高考分數

[skylee]

I need to research some information about Hong Kong universities’ recruitment of mainland students.

Here is some of the information I've found -> http://join.ust.hk/zh/mainland

Are those score requirements reasonable? And why are there different requirements for students from different places? Is it because the examination papers were different? Anyone knows?

And could someone tell me what 一本綫 means? I think someone has explained this before but couldn’t find the info. Does it mean “tier 1” universities? Or does it mean the scores students need to get into the best universities?

[gato]

Most 直辖市 and provinces administer their own college entrance exams. It used to be a common exam across the whole country, but several years ago, probably because there were lots of complaints about the unfairness of Beijing residents getting into Qinghua and Beida and Shanghai residents getting into Fudan with much, much lower test scores, they stopped the common exam system. Shandong was known to be have the highest test scores in the country, and students there complained that they could barely get into a third-tier college with the scores that Beijing students who got admitted to Beida and Qinghua got.

一本 are so-called first-tiered undergraduate programs. I am not sure if there is an official list of such schools.

[xiaocai]

Those are really high marks I have to say. The score for 四川 is not released yet but in my batch, 650 could probably get you into whatever school you want to. It was hard enough to score over 600 as a matter of fact...

[skylee]

So am I right to say that 一本 is a description of the "first-tiered" programmes, whereas 一本綫 refers to the scores that students have to achieve to get in those programmes (which are different for different places)?

Do the places refer to where the student is or where the university is?

[xiaocai]

Yes. So 一本 basically is the "first choice" I'd say? 一本线 is the minimum you have score to be eligible to apply for 一本 programs. But the actual score you need to get into certain program of certain university also varies depending on the number of applicants and their scores. Say if university A will enrol 10 students from 四川 into program X, then they will line up the scores of all the students from 四川 who applied for it from high to low and take the first 10. There may be exceptions but this is what most universities do. The places refer to where the students took their exam.

[skylee]

So if a student took the exam in Gansu, he/she may be able to get into HKUST with 590 marks to study business. But if he/she took the exam in Hainan, he/she must have at least 830. And he/she only needs 530 if s/he took the exam in Shanghai. Does it mean that the exam in Hainan was much easier than the exam in Gansu, which was easier than that in Shanghai? (And is 830 achievable?)

[xiaocai]

As gato has mentioned, the exam papers may be different in different provinces. Also, the scoring systems can be different too. So even two provinces have exactly the same exam papers, you may find the full mark is 900 for one and 750 for the other. (BTW, the two systems are not readily convertible into each other, i.e. 810 out 900 is not the same as 675 out of 750. Most of the time there is no simple formula for this conversion.) But because the number of students and allocated admission quotas vary from province to province too, it does make it easier to get into some programs in provinces with less students than those with more students sometimes.

[skylee]

Why / how is this system, which I find confusing, better / fairer than the previous nation-wide common examination?

PS - all these questions are really irrelevant to my issue, which came from some stupid Mainland office contact asking about some stupid question which should not be asked in the first place. And I will have to figure out how to handle it tomorrow. :angry:

[xiaocai]

I sat for mine more than 10 years ago and there was no national wide exam already, so I don't know why/how it is better than what they had before. To be honest I don't see any difference. If this is the question just tell them there is no difference. They can't say you are wrong.

[gato]

Why / how is this system, which I find confusing, better / fairer than the previous nation-wide common examination?

As I mentioned above, moving from a common national test to a local test hides the unfairness of having different admissions standards for each province and city and allowing Shanghai and Beijing students to get into top universities with much lower scores. It's not about creating a fairer system. Typical Chinese.

[xiaocai]

Oh, have to add this point to this post!

[skylee]

It's not about creating a fairer system.

Ah I understand better now. Thank you.

[skylee]

According to press reports, three top-scoring arts students from Beijing (scores = 676) have decided to go to HKU (with full scholarships) instead of Peking Univ.

I suppose 676 is a very high score, even for Beijing. Difficult, difficult, difficult ... I wonder how local students should deal with such competition.

I feel a bit bad for the student who has brought me additional work (to check the position of her application). That student got 590+ and she didn't even get a chance for an interview.

[gato]

According to press reports, three top-scoring arts students from Beijing (scores = 676) have decided to go to HKU (with full scholarships) instead of Peking Univ.

I suppose 676 is a very high score, even for Beijing. Difficult, difficult, difficult ... I wonder how local students should deal with such competition.

Yeah, those are special students. Most of them go on to graduate schools in the US, so HK kids don't have to worry about them for too long. B)

[xiaocai]

I wonder how local students should deal with such competition.

Go to schools with less competition then, like what I did.

Just kidding. I don't know how many mainland students HKU plan to enrol this year, hopefully not too many so that the competition can stay at a healthy level. And if you have a look at the 高考 papers you will realise that 高考成绩 can't really tell much...

[skylee]

And if you have a look at the 高考 papers you will realise that 高考成绩 can't really tell much...

Really? Well HKU usually says that there are other considerations like the English scores and interview performance, etc ...

And yey bright kids all go to the US! Yeah!!!

PS - this is from yesterday's fruit daily -

17高考尖子投奔港大

北大、清華等名校落力搶高考尖子，除了本身和內地同業壓力，也與海外大學近年在內地搶尖子生有關。例如香港大學，今年已確定錄取內地各省市高考尖子 17人。內地生報讀本港大學人數也大幅飆升。

港大錄取內地高考尖子包括北京 3名文科頭名、上海和湖南文理頭名，還有來自廣東、安徽、雲南、西藏等地各 1名高考頭名，人數較去年增近一倍。內地高中畢業生申請來港讀大學人數較上年增 12%。

此外，湖南長沙市一中的 17歲女生，今年已收到美國 10所名校錄取通知書；深圳 19歲高三學生朱尚然更收到全球 13所名校錄取通知。

專家指出，歐美等外國名校近年加強在中國內地搶奪尖子生，一來要吸收他國人才，二來不少歐美國家經濟不景，需要拓展有經濟能力的生源。

Let's wait for HKUST's press release. With their recent "Asian No 1 ranking", who knows?

[gato]

Discussion carried over from another thread:

http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/36767-water-rationing/page__view__findpost__p__274466

Every province have their own tests so I don't see how a comparison of scores make sense. That's like comparing SATs with ACTs with the BACC. Good luck making a comparison between those tests without any error. It's funny how biased the article is since it doesn't mention Jiangsu, the 2nd or 3rd hardest province to get into college tied with Sandong and Zhejiang. Do you know why? That's because the score of 310 is enough for college. Want to know why they weren't included? The max score is only 450 or something. But obviously they can't compare it right because then the argument would be mute. So this statistic is obviously biased and doesn't show how the Shanghai score comes from a different max then the other provinces. That's like your trying to tell me an ACT 30 = SAT 30...With that established, why can you compare the others? Each province have their own ways of testing and until you know how it directly correlates, then please don't just look at raw scores.

Next, with regards to location based quotas. Why is it that in the US we never complain if UCLA or UC Berkeley has easier requirements for California students than for out of state? The reason is because it's a public school designed for the local students. Well, here's the deal, it's the SAME in China. Public schools are funded in part locally from lcoal taxes so why shouldn't they take more students from the local area? Why complain about Fudan but not Xinjiang University or Zhejiang University taking a huge number of locals that greatly outnumber the 60% that you are seeing. PKU for instance takes only at most 20% Beijingers. So these cities provinces are actually being more fair.

Also, part of the reason for different scores is due to Chinese affirmative action for minorities. Hence why the West also seems to have lower scores because if your a minority(mostly located in the Wesstern Provinces), you can get upto 50 freebie points that's added directly to your score. So a Xinjiang 490 would then compete with be considered a 540.

Anyways, you can't remove the quota without removing provincial testing. And since not all universities are administered by the coutnry level government, then it doesn't make sense since the great majority of colleges are at the lower levels of government so a local test makes sense since it affects a much larger proportion of the students. the quota is used as a tool for comparison..

Let me address your points one by one.

1) Is it easier for local students to get in? -- Because there is no uniform national test today, it's much harder to compare admission standards across regions. Some say China switched from a uniform national exam to local exams about 10 years ago precisely to make this unfairness less obvious.

In the absence of uniform national test, we can just look at the percentage of local students. When 40% of Fudan students are from Shanghai, it's obvious that it's much easier for Shanghai students to get into Fudan. Shanghai has far less than 40% of China's population.

2) Is it ok to set a lower bar for local students? -- The example of state universities in the US is not really an appropriate model for China. The US has a federal system. The relationship of California and the federal government is more similar to that between HK and the central government than Shanghai to the central.

State universities like UC Berkeley and UCLA get most its government funding from the state and much less from the federal government. About 1/2 of UCLA's $1 billion annual general fund comes from the state and most of the rest comes from student fees. Federal funding in the US for universities mostly come in the form tuition grants for poor students and grants for specific research projects. Only the subsidy for poor students goes into the general fund. The total of the federal money for poor students and research is likely to be a small fraction of state funding.

http://www.today.ucl...ate-149424.aspx

Last year, UCLA's state funds totaled $577 million, and have been cut by $131 million for '09-'10, he said. By comparison, UCLA brought in about $220 million in student fees last year, and has set aside a third of student fees to pay for financial aid, leaving $147 million to spend on other university needs. At that rate, UCLA would have to virtually double tuition just to keep up with state cuts, Olsen said.

China doesn't have a federal system. Universities like Fudan, Beida, and Tsinghua are directly under the central Ministry of Education. They used to be almost entirely funded centrally. But if appears that in recent years, local governments have been asked to provide more funding. Prof Ge of Fudan in the article below says that Fudan nows get half of its funding from the central government and half from Shanghai, and so Shanghai has asked in return to raise the percentage of Shanghai students from 10% in the 1960s to almost 40% today.

http://news.cctv.com...02/103921.shtml

既然是教育部直属院校，本应服务于全国人民，为什么会产生“招生地域歧视”呢？全国政协委员、复旦大学历史地理研究所葛剑雄教授谈了自己的观点。

“比如我是复旦大学的教授，原来复旦大学招的学生没有那么多上海人，‘文化大革命’前，上个世纪60年代以前最多是福建人，因为那时候福建高考分数全国第一，但是为什么近年来，从10%扩大到40%呢？”葛剑雄教授说，“就是因为实行共建，这样主管部门给复旦大学拿6个亿，上海也拿出6个亿，这样就要提高本地招收的比例，否则钱为什么给你。武汉大学、浙江大学也受这样因素的影响。”

Is 40% local the right number for Fudan? I think it's too high.

First, Shanghai is what is today because of deliberate central government policy and central government investment. China is not like the US where federal spending is fairly evenly spread around the country. It's obvious to people who've travelled to both Shanghai and other Chinese cities, that the government has spent much more on infrastructure there than in other cities, perhaps with the exception of Beijing.

Second, Fudan, Beida and Tsinghua are national universities. Their prestige/reputation comes having attracted the brightest students from all over the country in the past. In other words, people from all over the country contributed to building up that prestige. If the Shanghai and Beijing governments want to provide special treatment for local student, they should start new universities for local students. It's that any new local university won't be able to match the prestige of Fudan, Beida, and Tsinghua. If they tried to make them 100% local, for example, then they would quickly lose the prestige.

[yialanliu]

In the absence of uniform national test, we can just look at the percentage of local students. When 40% of Fudan students are from Shanghai, it's obvious that it's much easier for Shanghai students to get into Fudan. Shanghai has far less than 40% of China's population.

Once again you are majorly flawed. Yes Shanghai isn't 40% of China's population. HOWEVER, Gansu students in Lanzhou University is probably closer to 80%. Both are 985, both are controlled by the country level governence.

Now, move to the municpal level schools and you'll see that Shanghai and Beijing 2nd tier schools have a disapportionate amount of outsiders when compared to tier 2 schools(二本）in the other provinces.

You want to talk fairness? Make it completely equal then. Either Lanzhou gets rid of their locals and Fudan will as well. Why should Fudan be limited when Lanzhou is not?

2) Is it ok to set a lower bar for local students? -- The example of state universities in the US is not really an appropriate model for China. The US has a federal system. The relationship of California and the federal government is more similar to that between HK and the central government than Shanghai to the central.

Last time I checked, Hong Kong has their own form of passport. Has their own government which is elected differently where their leaders do not move to the upper echelons of the PRC Communist Party. California does not issue their own passport. The governor of California can become president(Reagan). So how can that comparison be made?

The fact of the matter is funding is only a part of the equation. 100% of Provinces have schools in Project 211. That means every province have central government supported schools. With that said, if you want equality, every school should be given the same standard.

The total of the federal money for poor students and research is likely to be a small fraction of state funding.

You are wrong, federal money is actually very large as most people(50%+) can get some form of grants(work study(paid for by US government to companies to make the hire, interest free loans, the US government pays the interest, pell grants and others) at most schools in the US. These money then are counted in your statistics as tuition and fees,,,Well here's the deal they are paid in part by the FEDERAL government, not self funded!

China is not like the US where federal spending is fairly evenly spread around the country. It's obvious to people who've travelled to both Shanghai and other Chinese cities, that the government has spent much more on infrastructure there than in other cities, perhaps with the exception of Beijing.

This is very ignorant!

1) The MUNICIPAL Government is spending like crazy, not the federal government. Did you know that in China, the municipal government controls infrastructure. The Railway Stations, roads are all done by the municipal governement. Why do you think the central government has what 2 trillion USD worth of reserves? That's because they aren't funding the growth, they just save the money. The growth is coming from the municipal government where the debt is HUGE. People are talking about possible default by the Chinese government and in reality, it's not about the central government, it's the municipal government. Chengdu might go bankrupt on its new railway station, the city, not the federal government because the Feds aren't paying for it.

2) Shanghai pays more taxes to the central government than benefits it receives.

3) The reason why Shanghai has all the money is only because the local government is able to attract FDI and then tax profits of corporations. It has nothing to do with Federal Money.

4) Shanghai was not the first SEZ. Shenzhen was. The reason why Shanghai is ahead now is because of better management of the city and better planning. It has nothing to do with preference because there were cities that were either granted similar status at the same time or even earlier (Qingdao, Xiamen, Shenzhen)

Second, Fudan, Beida and Tsinghua are national universities.

Another biased response that is actually wrong as well

There's 35ish colleges in Project 985. Beida and Tsinghua are "global" universities. The other are ALL national universities including names like Lanzhou University. If Fudan should be made to accept more waidiren, then so should the others and they are even more protective. I am not arguing for others to be less protective but because of this, I am saying you shouldn't make Shanghai play by a bad set of rules.

I want to lastly reiterate the importance of one thing I said earlier. Students in Beijing/Shanghai are better students. The reason? The students that are waidiren who are very talented are allowed to remain and take the Shanghai/Beijing Gaokao and then are counted towards the Shanghai Beijing Quota. Because of this, these people should have been in the other province and get into PKU for instance will be counted against Shanghai so the net differential is 2 for each of these students. When each school have CLASSROOMS dedicated to this endeavor, 40 students are getting quota moved, that moves the number by 80! That's a huge movement as these students should ALL be going to Project 985 schools since they were selected to be given these opportunities.

[gato]

This is very ignorant!

Whoa, no need to call names. I've probably looked at the education and budget situation in China and the US much longer than you. Let's keep it civil.

You are wrong, federal money is actually very large as most people(50%+) can get some form of grants(work study(paid for by US government to companies to make the hire, interest free loans, the US government pays the interest, pell grants and others) at most schools in the US. These money then are counted in your statistics as tuition and fees,,,Well here's the deal they are paid in part by the FEDERAL government, not self funded!

As the UCLA article I quoted from above states, out of a $1 billion annual general fund in 2009, UCLA got about $570 mil from the state, and $220 mil total from student fee, and the rest from sources like professional school surcharges and summer programs.

Total student fees received was only $220 mil, so the fraction of that indirectly from federal student subsidies would be much smaller, compared to the $570 mil funding from the state.

I'll follow up with the rest later.

[yialanliu]

Was calling the comment ignorant, not really directed at you.

With regards to the money, here's another factor you need to consider. Tuition cost instate versus out of state is different as well which is not factored in China where tuition is the same.

By the way: http://abclocal.go.c...tion&id=8320608

Your numbers are probably slightly old/UCLA might be special as that and Berkeley might be over funded($/student) compared to other UC schools, but now, UC gets more money from tuition than state.

In addition to this, lets look at this number as well.

Newly released UC data show that 18 percent of admitted students for fall 2011 were nonresidents, up from 14 percent last year and less than 12 percent two years ago. They made up 23 percent of admissions at San Diego, 30 percent at UCLA and 31 percent at Berkeley...Out-of-state students enroll at a lower rate than state residents so university officials expect them to make up less than the 10 percent UC-wide target recently set by school administrators. Currently, only about 6 percent of UC undergraduates are from outside California.

To try to compare this with China would have to have the so called unfair be THIS unfair. That is simply not the case. Even with Berkeley at 31%/(18/10) = <17%, that means >83% were in state, much higher than Shanghai or Beijing. Thus, it's not the best example here since Fudan hasn't even reached 40%, it's only approaching. PKU and Tsinghua is much lower.

--To be truly accurate using the high in state numbers, we should cut 1/3 from the 17% as 18-12% is 1/3 difference. So that means prior to this academic year, we were looking at maybe >89% in state. Since your numbers are probably that old as well, it makes the UC versus Fudan type school even harder to make.

--PS Now I know why I got rejected from UC Berkeley haha

Btw, crunching the numbers which you kind of alluded to but ignored the real break down. So what if Fudan gets 600mil from federal, lets see how much they get from Shanghai.

http://baike.baidu.c...htm?fr=ala0_1#4

复旦大学12亿（6亿+6亿）（教育部拨款+市拨款）

50-50 Split. And lets take into account part of federal is Shanghai money. so it really should be closer to 55-45 Shanghai to non shanghai from a funding perspective.

--5% of federal from Shanghai, I know it's bigger than population of shanghai vs China, but shanghai pays more taxes to China per capita.

PS: I might lose in terms of years I've studied this issue, but % of life I should win . Part of the reason is because my grandparents and my uncles are all admissions officers at 211/985 schools and my dad was a former professor at a 985 school. So I've been in many discussions of who is a better candidate and know the quota system pretty well.