Even though the term meritocracy was first popularized in a dystopian satire in which “meritocratic” elites take control of a nation that practices meritocracy, and the satire das been demonstrated to be highly predictive, nations still rely on the practice. The path forward for individuals in advanced societies is usually by gaining admission to a top university. Meritocratic practices are used in the US and in China to determine who gains entry to these schools. Which nation has the best selection processes?
Iza Ding provides a useful discussion of how meritocracy in university admissions is being handled in the two countries in a review of the book The Highest Exam: How the Gaokao Shapes China by Ruixue Jia and Hongbin Li with Claire Cousineau. This appeared in the Londen Review of Books under the title Studying is harmful.
China provided the initial example of applying meritocratic methods to determine who was worthy of entering elite positions in society.
“The keju, or imperial civil service examination, selected scholar-officials who had mastered the Confucian canon – after years, if not decades, of study – for entry into the ruling elite. The exams were initially restricted to nominees, but by the early seventh century eligibility had expanded to most free men. This was centuries before European leaders began to debate whether to extend the franchise beyond propertied males.”
The exam persisted into the twentieth century into Mao’s era. Apparently, he had trouble passing the test and the title of Ding’s piece comes from a quote attributed to Mao. Soon after Mao’s passing the custom of testing to gain a position returned and the gaokao for university admission was back in business.
“Today, more than thirteen million teenagers (and some adults) take the gaokao each June. The tests are conducted over several days, under tightly controlled conditions. Universities in China don’t look at personal statements or hold interviews. Only test scores count: in history, geography and politics for the liberal arts track; physics, chemistry and biology for the science track; and Chinese, maths and English for everyone. The questions are strictly guarded and double anonymity is enforced between the candidates and markers. For weeks, the gaokao dominates the news.”
There is no equivalent faced by US youth. There are standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, but they are not the equivalent in being totally important in admission considerations. While the Chinese system can be a brutally demanding experience for young students, US youth face a similarly demanding process to gain access to the best universities. Rather than focusing intensely on a single exam, they must create for themselves a persona that the universities will find impressive. Besides good grades and test scores, they must demonstrate, over several years, participation in extracurricular activities such as sports, topical club activities, and public service. Evidence of competent participation and leadership potential is expected. Introverts will thrive in the Chinese system; success is much less likely in the US.
“In his book Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life (2014), William Deresiewicz writes of his students at Yale: ‘Look beneath the façade of affable confidence and seamless well-adjustment that today’s elite students have learned to project, and what you often find are toxic levels of fear, anxiety and depression, of emptiness and aimlessness and isolation’.”
The question of interest is which of the two approaches in fairest in providing opportunity to the best individual students. In both countries there is an unfair advantage for urban students over rural counterparts. A similar advantage goes to the wealthy over the poor.
“In spite of its flaws, the gaokao’s equalising power outstrips the admissions machinery of American universities by a wide margin. In China, children from the wealthiest families are 2.3 times more likely than the poorest to attend top universities; in the US, the gap is nearly elevenfold.”
China seems to be making progress in providing more opportunities for rural children to get a college education.
“According to Jia and Li, in 2003 only 7 per cent of children from the poorest rural counties entered any kind of college, against nearly half of their urban peers; six in a thousand rural high schoolers reached a top university. The figures have improved but remain stark: by 2015, 35 per cent of rural students were going to university, compared to 51 per cent of urban students.”
Consider what happens when the gaokao results are released in China.
“Performing well in the exam can be life-changing. The highest scorers become national celebrities, lauded in the press and given gifts – cash, cars, even flats – by eager patrons in the private sector. Top universities enter scholarship bidding wars to secure their enrolment. A degree from one of these universities offers entry to the upper rungs of Chinese society. The gaokao has been called a rite of passage, a great equaliser and a ritual of China’s secular religion, education. Its political weight and its status as a recurring spectacle of collective fervour have led to comparisons with the US presidential election. In a country plagued by corruption, the gaokao is remarkably clean. ‘Open and competitive’ are the watchwords of democratic elections, but they are also the defining features of China’s exam empire. Exams are its functional substitute for the ballot box. The gaokao is more than a test; it’s an enduring political institution.”
This system provides China with the scientists and engineers and other professionals needed to run its society and its economy, satisfying the wishes of its rulers. Once thought of as being deficient in creativity and inventiveness, the world now fears the system will allow China to become the dominant power in the world.
The system is also a means of solidifying the leadership of the Communist Party. Fostering the belief that the process is fair provides the leaders with support from the people. Ding provides a comment that could never be applied to education in the US.
“More important, the gaokao has maintained faith in social mobility. A perception of fairness, especially among the less fortunate, has lent legitimacy to the political order. The system will continue as long as the losers believe that they, and not the system, are to blame for their lack of success.”
No comments:
Post a Comment