The Question That Shook China: Unpacking the 2013 Gaokao’s “What’s The Answer?” Moment
Picture this: millions of teenagers across China, shoulders tense, pencils clutched tight, facing down the most consequential exam of their young lives – the Gaokao. It’s June 2013. The air crackles with the pressure of a test often billed as the single determinant of future success. Then, amidst the dense thicket of questions on the mathematics paper, a seemingly simple phrase stopped students cold: “What’s the answer?”
This wasn’t a cheeky query from a confused student scribbled in the margin. This was the question. Question 6, to be precise. And it wasn’t asking for the solution to a preceding problem. It was the entire problem, presented without any accompanying equation, diagram, or context. Just those three stark English words: “What’s the answer?”
The reaction was immediate and visceral. Confusion spiraled into panic. Forum posts exploded online minutes after the exam concluded. Students recounted staring blankly at the page, minds racing. Was it a trick? A translation error? A cruel joke? One iconic photograph captured the exhaustion and despair: a girl leaving the exam hall, her face drained, eyes red-rimmed, a haunting image of the emotional toll exacted by this bewildering encounter. Social media erupted with the hashtag GaokaoMathNightmare. Parents expressed outrage, teachers were baffled, and the public debated intensely: what exactly was this question testing?
Beyond Rote Learning: The Real Intention Behind the Riddle?
On the surface, the question appeared nonsensical, even incompetent. How could a national exam, meticulously crafted and reviewed, contain such an apparent blunder? But as educators and commentators dug deeper, a different interpretation emerged. This wasn’t a mistake; it was a deliberate, albeit jarring, experiment.
For decades, the Gaokao, while undeniably effective in scaling higher education selection, had faced criticism for heavily emphasizing rote memorization and formulaic problem-solving. Students drilled past papers endlessly, mastering specific problem types. The system often rewarded those who could quickly identify the known pattern and apply the memorized solution algorithm.
The 2013 question seemed designed to shatter that predictability. Its proponents argued it was testing something fundamentally different: critical thinking and adaptability under pressure. It forced students to:
1. Analyze the Question Itself: There was no external problem to solve. The question was the object of analysis. What did “What’s the answer?” even mean in this context? What could possibly constitute an “answer”?
2. Question Assumptions: Students had to overcome the ingrained expectation that every question provides clear parameters. They needed to recognize the lack of information as the core feature of the problem.
3. Generate Creative Responses: With no predefined path, students had to think outside the box. Possible approaches floated later included:
Treating it as a philosophical question about the nature of answers or knowledge.
Interpreting it as a linguistic puzzle about the meaning of the phrase.
Responding literally (“The answer is what you seek” or similar).
Acknowledging the lack of sufficient information to provide a specific answer.
4. Demonstrate Resilience: Faced with the utterly unfamiliar, could students maintain composure, engage their higher-order thinking skills, and produce any reasoned response, rather than freezing?
The “Answer” Revealed: And the Controversy Deepens
When the official marking scheme was released, the “correct” approach stunned many. The expected answer? “The question requires an answer. Therefore, the answer is what is required.”
Essentially, students were supposed to recognize the question as a self-referential paradox or a tautological statement. A good response would logically point out that the question itself defined its own requirement, making any specific numerical or factual answer irrelevant. The “answer” was demonstrating an understanding of the question’s logical structure.
This resolution, however, didn’t quell the controversy; it amplified it. Critics railed against the question as being:
Unfairly Abstract: Gaokao math traditionally focused on concrete mathematical concepts. This felt like a logic or philosophy question disguised as math.
Culturally Opaque: For students drilled in specific problem-solving techniques, especially in high-pressure environments, this leap into pure abstract reasoning felt like moving the goalposts mid-game. Was it testing intelligence or familiarity with Western-style logic puzzles?
Poorly Communicated: The starkness of the phrasing, without any contextual framing or instruction, was seen as unnecessarily harsh and confusing. Couldn’t the same skill have been tested with clearer wording?
Detrimental to Well-being: The immense stress caused, vividly captured by the image of the distraught student, raised serious questions about the psychological burden of the Gaokao and the ethics of such surprise tactics.
The Lasting Echo: A Catalyst for Change?
While the “What’s the answer?” question remains a notorious anecdote, its significance extends beyond a single exam moment. It became a powerful symbol in the ongoing debate about the purpose and methods of Chinese education.
Highlighting the Rote vs. Critical Thinking Divide: The incident starkly exposed the tension between a system historically built on memorization and the growing demand for creativity and independent thought needed in the modern world.
Fueling Reform Discussions: It added urgency to calls for Gaokao reform. Could the exam evolve to better assess diverse talents and thinking styles without resorting to bewildering tricks? Subsequent years saw gradual shifts, including pilot programs for broader assessments and the introduction of the “core competencies” framework emphasizing critical thinking alongside knowledge.
A Cautionary Tale: It served as a reminder of the immense pressure placed on students and the potential for unforeseen consequences when high-stakes assessments introduce radical, untested elements.
The Answer We’re Still Searching For
The 2013 Gaokao math question didn’t have a neat numerical solution. Its legacy is far more complex. Was it a bold, flawed attempt to break the mold? An unfair trick that caused unnecessary anguish? Or a painful but necessary mirror held up to the limitations of an exam system straining under its own weight?
Perhaps the most valuable “answer” it provided wasn’t found on any answer sheet. It forced a national conversation. It made educators, policymakers, parents, and students confront fundamental questions: What are we really testing? What skills truly matter? And how do we cultivate them effectively and fairly?
Over a decade later, the image of that exhausted student and those three perplexing words – “What’s the answer?” – still resonate. They remain a poignant reminder that the most important questions in education often don’t have simple, single answers. The search for a better balance between foundational knowledge, critical thinking, and student well-being continues. The 2013 Gaokao didn’t provide the solution, but it certainly sharpened the questions. The journey to find those answers is ongoing. As the Chinese educator Tao Xingzhi might have put it, the point isn’t just to find the right answer on a test, but to learn how to ask the right questions throughout life.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Question That Shook China: Unpacking the 2013 Gaokao’s “What’s The Answer