Summary of the Core Content
This article breaks away from the long-standing debate on the internet about whether English should be a core subject: it neither sides with the argument that English is a sign of foreign worship and should be downgraded in importance, nor does it support the view that English is a crucial tool for social mobility and must be retained. Instead, it highlights a fundamental logic that most people are unaware of. English has consistently held one of the top three spots in the college entrance examination (Gaokao) with a score of 150 points for decades, not because it is necessary for “integrating with international standards” or because it is useful to the general public. The real reason is that the Gaokao, as a national unified system for selecting talent, has not found a more fair and efficient method of screening candidates among all subjects. Even if English were removed, another subject would take its place, and in the end, the burden on ordinary people would only increase, and educational equity would decrease. In essence, English has become the most cost-effective choice after careful consideration by all parties involved.
---
Point-by-Point Explanation in Plain Language
1. The Decade-Long Debate on the Status of English
The current discussions online about the importance of English are essentially arguments based on personal opinions, without understanding the underlying mechanisms at work:
- The opponents argue that learning English is a sign of foreign worship, useless to 90% of the population, and widens the gap between urban and rural areas.
- The proponents argue that English is a necessity for globalization and a tool for ordinary people to break through social barriers, and including it as a core subject prevents the wealthy from monopolizing English education.
These arguments are like arguing about whether hot pot is too spicy or delicious; they fail to address the fundamental reasons why hot pot has become so popular nationwide: its mature supply chain, its affordability, and its appeal to a wide range of people.
- Moreover, the recent surge in discussions about English’s status is not really about educational reform. It is more a reflection of rising national sentiment, with people using the English policy as a scapegoat for changes in relations with the West, without considering the actual consequences of such changes.
2. The Primary Purpose of the Gaokao is to Fairly Screen Candidates
Most people misunderstand the purpose of the Gaokao, thinking it is about teaching useful skills. However, its primary goal is to clearly rank millions of candidates and allocate them to universities while ensuring absolute fairness, so that no one suspects there are unfair grading practices.
This screening process has three key requirements for subjects:
1. There should be minimal human error in scoring.
2. It must clearly distinguish between candidates of different abilities.
3. It should be accessible to both liberal arts and science students without favoritism towards any particular subject.
For example, Chinese, another core subject, is often criticized for being subjective: two teachers may give vastly different scores for the same essay, and 80 out of 100 candidates may all score between 90-110, making it impossible to determine who truly understands the subject well or who just got lucky.
3. No Other Subject Is More Perfect for Screening Candidates than English
Many people wonder if physics or history could replace English as a core subject. The comparison reveals English’s irreplaceability:
- Physics has high differentiation but is highly biased against liberal arts students; making it a core subject would disadvantage those who are naturally not good at science.
- History seems less demanding but is entirely subjective, with scores depending on the examiner’s judgment, making it ineffective for precise screening.
- Only English has a majority of objective questions that can be graded automatically, with a clear progression in difficulty from elementary to high school. Memorizing 1000, 3000, or 5000 words can increase scores significantly, allowing for a fair and efficient screening of candidates without bias.
4. Removing English as a Core Subject Would Harm Ordinary Families
Those who advocate for removing English think it would reduce the burden on students, but this is wishful thinking. The need for such screening will always exist. If English’s 150-point score is removed, another subject would have to take its place, and the overall scores would become less distinguishable, making it harder for universities to select students.
Physics is the most likely candidate to replace English, but it requires significant effort; even with average talent, studying for half an hour a day for three years can still lead to a good score. Physics, on the other hand, depends heavily on natural ability, and many students struggle to understand the logic behind the problems. If physics became a core subject, children from lower-income families would have a harder time competing with those with innate talent, narrowing the opportunities for social mobility.
If English were no longer a core subject, schools might stop teaching it, and only wealthy families could afford expensive tutoring classes. Ordinary children would lose access to essential skills, making it harder for them to pursue careers in cutting-edge research, foreign trade, or overseas work. In short, those who complain about the burden of English would likely oppose any change if physics were to take its place, as studying physics would be even more challenging for them.