Case Study: The Rise and Decline of China’s “Gaokao Factory”
Background
Hengshui High School in Hebei province became synonymous with extreme exam preparation in China, developing a replicable model that spawned 18 branches nationwide by 2017. The school’s approach represented the apex of China’s exam-driven education philosophy.
The System in Practice
The Hengshui model operated on several key principles:
Temporal Control: Students experienced near-total time management, with daily schedules precise to the minute. An 8-minute window for morning preparation, 15-20 minute meal times, and 16-hour study days created an environment of constant urgency and discipline.
Environmental Standardization: Dormitory beds required military-level precision, with quilts folded into perfect rectangles and wrinkle-free sheets. This attention to minor details aimed to instill discipline that would transfer to academic performance.
Volume Strategy: Rather than revolutionary teaching methods, the school concentrated exceptional students through cross-regional recruitment. This practice, technically illegal but locally tolerated until 2017, created a self-reinforcing reputation cycle.
Social Pressure: The model leveraged China’s one-child policy legacy, where families invested all educational hopes in a single offspring, creating immense psychological pressure to succeed.
The Decline: Key Indicators
- 2019: 275 students admitted to Tsinghua/Peking (peak)
- 2021: Beginning of steady decline
- 2025: Only 45 students admitted (83% reduction)
Root Causes of Decline
Regulatory Intervention: Authorities curtailed illegal cross-regional recruitment around 2017, eliminating the school’s ability to cherry-pick provincial talent.
Student Burnout: The intense psychological toll became increasingly recognized. Former students reported that while they could handle subsequent hardships, many lost enthusiasm for learning itself.
System Gaming Limitations: Other schools attempting to replicate the model failed because they couldn’t access the same student quality, revealing that the Hengshui advantage was selection bias rather than pedagogical innovation.
Policy Shifts: The 2021 “double reduction” policy and December 2025 exam frequency restrictions signal governmental recognition that the high-pressure approach carries unsustainable costs.
Outlook: The Future of Exam-Centric Education in China
Short-term Trajectory (2025-2030)
Continued Pressure with Modifications: The gaokao will remain central to Chinese education because no viable alternative exists for fairly processing 13+ million annual candidates. However, expect incremental reforms around the edges.
Diversification of Pathways: Universities may gradually increase alternative admission criteria, including portfolios, interviews, and specialized talent assessments, though these will supplement rather than replace exam scores.
Mental Health Crisis Recognition: Rising youth depression and academic burnout will force policymakers to balance meritocratic ideals with student wellbeing, creating tension between competing priorities.
Medium-term Evolution (2030-2040)
Demographic Relief: China’s declining birth rate will reduce competition intensity naturally. Fewer students competing for the same university slots could ease some systemic pressure without structural reform.
Technology Integration: AI-powered personalized learning may reduce the need for “factory model” uniformity, allowing students to optimize preparation more efficiently with less time investment.
Global Competition: As China seeks innovation leadership, purely exam-based selection’s limitations in identifying creative thinkers will become more apparent, potentially accelerating reform.
Long-term Transformation (2040+)
Paradigm Shift Potential: A generation raised under less pressure might demand fundamental changes, similar to how work-life balance expectations evolved in other developed economies.
Alternative Success Definitions: Economic development may reduce the singular focus on university prestige as entrepreneurship, vocational excellence, and diverse career paths gain legitimacy.
Solutions: Multi-Level Reform Strategies
Systemic Solutions (National/Provincial Level)
Decouple School Evaluations from Test Scores: Provincial authorities must stop ranking schools and tying principals’ promotions to university admission numbers. This single change would cascade throughout the system, reducing institutional pressure to adopt extreme methods.
Expand University Capacity at Top Institutions: Increasing enrollment at prestigious universities would reduce competition intensity. Currently, less than 0.5% of gaokao takers enter Tsinghua or Peking—expanding this to 1-2% would halve competitive pressure.
Develop Parallel Prestige Pathways: Germany’s vocational system demonstrates that society can value multiple educational tracks. China needs to elevate vocational and technical education to comparable prestige levels, creating legitimate alternatives to university pathways.
Implement Holistic Admission Criteria: Gradually introduce portfolios, extracurricular achievements, and interviews alongside exam scores. Singapore’s system offers a model where multiple factors contribute to university admission.
Institutional Solutions (School Level)
Time-Use Standards: Establish maximum study hour limits and mandatory recreational time. The current system’s effectiveness comes from student quality, not excessive hours—schools should be required to prove that extreme schedules add value.
Teacher Training in Student Wellbeing: Educators need professional development in recognizing and addressing mental health concerns, moving beyond purely academic metrics of success.
Transparent Recruitment Practices: Strictly enforce geographical recruitment boundaries and publish detailed admission criteria to prevent schools from gaming the system through selective enrollment.
Family and Community Solutions
Parent Education Programs: Many parents perpetuate pressure because they equate hardship with effectiveness. Education on healthy learning practices and long-term development could reduce demand for extreme approaches.
Peer Support Networks: Former students like Alan Wang could mentor current students, providing realistic perspectives on post-Hengshui life and helping contextualize the experience.
Community Recognition of Diverse Success: Media coverage, local awards, and public celebrations should highlight vocational excellence, entrepreneurship, and non-traditional achievements alongside academic success.
Individual Coping Strategies
Mindfulness and Resilience Training: Students in high-pressure environments benefit from explicit instruction in stress management, emotional regulation, and maintaining intrinsic motivation.
Maintaining Learning Joy: Schools should incorporate elements that preserve intellectual curiosity—discussion seminars, passion projects, and exploratory learning—even within exam-focused curricula.
Exit Options: Students and families need clear information about alternative pathways, including international education, vocational tracks, and delayed university entry, so the gaokao doesn’t feel like a single, irreversible judgment.
Impact on Singapore: Lessons and Parallels
Current Similarities
Singapore’s education system shares several characteristics with China’s model:
High-Stakes Examinations: The PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination), O-Levels, and A-Levels serve as critical gatekeepers, creating similar pressure points in students’ academic journeys.
Meritocratic Philosophy: Both systems embrace meritocracy as a core value, believing that standardized testing provides fair opportunities regardless of background.
Tuition Culture: Singapore’s extensive private tuition industry mirrors China’s pre-2021 situation, with families investing heavily in supplementary education to gain competitive advantages.
Limited Top-Tier Capacity: Admission to NUS, NTU, and SMU remains highly competitive, creating similar bottleneck pressures despite Singapore’s smaller population.
Parental Investment: Singapore’s context of smaller family sizes (often one or two children) creates comparable pressure dynamics where parents concentrate educational aspirations.
Key Differences Protecting Singapore
Scale and Diversity: Singapore’s smaller population (5.9 million vs. 1.4 billion) makes extreme factory models less necessary and alternative pathways more feasible.
Economic Alternatives: Singapore’s developed economy offers diverse success pathways—finance, technology, entrepreneurship—reducing the singular importance of university prestige.
Balanced Policy Approach: Singapore has proactively addressed education pressure through subject-based banding, reducing exam frequency, and removing mid-year exams for some levels.
Strong Mental Health Infrastructure: Schools employ counselors, and public awareness campaigns address student wellbeing, providing support structures less developed in China.
International Integration: Singapore’s global outlook means students have international university options, international schools provide alternatives, and diverse career models exist.
Warning Signs for Singapore
Pressure Creep: Singapore’s competitive culture could gradually intensify toward Hengshui-like extremes without vigilant monitoring and intervention.
Tuition Arms Race: The private tuition sector could evolve into more intensive, time-consuming formats if left unchecked, especially as parents seek advantages.
Youth Mental Health Trends: Singapore has seen concerning increases in youth stress and mental health issues, suggesting the current system’s pressure levels may already be problematic.
Elite School Concentration: If top schools develop reputations that create disproportionate advantages, a self-reinforcing cycle similar to Hengshui’s could emerge.
Preventive Measures for Singapore
Proactive Policy Learning: Singapore should study China’s experience as a cautionary tale, implementing preventive measures before problems reach crisis levels rather than waiting for decline.
Tuition Sector Regulation: Consider regulating intensive tuition programs, limiting hours, or requiring transparent disclosure of time commitments so families can make informed decisions.
Diversify Success Narratives: Government and media should actively promote diverse achievement stories—athletes, artists, entrepreneurs, vocational experts—to reduce singular focus on academic credentials.
University Admission Reform: NUS, NTU, and SMU could expand holistic admissions, placing greater weight on portfolios, interviews, and demonstrated passions alongside academic scores.
School Culture Monitoring: The Ministry of Education should establish metrics for school culture and student wellbeing, not just academic outcomes, with interventions for schools showing concerning patterns.
Parent Engagement: Provide resources helping parents understand long-term child development, recognize diminishing returns from excessive study, and support healthy learning environments.
Opportunities for Singapore
Regional Leadership: Singapore could model a “third way” that maintains meritocratic principles while avoiding extreme pressure, demonstrating that academic excellence and student wellbeing aren’t mutually exclusive.
Innovation in Assessment: Develop and test alternative assessment methods that could inform regional practices, positioning Singapore as an education innovation hub.
Mental Health Integration: Build comprehensive mental health support into education structures, creating a model that other Asian nations could adapt.
Flexible Pathways: Expand and legitimize multiple educational pathways—ITE, polytechnics, international programs—so students have genuine options rather than feeling tracked into narrow channels.
Philosophical Reflection
The Hengshui case ultimately raises fundamental questions relevant to Singapore: What is education for? Is it primarily a sorting mechanism for society’s limited elite positions, or a developmental process preparing diverse individuals for meaningful lives?
Singapore’s smaller scale and economic sophistication provide advantages that allow for more nuanced answers. The challenge is resisting the temptation toward extremes that efficiency and competitive pressure naturally encourage, instead maintaining the harder balance between excellence and humanity.
The decline of the Hengshui model suggests that extreme exam focus may be self-limiting—it can succeed temporarily through selection effects but eventually exhausts itself. Singapore has the opportunity to avoid this cycle entirely by learning from China’s experience and building sustainable excellence instead of manufactured intensity.