China's overland Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road Thread

[weig2000]

Supposedly, you can view the Chinese medical school (6 years) as pre-med (2 yrs) + med school (4 yrs). The medical school students usually spend their first two years study the core subjects like math, science, biology etc., then they spend the next four years on medical school stuffs. The Chinese college education traditionally has been a "specialist" model - a college graduate is considered an "intellectual" or professional, whereas the US college education is more of a "general-purpose" model - therefore you complete your four years college education and then go to a specialist school such as medical school to pursue the specialty skills.

 

[B.I.B.]

Congratulations!

What path did you take to gain entrance into a Chinese medical university, from (I assume) India? Did you have to do an undergraduate degree in India first, or do you do a year of papers and they assess your grades, or do you get in straight from high school?

In NZ the way I got in was via doing a first year of various biomedical science related papers and the university chooses the top percentile of students (like an A to A+ average) for interview... and then of those students who get an interview, a fraction actually enter the medical programme.

Rather than taking the top 100 students or whatever the number decided upon, having a interview to determine the applicant's suitability as a doctor is a better approach.
Why did you not apply to med school straight after high school? But I guess it's not a bad approach if you weren't relying on student loan.

 

[Blitzo]

Rather than taking the top 100 students or whatever the number decided upon, having a interview to determine the applicant's suitability as a doctor is a better approach.

The university I attend uses both. They take the top 30% of a cohort and offer them an interview, and of those 30% those who in their interview are deemed as having the best qualities are offered places in the medicine programme.

If you're in the top 1% of a cohort but you completely mess up the interview then you may not get an offer.

that way they can get students who are both very competent academically but also competent in an interpersonal way.

Why did you not apply to med school straight after high school? But I guess it's not a bad approach if you weren't relying on student loan.

I skipped the last year of high school and attended university directly because I had good enough grades. I did a three year psychology degree first because I was interested in being a clinical psychologist, then I realized it would be nice to actually have a job and that clinical places were too few with too much competition, so after I finished my degree I re applied for medicine as an undergraduate and got in that way.

 

[vesicles]

The Chinese college education traditionally has been a "specialist" model - a college graduate is considered an "intellectual" or professional, whereas the US college education is more of a "general-purpose" model - therefore you complete your four years college education and then go to a specialist school such as medical school to pursue the specialty skills.

I have to disagree with that assessment. By saying "general-purpose" and less specialized, I think you imply that the material taught at US colleges is not as deep, and that a college graduate in the US is not as an expert in their fields as their counterparts from elsewhere. Unfortunately, that is the kind of impression that I am getting from a lot of foreign-educated people who first come to the US. That is incorrect, IMHO. It tends to be more general in the first year in most US colleges. since entering freshmen all have different background and are at different levels (some simply took "science" classes in high school while others have taken advanced AP classes), the US colleges want all their students to get on the same page in the first year. So the first year mostly contains general stuff. And if you look at a freshman textbook, it looks very easy and very similar to what should have been taught in high school. However, starting from the second year, the course work gets real deep real fast. the course work becomes very tough in the Junior/Senior years. A lot of students got hit in the face when they expect the class work to be the same easy stuff that they saw in freshman year (I know I was... and I learned that in the hard way...). By the time a student graduates, his/her level of education is on par with everyone else who get their education from abroad.

So I don't think US college education is any less specialized. Not at all. How do I know? Many of my classmates / labmates were from countries famous for having high-level education, such as China and India, when I was in grad school. None of them, and I mean none of them, showed any clear advantage in classes with us. even when some of them had to go back and take undergraduate classes, they did not show any advantage over those undergraduates in their classes. Similar trend also holds true in fields, such as math, physics, chemistry and engineering. And now when I teach graduate school classes, those Chinese/Indian students again do not show that they have any better understanding of the material taught in class than their classmates who got their education in the US. I have spent many years in academia, both as a student and as a faculty. I have not heard a single case, where Chinese/Indian students easily cruise through some graduate level classes because they have learned the material when they were in college back home. Everyone that I know struggles similarly as their classmates with US education.

So my impression is that quality of education in US colleges is as good, as specialized and as comprehensive as anywhere else. This is why I don't understand the 2+4 system in China's medical education. The Chinese medical school students clearly do not have the same kind of the fundamental education that the US medical school students get before entering med school. I've never interacted with Chinese doctors or Chinese med school graduates. So I can't gauge how effective their system is, hence the confusion. However, based on what I have read from many on-line pieces supposed written by medical experts in China, they do not impress me at all...

 

[weig2000]

I have to disagree with that assessment. By saying "general-purpose" and less specialized, I think you imply that the material taught at US colleges is not as deep, and that a college graduate in the US is not as an expert in their fields as their counterparts from elsewhere. Unfortunately, that is the kind of impression that I am getting from a lot of foreign-educated people who first come to the US. That is incorrect, IMHO. It tends to be more general in the first year in most US colleges. since entering freshmen all have different background and are at different levels (some simply took "science" classes in high school while others have taken advanced AP classes), the US colleges want all their students to get on the same page in the first year. So the first year mostly contains general stuff. And if you look at a freshman textbook, it looks very easy and very similar to what should have been taught in high school. However, starting from the second year, the course work gets real deep real fast. the course work becomes very tough in the Junior/Senior years. A lot of students got hit in the face when they expect the class work to be the same easy stuff that they saw in freshman year (I know I was... and I learned that in the hard way...). By the time a student graduates, his/her level of education is on par with everyone else who get their education from abroad.

So I don't think US college education is any less specialized. Not at all. How do I know? Many of my classmates / labmates were from countries famous for having high-level education, such as China and India, when I was in grad school. None of them, and I mean none of them, showed any clear advantage in classes with us. even when some of them had to go back and take undergraduate classes, they did not show any advantage over those undergraduates in their classes. Similar trend also holds true in fields, such as math, physics, chemistry and engineering. And now when I teach graduate school classes, those Chinese/Indian students again do not show that they have any better understanding of the material taught in class than their classmates who got their education in the US. I have spent many years in academia, both as a student and as a faculty. I have not heard a single case, where Chinese/Indian students easily cruise through some graduate level classes because they have learned the material when they were in college back home. Everyone that I know struggles similarly as their classmates with US education.

So my impression is that quality of education in US colleges is as good, as specialized and as comprehensive as anywhere else. This is why I don't understand the 2+4 system in China's medical education. The Chinese medical school students clearly do not have the same kind of the fundamental education that the US medical school students get before entering med school. I've never interacted with Chinese doctors or Chinese med school graduates. So I can't gauge how effective their system is, hence the confusion. However, based on what I have read from many on-line pieces supposed written by medical experts in China, they do not impress me at all...

I think you misunderstood my points. I wasn't arguing about the quality or advantage of the Chinese or American college education per se. My main point was that Chinese college education has been more or less a "fast-track" program: the students and graduates were expected to be an "expert" or "professional" sooner than, say the US college education system expects its students. This is not surprising since traditionally college education in China had been a luxury until recent years, therefore the state and family could not afford to spend too much time in school.

 

[vesicles]

I think you misunderstood my points. I wasn't arguing about the quality or advantage of the Chinese or American college education per se. My main point was that Chinese college education has been more or less a "fast-track" program: the students and graduates were expected to be an "expert" or "professional" sooner than, say the US college education system expects its students. This is not surprising since traditionally college education in China had been a luxury until recent years, therefore the state and family could not afford to spend too much time in school.

You'll have to explain to me a little more about what you mean by "fast-track" and "to be an "expert" or "professional" sooner". My understanding is that "becoming an expert or professional sooner" means higher quality education. If a college makes its graduates become expert in their fields faster than the other, I would say the former has a better education program. Wouldn't you think so? Isn't that what education is all about, making one an expert/professional in the field?

If you are talking about the possibility of Chinese colleges teaching students more practical aspect of things and less theoretical aspects (hence making them adopting to the future work environment better), I would have to disagree with that again. It has been well-known that Chinese education system focuses heavily on the theoretical aspect and little hands-on training. US colleges, on the other hand, focus on both and encourage students to be creative and explore the "impossibles".

 

[no_name]

My university school of engineering have at least one design course specifically related to our field from second year onward. Fourth year we have a two person project spanning two semesters. We're required to complete 800 hours of outside work experience in order to graduate. 400hr general work and 400hr specialised work. Education here in the engineering field at least make sure you are exposed to the real world aspect of your study.

Also, no one is an expert on anything just after 4 years of undergrad study but it should pave a good foundation. Four year is only enough for a quick overview of all the interesting or important 'areas' in your field.

 

[weig2000]

You'll have to explain to me a little more about what you mean by "fast-track" and "to be an "expert" or "professional" sooner". My understanding is that "becoming an expert or professional sooner" means higher quality education. If a college makes its graduates become expert in their fields faster than the other, I would say the former has a better education program. Wouldn't you think so? Isn't that what education is all about, making one an expert/professional in the field?

If you are talking about the possibility of Chinese colleges teaching students more practical aspect of things and less theoretical aspects (hence making them adopting to the future work environment better), I would have to disagree with that again. It has been well-known that Chinese education system focuses heavily on the theoretical aspect and little hands-on training. US colleges, on the other hand, focus on both and encourage students to be creative and explore the "impossibles".

I think it'll take more pages to explain the differences between the eduction systems in China and the US. We're still talking pass each other (It doesn't mean I disagree with many of your points - I know very well both education systems in engineering, science, and business). This is off topic, so I'll just leave it as that.

 

[Engineer]

It would be great if there were more posts related to China's overland Silk Road.

 

[Dolcevita]

Transport costs are estimated to be almost 70 percent less than airfreight, with transit times half as long as the average ocean sectors of up to 40 days and geared towards door-to-door delivery. This accounts primarily for items coming from production sites located in central China or even the western parts of the country reducing transport times to Europe considerably compared to ocean freight.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The airlines are having a hard time generating enough paying revenue on their cargo operations between China and Europe.
Now it seems that the Chinese central government in Beijing is going to put an additional spoke in the wheel by further promoting the overland rail cargo process.

Overland rail transport in special containers has been introduced a couple of years back with freight agents such as DB Schenker, Hellman, Kuehne & Nagel and DHL as the main promoters.
This form of transport, although basically still in its infancy stages, is being seen by some as an important future competitor to the airlines flying the same routes.

Can shipping managers turn down this attractive alternative?
The Beijing officials as said to be openly promoting this form of transport which it seems has been dubbed as “One Belt - One Road,” a strategy which is being pushed as a more attractive priced mode of transport for Chinese exports to the European continent.
Transport costs are estimated to be almost 70 percent less than airfreight, with transit times half as long as the average ocean sectors of up to 40 days and geared towards door-to-door delivery. This accounts primarily for items coming from production sites located in central China or even the western parts of the country reducing transport times to Europe considerably compared to ocean freight.
What shipping manager could turn down such an opportunity!

Attractive LCL options
Up till now the China - Europe rail service has been concentrating on full container loads.
This is easy enough for large freight agents to book, but so far nothing for the trade as a whole.
The strategy is now changing with the Chinese organizers looking more and more at so called “Less than Container Load” (LCL) transport services.
This new development is said to offer shippers more flexibility and direct access to the overland rail link.
If this develops as planned then the air cargo market share will suffer even more.
The ocean segment will come under extreme price pressure and the result could well be that ocean and air transport companies will be forced into an open price war to try and keep market shares.
The new government strategy would open new avenues for multimodal freight movements for all shippers, large or small, thus making Chinese exports still attractive pricewise for European consumers.

The figures speak for themselves
Latest statistics show that more than 30 percent of exports from China to Europe are undertaken by ocean transport.
Experts think that if shippers and consignees alike are eventually convinced of this form of transport, that the service will become the major form of transport from China to Europe.

If they become convinced!
Why not? The past few years have shown that a few private enterprises have set up functional cargo train links between China and Europe via Russia and Kazakhstan, to name just two.

Growing volumes
These are not just small freight movements. There were said to be more than 13 million containers of the 20 foot equivalent moved along this route in 2013 alone.
Who knows what the 2014 and 2015 figures will show!
Certainly not less.
Trains with between 80 to 100 containers are continually on the way and it seems that security as far as theft is concerned is no issue.

It’s still early days and time will tell as to whether the large majority of shippers might consider opting for this still relatively new mode of transport.
However, if, as is being stated, the central Chinese government is backing this, then we can surely expect more progress soon.

A danger indeed for air freight shipping, but what is the best way to combat it?
Certainly not by pricing – that’s in the cellar already for a long time.

John Mc Donagh
.