Xiaolin was preparing to learn to drive.
She searched online for nearby driving schools. The first advertisement said: “92% first-exam pass rate, number one in the area for three consecutive years.”
Below it were photographs of students standing outside the test centre with newly issued driving licences. Many reviews said the school was demanding but very good at preparing learners for the test.
Xiaolin decided quickly. “I will choose this one. The highest pass rate should mean it is the most reliable.”
Her colleague Anna was learning to drive too. When she heard this, she asked, “Do you know how that pass rate is calculated?” Xiaolin shook her head. “People who pass divided by people who take the test—that is a pass rate, isn’t it?”
Anna opened the school’s website again. At the top it said 92%, but far below was a small line: “Data include only students who completed all courses and were scheduled by their instructor for a first examination.”
“What is wrong with that?” Xiaolin asked.
“Perhaps nothing,” Anna said. “But people who did not finish the course are not included. Neither are people the instructor judged unready and did not allow to register.”
Xiaolin phoned the school. The person who answered openly explained that it controlled exam registration very tightly: an instructor would help book the official test only after a student passed internal mock tests.
“Isn’t that good?” Xiaolin said. “At least they do not send unprepared students to an exam.”
“It has benefits,” Anna replied. “But it means 92% is not the success rate of everyone who enrolled. It is the rate among people selected by the instructor to sit their first test.”
The next day Xiaolin looked at two other schools. The second had only a 68% first-exam pass rate, but accepted many students who had learned elsewhere and failed multiple times, and let students decide when to take the test.
The third did not publish one combined rate. It listed rates separately for manual and automatic learners, first exams and retakes, regular and intensive courses.
Its largest number did not stand out. But Xiaolin could at least see the conditions that produced each number.
She then compared prices. The 92% school’s basic package looked inexpensive: twenty lessons and one mock test. Yet many students later needed ten to fifteen additional lessons. Weekend and evening lessons cost extra, and use of the instructor’s car on test day was not included.
The 68% school charged a little more per lesson, but did not add a weekend fee and was more flexible about rescheduling. If Xiaolin compared only advertised package prices, the first school was clearly cheaper. Once probable lessons, test-day car use, and extras were included, the difference was much smaller.
She also discovered that the schools did not serve identical students. The first mainly offered intensive courses: at least three lessons a week, usually aiming for a test within two or three months. That suited people with flexible time who could practise intensively.
Xiaolin had just started a new job and could attend only one weekend lesson a week. She learned reasonably fast but became nervous at complex intersections and needed longer to build confidence.
Anna said, “The school with the highest rate may genuinely be excellent, but its programme may not suit your time or way of learning.”
Xiaolin still booked a trial lesson with the first school. The instructor was skilful and precise, but the entire lesson was tightly paced. As soon as she completed one movement, she had to begin the next exercise.
Afterward, the instructor advised thirty intensive lessons, preferably on weekdays. “What if I can attend only once a week?” Xiaolin asked. “Progress will be slower,” he said. “And we cannot guarantee a fixed weekend slot. We have many learners and every instructor’s day is full.”
Only then did Xiaolin understand that the earlier high rate arose under specific conditions: instructors strictly controlled who could take an exam; students trained frequently; courses were compact; most students could fit the school’s schedule; and the statistic included only people who completed the course and formally took a first exam.
None of those conditions was wrong. They simply did not fully match Xiaolin’s situation.
In the end, she chose the third school. Its advertisement did not say “number one in the area,” and its instructor did not promise that she would pass after a certain number of lessons.
After the trial lesson, the instructor said clearly, “With your current situation, start with one lesson a week. Once your road judgment becomes steadier, decide whether to increase the frequency. We cannot accurately predict how many lessons you need yet.”
Six months later, Xiaolin took her first test and did not pass. At a busy junction she judged too slowly and the examiner intervened. She was naturally disappointed.
The instructor did not rush to book another test. Instead, he put the test report beside her training records from the previous months and identified the common difficulty she had in complex traffic.
Six weeks later, Xiaolin took the test again and passed.
The day she received her licence, she did not appear in an advertisement photograph for “first-exam passes.” But she did not think she had chosen the worse school.
She had chosen a school that could honestly explain its conditions, costs, and uncertainty—and fit her pace of learning.
Later another colleague asked, “Which driving school is best?” Xiaolin did not name one immediately. She first asked, “Have you driven before? Do you want manual or automatic? How many lessons can you take each week? Do you want to test quickly, or are you more concerned with building confidence gradually?”
The colleague laughed. “I only asked which one has the highest pass rate.”
Xiaolin replied, “Of course the rate matters. But you also need to know who took the test, who did not, how much they paid, and whether they were learners like you.”