The use of cram schools, or entrance-examination preparatory institutions, presents another form of commodification of the intellectual that is familiar to various East Asian countries alike. From juku in Japan to hagwon in Korea, cram schools sell a promise: to train students so that they may “compete successfully in the international market for excellence” (Arai 2003: 375). They thrive off the pressure students feel to become this idealized global, educated individual, and they intensify the competition with increasing standards of academics. For example, in China, Maotanchang High School, a cram school for China’s national college examination, the gaokao, hosts approximately 20,000 rural students, living and studying without the distractions of media, entertainment, or even romantic relationships (Larmer 2014). In Japan, cram school is seen as such a staple in primary education that it has developed into “a vast commercial industry with annual revenues of ¥1.4 trillion ($14 billion)” (Russell 1997: 153). As Andrea Arai explains of Japan, “in the post-bubble economy… the new reality of survival is that not all will reach the top, but those who do… will have to engage desperately (hisshi ni) to become worthy competitors for Japan in the amorphous battlefield of the global economy” (Arai 2003: 374).

In what ways does this fixation on education and the creation of a globalized intellectual present its own pressures unique to East Asian youth? The intense competition amongst youth for higher education, in part fueled by the cram school system, brings about changes in both the way youth develop themselves into working-class citizens and the way they form relationships with those pinned by the same pressures. Take for example Emi, a student at Kikokushijo Academy (K.A.), an English-language cram school in Japan (Dixon 2014: 8). The term Kikokushijo refers to Japanese youth who, having lived for some time abroad, have returned to Japan, and Emi, having lived and attended school in the U.S., reflects on her discontent with the Japanese school system and the competitiveness it emphasizes (Dixon 2014: 8). Emi remarks on her place amongst her classmates, “Everybody knows that everyone in the room is the enemy. Your place at a good school could be taken by anyone there” (Dixon 2014: 8). In her other cram schools, “rivalries asphyxiate warm connections”; “she has no friends there, only strategic, calculated arrangements with some girls to share notes” (Dixon 2014: 8). Emi’s words echo Andrea Arai’s description of an “amorphous battlefield,” with strong distrust limiting Emi’s ability to develop close bonds with her peers. Emi generalizes that “everybody” in her classes understands that the struggle for education is against their peers, not with their peers. Likely for some, the increased difficulty of developing interpersonal connections formulates a sense of loneliness and alienation when individual agendas take priority.

The spaces youth inhabit are also affected by their time spent at cram school, with the extra education redefining how youth develop from what are known as “third spaces,” places not home or school. Cram school itself is a space linked to education yet outside the general mandated schooling hours, thus affecting the time youth have left to spend in their more social spaces. In the case of Maotanchang, there is “no video arcade, billiards hall or Internet café” in the entirety of the town (Larmer 2014: 4). These spaces that then may have been linked to youth social development, allowing for casual interaction with peers and development of interest clubs, are thus removed, and the social development generally derived from these spaces must be derived elsewhere or not at all.

In some cases, the cram school becomes the new site of social development. In a survey conducted by the Japanese Ministry of Education in 1994, 41.4 percent of upper elementary school cram school attendees stated that they “liked going to juku because they made friends,” with cram school becoming somewhat of a “neighborhood hangout spot” (Russell 1997: 161). In one case of a Japanese juku, the teacher actively tried to make a “club-like atmosphere, providing students with ‘club’ book bags and organizing weekend hiking excursions” (Russell 1997: 161). While this type of teaching may be more common in locally organized cram schools, this example presents a less crisis-oriented view of how cram school may affect the social development of youth. Cram school, like general education itself, presents a multifaceted subject, which can be viewed as both a constructive and an adverse force in redefining the spaces that shape youth development.

References

Arai, Andrea. "Killing Kids: Recession and Survival in Twenty-first-century Japan." Postcolonial Studies, 2003, 367-79.

Ching, L. "Globalizing the Regional, Regionalizing the Global: Mass Culture and Asianism in the Age of Late Capital." Public Culture 12, no. 1 (2000): 233-57.

Dixon, Dwayne. "Kikokushijo Academy: A School for Japanese with a Difference." Endless Question: Youth Becomings and the Anti-Crisis of Kids in Global Japan. January 1, 2014. Accessed March 28, 2015.

Larmer, Brook. "Inside a Chinese Test-Prep Factory." The New York Times Magazine, December 31, 2014, 1-15.

Russell, Nancy U. "Chapter 9: Lessons from Japanese Cram Schools." In The Challenge of Eastern Asian Education: Implications for America, edited by William K. Cummings and Philip G. Altbach. State University of New York Press, 1997.

Comment on this page