With phrases such as “entrenched privilege” and “apartheid education system” being bandied about more and more often, and some folks even questioning the existence of private schools altogether, the divide between public and private school students is more present than ever. We constantly hear comparisons between – and stereotypes of – the less disciplined and less demanding environment of private schools starkly contrasted with the tense and rigorous atmosphere of public schools, but the question stands: Are these presumptions true?

After interviewing several students and parents of students who attend Chinese public schools, here are some common ideas they have regarding private schools:

High fees

This is expected as private schools are generally synonymous with smaller class sizes, and teachers who specialize in individual development rather than being wholly responsible for an entire class. Despite this, many see it as a sign of inequality: “The higher fees only open private schools towards elitist groups, preventing middle- or lower-class families from admission,” one parent stated. Others directly correlate private schools with higher-income families: “They are wealthier,” a local student added. Although there is truth to this, many people disregard the many foreign expat families enrolled in private schools who negotiate school fees into their employment contracts.

Less work

While speaking to sources for this article, I heard a similar refrain:‘“The workload is lighter in private schools.”  On the surface, many may be quick to agree with this, especially those who witness the highly intense 中考 zhōngkǎo Middle School National Exams and 高考 gāokǎo High School National Exams, both of which are standardized tests that have the power to drastically alter a student’s future. However, as a recent graduate of an international school remarked, “International students experience the same level of an intense academic curriculum. For instance, the International Baccalaureate (IB) and International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE), which in my opinion, is as hard as the zhongkao and gaokao. Especially considering the Internal Assessments (IA’s), research essay (EE), Theory of Knowledge (TOK), and the 3 (Higher Level) HLs and 3 (Standard Level) SLs that IB candidates need to complete throughout two years.” This leads me to believe that it is not the category of schooling, rather the societal pressure surrounding students that decides the academic intensity of schools.

More liberty

Many students of public schools have commented on how private schools allow for more “freedom” in terms of time management and physical appearance. On the topic of time management, it is noticeable that public schools tend to create concise schedules, attempting to achieve a more disciplined learning environment that is crucial for larger student bodies. On the other hand, private schools tend to encourage independence, teaching students how to formulate and organize their own time accordingly. It is also true that most public schools don’t allow piercings, hair color, manicures, and some also limit female students’ hair length. This is antithetical to some international schools that allow or even embrace a student’s decision to change their looks. All of which is to say, this presumption might actually fit.

End goals

Several responses, in particular, struck me and were reminiscent of the Chinese adage: “Losing before the race has begun.” Many parents of public school children have to resign themselves to the fact that by sending their children to public schools, their end goal will almost certainly be to pass the local gaokao. One parent described it thusly: “The goals of the schools are different. Those who attend public schools aim to pass the gaokao, whilst those in private schools aim to go abroad.” Even though the “better option” is still up debatable, for parents who want their children to receive a more international education but can’t due to financial reasons, this exemplifies a sense of inequality.  

KEEP READING: Honest Questions to Ask Yourself Before Choosing a School for Your Child

Images: Unsplash

According to the latest update at the end of March, 315 Chinese students have received admission offers from Ivy League Schools. Beijing students alone made up 63 of those offers.

Early admissions (ED/EA)* were announced in December, while regular admissions (RD)* were announced at the end of March. The application date is usually in late December of that year or February of the following year. This gives applicants enough time to prepare the materials needed for the application and to also study for the exam. 

The following statistics are derived from the schools’ official website, official WeChat public platforms and other channels. If there are omissions or errors, please message us.

Admission statistics for Beijing

Beijing received a total of 63 Ivy League offers this year, accounting for more than 20% of the total offers, ranking first among Chinese cities.

The top three schools receiving offers were: the Experimental High School Attached to Beijing Normal University, the High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China, and Beijing National Day School. International schools and private bilingual schools are gaining more momentum year by year.

Comparisons to 2018 Enrollment Status

In 2019, the average acceptance rate at Ivy League schools was just 6.7 percent. Only two out of eight, Cornell and Princeton, saw increases in admissions.

Harvard’s acceptance rate fell slightly from last year to 4.5 percent, making it America’s most selective university for the second year in a row. While at Cornell, the acceptance rate rose to 10.6 percent. Cornell has been expanding its classes, acceptance rates are much higher than others.

Why are acceptance rates getting lower?

There are several factors behind the lower acceptance rates. These factors include: reservation of seats for underprivileged students, diversification of the student body, and Legacy Students.

Ivy League schools reserve a part of their admissions for first generation students from underprivileged families in the United States. Harvard, for example, set aside 16.4 percent of its seats this year, and the University of Pennsylvania set aside 15 percent.

Ivy League schools also reserve admission offers for students who are ethnic minorities as a part of their affirmative action policies. Students who are of African-American, Latino, and Native American descent are given greater considerations than other students in order to bring greater diversity to the schools.

“Legacy Student” refers to students whose parents or relatives are an alumni of a particular school that they are applying to. These students will receive preferential treatment in admission due to that fact. Harvard University, for example, has nearly 30 percent of its student population consisting of “Legacy Students”. 

＊ED: Early Decision. An applicant can apply to only one school and must attend if admitted.
＊RD: Regular Decision. Applicants can apply for multiple schools at the same time, but the competition is fierce.

Photo：upenn.edu
Sources: Jingkids.com, Sohu.com, NewSchool Insight, gpamaster, TBEducation, babazhenbang

Our own Beijing biases aside, it seems that Shanghai has a number of things going for it – i.e. a better system of roads, superior customer service, generally tastier cuisine – when stacked up against its Great Northern Rival (namely, us).

This list now apparently includes a far better school system – one so good, in fact, that it’s now being touted as the best in the world.

A recent blog post on The Diplomat by Jiang Xueqin (a deputy principal at Peking University High School and former journalist, filmmaker and UN press officer) describes how and why Shanghai’s school system has come out on top of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD’s, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) list each year since 2009:

Nations such as South Korea, Finland, and Singapore have traditionally topped the rankings, but, apparently, even they are no match for Shanghai, which shoved the others into lower positions in its very first year of participation in the programme, in 2009.

Jiang interviewed Andreas Schleicher, the programme director and architect, to get more insight and asked him why Shanghai’s school system has been so dominant on this list. The simple answer? Shanghainese students have been equipped with creative thinking skills that can be applied to "real-world situations."

According to Schleicher, Shanghai’s education system is distinctive and superior—and not just globally, but also nationally. Hong Kong, Beijing, and ten Chinese provinces participated in the 2009 PISA, but their results reflected education systems that were still the same-old knowledge acquisition models, whereas Shanghai had progressed to equipping students with the ability to interpret and extrapolate information from text and apply it to real world situations—what we would normally refer to as ‘creativity.’ Twenty-six percent of Shanghai 15 year-olds could demonstrate advanced problem-solving skills, whereas the OECD average is 3 percent.

Other differentiating factors the article cites include a consistent and real commitment to investing in education on the part of the Shanghai municipal government (Case in point: according to the article, "the Shanghai municipal government will invest 22.4 billion yuan annually on its schools, whereas the Chinese national government will invest 299.2 billion yuan for all of China"), an incentive system of tangible rewards for school administrators and educators alike to improve the schools, and a focus on "collaborative and creative learning" that "motivates students to learn for themselves, rather than receive "force-fed information."

Taken in this context, Beijing schools seem woefully out of step when compared to the Shanghai model, which, as the article implies, seems motivated in part by the city’s population of hyper-competitive Tiger Parents.

This is not to say that Beijing doesn’t have equally competitive parents who are firmly, if not obsessively, committed to their childrens’ educations – but in a city where schools are either completely over-crowded (i.e. the public schools), or routinely overpriced (i.e. private schools), one can’t help but envy our not-so-distant neighbors down south.

Add to the fact that the demand here in the Capital far outweighs the supply of quality schools and you have the trappings of a classic seller’s market – small wonder that it seems many (but not all, mind you) schools in Beijing simply don’t have the motivations/pressure to continually improve their curriculum and recruit and train better quality teachers.  

One also wonders if China’s National Ministry of Education will perk up, listen and learn from Shanghai’s example and apply the model nationwide – and while they’re at it, get a better regulatory grip on Capital’s booming private school industry.