Accepting your gaokao result and university major vs. re-sitting the exam for a better outcome
Last reviewed 2026-05-13
Evidence quality 4.0/5
Eight-dimension review score against the
quality rubric
. Each dimension scored 1–5.
D1 Source verification
5/5
D2 Source authority & independence
4/5
D3 Regret-rate accuracy
2/5
D4 Source comparability
2/5
D5 Gilovich pattern
5/5
D6 Prose quality
5/5
D7 Caveat completeness
5/5
D8 Sample quality
4/5
Average4.0/5
Proxy data — no direct regret survey exists for this decision. Rates are derived from satisfaction scores and access-barrier data rather than questions that directly asked about regret. See caveats below.
Action regret
Accepting the gaokao result and enrolling
66%
66% of gaokao takers would choose differently if they could re-sit
Chinese gaokao takers, Weibo survey respondents
cross-sectional survey, June 2019
Inaction regret
Re-sitting the gaokao as a fukaosheng
30%
~30% of re-sitters achieve no meaningful score improvement after a full year of preparation
Chinese gaokao re-sitters (fukaosheng)
journalistic analyst estimates, corroborated by re-sit school reporting, 2020–2024
% who regret this choice
Accepting the gaokao result and enrollingRe-sitting the gaokao as a fukaosheng
66%30%
action dominates — Action dominates — most regret acting.
Related decisions
Semantically similar decisions — same territory, different trade-offs.
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.
Sources: action
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
66% of ~15,000 respondents said they would make a different choice if taking the gaokao again
Excerpt
“"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."
”
Source data from
2019-06-07
Accessed
2026-05-14
Calculation
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'
Reference source
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
Excerpt
“"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."
”
Source data from
2020-06-30
Accessed
2026-05-14
Calculation
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.
Sources: inaction
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]Sixth Tone — The Students Who Keep Retaking the 'Gaokao'
Reference source
Specialist re-sit schools advertise score improvements of 100 points on average; outcomes are unverified and individual results vary widely
Excerpt
“"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."
”
Source data from
2020-06-30
Accessed
2026-05-14
Calculation
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
Government report
13.42 million students sat the 2024 gaokao, a record high
Excerpt
“"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."
”
Source data from
2024-06-08
Accessed
2026-05-14
Calculation
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.
Caveats
The China Youth Daily/Weibo survey (n=~15,000) is a self-selected social media sample and almost certainly overrepresents younger, more reflective, and more dissatisfied users. The 66% figure should be read as strong directional evidence of widespread gaokao-outcome dissatisfaction rather than a precise population-level regret rate. The fukaosheng 30% no-improvement rate is drawn from journalistic reporting of expert estimates rather than a published longitudinal study; the true rate could be higher or lower depending on the province, the target institution tier, and the student's preparation discipline. The regret construct also differs across the two sides: the action-regret question asks about hypothetical re-choice under ideal conditions, while the inaction-regret question measures a concrete outcome (score stagnation) after a costly real-world intervention. These are not symmetrical measures.
