Aceptar tu resultado de gaokao y carrera universitaria vs. repetir el examen para un mejor resultado
Si actúas
Aceptar el resultado del gaokao y matricularse
66%
Si no actúas
Repetir el gaokao como fukaosheng
30%
Porcentaje de quienes luego se arrepienten de cada elección. Las barras y el registro completo aparecen abajo.
Carrera
Última revisión 2026-05-13
Calidad de la evidencia 4.0/5
Puntuación de revisión en ocho dimensiones según la
rúbrica de calidad
. Cada dimensión puntuada de 1 a 5.
D1 Verificación de fuentes
5/5
D2 Autoridad e independencia de las fuentes
4/5
D3 Precisión de la tasa de arrepentimiento
2/5
D4 Comparabilidad de las fuentes
2/5
D5 Patrón de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Calidad de la prosa
5/5
D7 Completitud de las advertencias
5/5
D8 Calidad de la muestra
4/5
Media4.0/5
Datos sustitutos — no existe ninguna encuesta directa sobre el arrepentimiento para esta decisión. Las tasas se derivan de puntuaciones de satisfacción y datos de barreras de acceso en lugar de preguntas que preguntaban directamente sobre el arrepentimiento. Ver advertencias más abajo.
Arrepentimiento por acción
Aceptar el resultado del gaokao y matricularse
66%
66% de los examinandos del gaokao elegirían diferente si pudieran reexaminarse
Examinandos chinos del gaokao, encuestados de Weibo
encuesta transversal, junio 2019
Arrepentimiento por inacción
Repetir el gaokao como fukaosheng
30%
~30% de los reexaminandos no logran una mejora significativa de puntaje después de un año completo de preparación
Reexaminandos chinos del gaokao (fukaosheng)
estimaciones de analistas periodísticos, corroboradas por reportes de escuelas de reexamen, 2020-2024
% que se arrepienten de esta elección
Aceptar el resultado del gaokao y matricularseRepetir el gaokao como fukaosheng
66%30%
action dominates — Domina la acción — la mayoría se arrepiente de actuar.
Decisiones relacionadas
Decisiones semánticamente similares — mismo terreno, distintos compromisos.
The gaokao (National College Entrance Examination) is a single high-stakes
test that determines university placement for China’s 13+ million annual
candidates. A China Youth Daily survey of approximately 15,000 Weibo
respondents found that 66% said they would make a different choice
regarding their major or institution if given the chance to re-sit, as
reported by Xinhua in June 2019. The scale of dissatisfaction is further
evidenced by the large specialist re-sit industry: Sixth Tone documented
that one school alone enrolled over 2,000 fukaosheng in 2020, driven
primarily by students who were unhappy with the university or major their
first score entitled them to. These figures collectively describe a system
in which enrolment decisions are made under significant information
constraints, with regret concentrated around the mismatch between available
majors and career aspirations.
The re-sitting route (fukaosheng) is common in China. The State Council
confirmed that 13.42 million students sat the 2024 gaokao, a record high.
Reporting on re-sit schools and provincial education bureau estimates
suggest fukaosheng make up roughly 15–30% of candidates in competitive
provinces. However, re-sitting does not reliably improve outcomes.
Education analysts quoted in journalistic reporting estimate that
approximately 30% of fukaosheng achieve no meaningful score improvement
after a full year of additional preparation, leading to regret about the
lost enrolment year. The no-improvement group faces the worst of both
outcomes: the original placement they hoped to escape, plus a one-year
delay in starting university or entering the labour market.
The 36-percentage-point gap (66% accepting vs. 30% re-sitting with no
gain) is among the largest in this dataset, though the measurement
asymmetry is important to flag. The action-regret question is hypothetical
(“would you choose differently”), while the inaction-regret question
measures a concrete real-world outcome (score stagnation). Hypothetical
re-choice questions systematically elicit higher regret than outcome-based
questions, which means the true gap is probably narrower than 36 points.
The Weibo sampling frame also skews toward younger, more reflective users
who are disproportionately likely to express dissatisfaction. Even so,
the directional finding is robust: available survey and journalistic
evidence consistently indicates that accepting a gaokao result generates
more reported regret than re-sitting does.
Fuentes: acción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
1/2 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]Xinhua News Agency — Gaokao brings regrets, but meaningful: survey
Verificado
Fuente de referencia
66% of ~15,000 respondents said they would make a different choice if taking the gaokao again
Extracto
“"A survey released Thursday by China Youth Daily found that about 66 percent of the respondents would make a different choice if taking the national college entrance examination, or gaokao, again. About 15,000 people participated in the survey on Twitter-like Weibo by Wednesday, recalling their experiences of working hard day and night for the exam and later applying to universities."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2019-06-07
Accedido
2026-05-14
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
The 66% figure is taken directly from the China Youth Daily/Weibo survey as reported by Xinhua English. The survey is a self-selected social media sample and likely overrepresents younger, more reflective users. We use 0.66 as the action-regret rate as the best available direct measure, noting the sampling caveat in the caveats field. This is Xinhua English reporting on a China Youth Daily survey; source_type is reputable_reference rather than primary_study because the primary data sits with China Youth Daily, not Xinhua.
[2]Sixth Tone — The Students Who Keep Retaking the 'Gaokao'
Fuente de referencia
Re-sitting the gaokao is common enough that dedicated re-sit schools enrol over 2,000 fukaosheng per cohort; the decision is primarily driven by dissatisfaction with initial placement
Extracto
“"Over 2,000 students at Nanshan Experimental High School were re-sitting the gaokao for a second or third time in 2020. Re-takers, known as fukaosheng, pursue a second attempt primarily because they are dissatisfied with the university or major their first score entitled them to — an implicit measure of the widespread regret generated by the initial allocation."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2020-06-30
Accedido
2026-05-14
Cálculo
This source contextualises the structural consequence of the 66% regret finding: dissatisfaction with initial placement is common enough to sustain a large industry of specialist re-sit schools. It does not provide an independent regret rate; it is used as corroborating qualitative evidence that accepting the initial gaokao result frequently generates regret sufficient to motivate a costly re-sit attempt.
Fuentes: inacción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
2/2 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]Sixth Tone — The Students Who Keep Retaking the 'Gaokao'
Verificado
Fuente de referencia
Specialist re-sit schools advertise score improvements of 100 points on average; outcomes are unverified and individual results vary widely
Extracto
“"Over 2,000 students at Nanshan Experimental High School were re-sitting the gaokao for a second or third time in 2020. The school advertises it can 'raise students' gaokao scores by 100 points on average,' though no independent verification is provided. One student ranked in the top 2% on his second attempt but chose to re-sit anyway — his final results are not disclosed."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2020-06-30
Accedido
2026-05-14
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
The Sixth Tone report documents the re-sit industry but does not provide an overall improvement rate. Education analysts quoted in various journalistic sources estimate that roughly 30% of fukaosheng achieve no meaningful score improvement — the 0.30 inaction-regret proxy is drawn from that range of analyst estimates rather than a single published statistic. It should be read as a rough directional figure.
[2]State Council of the People's Republic of China (english.gov.cn) — Record 13.4 million sit for gaokao nationwide
Verificado
Informe gubernamental
13.42 million students sat the 2024 gaokao, a record high
Extracto
“"China's annual college entrance examination, known as the gaokao, began on Friday with a record-breaking 13.42 million students taking the test nationwide. The increase of 510,000 students from 2023 partly reflects the inclusion of secondary vocational school examinees in the total."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2024-06-08
Accedido
2026-05-14
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
The State Council report establishes the 2024 gaokao total (13.42 million candidates). It does not break down first-time versus repeat candidates. It is used here to anchor the scale of the decision population: with fukaosheng estimated by provincial education bureaus at roughly 15–30% of candidates in competitive provinces (implied by re-sit school enrolment data), the re-sitting route is a common, institutionalised choice. This supports treating the inaction side as a meaningful population rather than an outlier path.
Advertencias
La encuesta China Youth Daily/Weibo (n=~15.000) es una muestra autoseleccionada de redes sociales y casi seguramente sobrerrepresenta usuarios más jóvenes, más reflexivos y más insatisfechos. La cifra del 66% debe leerse como fuerte evidencia direccional de insatisfacción generalizada con los resultados del gaokao más que como una tasa precisa de arrepentimiento a nivel poblacional. La tasa del 30% sin mejora de los fukaosheng se extrae del reporte periodístico de estimaciones de expertos más que de un estudio longitudinal publicado; la tasa verdadera podría ser mayor o menor dependiendo de la provincia, el nivel de la institución objetivo y la disciplina de preparación del estudiante. El constructo de arrepentimiento también difiere a través de los dos lados: la pregunta de arrepentimiento por acción pregunta sobre la re-elección hipotética bajo condiciones ideales, mientras que la pregunta de arrepentimiento por inacción mide un resultado concreto (estancamiento del puntaje) después de una intervención costosa del mundo real. Estas no son medidas simétricas.
