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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS