Job Discussion Forums

[englishgibson]

I know that this topic has been around on a few other threads, but I'd like to narrow it down a bit here.

Having worked with this program for 4 years now, I have come across some interesting tendancy. A couple years back my former employer began more agressively advertising the ACT prep and the entry exams to the US unis, even though this program is on a global scale for all English speaking countries or shall I say universities.

To get to the point, my experience is that the ACT entry exams are for the US unis and they do not quite correspond with the ACT Education Solution Limited curriculum. Further more, the prep for these exams is just like a couple or so years of a high school curriculum that Chinese students are getting in a few days/months..learning how to pass the exams. This quite contradicts my academic program of the Global Assessment Certificate with the ACT Education Solution Limited books where they are to prepare for the western Universities, not for the entry exams before they join their Unis there.

THE QUESTION IS; DO YOU TEACH BOTH GAC PROGRAM AND THE ACT ENTRY EXAMS PREP COURSES AT YOU CENTERS??? AND, HOW LONG ARE YOUR COURSES AS WELL AS AT WHAT STAGE OF THE GAC PROGRAM DO YOU TEACH THE ACT PREP?

Here is an interesting link to the company
http://www.act.org/activity/spring2005/global.html

Cheers and beers

[Neilhrd]

The article you link too is interesting not so much for what it says, most of which I already knew, but for what it doesn't say. In particular two missing points stand out:

1. The company is incorporated in Hong Kong but it doesn't say who the major shareholders are or whether the company is a wholly foreign funded enterprise or a joint venture with a Chinese partner. This is critical to determining who really makes the decisions in GAC. I have always believed that in accordance with the Chinese govt's long standing policy of not allowing wholly foreign funded educational establishments in China there must be a Chinese Mr Big in the background somewhere. But I have never been able to identify him. If I am right this would explain the fiundamental inconsistencies in a programme which doesn't know if it is trying to use western or Chinese methods and ends up doing neither properly.

2. The article doesn't mention the exemption ACT Education Solutions claims to have from the usual ban on teaching towards the ACT test on the Chinese mainland. That casts further doubt in my mind about the authenticity of this claim. In any case is so hedged with restrictions on timing as to make the concession usless if ACT is taught as it is supposed to be after GAC level 2. My former centre were persecuted over this issue but I have long believed that was a personal vendetta against the franchisee and that other centres are allowed to bend the rules with impunity. If they aren't then ACT is usless.

Incidentally I agree with English Gibson's comments about the clash between the skill sets required for ACT and GAC.

Establishing the truth about who runs any Chinese school, what the curriculum is supposed to be and what its objectives are is like extracting hen's teeth. Then they wonder why programmes like GAC continue to deliver 10% of their potential.

I just wish they would grow up and treat the DOS's and teachers as responsible adults who can be trusted with the background information they need to do the job properly. Until then frankly they are p***ing in the wind and in my experience student, teachers and parents increasingly know it

[englishgibson]

On the point of who the major shareholders are I'd link this to other franchises such as KFC, MacDonalds' or Mac English First and their franchising systems in China. For example EF English First's centers open based on an initial fee of about 2,000 000 per center as well as their yearly royalty fees to the franchisors. When I say franchisors, I mean the regional Head Office with its permission to operate and offer franchisee lincences on Mainland. I suspect there're "fees" payable to officials out of this "rather large pot", although that's for another topic to discuss. It's my impression that this company we're talking about here is doing a similar business although in a rather hideous and purposely misleading ways as it seems.

As for the wholly foreign funded enterprise or a joint venture with a Chinese partner issue, yes, it's also my understanding that there're laws here that do not allow a foreign company to own more than 49.9%. With franchising, however, it becomes a fairly tricky issue here in the country. My understanding is that this company we're discussing is solely owned by Chinese. Although, these "owners" have a full permission from the ACT Education Solution Limited or the ACT to carry out their products. Needless to say that the GAC academic product is really taylor made on the mainland.