A recent scandal involving a high-school student from a private school in Taichung has reignited long-standing frustrations with Taiwan’s increasingly complex and high-pressure university admissions system. The student, who had successfully gained admission to several prestigious medical schools, shared their learning portfolio on social media — only for Internet sleuths to quickly uncover a falsified claim of receiving a “Best Debater” award.
The fallout was swift and unforgiving. National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and Taipei Medical University revoked the student’s admission on Wednesday. One day later, Chung Shan Medical University also announced it would cancel the student’s admission. China Medical University, initially rumored to have taken similar action, clarified that it had not yet reached a decision, but was reviewing the case with caution.
Academic dishonesty is a serious issue that warrants concern, but this particular case also raises broader questions: Was the institutional reaction truly a reflection of justice and ethics? Or was it a rushed, punitive verdict spurred by public backlash and the viral nature of online exposure? Beyond the immediate scandal lies a deeper and more pressing issue: Taiwan’s university admissions system is no longer a fair or sustainable model.
Once centered on a single, high-stakes exam, Taiwan’s college admissions system has in recent years transformed into a maze of multi-pathways, such as the STAR Project (繁星推薦), individual applications and distribution through the General Scholastic Ability Test combined with subject-specific tests. What was originally intended to create a more holistic and flexible system has become a burdensome and confusing process. Students today are not just judged on their test scores; they must curate and present an entire academic persona, complete with polished learning portfolios, recommendation letters, interviews and documentation of extracurricular activities.
This shift was designed with the hope of reducing stress and better capturing each student’s potential beyond exam results. However, in practice, it has created a culture of anxiety, inequality and surface-level performance. The learning portfolio, in particular, has moved far from its original purpose. Instead of being an honest reflection of growth and learning, it has become a tool for presentation — a marketing document. In such a system, it becomes tempting, even normalized, to exaggerate or embellish.
Indeed, the student in question might have made a poor decision in claiming an honor they did not receive, but to what extent did the system itself create the conditions for such an error? In an environment where success can depend on who tells the most compelling story, not necessarily who is most academically prepared, students are increasingly incentivized to stretch the truth.
Even more troubling is the growing divide between students who can afford to game the system and those who cannot. Wealthier families are able to hire private tutors, enroll their children in specialized extracurricular activities, and even pay professionals to help craft perfect portfolios. This gives them a clear advantage in a system that rewards presentation over substance. While the intention of the multi-admission approach was to level the playing field, in reality, it has reinforced social inequality and entrenched privilege.
Taiwan’s education reforms promised to develop independent thinkers and well-rounded individuals. If we truly want a fair and effective admissions process, then this case must serve as more than a moment of scandal. It must be a wake-up call.
The ultimate goal of higher education admissions should not be to reward those with the flashiest portfolios, but those with the character, ability and readiness to grow. Taiwan must rethink its approach, not to excuse dishonesty, but to ensure that honesty remains possible, and that students are not punished for trying to survive in a system that too often demands perfection over authenticity.
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