In response to the ones that have bad experiences with GAC centers, I agree there are poorly run centers around. I myself have had an experience at the GAC Nanning (Guanxi) center that had a poor management as well as facilities. That center and a Guangzhou GAC center were both owned by the same company. Having moved to another GAC center in Chongqing, I discovered yet another poorly run GAC center and even worse one than in Nanning. Actually I'd rephrase that to a dreadful one here in Chongqing.

However, I still believe that there might be some better GAC centers around as the GAC academic program is not so bad and its goals are just great. If the powers only realized that this academic product/program is supposed to be for the young people to get ready for the/any western unis rather than sell it as a "green card" to the USA, it would work much better. And, if the powers tried harder to centralize the GAC operations rather than allow individual centers run their own little jungles, it would also bring more qualified foreign experts in too as well as bring the message to its students to respect the teachers and the program more.

So, the success lies in the ACT company that apparently owns this little jungle and I dare to say that Tod Andrews, the front runner who chases the monkeys around, should rattle some real cages rather than just collect his shares. Centers like GAC Chongqing that've broken scores of GAC regulations and created virtually no environment for students to prepare for abroad studies should've its cage overhauled.

Cheers and beers to GAC overhaul rather than destruction...but is it possible?