As expected, after the mathematics portion of the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) was criticized last year for being too easy, the pendulum has swung back, with students calling this year’s exam the most difficult ever.
Some graduates have asked if teachers were trying to get revenge for last year’s complaints, and many students have decided to take the optional Advanced Subjects Test (AST) scheduled for July.
Looking at previous GSATs, the math portion in 2009 was the most difficult, as the average score of the top 1 percent was a mere 89.55 points, the only time that the average dipped below 90 points. More data are needed to determine if this year’s exam was truly the most difficult.
After too many students obtained the 15th grade — the highest grade of each subject — in math last year, the question is how many students would obtain that level this year.
The root of the issue lies in the fluctuating difficulty of the country’s largest college entrance exam. Only by stabilizing the difficulty would it be possible to help students adequately prepare for the exams, without having to worry that the questions might be too hard or too easy.
By doing so, it would be possible to also increase “test differentiation,” and effectively distinguish between high and low-performing students to help colleges and universities enroll the students most suitable for them.
Despite the high math test differentiation last year, the difficulty of the exam was seriously flawed, as one in every nine students had a perfect score, requiring additional rounds of applicant screening at universities.
Moreover, faced with the difficulty of this year’s test, students who could have gained a 15th grade last year might only obtain a 10th grade this year. They will inevitably bemoan that they were born at the wrong time, as a Chinese saying goes. It would also affect the credibility of the GSAT.
Finally, the low birthrate means that applicant numbers and admission quotas for the AST have declined annually, resulting in the GSAT becoming the primary admission channel for most high-school graduates.
The original goal of the GSAT was to evaluate students’ general scholastic ability, serving as a basic admission threshold, while the 15 grades in each subject are considered threshold criteria.
In the past few years, GSAT results have been treated as scores that compare and rank students against one another in a “norm-referenced test.”
Besides, since each GSAT subject is based mainly on multiple-choice questions, students still have a chance to score by guessing randomly even if they do not know the correct answers. Under such circumstances, it would be difficult to treat the aspects of both test differentiation and test difficulty as key aspects.
Perhaps it is time to adjust the 15-grade system for each GSAT subject, and universities should not blindly give more importance to the multichannel school admission system over the results of paper-based tests.
For the former, interviews with applicants take a lot of time and energy, while simply looking at a student’s learning portfolios can be cold and unrealistic.
Would it really be possible to discover pearls buried in the sand using the multichannel school admission system as it is claimed? Are the current selection and recommendation channels not enough? The education authorities should take the concerns of teachers, parents and students seriously.
Lin Po-kuan is a junior-high school teacher.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS