[This is the final version published today on Hechinger Report's Lessons from Abroad. ]
Chinese mothers living in America are often torn over whether to send their children to schools that drill them in hopes of producing good test-takers, or to embrace a less rigid education. It’s a conflict that pits the cultural values shaped by the two-millennia-old Chinese exam system against the view that ultimately creativity leads to success.
The debate is evident in online forums for Chinese mothers, as they discuss the pros and cons of the so-called “tiger mother” approach to raising children: snuffing out a child’s desire for a normal social life—no sleepovers, play dates, school plays or sports, and certainly no computer games or TV—and an expectation of straight A+s on all tests. Recently, one of the leading forums, spurred on by a New York Times article, featured a debate about whether the Waldorf approach to education can produce “real tigers in the future.”
Waldorf schools, according to the description in The Times, emphasize teaching students through activities like knitting socks and slicing food while minimizing the use of computer devices and technology-assisted learning in their classrooms. This unique pedagogy is “focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans.” One parent, employed by a high-tech start-up, echoes this philosophy when explaining to The Times why he sent his three children to a Waldorf school: “Engagement is about human contact, the contact with the teacher, the contact with their peers.”
It is the key word “engagement” that interests me more than the debate over the plusses and minuses of educational technology. Because of an absence of engagement, China—the world’s largest educational system—faces great difficulties in fostering innovation. The United States will likely retain its strength as the world’s leader in innovation thanks to a system that builds upon this notion.
Last fall and spring, I gave an overview of China’s education system to a broad audience at the China Scope Conference at MIT and Columbia, focusing on China’s long history of using nothing but exam results to select bureaucrats and determine the size of cohorts—which resulted in tremendous competition for social mobility. Schooling became essentially a competition among families rather than individual students. All of this still holds true today. Chinese students—who are often treated like assembly-line products in schools that only teach to the test—graduate from college only to find themselves unemployed.
David Brooks of The New York Times wrote in 2007 that such problems were the result of a “dictatorship of talent.” Brooks made his observations during a trip to Shanghai, which last December attained the highest PISA scores in the world.
Brooks borrowed the concept of “meritocratic paternalism”—elites ruling a society can make the best decisions for their people, like fathers have traditionally done within families—from one of his Chinese friends who argued for and defended the advantages of the Chinese way, using examples of the country’s economic success over the last 30 years. Ironically, it is the same economic development that makes American education accessible and affordable for many Chinese families, who send their children to study in the United States to nurture the “merits” in them. Yet increasingly, the students returning to China take government jobs and become part of the Chinese elite rather than striking out as entrepreneurs. Their career paths might be a clear sign of how little U.S. education altered the deeply rooted Chinese philosophy in such students.
It is neither rare nor regrettable that many leading scholars who achieved great distinction in their fields have returned to China and become governmental officials. Internationally renowned mechanical engineer Dr. Wan Gang and economist Dr. Yi Gang—who now head China’s Ministry of Science and Technology and Bureau of Foreign Reserves, respectively—and many others have exhibited impressive leadership. However, more and more parents prefer to see their children earn $300 per month in bureaucratic government jobs (after they obtain degrees abroad) simply because of the stability—and likelihood of under-the-table benefits—that such positions afford.
We might all agree logically that it is next “to impossible for a top-down memorization-based elite to organize a flexible, innovative information economy, no matter how brilliant its members are.” Maybe a truly game-changing reform is to replace the “dictatorship of talent” with a “democracy of talent,” the center of which would emphasize engagement and peer interactions rather than obedience of fatherly know-it-all teachers. Efforts in this direction have been made by educators and policymakers in China since 1998, but students and parents have largely resisted the engagement, children-centered campaign. Instead, students and parents have doubled-down on the exam-centered approach. Chinese education companies such as the New Oriental Group, Ambow and Xue-Er have made huge revenues in the test-prep business driven students and parents desirous of higher scores.
The offspring of “tiger mothers” in China are not going to take over the world as some American parents have worried. American schools and parents have the upper hand. People in Silicon Valley have been truly driving innovation and the world’s economic growth. As long as we all pay attention to what they believe about education, the momentum—the continuous wave of creative ideas—will be sustained by the children who are in schools that foster their creativity. After all, the Valley’s success has grown out of a democracy of talent, so let us hope American schools—whether Waldorf or not—can keep students engaged in learning and critical thinking to maintain the seeds of success in tomorrow’s global competition.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Democracy of Talent?
The discussion or rather self-reflections about the "tiger mothers" and "paper tiger kids" phenomena has never faded away from the headlines of Chinese expat forums. Recently, a hot debate on one the leading forums is whether the "Waldorf Approach" to education can make sure to produce "real tigers" in the future.
If you google "Waldorf education", you will notice a most-emailed-article on NYTimes this month. It is about one of Waldorf Schools, which is located in Silicon Valley, that emphasizes on teaching students knitting socks and fractioning cakes while minimizing the trace of computer devices and technology-assisted learning in their classrooms. This unique pedagogy is to "focus on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans." A Microsoft engineer-parent echoes with this philosophy when explaining why he sent his three children to Waldorf, "Engagement is about human contact, the contact with the teacher, the contact with their peers (computers are distractions)".
This article aroused wide disagreements among readers, which you can glance in the comment section. However, it is the core word, "engagement", that interests me more than the debates over the effects and potential harms of educational technology. Because the negligence of such a component is leading the world's largest educational system, China, to face great difficulties in fostering innovation; while the US will retain its strength as the world's innovation leader thanks to the system that builds upon this notion.
Last fall and this spring, I gave an overview about China's education system to a broad audience at the China Scope Conference at MIT and Columbia. While there were many issues to cover, in the talks, I focused on China's thousand-years-old exam history to select bureaucrats, the size of cohorts and thus tremendous competition for upward mobility, and essentially a competition for life among families other than individual students, which all hold true till today. And those issues, by the end of day when a Chinese student graduates from college, unfortunately means unemployment and un-employability of the "assembly-line products" through schools teaching for tests.
Op-ed columnist David Brooks carefully coined those problems as "The Dictatorship of Talent". Although his observation was done in 2007 during a trip to Shanghai, the city which topped PISA's test earlier this year, my presentations indeed walked through the same issues as those mentioned in his article.
One of the issues that tearing the Chinese expat mothers living in America apart is whether to send their kids to a school that drills students heavily to prepare them as good test-takers, or to embrace a Waldorf-like schooling. And this mental conflict rises between the cultural genes shaped in the 2000-years-old Chinese exam system, and to the view that creativity will lead to ultimate success in information area.
Brooks borrowed the concept "meritocratic paternalism" from one of his Chinese friends who argued for and defended the advantages of Chinese way, using many evidences of economic success of the country in recent thirty years. It is the same economic development that turns American education accessible and affordable for many Chinese families, who send their children to study here to nurture "merits" in them; at the same time, the increasing wave of students returning to China and becoming part of the "paternalism elites" of Chinese society might be a clear indication of how little the American education shifted the deep-rooted Chinese philosophy in those students.
So all of us might agree logically that it is close to impossible for a top-down memorization-based elite to organize a flexible, innovative information economy, no matter how brilliant its members are. Maybe a truly game-change reform is to replace the "dictatorship of talent" with a "democracy of talent", the center to which is the emphasizing of "engagement and peer interaction", not "obeying to a father-like, know-all teacher". Efforts have been made by educators and policy makers in China on this direction since 1998, but it was the students and parents that were resisting the "engagement, children-centered" campaign. Instead, students even worked harder ever since then with exam-centered approach.
In other worlds, kids of "tiger mothers" in China are not going to take over the world as American parents worried. The card of the game is at the hand of American schools and parents. People in Silicon Valley have been truly driving the innovation and growth of our world, so as long as we all pay attention to what they believe about education, the momentum, the continues spell of creative ideas coming up from the Valley will be carried on by the kids who are in schools that preserve their creativity. After all, the Valley's success has grown out of democracy of talent, so let us hope American schools, whether Waldorf ones or public ones, can keep students engaged in learning and critical thinking.
If you google "Waldorf education", you will notice a most-emailed-article on NYTimes this month. It is about one of Waldorf Schools, which is located in Silicon Valley, that emphasizes on teaching students knitting socks and fractioning cakes while minimizing the trace of computer devices and technology-assisted learning in their classrooms. This unique pedagogy is to "focus on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans." A Microsoft engineer-parent echoes with this philosophy when explaining why he sent his three children to Waldorf, "Engagement is about human contact, the contact with the teacher, the contact with their peers (computers are distractions)".
This article aroused wide disagreements among readers, which you can glance in the comment section. However, it is the core word, "engagement", that interests me more than the debates over the effects and potential harms of educational technology. Because the negligence of such a component is leading the world's largest educational system, China, to face great difficulties in fostering innovation; while the US will retain its strength as the world's innovation leader thanks to the system that builds upon this notion.
Last fall and this spring, I gave an overview about China's education system to a broad audience at the China Scope Conference at MIT and Columbia. While there were many issues to cover, in the talks, I focused on China's thousand-years-old exam history to select bureaucrats, the size of cohorts and thus tremendous competition for upward mobility, and essentially a competition for life among families other than individual students, which all hold true till today. And those issues, by the end of day when a Chinese student graduates from college, unfortunately means unemployment and un-employability of the "assembly-line products" through schools teaching for tests.
Op-ed columnist David Brooks carefully coined those problems as "The Dictatorship of Talent". Although his observation was done in 2007 during a trip to Shanghai, the city which topped PISA's test earlier this year, my presentations indeed walked through the same issues as those mentioned in his article.
One of the issues that tearing the Chinese expat mothers living in America apart is whether to send their kids to a school that drills students heavily to prepare them as good test-takers, or to embrace a Waldorf-like schooling. And this mental conflict rises between the cultural genes shaped in the 2000-years-old Chinese exam system, and to the view that creativity will lead to ultimate success in information area.
Brooks borrowed the concept "meritocratic paternalism" from one of his Chinese friends who argued for and defended the advantages of Chinese way, using many evidences of economic success of the country in recent thirty years. It is the same economic development that turns American education accessible and affordable for many Chinese families, who send their children to study here to nurture "merits" in them; at the same time, the increasing wave of students returning to China and becoming part of the "paternalism elites" of Chinese society might be a clear indication of how little the American education shifted the deep-rooted Chinese philosophy in those students.
So all of us might agree logically that it is close to impossible for a top-down memorization-based elite to organize a flexible, innovative information economy, no matter how brilliant its members are. Maybe a truly game-change reform is to replace the "dictatorship of talent" with a "democracy of talent", the center to which is the emphasizing of "engagement and peer interaction", not "obeying to a father-like, know-all teacher". Efforts have been made by educators and policy makers in China on this direction since 1998, but it was the students and parents that were resisting the "engagement, children-centered" campaign. Instead, students even worked harder ever since then with exam-centered approach.
In other worlds, kids of "tiger mothers" in China are not going to take over the world as American parents worried. The card of the game is at the hand of American schools and parents. People in Silicon Valley have been truly driving the innovation and growth of our world, so as long as we all pay attention to what they believe about education, the momentum, the continues spell of creative ideas coming up from the Valley will be carried on by the kids who are in schools that preserve their creativity. After all, the Valley's success has grown out of democracy of talent, so let us hope American schools, whether Waldorf ones or public ones, can keep students engaged in learning and critical thinking.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Where is the next Steve Jobs?
The whole world is mourning the passing-away of the great visionary of our times. While Apple's stockholders wondering about the company's future, people are trying to measure the impact of the loss of Jobs from different perspectives (many articles on this topic on major media).
Joy Chen, former vice mayor of Los Angles, who is now a head-hunter and has been maintaining a good blog site to teach young people about how to cultivate the best out of themselves and prepare them for global competition. Ms. Chen's new blog raised a good call with such a title, "Now Your Turn, Create Something", to guide the younger generation to see how we can learn from the achievement of Steve Jobs.
Although she mentioned that "creativity is any act of creating something new", which I strongly agree, I think we could never underestimate the harms of a rigid, exam-oriented education system could do to our children, current students and future builders of the world.
Prof. Wadhwa just did his testimony at Capital Hill on how to stop the brain drain that US is facing potentially. The war for not only "the next Steve Jobs" but the next patches of minds that can foster the emergence of great ideas like PC, iPad, etc. is now. Hopefully we can see some interesting government responses from China/India about the new labor and immigration related bills here in the US, which might show us some hints about the future map of global distribution of "intelligence treasures" like Steve-Jobs-es.
Joy Chen, former vice mayor of Los Angles, who is now a head-hunter and has been maintaining a good blog site to teach young people about how to cultivate the best out of themselves and prepare them for global competition. Ms. Chen's new blog raised a good call with such a title, "Now Your Turn, Create Something", to guide the younger generation to see how we can learn from the achievement of Steve Jobs.
Although she mentioned that "creativity is any act of creating something new", which I strongly agree, I think we could never underestimate the harms of a rigid, exam-oriented education system could do to our children, current students and future builders of the world.
Prof. Wadhwa just did his testimony at Capital Hill on how to stop the brain drain that US is facing potentially. The war for not only "the next Steve Jobs" but the next patches of minds that can foster the emergence of great ideas like PC, iPad, etc. is now. Hopefully we can see some interesting government responses from China/India about the new labor and immigration related bills here in the US, which might show us some hints about the future map of global distribution of "intelligence treasures" like Steve-Jobs-es.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Posts to come...
Recently, from a book talk at B&N's on "The Submission" by NYTimes regional director, to the speech of the designer, Michael Arad, of the World Trade Center's memorial site at Columbia's Avery Hall, till today's Cafe Social Science series at the PicNic by Prof. Peter Bearman on documentary collective memories about 9-11 with oral history method, and many other events, I have had several thoughts that I would like to share here from my own perspective as we co-lived through this period of history. Will write on:
- The day of 9-11, very last day of the military camp for freshmen of my college and very first day of our college life.
- Reactions of my fellow students in China on that day, and now after 10 years, their changes.
- How the event reshaped many values about life, belief, peace, rights, tolerance, globalization, etc. of the younger generation of China.
- Some impacts noticeably different of 9-11 on my generation in China and my peers in the US and what it means for our world today.
A little piled up with my research projects but I have had so many thoughts lining up in my mind to be written, stay tuned.
- The day of 9-11, very last day of the military camp for freshmen of my college and very first day of our college life.
- Reactions of my fellow students in China on that day, and now after 10 years, their changes.
- How the event reshaped many values about life, belief, peace, rights, tolerance, globalization, etc. of the younger generation of China.
- Some impacts noticeably different of 9-11 on my generation in China and my peers in the US and what it means for our world today.
A little piled up with my research projects but I have had so many thoughts lining up in my mind to be written, stay tuned.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Imagination Beyond Tumbling Markets
Stock markets globally had experienced the most volatile week recently since 2008. You can almost smell the fear on the real street: the fear from a blurred vision about the world's future, and biased frustration from the weak economic indicators.
Sometimes, we need a little reaffirmed confidence about our species' boundless imagination: the eternal ignite for growth.
Like this one--- HBR's frequent contributor, life science philosopher & entrepreneur, Juan Enriquez, in his talk at TED on Genomics and the great scientific economic, public-health, cultural potentials there if our societies master the new language about life and if we accumulate more knowledge about the coding embedded in genomes.
Another really good episode I found on TED today was a speech by Jay Walker, the "Edison in the new era" and founder of priceline.com and a series of great ventures. His introduction on the wonderful personal collection in his "Library of Human Imagination" definitely is not a placebo but a vivid and powerful evidence of the ability of human capacity for continuous advancement, as long as we keep embracing what he believes: there is infinite power in our brain.
Sometimes, we need a little reaffirmed confidence about our species' boundless imagination: the eternal ignite for growth.
Like this one--- HBR's frequent contributor, life science philosopher & entrepreneur, Juan Enriquez, in his talk at TED on Genomics and the great scientific economic, public-health, cultural potentials there if our societies master the new language about life and if we accumulate more knowledge about the coding embedded in genomes.
Another really good episode I found on TED today was a speech by Jay Walker, the "Edison in the new era" and founder of priceline.com and a series of great ventures. His introduction on the wonderful personal collection in his "Library of Human Imagination" definitely is not a placebo but a vivid and powerful evidence of the ability of human capacity for continuous advancement, as long as we keep embracing what he believes: there is infinite power in our brain.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Hands Off Please, Mr. Minister
After following @USEdGov for a while, I noticed that Mr. Duncan and his colleagues travel a lot, as much as their counterparts in China, I would say. You can check here to see all the visits of federal edu administrators national trips and their agenda.
Now let us do a little mind work, imagine the settings below for a new trip Mr. Duncan has to do:
1. The US Ed Min decided to do a national evaluation of all higher ed institutions' qualities (on teaching, researching, internal management, services, etc.). All institutions, private or public, 2 year or 4 year, on/offline, all mandated to participate in this campaign and the funding and federal aid their students can get depends on their final rankings.
2. Given the funding incentive above, all institutions are "forced" to respond to this upcoming check.
3. A committee is formed at the federal level with "experts" on educational assessment, they will be traveling around and check out each institute's status.
Now, assume there is a university X, they have 3 different dining halls on campus, all outsourced to professional catering services, all priced their average meal at $5. This is what is gonna happen when a ranking-related "national check" is coming:
1. Someone heard that the baseline score on "services to students/ dining" is $3/meal available on campus, the more expensive the meal, the less score you get.
2. After learning about the above "insider information" about the benchmark for ranking, University X decided to end the contract with one of the three catering companies, so that they take one dining hall back for the university to run on their own. They hired staff, purchased equipment, assigned accounting/cleaning/security services. --> all action is to CREATE a "$3/meal" dining hall available on campus.
3. But the $3/meal dining hall's capacity is limited, it can't host every student. So the university assigned that only Class 2008 and 2009 with their ID could dine there, other students have to go to the other two $5/meal dining places.
4. As every student might respond, they will sneak into the cheap dining hall with borrowing a friend's ID, or "bribe" the security guy "Sam" who checks IDs. As long as Sam accepts bribes less than $2, students will be motivated to do so.
--> After a month, this dining hall is over-crowded.
5. So the university decided to add one more security guy to work with Sam together, to double check each other's performances. Gradually, they became friends, and students bribe them together.... Then, the 3rd, the 4th, 5th..... security personnels.
6. Eventually, this dining hall is providing meals with a very bad quality that is less than $3 value, and the university is paying a very high operational cost on it, and no student is happy with it about its restrictions on fair access, its quality, etc.
Now, imagine that all academics respond in the same way. Faculty members abandoned their own syllabus, but have to teach according to a "national curriculum" accurately, even about which questions to ask in a mid-term...
No academic freedom.
No innovation.
No ideas' exchanges.
All started from a bad decision the Ed Min made at the Federal Gov, which they believe comes from a good intention that to make sure of the quality of education nationwide.
Luckily, all the above stories are hypothetical, Mr. Duncan and his team works with one of the most decentralized school system in the world and they are not able, constitutionally, to carry out such "mandatory evaluations" and link its results with federal funding to institutions that "obey" the federal curriculum.
But unfortunately, all the above story happened in China. The more national money available to the ed min, the more frequent such policies are carried out. I borrowed the story on Price Regulations and Its Consequences from here, to discuss how disastrous a bad government policy on education could be.
Now let us do a little mind work, imagine the settings below for a new trip Mr. Duncan has to do:
1. The US Ed Min decided to do a national evaluation of all higher ed institutions' qualities (on teaching, researching, internal management, services, etc.). All institutions, private or public, 2 year or 4 year, on/offline, all mandated to participate in this campaign and the funding and federal aid their students can get depends on their final rankings.
2. Given the funding incentive above, all institutions are "forced" to respond to this upcoming check.
3. A committee is formed at the federal level with "experts" on educational assessment, they will be traveling around and check out each institute's status.
Now, assume there is a university X, they have 3 different dining halls on campus, all outsourced to professional catering services, all priced their average meal at $5. This is what is gonna happen when a ranking-related "national check" is coming:
1. Someone heard that the baseline score on "services to students/ dining" is $3/meal available on campus, the more expensive the meal, the less score you get.
2. After learning about the above "insider information" about the benchmark for ranking, University X decided to end the contract with one of the three catering companies, so that they take one dining hall back for the university to run on their own. They hired staff, purchased equipment, assigned accounting/cleaning/security services. --> all action is to CREATE a "$3/meal" dining hall available on campus.
3. But the $3/meal dining hall's capacity is limited, it can't host every student. So the university assigned that only Class 2008 and 2009 with their ID could dine there, other students have to go to the other two $5/meal dining places.
4. As every student might respond, they will sneak into the cheap dining hall with borrowing a friend's ID, or "bribe" the security guy "Sam" who checks IDs. As long as Sam accepts bribes less than $2, students will be motivated to do so.
--> After a month, this dining hall is over-crowded.
5. So the university decided to add one more security guy to work with Sam together, to double check each other's performances. Gradually, they became friends, and students bribe them together.... Then, the 3rd, the 4th, 5th..... security personnels.
6. Eventually, this dining hall is providing meals with a very bad quality that is less than $3 value, and the university is paying a very high operational cost on it, and no student is happy with it about its restrictions on fair access, its quality, etc.
Now, imagine that all academics respond in the same way. Faculty members abandoned their own syllabus, but have to teach according to a "national curriculum" accurately, even about which questions to ask in a mid-term...
No academic freedom.
No innovation.
No ideas' exchanges.
All started from a bad decision the Ed Min made at the Federal Gov, which they believe comes from a good intention that to make sure of the quality of education nationwide.
Luckily, all the above stories are hypothetical, Mr. Duncan and his team works with one of the most decentralized school system in the world and they are not able, constitutionally, to carry out such "mandatory evaluations" and link its results with federal funding to institutions that "obey" the federal curriculum.
But unfortunately, all the above story happened in China. The more national money available to the ed min, the more frequent such policies are carried out. I borrowed the story on Price Regulations and Its Consequences from here, to discuss how disastrous a bad government policy on education could be.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
China's College Entrance Exam--A Good Business?
So the final scores of the college entrance exam in China is out. Assisted with computerized scoring system, many college junior and senior students, as well as graduate students, helped with tens of thousands of teachers nationwide on evaluating the tests in different subjects.
9.63 million exam takers, means 9.33 million students* 4 subjects (Chinese, English, Math, Sciences/ Humanities) per student * 20 min on evaluating each exam book = 12.32 Million working hours needed to grade the tests.
12.32 million hours, if teachers and test grader assistants are paid on average $3 per hour, the total cost of just on graders, is $37 million.
As far as I know from my family relatives and friends' personal experiences of helping with the grading, the pay is most of the time on the range of 30RMB to 50 RMB per hour, which equals to $4.62 to $7.7, with really sweet subsidies on hotel accommodations, food, snacks, etc.
That is just the manpower part. The cost of forces focused on security for the grading process is another big expense item. During the grading, all test graders, whether you are a high school teacher or part-time assistant, everyone is "quarantined" in buildings that serves as both working zone and accommodation zone. Existing and reentering will be like passing the security of CIA building (my assumptions from these spy movies!), several rounds of checks to be done and paper work to sign.
Let us give a "facility overhead multiplier" of 0.15 to the man power part, which will make the total cost of grading the CEE so far reaching $37/3*5 * 1.15 = $71 million.
I searched and found that on average the fees paid by exam takers per person is roughly 130RMB, or, $20. So the total fees collected from students are $ 186.6 million.
I know that making student final test score/results available online and via telephone system also costs a lot, but whether it can justify the $110million surplus?
It seems that running a test business is really a sweet business, no doubt ETS, College Board, IB, etc. are all spending so extravagantly on advertising. Don't know who will be the first ice-breaking dealer and get a share from the National Edu Board ministered CEE in China?
9.63 million exam takers, means 9.33 million students* 4 subjects (Chinese, English, Math, Sciences/ Humanities) per student * 20 min on evaluating each exam book = 12.32 Million working hours needed to grade the tests.
12.32 million hours, if teachers and test grader assistants are paid on average $3 per hour, the total cost of just on graders, is $37 million.
As far as I know from my family relatives and friends' personal experiences of helping with the grading, the pay is most of the time on the range of 30RMB to 50 RMB per hour, which equals to $4.62 to $7.7, with really sweet subsidies on hotel accommodations, food, snacks, etc.
That is just the manpower part. The cost of forces focused on security for the grading process is another big expense item. During the grading, all test graders, whether you are a high school teacher or part-time assistant, everyone is "quarantined" in buildings that serves as both working zone and accommodation zone. Existing and reentering will be like passing the security of CIA building (my assumptions from these spy movies!), several rounds of checks to be done and paper work to sign.
Let us give a "facility overhead multiplier" of 0.15 to the man power part, which will make the total cost of grading the CEE so far reaching $37/3*5 * 1.15 = $71 million.
I searched and found that on average the fees paid by exam takers per person is roughly 130RMB, or, $20. So the total fees collected from students are $ 186.6 million.
I know that making student final test score/results available online and via telephone system also costs a lot, but whether it can justify the $110million surplus?
It seems that running a test business is really a sweet business, no doubt ETS, College Board, IB, etc. are all spending so extravagantly on advertising. Don't know who will be the first ice-breaking dealer and get a share from the National Edu Board ministered CEE in China?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
