Untitled

Abstract

This paper compares the SAT and juken. It does this at three levels of analysis: structure, function, and participant communications. While the prior two rely on publicly available information and established theories, the latter is based on the analysis of data collected from social media. The findings of this paper are that, while the two examinations are structurally and functionally similar enough to appear ready points of comparison, their differences are profound enough to make such comparisons misleading. Among the consequential differences discussed are that, as opposed to the SAT, the juken is a longer, more consequential process that is more likely to impose dependency upon its participants. In combination, these differences result in a higher-pressure process that challenges its participants not only intellectually, but socio-culturally, and characterologically. As a result, this paper suggests that, whereas the SAT serves a functional role in determining university admissions in the US, the juken is a central facet of Japan's institutionalized education and socialization process.And, this paper argues, neither can be properly understood without a third dimension: how those participating in the examinations communicate about their related experiences.This paper provides structural and functional comparisons of these e before investigating how the experience of preparing for them translates into a spontaneous, peer-to-peer conversation conducted over social media. The questions it seeks to answer are 1) How are the two examinations structurally and functionally similar and different in ways that are likely to impact the experiences of those preparing to take them? 2) In what ways does this population communicate amongst itself about their shared preparation experiences? 3) How closely aligned are these structural-functional elements and the intra-group communications they produce and what does this suggest about the experience of preparing for either? Three Lenses: Structure, Function, and CommunicationThe analytical method employed here is an assessment of the examinations through three lenses, each intended to reveal a particular layer of operations. This method was adapted from Banathy (1995). These lenses will be referred to as structure, function, and communication. The structure lens asks the questions, "What is there and how is it organized?". The function lens asks, "What services does it perform? What are its inputs and outputs?". The communications lens asks, "What do those participating in the system communicate to one another about that system?". In combination, these lenses produce a thorough description of these examinations. Structural Comparison: The First Lens SimilaritiesBoth the SAT and juken are first taken during a student's final year of high school in order to satisfy university entrance requirements. While taking the SAT post-high school is entirely permissible and not unheard of, it is also not as institutionalized an option as the post-high school juken. Undoubtedly this is bec...