Not every student has the same aptitude, not everyone learns the same way. Some students are visual learners who absorb knowledge better with charts, graphics and pictures. Kinesthetic learners need hands-on experience to optimize their intelligence and auditory learners absorb by hearing lessons, in the form of lectures and the like. Clearly the existing teaching method benefits the latter, leaving the other two types at a disadvantage.

Likewise, "cookie-cutter" testing is beneficial only to a small group of students: those good at rote learning. I contend those are auditory learners.

Ironically, kinesthetic learners are good at writing - a mechanical skill. As I understand it, writing is a large part of the college entrance examination, or gaokao, in China. So if the current method of instruction is beneficial only to about one-third of the students, but testing is geared toward a different third, how can we say that this exam fairly measures every student's intellect?

I believe the gaokao is unfair to students. That single marker should not be an indicator of future success and family honor. Having only one shot at higher education, and with that education deciding their status in society puts undue pressure on students who have only a vague idea of what social status/success means. Already burdened by family legacy, these students are subjected to undue strain at thought of the all too real possibility of failure.

TEAMKREJADOS, from China Daily blog

Readers' comments are welcome. Please send your e-mail to opinion@chinadaily.com.cn or letters@chinadaily.com.cn or to the individual columnists. China Daily reserves the right to edit all letters. Thank you.

(China Daily 06/16/2014 page9)