What Does It Mean to Use “GaoKao” Scores to Admit Chinese International Undergraduate Students in U.S. Universities?
Jia Zheng, PhD Student of the Higher Education, Student Affairs and International Education Policy Program, University of Maryland
The Open Doors Report marked a fourth consecutive year of decline in international student enrollment since 2016, with the number of international undergraduate students dropping by 2.4% during the 2018-2019 academic year (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2020). China remained the top leading country of origin for international students, constituting 35% of the total number of international students in U.S. universities (IIE, 2020). To attract more prospective Chinese international undergraduate students, an increasing number of private institutions in the U.S. are accepting the Chinese National College Entrance Exam scores (Gaokao scores) in lieu of SAT or ACT scores (Bennett, 2019).
Although Gaokao, SAT, and ACT are all high-stake standardized tests, they differ in several areas. Gaokao is a 2-day college entrance exam administered by the Chinese Ministry of Education and it’s offered once a year in Mainland China; SAT and ACT are both 3–4-hour long exams administered by the Educational Testing Service on behalf of the College Board, and they are offered multiple times a year in the United States and in other countries (except Mainland China). Gaokao serves as the sole exam for Chinese college admission, however, international students do not need to sit in the exam when applying for universities within Mainland China. In comparison, SAT and ACT are commonly used for U.S. college admission for both American and international students.
With the increasing recognition that Gaokao scores are a positive indicator of Chinese students’ academic success in U.S. universities (Roskina, 2019), the University of New Hampshire became the first public institution to admit Chinese international undergraduate students based on their Gaokao scores in addition to evidence of English proficiency, such as TOEFL, IELTS or interviews (Zuo & Zhuang, 2018). It is unclear, however, if Gaokao scores or standardized test scores actually serve as the best method to determine who gets access to college (Park & Liu, 2014), particularly for low-income Chinese international undergraduate students from rural regions.
Gaokao, meaning “high test”, is a standardized test that high school seniors take to apply to universities in China. The test is high stakes not only because it spans across two days but also because of its limited availability (it is only offered on a yearly basis). In China, the competition really begins at birth. A student who is born into a higher-income family benefit from the economic, social, and cultural capitals that guarantee a spot at a well-resourced kindergarten, or even getting a head start by attending an international or bilingual kindergarten. The kindergarten placement will directly impact which elementary school the student attends, and, subsequently, which secondary-level school they will be able to attend. The student will also likely receive additional support from after-class tutoring or private tutoring as well as extra-curricular activities that give them a nudge towards getting into an elite university in China. If the student does not receive the desired scores during their first attempt of taking the exam at the end of their high school senior year, they have the option to re-enroll in the high school senior year and re-do the test. Or they simply opt out of the Chinese system by preparing for and taking the SAT or ACT instead of Gaokao and pursue postsecondary education overseas. The abundant resources will help students from higher-income families gain admission to the university of their choice.
On the other hand, students from low-income families do not always have the choice to re-do their high school senior year and re-take the test, nor do they have the alternative option to attend universities overseas. Instead, they are compelled to achieve high scores in the Gaokao exam, which serves as their only ticket to a college education that opens up a pathway of upward social mobility. Many of these low-income students are from rural areas and the so-called “left behind generation”. All of the “left-behind” children’s parents work as migrant workers in urban cities, providing financial support for their children’s high school tuitions. For these students, they do not have the economic, social, or cultural capitals that connect them to a well-resourced school, nor do they have the additional support of a tutor. Unlike their affluent counterparts, if they do not perform well in Gaokao, they do not have the privilege to re-do the test due to inability to afford another year of tuition, and pursuing higher education overseas is beyond their financial ability. Not meeting the minimum scores for college admission will likely result in the students following the same path as their parents. Although Gaokao looks like an open and fair competition that anyone can have a shot at succeeding, low-income students from rural regions in China continue to be left behind.
To narrow the gap between urban and rural admission to universities, the Chinese Ministry of Education instituted a Gaokao reform in 2014 that adopted a more holistic admission process (Burkhoff, 2015). The reform changed the exam structure and eased some stress from exam-takers. High school seniors are now only required to sit on three compulsory subjects (instead of four), including Chinese, mathematics, and English language. The reform also allows students to take the English language exam twice throughout their high school and count the higher scores towards their overall Gaokao scores. Additionally, students now have the option to submit the results of their scores for three electives picked from both sciences and humanities, including ideology and politics, history, geography, physics, chemistry, and biology. Whereas before the reform, students had to take the comprehensive exam under either the sciences or humanities tracks (Roskina, 2019). This change allows students to take the electives that best demonstrate their academic strengths and interests from both divisions. The scores from the electives also count towards the overall Gaokao scores.
Based on the reform, the admission decisions no longer rely on a one-time standardized test score. However, students’ merits remain to be evaluated upon a collective of standardized test scores. Standardized measurements mostly assess students’ cognitive abilities, thus may not fully capture individual student’s aptitude and potential. Furthermore, aptitude and potential, such as adversity and leadership potential, are critical predictors of successful collegiate careers and they need to be assessed through a variety of measures (Park & Liu, 2014). Moreover, solely relying on standardized test scores in the college admission process continues to perpetuate the inequality between high-income students from urban regions and low-income students from rural regions.
Significant opportunity gaps prevail between students from urban regions and those in rural regions. Gaokao is an exam that compares individual student scores against those of other students in competition for limited spots at universities in China (Roskina, 2019). Despite a centralized approach, three versions of the exam exist across China that reflect the different regional curriculums (Liu & Helwig, 2020), which means the same Gaokao scores can carry different weights across different regions. For example, a student from an urban region can be admitted at the same institution with lower scores compared to a student from a rural area (Burkhoff, 2015). In addition, the unequal distribution of university enrollment quotas between urban and rural regions aggravates the disparity. The distribution of quotas is based upon where the universities are located. In China, high-ranking universities are mostly located in urban cities, particularly for elite universities. Thus, urban cities end up receiving more seats for admission in comparison to rural regions. Three cities in particular receive more quotas than the other 23 provinces in China, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin (Davey et al., 2007). Although the quota distribution system only applies to universities within China, the unequal distribution of quotas between urban and rural areas exacerbates the urban and rural divide, continuing to place students from rural areas at a disadvantage.
There are pros and cons to using Gaokao scores in admitting Chinese international undergraduate students in U.S. universities. The flexibility in using Gaokao scores surely attracts Chinese international undergraduate students to study in the U.S., mostly those who are academically successful and economically affluent. These students now benefit from the opportunity to use their Gaokao scores to apply for universities within China as well as in the U.S. On the other hand, the flexibility of using Gaokao scores is likely driven by the economic benefits institutions gain from Chinese international undergraduate students having to pay out-of-state tuitions that offset budget shortfalls and generate revenues. For U.S. universities, simply adopting Gaokao scores without understanding the inequities embedded within the Chinese educational system runs the risk of reproducing unequal college access for low-income students from rural regions in China.
Furthermore, using standardized test scores of any kind continues to focus on quantitative measurements, which, in itself, are flawed and inequitable in making admission decisions. Knowing that test scores cannot really measure students’ talents and potential (Park & Liu, 2014), higher education institutions should consider making standardized testing optional in the admission requirements and adopting a more holistic approach in admission (e.g., the University of California system recently voted to phase out SAT and ACT scores in admission requirements). To achieve equity in college access, higher education institutions should also consider low-income students’ socioeconomic status, family background, school environment, and regional conditions, and contextualize their academic performance in light of each student’s unique circumstances (Bastedo et al., 2018). Higher education institutions have to recognize the systemic inequality in the K-12 pipeline and going test-optional in college admission can serve as the first step towards equal college access.
References
Bastedo, M. N., Bowman, N. A., Glasener, K. M., & Kelly, J. L. (2018). What are we talking
about when we talk about holistic review? Selective college admissions and its effects on low-SES students. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 782-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1442633
Bennett, M. (2019, June 10). GaoKao acceptance growing at U.S. universities. U.S. News
Global Education. https://www.usnewsglobaleducation.com/all-advice/gaokao-acceptance-growing-at-u-s-universities
Burkhoff, A. (2015). “One exam determines one’s life”: The 2014 reforms to the Chinese
National College Entrance Exam. Fordham International Law Journal, 38(5), 1473-1509. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj
Davey, G., Lian, C. D., & Higgins, L. (2007). The university entrance examination system in
China. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701625761
Institute of International Education (2020). Top ten places of origin for international students
[Infographic]. https://opendoorsdata.org/infographic/top-10-places-of-origin-of-international-students/
Liu, G. X. Y., & Helwig, C. C. (2020). Autonomy, social inequality, and support in Chinese
urban and rural adolescents’ reasoning about the Chinese College Entrance Examination (Gaokao). Journal of Adolescent Research, 00(0), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558420914082
Park, J. J., & Liu, A. (2014). Interest convergence or divergence?: A critical race analysis of
Asian Americans, meritocracy, and critical mass in the affirmative action debate. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 36-64. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0001
Roskina, K. (2019). Gaokao: National College Entrance Exam in China. IEM Spotlight, 17.
Zuo, M., & Zhuang, P. (2018, June 21). The controversial Chinese college entrance exam
opening doors at more American universities. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2151869/controversial-chinese-college-entrance-exam-opening-doors-more
Comments
Post a Comment