What's the difference between one volume, two volumes and three volumes in China? Netizen 4:
First, the areas where volumes are used are different. On 20 18, the provinces and regions that used the volume were Gansu, Qinghai, Tibet, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Chongqing and Hainan (Chinese, Mathematics and English). 20 18 the provinces and regions used in the first volume of China are Anhui, Hubei, Fujian, Hunan, Shanxi, Hebei, Jiangxi, Guangdong, Henan and Shandong, which are similar to those in the old provinces. However, compared with previous years, it has been greatly improved, and education is gradually becoming fair.
Netizen 5:
The difficulty is different. Although they are all national papers, the difficulty coefficient is different. For China people, Chinese is generally not too difficult. After all, it is the first subject of the college entrance examination, so the proposer will be lenient in the first subject. What should I say about mathematics? Most of the problems in the two papers are the same. I've done the math papers in the first and second courses, and I think the second course is relatively simple. English is not bad, almost all languages are similar, and the questions of literature synthesis are similar, but literature synthesis and physics curriculum standard one are more difficult to manage than curriculum standard two.
Which is more difficult, one, two or three volumes nationwide?
The test areas of volume 1 are Shanxi, Fujian, Henan, Hebei, Jiangxi, Hunan, Hubei, Guangdong and Anhui. The two volumes are used in Gansu, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Shaanxi, Tibet and Chongqing. National 3 volumes, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guangxi and Guizhou.
By contrast. It is not difficult to find that the overall education level of volume 1 is higher than that of volume 2. Of course there are exceptions. For example, the education in Liaoning is not bad, and the level of Anhui in the test area of volume 1 is low. However, there is a linear relationship between the use area of test papers and the overall education level. Because the college entrance examination pays attention to fairness, you will always suffer if you go to a place with a low level compared with a place with a high level.
Just like many unknown facts on the Internet, they always make excuses for their poor exam results and say that they were born in the wrong place. In fact, if you are in a developed place, your grades are even worse, and people have a different foundation from childhood. By the way, it's not that some people with ulterior motives say that Beijing can only get a chance to go to Peking University if it scores 670 or more in the college entrance examination every year! The question of fairness must have been considered by the questioner, no doubt.
Netizen and:
Personally, I think the difficulty coefficient of three sets of papers in China is1>; 2 & gt3。
No matter how difficult the students are and how their scores are, the final admission is based on the enrollment plan of the universities in the region and the ranking of students in the region. I think the so-called relative fairness of the college entrance examination is more reflected in the competition between students and all candidates in the region. The scope of competition is far greater than the school grade ranking, with a larger base and higher fairness.
Of course, the level of economic development and educational resources in different provinces must be uneven, and it is impossible for all candidates in the country to do the same papers and questions.
It is good to ensure that at least one question in the provincial exam is the same. On this premise, other aspects compete fairly. For example, a national volume corresponds to several provinces, so millions of candidates in these provinces are doing the same problem. In the era of big data, if the education department can count the scores of candidates who have done the same set of papers in these provinces after the exam, then the reference significance of scores and data will be even greater. It also provides a more favorable plan for the allocation of college enrollment plans and the policy design direction of education departments!