour to HKALE.</p>
<p>May be you can explain a bit of my observations.</p>
Firstly, pls mind your words because I have never made things up. B at A-level is easily a 800 for SAT II. (I am quite sure for those subjects like SAT II MathsII, Chem and Physics, esp. Physics. SATII MathI is an exception because of the incredibly high ceiling.) I know what I am talking about and I have done both. AP is never harder than A-levels; I have seen the questions for calc BC (and top 20% get 5s). IB HL may be.
</p>
<p>As I said, don't compare SAT subject tests with full coursework exams like the AP exams or IB exams or A levesl. They're just not the same thing - SAT subject tests have to evaluate students coming from a relatively wide range of preparation in the subject - if you cater the exam to the highest level coursework, you'll get non-useful results for many people who take easier courses (meaning they'll do so badly it'll be hard to differentiate and thus evaluate).</p>
<p>
Is it? Unfair treatment even if the student graduate from a US high-school, with his classmates (of a comparable standard) going Ivies and him going to a state uni just because he does not have a green card?! Sounds strange to me, because it makes discrimination too obvious.
</p>
<p>Again, let me repeat this, because you seem to be missing it:</p>
<p>US universities are exempt from US taxes because they do educational work for the US population. As such, they have a moral mandate to focus on educating US citizens. It is not discriminatory, nor is it unfair to therefore set a higher bar for internationals.</p>
<p>America's universities do not and should not have the responsibility of educating the world's elite. If they want to, they can, but they have no obligation. Frankly, I think it smacks of entitlement, all these internationals complaining that the bar is higher in American universities for them. It's the way it is; it's the way it should be. Deal with it.</p>
<p>
No... dim-bulbs wrt those int'ls to made it to MIT. I am quite sure Big Brother 1984 is a lot of qualified than 90% of the domestic Dartmouth entering freshmen. He enter thru a route with a much higher bar. Most int'ls need to be IMO IPhO people for MIT, while you don't even need that as a domestic student.
</p>
<p>No, you said "he's likely to be around a bunch of dim-bulbs". No qualifying "wrt to int'ls" or anything. Even if you had added the wrt statement, that's still a highly arbitrary statement based off no legitimate facts. There are some incredibly smart domestic students at MIT, just as there are incredibly smart internationals. If you can provide proof of domestics being "dim-bulbs wrt int'ls, then I'll concede the point. Until then, though, you're just making unqualified statements.</p>
<p>
Your comment about how 750+ for SAT II is sufficient for academic purposes is hilarious. Eg, for SAT II Math II, 90 percentile is 800 (check the back of your SATII result, it is printed there). So 750 must be below the top 10% am I rite? Now count for me how many Canadians qualify for MIT. I am quite sure that the figure is less than 1% of the total no. of people who qualify for university in their own country. What I am trying to say is that, well, it may not matter if you are the top 0.1% or the top 1%, both of which would give you a 800/800/800 for SAT II. But once you are talking about scores that drop below 800, i.e., 790, it shows that the academic ability of the student is mediocre at best.</p>
<p>Top 10% of SATII MathII people get 800, top 5% for physics get 800 and top 2% for chem get 800. I don't know what you mean by "highest ranges", but to me, there are already tons of people in the top 2% that dropping below that would be considered mediocre. (Recall that for internationals it is easily the top 0.1-1%)
</p>
<p>Frankly, what you think doesn't matter. I'm going based on what the admissions officers of highly ranked universities (MIT is a great example, in particular), have said, which is that above 750 they don't distinguish between scores, and between 700-750 is considered only very slightly inferior to an 800. This is pretty reasonable - stupid mistakes on the SAT 2s are common, and can affect the score greatly, due to the curving. Admissions officers realize this, and realize that the difference in subject knowledge between a 800 and a 780 is rarely anything more than maybe the most minor knowledge difference - much more often the difference has to do with random factors or test-taking ability.</p>
<p>
That is the case for your IB school. In my country people would only drop Oxbridge for Harvard, Stanford and MIT. Princeton/Yale is taken as the same as Oxbridge, although the latter would look better because so many of the ministers are from there. So may be for international admissions, HYPSM (not the lower Ivies like Cornell/Penn) is more selective than Oxbridge, and so may attract students of higher quality. But please note that int'l admission for US schools are much much much tougher than domestic admission, while for UK schools, they are essentially the same. UK schools do not make it harder for int'ls to get in; they just take in the best students, whether from UK/EU or int'l. Hence, I highly suspect that if you are measuring the ability of the students from the universities as a whole (local + int'l), Oxford has better student than Princeton. Do you dispute my claim?
</p>
<p>Yes, I dispute your claim. By the way, this is an example of you making things up. Back up your claim with facts, and I might take it seriously. Otherwise it's just more e-fighting: "yeah? well the students at MY university are smarter than YOURS." Actually, I don't even think if you provided facts this paragraph would have any more validity, since it never once compares qualifications, just different bars for admission - which reflect not at all on the quality of the student body overall.</p>
<p>Of course I can dispute that an A is an 800. First of all, people study hard for their A-levels, thus often getting the exact score they are qualified to get. While someone who gets an A should always be qualified to get an 800, not everyone does. That alone means that not all AAAA students would be 800/800/800/800 students. Furthermore, though, US students recognize that standardized tests are not as emphasized in America (compared to the A levels are in Britain); thus they work for them comparatively much less. That also means the standard of achievement won't be as uniformly high. Even this comparison fails to be a valid proof of your postulate regarding intelligence. Please try again.</p>
If you can even dispute facts like these that are blatantly obvious, then seriously, you are mental. There is no point in arguing with you if you choose to deny facts at every turn.</p>
the bar for int'l is higher than for domestic students for the sam university. This you agreed to.
In UK schools, they are essential the same. Go check out a Times (UK) article, which mentioned how two students of same grades, one local and one int'l, studied at the same Grammar in UK. The int'l was accepted into Cambridge whilst the local one was rejected, and the article went on to suggest a linkage with top-up fees. Go check out what the heck is top-up fees, really, you need to do some homework instead of requiring people to give you a hyperlink at every juncture. I visit CC for leisure and see no reason for getting into an exhaustive debate with people like you.</p>
<p>And you even asked Sam Lee to provide you with the link that Sing and HK students fair better for maths and sciences than US people. I thought it was more than obvious that the study is TIMSS. </p>
<p>America's universities do not and should not have the responsibility of educating the world's elite. If they want to, they can, but they have no obligation. Frankly, I think it smacks of entitlement, all these internationals complaining that the bar is higher in American universities for them. It's the way it is; it's the way it should be. Deal with it.
1.The bar is higher for int'l than domestic. The average ability of an int'l MIT student must therefore be higher than a domestic MIT student. If you want to dispute that, I suggest you should go and get yourself some statistic book.
2.You need to be involved in IMO IPhO stuff to have a chance to enter MIT as an int'l (Big Brother 1984, spencer11111). You don't need that if you are a domestic.</p>
<p>I am surprised you are all of a sudden arguing for nothing and accusing me saying things I didn't. First of all, I didn't use TIMSS study and use HK students' good performance (over all #4 with #3 in math and #4 in science) as indicative of the difficulty of HKCEE/HKALE. That may be your mindset, not mine. The TIMSS study was a response to 1of42 that shows that HK students on average probably put more time into their studying than (not smarter) American counterparts. It got nothing to to do with HKCEE/HKALE.</p>
<p>I said HKCEE = SAT II because they overlap a lot. You happen to know couple areas that aren't tested on HKCEE. Well, let me tell you, I studied half the physics materials (mechanics, optics, heat) for HKCEE and then came to the US; by the time I took Physics SAT II, I only had few weeks of physics in my American HS. I found that I'd seen 90% of the materials for mechanics, optics, and heat but the SAT problems weren't as tricky as HKCEE's. Yes, gravitation GMm/r^2 or circular motion (you got me on 10%..lol!) weren't covered in HKCEE but that's hardly any big deal. Once you know the basics of mechanics, the circular motion is simply just a slight extension. Just because SAT II is slighter broader doesn't make it entirely different level. </p>
<p>I don't know if HKALE is a copy-cat version of GCE A-level! I doubt it since if it were GCE A-level, then I don't know how they can pick out that 0.7% of candidates to be awarded As when you have more than that % scoring perfect scores. I can tell you, however, HKCEE is a harder test than GSCE. The textbooks that we used had selected problems from the past HKCEE and GSCE and I consistently found that the GSCE problems tend to be easier. That's not something you can argue with me since you have never study in HK unless, of course, you think I am just lying. But why am I doing that anyway? Going through more difficult tests doesn't mean or make you any smarter. It just makes you study more for no intellectual reason. It's one reason I came to the US for high school. For HKCEE/HKAL, the exam board makes the test more difficult and have ridiculously harsh grading not because the students were smarter but because it provides them a way to differentiate and screen students for local college admission; in any given year, there are way more student trying to get into fields like acturial science or medicine. Acturial science is offered only through HKU in Hong Kong. If they have way too many people having straight As on HKAL, they will have a hard time to select. Limiting the number of As to ridiculously low level would elimiate this problem. But to have such limit, they need to adjust the difficulty accordingly so the distribution doesn't contradict their intent (e.g. no more than 100 students would score perfect when you only want to give out 50 As). Obviously in the process, it puts people applying for colleges overseas in huge disadvantage. If your family can afford it, it benefits you if you come to finish your last couple years of HS in the US; you will have a greater chance to get into top schools from here even if you are international. That's what my point was. You seem to somehow think going through more difficult exams make one more superior and project your mindset onto me but that's just not my position.</p>
<p>This stuff is highly controversial, as anything having to do with IQ will be.</p>
<p>Does it proof anything? Nope. In science you can only add evidence to a given position with each additional study. Absolute proof is beyond the realm of science. </p>
<p>Then again, I know people believe in the existence of God with no evidence at all. The bottom line is that you believe what you choose to believe.</p>
<p>I posted something from work in further response to spencer11111. Unfortunately, it seems to not have gotten through. I'll follow up on this later, I have to run now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It just makes you study more for no intellectual reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. Standardized tests were a waste of my time. There certainly wasn't anything intellectually stimulating about writing an AP exam or sitting for an SAT. </p>
<p>I find greater satisfaction with hands-on stuff like contest mathematics, robot building, debate, etc. That's the kind of stuff that builds people. To be quite frank, I seldom find any use for the stuff I learn in the classroom.</p>
<p>Firstly, I have met quite a lot of HKers on the internet. Everytime they would tell me how hard is the HKALE and how easy is the GCE A-levels, and that really plss me off. Singaporeans does GCE A-levels. From all the international surveys including TIMSS, Singaporeans out-performed Hong Kongers in maths and science. And yet everytime they would tell me that HKALE is harder and how easy GCE A-level is with utter disregarded that the top country for TIMSS is Singapore. Sometimes they would even quote TIMSS to show HK's supposedly high position! which is only #4. Nothing great.</p>
<p>GMm/r^2 and circular motions are in GCE A-level and they are in SAT II. Basically, I also learnt about optics, heat and mechanics at O-level but won't even conclude that SATII physics is equal to O-level physics, unlike HK people.</p>
<p>Finally, I can confidently tell you that HK can get to where it is today purely because of incessant goodies being dished out by China. Without the CEPA, individual travellers schemes and etc, I doubt HK would even move out of recession, and yet the unemployment rate is higher in HK than in Singapore. HK stock exchange is so big only because of the Chinese companies listing there, and HK doesn't even need to spend billions building an army, unlike Singapore. It is so good to be taken care of by a father (China), unlike Singapore, which needs to fight for her own survival at every juncture. </p>
<p>Haha I am saying all these only because of the numerous HKers I have met on the internet that like to boast how smart HKers are. It is not directed to you particularly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, I can confidently tell you that HK can get to where it is today purely because of incessant goodies being dished out by China.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To be specific, HK got to where it is today by focusing its economy on building capital in the 60's. It was nowhere near the per capita productiveness of the United States back then, but it's doing well today because of all the infrastructure it had built up throughout the last 40 years.</p>
<p>I'm not even sure if those strategies were due to the PRC because Hong Kong was still a relatively autonomous British colony separate from the mainland back then. It's still very clear that HK initiated its own economic program, for whatever impetus existed in the 60's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yet everytime they would tell me that HKALE is harder and how easy GCE A-level is with utter disregarded that the top country for TIMSS is Singapore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This tells me more that the difficulty of certain exams does not correlate with overall student intelligence.</p>
<p>Wow...spencer1111, looks like you are as guilty as they are? Actually what they said about HKAL being harder than GCE was probably true. But that alone doesn't mean they were better students. Like I said, the difficulty and grading of HKAL got nothing to do with intelligence but more to do with their college admission. HKU will take people with Ds and Es for certain majors. So obviously, D and E aren't meant to be bad. That's just their system. Maybe you are the one that equates exam difficulty with intelligence when the two are really separate things. Otherwise, I don't see why you should be pis*ed and argue with them. You can show your Singaporean superiority by showing the TIMSS report. Just so you know, the result probably just means you guys are more disciplined and study more. After all, they have low crime rate and I heard that people get executed if they are found to have drugs?! It's not like the air you breath, the hot climate, or the spicy food somehow make you guys smarter. ;)</p>
<p>It is true that HK A-Levels are harder than Singapore GCE A-Levels. I personally have seen HK A-Level math questions and they are roughly equivalent to Singapore A-Level Further Math, maybe even harder. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, school examinations (common tests, prelims) in Singapore are quite challenging especially in the top JCs, so the GCE A-Levels are not entirely representative of the educational standards of the students.</p>
<p>Okok I think we should just end the Singapore vs. Hong Kong debate...</p>
<p>Anyway I started it because i have seen too many arrogant HK students on the internet, bashing away at GCE A-lvl when all the indicators suggest that HK students are, well, pretty much normal.</p>
<p>In HKALE, I think they segregate the maths into pure and applied instead of normal and further maths like GCEAL. I guess you are referring to the Pure Maths paper, which is itself a subject. (Applied Maths is another subject). Hence pure maths would have contents from both normal and further maths, and so is applied maths. Nothing surprising and does not indicate the "difficulty" of HK Maths. After all, just take a look at the TIMSS and you know the deal.</p>
<p>I think the school exams are pretty dumb (some a good though). I offered a detailed explanation about it in another thread.</p>
<p>If you are aware of the situation in HK, I was referring to the situation after HK was returned to China. </p>
<p>After the British left, HK suffered ten years of recession and a litany of failures, only to be saved by the benevolent China, which they invariable criticize.</p>
<p>spencer11111, i beg to differ that school exams in Singapore are inane. I find that they are much more challenging/demanding than A-Levels and really train students to think in unconventional ways. For instance, it never failed to surprise me how a simple, ingenuous-looking formula like F = mv^2 / r could be tested in so devious a manner, in a Physics Common Test. I liked the fact that mere regurgitation of the formula, or the process of mechanically reproducing a fixed sequence of steps to arrive at an answer, would not help me to do well but rather a genuine grasp of the material, coupled with a little creativity and intuition, was a prerequisite for good grades. In short, I liked the way school exams forced me to think at a higher level. By the time A-Levels began, I felt confident because I had been trained to think.</p>