After the entrance, an old rumors bubbled up recently on the Internet, titles the sensational: the Chinese Academy of Sciences shocked survey: 30 1000 gaokao laudably, not captains of industry. On June 29, the official Twitter @ Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences once again the voice of denial: "screenshots inaccuracy in content, have had a number of rumours. ”

What is more, is called "the Central Science" as a Chinese Academy of Sciences. Last year @ sound of Chinese Academy of Sciences, issued a statement: the weekend is @, consulting a so-called hospital findings, many v-reprinted, is not clear. Here, once again, we note that not all ", branch, in" three words of institution were referred to as "Chinese Academy of Sciences".

Both said the so-called "Central Science Institute", or so-called "Chinese Academy of Education Sciences" conducted this survey, these stories are much the same, claiming that surveyed 3,300 since the resumption of college entrance examination gaokao and found none to be industry leaders. Checks 100 scientists nationwide, 100 activists, 100 entrepreneurs and 100 artists, second only to the achievements of scientists and school education has some relationship, others achievements and there is no positive correlation between school education.

This class reported also quoted a "tenth name phenomenon", that in examination education of system within, a class in most has attended of students, often not learning results best of Qian several, but class Shang in middle of tenth name around of students, they in later of work in the unexpectedly to performance excellent, and growth for pillars type talent; those when results one of excellent students, grew up Hou is fade out excellent ranks.

But these so-called surveys did not release detailed data, "tragic end" argument is illogical. Some netizens said, someone with the Imperial champion qingshiliuming to prove failure of imperial examination system, now you want to give you some exam failed the college entrance examination system. Neither Imperial nor the college entrance examination, the goal is mass culture, talent, just look at the first test to determine the advantages and disadvantages of the system are trees.

高考之后，一个很老的谣言最近又在网络上冒了出来，标题耸人听闻：《中科院震惊调查：30年1000高考状元下场悲惨，没有行业领袖》。6月29日，中科院官方微博@中科院之声再次辟谣：“截图内容不实，此前我们曾多次辟谣。”

更有甚者，将所谓的“中央科教院”说成是中科院。去年，@中科院之声为此发表声明：周末一直在被@，咨询一个所谓我院的调查结果，很多大V转载时也没能说明白。在此，我们再次说明一下，不是所有带“中、科、院”三个字的机构都简称“中科院”。

无论是说所谓“中央教科院”，还是所谓“中国教育科学院”进行了这个调查，这些报道的内容都大同小异，声称调查了恢复高考以来的3300名高考状元，发现没有一位成为行业领袖。抽查全国100位科学家、100位社会活动家、100位企业家和100位艺术家，发现除了科学家的成就与学校教育有一定关系外，其他人所获的成就和学校教育根本没有正相关关系。

这类报道还援引一个“第十名现象”，即在应试教育的体制内，一个班里最有出息的学生，往往不是学习成绩最好的前几名，而是班上处于中游的第十名左右的学生，他们在后来的工作中出乎意料地表现出色，并成长为栋梁型人才；那些当年成绩数一数二的优秀学生，长大后却淡出优秀行列。

不过这些所谓调查都没有公布详实的数据，“下场悲惨”的说法更是毫无逻辑。有网友表示，有人用科举状元青史留名的比例来证明科举制失败，现在又想用高考状元来证明高考制度失败。无论科举还是高考，目的都是大规模培养、选拔人才，只看考第一来判断制度优劣是一叶障目。