In response to Re Language Training Centers' Trashing (Observer)

Observer's arguement hasn't go much to go on with and her response to some of my words seems off as well. So, let's quote, shall we?

My words; "A language training center provides a higher potential of learning the language than the Chinese public sector does."
Observer's reply;
What all establishments, every training centre? I cannot believe that. And isn't 'potential' related to the end result - often getting an easy entrance into another country? You've said this yourself about GAC.

First of all, i have not said that ALL TRAINING CENTERS, have i? Now, how hard can it be to make yourself believe that A LANGUAGE TRAINING CENTER may offer a professional recruiting of staff and students, a professional students' placement testing, western/professional academic material and teaching techniques as well as a professional progress report based on a student's achievement? Then, how hard can it be to make yourself believe that A LANGUAGE TRAINING CENTER may also provide its staff with a professional development in a sense of workshops etc too? On the other hand, i can't make myself believe that ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL on mainland offers much of that mentioned above. Can you believe that???
As for the GACs and even EFs, I have worked for a few of these centers, and so I have the inside knowledge and experience of what they are all about with regards to their business and academic management. Unarguably, they are mismanaged and corrupt, however, they most deffinitely have the potential to prepare the students much better than any local public school. Are you, at all, familiar with their programs and academic management techniques that are in their handbooks?

Yet another Observer's quote below;

Many universities also do placement testing, and interactivity is down to the individual teacher's style rather than any prescribed approach. There are medicore universities and public schools as well as training centres. In a mixed education economy this is only to be expected and does not just apply to China.

To my knowledge, there are so many mainland universities that do the "placement testing" themselves. Their own "local experts" determine what student goes to what program and/or to what classroom. This is, and has been done, in a "local fashion" with the local uni recruiters and some other kinds of "local professionals" making sure that the right applicants get to the right programs and classrooms. Haven't we seen such uni reps driving some fully loaded western vehicles? I can't possibly guess how much the Beijing Uni reps accepted for a government worker's mother of the daughter that could only speak some low elementary Englsih, although signed for a program that'd send her to UK to accomplish her MBA in Business.
With regards to the "interactivity" in the uni classrooms, it surely isn't "prescribed". How could it be when there really is no real standard set and then no material or a local pro to rely on. For some good reasons, every year FTs come and go and the ones that stay do what they think they should do (to stay on).
So, in this "mixed education economy", as you say, there's little to rely on and that probably 'cause it's so "MIXED" that few can see the light.

On the end, it's clear what should be better, although it often is not. It's not because it has been destroyed by the local system that probably wanted it destroyed. Just imagine if training centers straightened out their act and then overtook the public schools in popularity on mainland. What impact would that have on the local education, its officials, schools reps, and the new generation and local economy?