BEIJING — China's education authority will tighten the widely criticized policy of “extra credits” for the national college entrance examination to ensure a fairer chance for all exam-takers.

    Under the policy, high school students who win awards in national Olympic competitions could get "extra credits', up to 20 points for the national college entrance exam. Students with talent in sports and students who are from ethnic groups can also benefit from this policy. The extra credits have increased these students' chances of being admitted by famous universities. Some parents were found to have helped their children fabricate(伪造)award experiences or falsify qualifications to get extra credits.

    “It has harmed education equality，” the ministry said.

    Xiong Bingqi, vice-chief of the 21st Century Education Research Institute, said the policy is designed to help students who have special talents but may be weak in academic performance to have a chance to receive higher education. It will still be needed but it is time to make the rules fairer," he said.

    The ministry said it will reduce the range of competitions whose winners can get extra credits, and limit the winners, privileges.

    The new policy will apply to students who begin high school in 2011, it said.

    Chen Lei, a mother of a 10-year-old girl, said she welcomed the ministry's policy adjustment as she does not want her daughter to become an Olympic competition geek.

    But not all the Chinese parents welcomed the new policy. “It is like a thunderbolt for me. My 13-year-old son has spent so much time studying Olympic math, and participated in so many technological competitions during vacations. It is useless now,” said Dong Wen, a 43-year-old mother.

    A student said, “Many students have changed the current study plan, and they can abandon the competition. I will be interested in learning the courses which can improve my abilities.”

    Yuan Guiren, minister of education, told China Daily that the reform is an attempt to consider the overall quality of an applicant. “But the country will not stop the national college entrance  examination as it is still the most objective way to evaluate talent in China,” he said.

    Our risk of cancer rises dramatically as we age. So it makes sense that the elderly should be routinely screened for new tumors — or doesn't it?

    While such vigilant(警觉的) tracking of cancer is a good thing in general, researchers are increasingly questioning whether all of this testing is necessary for the elderly. With the percentage of people over age 65 expected to nearly double by 2050, it's important to weigh the health benefits of screening against the risks and costs of routine testing.

    In many cases, screening can lead to additional biopsies(活检) and surgeries to remove cancer, which can cause side effects, while the cancers themselves may be slow-growing and may not pose serious health problems in patients' remaining years. But the message that everyone must screen for cancer has become so ingrained(根深蒂固的) that when health care experts recommended that women under 50 and over 74 stop screening for breast cancer, it caused a riotous reaction among doctors, patients and advocacy groups.

    It's hard to uproot deeply held beliefs about cancer screening with scientific data. Certainly, there are people over age 75 who have had cancers detected by routine screening, and gained several extra years of life because of treatment. And clearly, people over age 75 who have other risk factors for cancer, such as a family history or prior personal experience with the disease, should continue to get screened regularly. But for the remainder, the risk of cancer, while increased at the end of life, must be balanced with other factors like remaining life expectancy(预期寿命).

    A recent study suggests that doctors start to make more objective decisions about who will truly benefit from screening—especially considering the explosion of the elderly that will soon swell our population.

    It's not an easy calculation to make, but one that make sense for the whole patient. Dr. Otis Brawley said, “Many doctors are ordering these tests purely to cover themselves. We need to think about the rational(合理的) use of health care and stop talking about the rationing of health care.”

    That means making some difficult decisions with elderly patients, and going against the misguided belief that when it comes to health care, more is always better.

    Here is a record of the discussion about AI (artificial intelligence) conducted by several scientists:

    Scientist A: I would say that we are quite a long way off developing the AI, though I do think it will happen within the next thirty or forty years. We will probably remain in control of technology and it will help us solve many of the world's problems. However, no one really knows what will happen if machines become more intelligent than humans. They may help us, ignore us or destroy us. I tend to believe AI will have a positive influence on our future lives, but whether that is true will be partly up to us.

    Scientist B: I have to admit that the potential consequences of creating something that can match or go beyond human intelligence frighten me. Even now, scientists are teaching computers how to learn on their own. At some point in the near future, their intelligence may well take off and develop at an ever-increasing speed. Human beings evolve biologically very slowly and we would be quickly substituted. In the short term, there is the danger that robots will take over millions of human jobs, creating a large underclass of unemployed people. This could mean large-scale poverty and social unrest. In the long term machines might decide the world would be better without humans.

    Scientist C: I'm a member of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. Forget the movie image of a terrifying Terminator stamping on human skulls and think of what's happening right now: military machines like drones, gun turrets and sentry robots are already being used to kill with very little human input. The next step will be autonomous “murderbots” following orders but finally deciding who to kill on their own. It seems clear to me that this would be extremely dangerous for humans. We need to be very cautious indeed about what we ask machines to do.

    Until the 1990s coffee was rarely served in China except at luxury hotels aimed at foreigners. When Starbucks opened its first shop there in 1999, it was far from clear that the country's tea-drinkers would take to such a different and usually more costly source of caffeine. Starbucks tried to attract customers to coffee's bitter taste by promoting milk and sugar-heavy concoctions(调和) such as Frappuccinos.

    But coffee has become fashionable among the middle class in China. Starbucks now has about 3, 800 shops in China more than in any other country outside America. Statista, a business-intelligence portal(门户网站), says the roast coffee market in China is growing by more than10 %year. Starbucks and its rivals see big opportunities for expanding there.

    So too, however, do home-grown competitors. A major new presence is Luckin Coffee, Beijing- based chain. Since its founding less than two years ago, it has opened more than 2,300 shops. On May 17th Luckin's initial public offering on the Nasdaq stockmarket raised more than $570m, giving it a value of about $4bn.

    Luckin's remarkable growth is sign of change. No longer do Chinese consumers see coffee as such a luxury. Most of Luckin's shops are merely kiosks where busy white-collar workers pick up their drinks, having ordered them online. Super-fast delivery can also be arranged through the company's app. Independent coffee shops are springing up. The growth is striking considering the country's reputation for its tea-drinking culture where many residents like to relax in teahouses sipping tea served gracefully.

    But the two markets are different. The teahouses tend to cater to older people who like to spend long hours playing mahjong and gossiping. At the coffee shops it is rare to see anyone over 40. Young people use them for socialising, but much of their interaction is online -sharing photos of their drinks and of the coffee-making equipment. An option on the Chinese rating app Dianping allows users to search for wanghong ("internet viral") coffee houses.

How Much Can We Afford to Forget?

    In 2018, Science magazine asked some young scientists what schools should teach students. Most said students should spend less time memorizing facts and have more space for creative activities. As the Internet grows more powerful, students can access(获得)knowledge easily. Why should they be required to carry so much of it around in their heads?

    Civilizations(文明)develop through forgetting life skills that were once necessary. In the Agricultural(农业的)Age, a farmer could afford to forget hunting skills. When societies industrialized, the knowledge of farming could be safe to forget. Nowadays, smart machines give us access to most human knowledge. It seems that we no longer need to remember most things. Does it matter?

    Researchers have recognized several problems that may happen. For one, human beings have biases (偏见), and smart machines are likely to increase our biases. Many people believe smart machines are necessarily correct and objective, but machines are trained through a repeated testing and scoring process. In the process, human beings still decide on the correct answers.

    Another problem relates to the case of accessing information. When there were no computers, efforts were required to get knowledge from other people, or go to the library. We know what knowledge lies in other brains or books, and what lies in our heads. But today, the Internet gives us the information we need quickly. This can lead to the mistaken belief — the knowledge we found was part of what we knew all along.

    In a new civilization rich in machine intelligence, we have easy access to smart memory networks where information is stored. But dependency on a network suggests possibilities of being harmed easily. The collapse of any of the networks of relations our well-being(健康)depends upon, such as food and energy, would produce terrible results. Without food we get hungry; without energy we feel cold. And it is through widespread loss of memory that civilizations are at risk of falling into a dark age.

    We forget old ways to free up time and space for new skills. As long as the older forms of knowledge are stored somewhere in our networks, and can be found when we need them, perhaps they're not really forgotten. Still, as time goes on, we gradually but unquestionably become strangers to future people.

    "What kind of rubbish are you?" This question might normally cause anger, but in Shanghai it has aroused complaints over the past week. On July 1st the city introduced strict rubbish-sorting regulations as a model for the country. Residents must divide their waste into four separate categories and throw it into specific public bins. They must do so at scheduled times, when monitors are present to ask the nature of one's rubbish, otherwise, they will face fines or worse.

    Shanghai authorities are responding to an obvious environmental problem. It generates 9 million tonnes of garbage a year, more than London's annual output and rises quickly. But like other cities in China, it lacks a recycling system. Individuals who fail to recycle could be fined up to 200 yuan (＄29). For repeat, the city can add black marks to their credit records, making it harder for them to obtain bank loans or even buy train tickets.

    Some object to this. Peng Feng of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences warns that the use of the credit system is overkill, raising a risk that officials will abuse their power. But others say a tough campaign is necessary. "Slowly people will get used to it," says Li Changjun of Fudan University.

    Many residents support recycling but are frustrated by the details. Rubbish must be divided according to whether it is food, recyclable, dry or harmful, the distinctions among which can be confusing, though there are apps to help work it out. Some have complained about the rules surrounding food waste. They must put it straight in the requisite public bin, forcing them to tear open plastic bags and toss (撕开) it by hand. Most upsetting are the short windows for throwing rubbish, typically a couple of hours, morning and evening. Along with the monitors at the bins, this means that people go at around the same time and can keep an eye on what is being thrown out; no one wants to look bad.