A method and system for quickly determining the level of universities to apply to.

Abstract

This invention relates to the technical field of assisting with college application, and discloses a method and system for quickly determining the level of colleges for application. The method involves obtaining the provincial control line for the college entrance examination category, undergraduate batch, or vocational batch in the candidate's province, and the corresponding score distribution table. By dividing the provincial control line ranking by 1.2, the planned ranking is obtained. By querying the score distribution table, the score corresponding to the actual ranking closest to the planned ranking is determined as the minimum score for the planned ranking. By calculating the score difference, the limit difference is obtained. By multiplying the limit difference between the undergraduate and vocational levels by a dynamic parameter, the average score difference for each level is obtained. Based on the minimum score for the planned ranking, the average score difference is successively added to obtain the score range for each college level. This invention solves the technical problem that existing methods are difficult for ordinary candidates and parents to quickly master and operate, making it impossible to quickly determine the level of colleges.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the technical field of assisting college application, and discloses a method and system for quickly determining the level of colleges to be selected for college application. Background Technology

[0002] With the widespread adoption of parallel application and admission rules in the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), the core of student application lies in rationally classifying university levels and constructing a tiered application strategy of "reach," "safe," "backup," and "safety net" to maximize the use of NCEE scores while avoiding the risks of being rejected or denied admission. Current mainstream methods for classifying university levels largely rely on massive amounts of historical data, such as the target university's admission scores, rankings, and enrollment plans over the past 3-5 years. These methods involve complex ranking conversions and line difference calculations, which are difficult for ordinary students and parents to quickly grasp and operate, hindering rapid determination of university levels. Furthermore, existing methods often rely on historical data for trend extrapolation, failing to incorporate real-time core data such as the provincial control lines and score distribution tables released for the current year. This makes it impossible to adapt to changes in the number of test-takers, enrollment plans, and score distribution, leading to significant discrepancies between the university level classification results and actual admissions. Finally, the lack of differentiated calculation logic for the admission rules and score distribution characteristics of undergraduate and vocational college batches, coupled with the use of a uniform classification standard, results in a severe lack of accuracy in classifying university levels for vocational college batches. Summary of the Invention

[0003] This invention addresses the technical problems that existing methods and systems for quickly determining the level of a university are difficult for ordinary candidates and their parents to master and operate, making it impossible to quickly determine the level of a university, adapt to changes in the number of candidates, enrollment plans, and score distribution in a given year, and resulting in a large discrepancy between the results of university level classification and the actual admission situation. Therefore, this invention provides a method and system for quickly determining the level of a university when filling out college applications.

[0004] To achieve the above-mentioned technical effects, the technical solution adopted by this invention is: a method for quickly determining the level of universities to be selected during college application, comprising:

[0005] S1: Obtain the provincial control line for the college entrance examination category, undergraduate batch or junior college batch in the province where the candidate is located, and the corresponding score distribution table for the provincial control line; S2: By dividing the provincial control line ranking by 1.2, the planned ranking is obtained. By querying the one-point-one-segment table, the score corresponding to the actual ranking closest to the planned ranking is determined and used as the minimum score for the planned ranking. S3: Obtain the limiting difference by calculating the fractional difference, specifically including: S31: The limit difference for undergraduate levels is the difference between the highest score in the score distribution table for the college entrance examination category and the lowest score in the planned ranking. S32: The limit difference for the junior college level is the difference between the provincial control line score of the undergraduate batch and the lowest score of the planned ranking; S4: The average score difference for each level is obtained by multiplying the limit difference between the undergraduate level and the associate degree level by a dynamic parameter. S5: Based on the lowest score within the plan, the average score difference is added sequentially to obtain the score range for each institution level.

[0006] As a preferred implementation, the college entrance examination categories include: Physics, History, and Comprehensive. The dynamic parameters of the undergraduate and associate degree levels for Physics, History, and Comprehensive are calculated using formulas. The formula for calculating the dynamic parameters of the undergraduate level is as follows: ; Among them, K ben The parameters are dynamic for undergraduate levels, with k1 ranging from 0.7 to 1.1, k2 from 0.8 to 1.0, and k3 from 0.85 to 1.15. The formula for calculating the dynamic parameters of the specialized level is as follows: ; Among them, K zhuan The parameters are dynamic parameters for the associate degree level, with k4 ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 and k5 ranging from 0.7 to 1.0.

[0007] As a preferred implementation, the university tiers are divided into four levels: a target tier, a safe tier, a backup tier, and a safety net tier. Each tier corresponds to an independent average score difference, and the formula for calculating the average score difference for each tier is as follows: ; in, The average difference of the nth gradient, K represents the limit difference between undergraduate and associate degree level batches, K represents the dynamic parameter of undergraduate or associate degree level batches, q = 0.4-0.6, n = 1, 2, 3, 4, corresponding to the levels of rush application, safe application, backup application, and backup application, respectively.

[0008] As a preferred implementation, when determining the lowest score for the planned ranking in step S2, a tie-breaking correction coefficient is introduced from the one-point-one-segment table. The formula for calculating the corrected lowest score for the planned ranking is as follows: ; Among them, f j f0 is the original lowest score for the planned ranking, obtained by querying the one-point-one-segment table; α = 0.005~0.02; N t The number of candidates with the same score corresponding to the original planned ranking, N pThis represents the total number of candidates for each college entrance examination category and corresponding batch.

[0009] As a preferred implementation scheme, when the N candidates with the same score t When the number of participants is zero, the lowest score f in the revised planned ranking. j It equals the lowest score f0 in the original plan.

[0010] This invention also proposes a system for quickly determining the level of universities to be selected in college application, including: The data acquisition module is used to acquire the provincial control line for the college entrance examination category, undergraduate batch or junior college batch of the candidate's province and the corresponding score distribution table for the provincial control line; The planned ranking calculation module is used to obtain the planned ranking by dividing the provincial control line ranking by 1.2, and to determine the score corresponding to the actual ranking that is closest to the planned ranking by querying the one-point-one-segment table, which is used as the minimum score for the planned ranking. The limit difference calculation module is used to obtain the limit difference by calculating the fractional difference, specifically including: The undergraduate level limit difference calculation unit is used to calculate the difference between the highest score in the score distribution table of the college entrance examination category and the lowest score in the planned ranking, as the limit difference of the undergraduate level. The junior college level limit difference calculation unit is used to calculate the difference between the provincial control line score of the undergraduate batch and the lowest score of the planned ranking, as the limit difference at the junior college level; The average score difference calculation module is used to obtain the average score difference of each level by multiplying the limit difference between the undergraduate level and the junior college level by a dynamic parameter; The college-level score range calculation module is used to calculate the college-level score range by successively adding the average score difference based on the lowest score in the plan.

[0011] As a preferred implementation, the college entrance examination categories include: Physics, History, and Comprehensive. The dynamic parameters of the undergraduate and associate degree levels for Physics, History, and Comprehensive are calculated using formulas. The undergraduate-level dynamic parameter calculation unit is used to calculate the undergraduate-level dynamic parameters. The calculation formula for the undergraduate-level dynamic parameters is as follows: ; Among them, K ben The parameters are dynamic for undergraduate levels, with k1 ranging from 0.7 to 1.1, k2 from 0.8 to 1.0, and k3 from 0.85 to 1.15. The vocational college level dynamic parameter calculation unit is used to calculate the vocational college level dynamic parameters. The calculation formula for the vocational college level dynamic parameters is as follows: ; Among them, K zhuan The parameters are dynamic parameters for the associate degree level, with k4 ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 and k5 ranging from 0.7 to 1.0.

[0012] As a preferred embodiment, the system further includes: The university tiering module divides universities into four tiers: ambitious tier, safe tier, minimum guarantee tier, and backup tier. Each tier corresponds to an independent average score difference, and the formula for calculating the average score difference for each tier is as follows: ; in, The average difference of the nth gradient, K represents the limit difference between undergraduate and associate degree level batches, K represents the dynamic parameter of undergraduate or associate degree level batches, q = 0.4-0.6, n = 1, 2, 3, 4, corresponding to the levels of rush application, safe application, backup application, and backup application, respectively.

[0013] As a preferred embodiment, the planned ranking calculation module further includes: The tie-breaking correction unit is used to introduce a tie-breaking correction coefficient from the one-point-one-segment table when determining the lowest score for the planned ranking. The formula for calculating the corrected lowest score for the planned ranking is as follows: ; Among them, f j f0 is the original lowest score for the planned ranking, obtained by querying the one-point-one-segment table; α = 0.005~0.02; N t The number of candidates with the same score corresponding to the original planned ranking, N p This represents the total number of candidates for each college entrance examination category and corresponding batch.

[0014] As a preferred implementation, when the number of candidates with the same score N t When the value is zero, the lowest score f in the corrected planned ranking. j It equals the lowest score f0 in the original plan.

[0015] Compared with existing technologies, this invention only requires acquiring two types of core real-time data: the provincial control line for the college entrance examination and the score distribution table released by the candidate's province for that year. It eliminates the need to accumulate and analyze years of historical admission data from universities. Through extremely simple formulaic calculation steps, it can quickly complete the division of university levels. Ordinary candidates and parents can quickly get started without professional training, significantly lowering the operational threshold for college application and achieving second-level determination of university levels. Different limit difference calculation logic and dynamic parameter calculation formulas are set up for the admission rules and score distribution characteristics of undergraduate and vocational college batches, respectively. This can accurately adapt to the score distribution patterns of different batches, solving the problem of insufficient accuracy in vocational college batch division caused by the uniform standard of traditional methods. At the same time, adjustable dynamic parameters are set up for different college entrance examination categories such as physics, history, and comprehensive categories. The parameter range is adaptable to the college entrance examination policies of different provinces across the country. It introduces a tie-breaking coefficient based on a score distribution table, addressing the issue of rank-score discrepancies caused by a cluster of students with the same score. A quantitative correction formula is used to adjust the lowest score within the planned ranking, effectively eliminating calculation errors caused by tie-breaking and further improving the accuracy of the score range for different university levels. A quantitative gradient average score difference calculation formula divides university levels into four gradients: ambitious, safe, backup, and reserve. The score difference for each gradient can be dynamically adjusted based on the score distribution of the year, replacing the traditional experience-based fixed score difference setting. This fully adapts to the parallel application admission rules, helping students construct a scientific application gradient, maximizing the use of their college entrance examination scores while effectively avoiding the risks of being rejected or denied admission, significantly increasing the success rate of application submission.

[0016] The method and system of this invention can be adapted to all provinces in China that adopt the parallel application and admission rules. They are also compatible with the new college entrance examination comprehensive category and the traditional college entrance examination arts and sciences category (physics / history). They can be used for students and parents to fill in their own applications, as well as for application assistance systems, application guidance services of educational institutions, and other scenarios. They have strong universality and commercial application value. Attached Figure Description

[0017] Figure 1 The logical flowchart of the method for quickly determining the level of colleges and universities for college application in this invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the modules of the system for quickly determining the level of colleges and universities for college application in this invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the planned ranking calculation module of the system for quickly determining the college selection level in the college application process of this invention; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the limit difference calculation module of the system for quickly determining the level of colleges and universities in the college application process of this invention; Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the dynamic parameter calculation module of the system for quickly determining the level of colleges and universities in the college application process of this invention; 1. Data acquisition module; 2. Calculation module for planned ranking; 21. Tie-breaking correction unit; 3. Limit difference calculation module; 31. Undergraduate level limit difference calculation unit; 32. Associate degree level limit difference calculation unit; 4. Dynamic parameter calculation module; 41. Undergraduate level dynamic parameter calculation unit; 42. Associate degree level dynamic parameter calculation unit; 5. Average score difference calculation module; 6. Institutional level division module; 7. Institutional level score range calculation module. Detailed Implementation

[0018] The present invention will now be described in further detail with reference to the embodiments and accompanying drawings. However, this should not be construed as limiting the scope of the above-described subject matter of the present invention to the following embodiments; all technologies implemented based on the content of the present invention fall within the scope of the present invention.

[0019] refer to Figure 1 Example 1: This invention provides a method for quickly determining the level of universities to choose when filling out college applications, including the following steps: Step 1: Obtaining Core College Entrance Examination Data. Collect core college entrance examination data from the province where the examinee is located. Specifically, this includes the examinee's corresponding college entrance examination category, which includes physics, history, comprehensive categories, and the provincial control line for the undergraduate or vocational college batch they are applying for. This includes the provincial control line score and the corresponding provincial control line ranking, as well as the score distribution table corresponding to the provincial control line. The score distribution table contains key information such as the score, ranking, number of examinees with the same score, total number of examinees, and highest score for the corresponding batch of the college entrance examination category. This provides basic data support for all subsequent calculation steps.

[0020] Step Two: Calculation of Planned Ranking and Tie Correction. First, the planned ranking is calculated based on the obtained provincial control line ranking. The calculation formula is: Planned Ranking = Provincial Control Line Ranking ÷ 1.2. This calculation allows for a reasonable estimate of the batch admission ranking. Next, the score distribution table is consulted to locate the actual ranking that is closest to the calculated planned ranking. The score corresponding to this actual ranking is extracted as the original minimum score f0 for the planned ranking.

[0021] To eliminate calculation errors caused by a cluster of candidates with the same score, a tie-breaking correction factor is introduced to adjust the lowest score within the original plan. The revised formula for calculating the minimum score for the planned ranking is as follows: ; Among them, f j f0 is the original lowest score for the planned ranking, obtained by querying the one-point-one-segment table; α = 0.005~0.02; N tThe number of candidates with the same score corresponding to the original planned ranking, N p This represents the total number of candidates for each college entrance examination category and corresponding batch.

[0022] Step 3: Calculation of the Limit Difference Between Levels. Based on whether the candidate's target admission batch is undergraduate or vocational college, a differentiated calculation logic is used to calculate the limit difference for the corresponding level. The limit difference is the benchmark for the maximum score difference for that level. For undergraduate level, the limit difference ΔF = the highest score in the score distribution table for that college entrance examination category - the lowest score of the adjusted planned ranking f j ; For vocational colleges, the limit difference ΔF = the provincial control line score for undergraduate admissions in that province - the adjusted lowest score for the planned ranking f. j .

[0023] Step 4: Calculation of Dynamic Parameters and Gradient Average Score Difference. First, calculate the dynamic parameters for the corresponding batch based on the college entrance examination category. The dynamic parameters are used to adapt to the score distribution characteristics of different college entrance examination categories and are divided into undergraduate level dynamic parameters and vocational college level dynamic parameters: The formula for calculating the dynamic parameters of the undergraduate level is as follows: ; Among them, K ben The parameters are dynamic for undergraduate levels, with k1 ranging from 0.7 to 1.1, k2 from 0.8 to 1.0, and k3 from 0.85 to 1.15. The optimal dynamic parameter for undergraduate use is 0.8 to 0.84; The formula for calculating the dynamic parameters of the specialized level is as follows: ; Among them, K zhuan The parameters are dynamic parameters for the associate degree level, with k4 ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 and k5 ranging from 0.7 to 1.0.

[0024] The optimal dynamic parameter for the specialized level is 0.3 to 0.34; Next, the limit difference is multiplied by the dynamic parameter of the corresponding level to obtain the basic average score difference for that level. Simultaneously, the university levels are standardized into four gradients: ambitious, safe, backup, and reserve. The independent average score difference for each gradient is calculated using the following formula: ; in, The average difference of the nth gradient, K represents the limit difference between undergraduate and associate degree level batches, K represents the dynamic parameter of undergraduate or associate degree level batches, q = 0.4-0.6, n = 1, 2, 3, 4, corresponding to the levels of rush application, safe application, backup application, and backup application, respectively.

[0025] Step 5: Determining the score range for each institution / level Using the lowest score fj in the planned ranking as the base score after correction in step two, the independent average score differences of the four gradients of ambitious, safe, backup, and reserve levels calculated in step four are successively added to determine the upper and lower limits of the scores for the reserve, backup, safe, and ambitious levels, and finally the specific score range of each level of colleges is obtained, providing a clear score reference for candidates to fill in their college applications.

[0026] refer to Figure 2 , Figure 3 , Figure 4 , Figure 5 Example 2, based on Example 1, provides a system for quickly determining the level of universities to be selected in college application, used to implement the method described in Example 1. The system includes: Data acquisition module 1 is used to acquire the provincial control line for the college entrance examination category, undergraduate batch or junior college batch of the province where the examinee is located, and the one-point-one-section table corresponding to the provincial control line; The planned ranking calculation module 2 is connected to the data acquisition module 1. It is used to obtain the planned ranking by dividing the provincial control line ranking by 1.2, and to determine the score corresponding to the actual ranking that is closest to the planned ranking by querying the one-point-one-segment table, which is used as the minimum score for the planned ranking. The limit difference calculation module 3, which is communicatively connected to the planned ranking calculation module 2, is used to obtain the limit difference by calculating the score difference. Specifically, it includes an undergraduate level limit difference calculation unit 31 and a junior college level limit difference calculation unit 32. The undergraduate level limit difference calculation unit 31 is used to calculate the difference between the highest score in the score distribution table of the college entrance examination category and the lowest score in the planned ranking, as the limit difference at the undergraduate level. The junior college level limit difference calculation unit 32 is used to calculate the difference between the provincial control line score of the undergraduate batch and the lowest score in the planned ranking, as the limit difference at the junior college level. The dynamic parameter calculation module 4 is communicatively connected to the limit difference calculation module 3, and includes an undergraduate level dynamic parameter calculation unit 41 and a junior college level dynamic parameter calculation unit 42; the undergraduate level dynamic parameter calculation unit 41 is used to calculate undergraduate level dynamic parameters; the junior college level dynamic parameter calculation unit 42 is used to calculate junior college level dynamic parameters. The average score difference calculation module 5 is communicatively connected to the limit difference calculation module 3 and the dynamic parameter calculation module 4, respectively, and is used to obtain the average score difference of each level by multiplying the limit difference between the undergraduate level and the junior college level by the dynamic parameter. The college tier division module 6 is connected to the average score difference calculation module 5. It is used to divide the college tiers into four levels: the ambitious level, the safe level, the bottom level, and the backup level, and to calculate the independent average score difference for each level. The college-level score range calculation module 7 is communicatively connected to the planned ranking calculation module 2, the average score difference calculation module 5, and the college-level division module 6, respectively. It is used to obtain the college-level score range by successively adding the average score difference based on the lowest planned ranking score.

[0027] The planned ranking calculation module 2 also includes a tie correction unit 21, which is used to introduce a tie correction coefficient from the one-point-one-segment table to correct the lowest planned ranking score when determining the lowest planned ranking score.

[0028] In this embodiment, the system collects core data through the data acquisition module 1, and then completes the core parameter calculations through the planned ranking calculation module 2, the limit difference calculation module 3, the dynamic parameter calculation module 4, and the average score difference calculation module 5 in sequence. Finally, the system outputs the score range of each college level through the college level score range calculation module 7, so as to realize the rapid and accurate determination of the college level for college application.

[0029] It should be noted that in the above embodiments, the values ​​of k1, k2, k3, k4, k5, α, and q are only preferred embodiments. In practical applications, they can be flexibly adjusted within the numerical range defined by this invention according to the college entrance examination policies, number of candidates, enrollment plans, and score distribution of different provinces, and all of these adjustments fall within the protection scope of this invention.

Claims

1. A method for quickly determining the level of universities to choose when filling out college application forms, characterized in that, include: S1: Obtain the provincial control line for the college entrance examination category, undergraduate batch or junior college batch in the province where the candidate is located, and the corresponding score distribution table for the provincial control line; S2: By dividing the provincial control line ranking by 1.2, the planned ranking is obtained. By querying the one-point-one-segment table, the score corresponding to the actual ranking closest to the planned ranking is determined and used as the minimum score for the planned ranking. S3: Obtain the limiting difference by calculating the fractional difference, specifically including: S31: The limit difference for undergraduate levels is the difference between the highest score in the score distribution table for the college entrance examination category and the lowest score in the planned ranking. S32: The limit difference for the junior college level is the difference between the provincial control line score of the undergraduate batch and the lowest score of the planned ranking; S4: The average score difference for each level is obtained by multiplying the limit difference between the undergraduate level and the associate degree level by a dynamic parameter; S5: Based on the lowest score within the plan, the average score difference is added sequentially to obtain the score range for each institution level.

2. The method for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The college entrance examination categories include: Physics, History, and Comprehensive. The dynamic parameters of the undergraduate and associate degree levels for Physics, History, and Comprehensive are calculated using formulas. The formula for calculating the dynamic parameters of the undergraduate level is as follows: ； Among them, K ben The parameters are dynamic for undergraduate levels, with k1 ranging from 0.7 to 1.1, k2 from 0.8 to 1.0, and k3 from 0.85 to 1.

15. The formula for calculating the dynamic parameters of the specialized level is as follows: ； Among them, K zhuan The parameters are dynamic parameters for the associate degree level, with k4 ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 and k5 ranging from 0.7 to 1.

0.

3. The method for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The university tiers are divided into four levels: ambitious, safe, backup, and safety net. Each tier corresponds to an independent average score difference, and the formula for calculating the average score difference for each tier is as follows: ； in, The average difference of the nth gradient, K represents the limit difference between undergraduate and associate degree level batches, K represents the dynamic parameter of undergraduate or associate degree level batches, q = 0.4-0.6, n = 1, 2, 3, 4, which correspond to the levels of rush application, safe application, backup application, and backup application, respectively.

4. The method for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 3, characterized in that, In step S2, when determining the lowest score for the planned ranking, a tie-breaking correction factor is introduced from the one-point-one-segment table. The formula for calculating the corrected lowest score for the planned ranking is as follows: ； Among them, f j f0 is the original lowest score for the planned ranking, obtained from the one-point-one-segment table; α = 0.005~0.02; N t The number of candidates with the same score corresponding to the original planned ranking, N p This represents the total number of candidates for each college entrance examination category and corresponding batch.

5. The method for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 4, characterized in that, When the candidates with the same score N t When the number of participants is zero, the lowest score f in the revised planned ranking. j It equals the lowest score f0 in the original plan.

6. A system for quickly determining the level of universities for college application selection, characterized in that, include: The data acquisition module (1) is used to acquire the provincial control line for the college entrance examination category, undergraduate batch or junior college batch of the province where the candidate is located, and the one-point-one-section table corresponding to the provincial control line; The planned ranking calculation module (2) is used to obtain the planned ranking by dividing the provincial control line ranking by 1.2, and to determine the score corresponding to the actual ranking closest to the planned ranking by querying the one-point-one-segment table, which is used as the minimum score for the planned ranking. The limit difference calculation module (3) is used to obtain the limit difference by calculating the fractional difference, specifically including: The undergraduate level limit difference calculation unit (31) is used to calculate the difference between the highest score of the college entrance examination category in the one-point-one-section table and the lowest score of the planned ranking, as the limit difference of the undergraduate level; The junior college level limit difference calculation unit (32) is used to calculate the difference between the provincial control line score of the undergraduate batch and the lowest score of the planned ranking, as the limit difference of the junior college level; The average score difference calculation module (5) is used to obtain the average score difference of each level by multiplying the limit difference between the undergraduate level and the junior college level by a dynamic parameter; The college-level score range calculation module (7) is used to calculate the college-level score range by successively adding the average score difference based on the lowest score in the plan.

7. The system for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 6, characterized in that, The college entrance examination categories include: Physics, History, and Comprehensive. The dynamic parameters of the undergraduate and associate degree levels for Physics, History, and Comprehensive are calculated using formulas. The dynamic parameter calculation module (4) includes a dynamic parameter calculation unit (41) at the undergraduate level and a dynamic parameter calculation unit (42) at the junior college level. The undergraduate level dynamic parameter calculation unit (41) is used to calculate the undergraduate level dynamic parameters. The calculation formula for the undergraduate level dynamic parameters is as follows: ； Among them, K ben The parameters are dynamic for undergraduate levels, with k1 ranging from 0.7 to 1.1, k2 from 0.8 to 1.0, and k3 from 0.85 to 1.

15. The vocational college level dynamic parameter calculation unit (42) is used to calculate the vocational college level dynamic parameters. The calculation formula for the vocational college level dynamic parameters is as follows: ； Among them, K zhuan The parameters are dynamic parameters for the associate degree level, with k4 ranging from 0.6 to 1.0 and k5 ranging from 0.7 to 1.

0.

8. The system for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 7, characterized in that, The system also includes: The college tier division module (6) is used to divide colleges into four tiers: the ambitious tier, the safe tier, the backup tier, and the reserve tier. Each tier corresponds to an independent average score difference, and the formula for calculating the average score difference of each tier is as follows: ； in, The average difference of the nth gradient, K represents the limit difference between undergraduate and associate degree level batches, K represents the dynamic parameter of undergraduate or associate degree level batches, q = 0.4-0.6, n = 1, 2, 3, 4, which correspond to the levels of rush application, safe application, backup application, and backup application, respectively.

9. The system for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 8, characterized in that, The planned ranking calculation module (2) also includes: Tie-breaking unit (21) is used to introduce a tie-breaking coefficient in the one-point-one-segment table when determining the lowest score in the plan. The formula for calculating the lowest score in the plan after correction is as follows: ； Among them, f j f0 is the original lowest score for the planned ranking, obtained from the one-point-one-segment table; α = 0.005~0.02; N t The number of candidates with the same score corresponding to the original planned ranking, N p This represents the total number of candidates for each college entrance examination category and corresponding batch.

10. The system for quickly determining the level of universities for college application as described in claim 9, characterized in that, When the number of candidates with the same score N t When the value is zero, the lowest score f in the corrected planned ranking. j It equals the lowest score f0 in the original plan.

Images