What began as a seemingly minor dispute on social media has unexpectedly highlighted forms of inequality within education systems that often go unnoticed. Late last year, a National Taiwan University (NTU) student shared observations on social media about classmates’ upbringing and life experiences, describing the intangible yet very real effects of “privilege” on campus and in everyday life. The post quickly ignited debate, centering on a key question: Does admission to Chien Kuo High School — long regarded as Taiwan’s most prestigious boys’ high school based on entrance exam scores — constitute a form of privilege in itself?
Underlying this discussion is an implicit assumption: the more resources and support a family can provide, the greater a student’s likelihood of entering higher-ranked schools.
Taiwan’s education system is built around highly standardized examinations, a feature it shares with other East Asian societies. Although education reforms since the 1990s have sought to reduce the decisive role of exams in determining students’ futures, this system remains firmly in place. In practice, it often amplifies disparities in family resources rather than neutralizing them.
“Privilege” extends beyond household wealth or spending on education. It includes whether students can devote themselves fully to studying without bearing responsibilities such as earning a living or caring for family members, and whether they live in urban areas, where long commutes do not drain time and energy. These conditions, rooted in one’s family background, frequently translate into academic advantages, giving students from more favorable circumstances a greater chance of success within the education system.
Academic research offers supporting data for these patterns. A series of studies titled Who Are NTU Students? (誰是臺大學生？) by Luoh Ming-ching (駱明慶), an NTU professor of economics, shows that students admitted to Taiwan’s highest-ranked university disproportionately come from a small number of elite high schools, such as Chien Kuo. These students’ families are heavily concentrated in Taipei. Such households are more likely to provide stable learning environments, including access to private tutoring, shorter commuting times and freedom from financial pressure, allowing students to devote nearly all their time and energy to exam preparation.
At the same time, Luoh’s research indicates that policies promoting diversified admission pathways have indeed improved access to top universities for students from rural areas and lower-income families. Even so, structural disparities within the system remain substantial.
Similar conclusions have been reached by international research. A study by US economists Nicholas W. Papageorge and Kevin Thom finds that higher socioeconomic status significantly amplifies the positive effect of genetics on the likelihood of completing a college degree. For individuals raised in lower socioeconomic environments, comparable potential is far less likely to be translated into educational attainment.
In discussions online, some have playfully rendered the Mandarin phonetic equivalent of “privilege” as “Thunderous Torque” (霹靂力矩), suggesting that those who have such privilege can effortlessly “turn the levers” of life in dazzling fashion. From a sociological perspective, such expressions are more than wordplay. They reflect shared perceptions of structural inequality and an intuitive awareness of the hidden stratification embedded in everyday educational experiences.
Privilege, in this sense, is not the product of any single factor, but the result of long-standing interactions among family background, institutional design and broader social structures. Taiwan’s case illustrates how education systems, even while promising equal opportunity, might reinforce inequality. When education is widely regarded as a symbol of fair competition, recognizing these subtle yet consequential differences becomes an essential part of public discussion.
Hou Liang-xuan is a writer based in Taiwan with a background in sociology, interested in education policy and social inequality.
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS