The year 2026 marks the commencement of the 15th Five-Year Plan period. Among the primary objectives outlined in the 15th Five-Year Plan is the aim to "promote the well-rounded development of individuals and make solid strides towards common prosperity for all, ensuring decisive progress in basically realizing socialist modernization." A key task under "Building a Strong Domestic Market" emphasizes adhering to the principle of "closely integrating investment in physical assets with investment in human capital." How do these seemingly abstract concepts relate to ordinary people, and how will policies be implemented over the next five years? In the third installment of [Diagnosing China's Economy in 2026], we invited Professor Yao Yang, Dean of the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Dishui Lake Advanced Institute of Finance, to provide an in-depth analysis. These are concepts he has discussed in several previous dialogues with Guancha.cn. This time, starting from the current historical stage of China's economy, he explores why we must propose the close integration of "investment in people" and "investment in physical assets," how "investment in people" and "the well-rounded development of individuals" constitute important distinguishing characteristics of socialism versus capitalism, and how, at the policy level in China, "investment in people" and "the well-rounded development of individuals" will be implemented over the next five years.
"Investment in people" is the only correct path to achieving common prosperity. Guancha.cn: Several years ago, you shared your thoughts on "the well-rounded development of individuals" and "investment in the people" with our readers. Now, our 15th Five-Year Plan explicitly uses phrases like "promote the well-rounded development of individuals" and "investment in people." Why do you believe emphasizing "investment in people" and "the well-rounded development of individuals" is so crucial at this stage? Yao Yang: This needs to be viewed against the broader backdrop of over forty years of reform and opening-up. Reform and opening-up was, to some extent, a reaction against the planned economy era. The planned economy era emphasized fairness, but fairness has its limits; particularly when pursuing equality of outcome, it can harm efficiency. Reform and opening-up largely shifted the focus from "equality of outcome" to "efficiency first." After three to four decades of reform and opening-up, our efficiency has indeed increased dramatically, but on the other hand, aspects of fairness and human development have received insufficient emphasis. We know that in 2021, China comprehensively built a moderately prosperous society, achieving the first centenary goal and eliminating absolute poverty. However, eliminating absolute poverty does not mean the task of socialist construction is complete; the next step is to advance common prosperity. Yet, achieving common prosperity requires concrete levers. If we simply revert to the pre-reform emphasis on equality of outcome as in the planned economy era, it might be counterproductive, reigniting the conflict between equality and efficiency. Therefore, we must find a new path to promote common prosperity. How to advance common prosperity? The central authorities' current proposal of "investment in people" is crucial for promoting common prosperity, and I believe it is the only correct path. I often discussed "investment in the people" in the past; the current term "investment in people" differs by only one character but carries the same meaning. That is, we should start from enhancing each individual's capabilities, allowing everyone to fully realize their potential and achieve well-rounded development. Then, when people enter the market, they can obtain their due income through market distribution mechanisms, thereby promoting common prosperity. This is the correct path and does not conflict with efficiency. This is the historical context for proposing "investment in people" and "promoting common prosperity" now.
Neglecting "investment in people" is related to China's traditional pragmatic philosophy. Guancha.cn: It is commonly believed that China's economic development over the past few decades was primarily investment-driven, emphasizing "investment in physical assets." You previously proposed the concept of "investment in the people," and now the 15th Five-Year Plan proposal explicitly calls for "closely integrating investment in physical assets and investment in people." How important do you think this shift in理念 is? Where does its necessity for China's economic transformation lie? Yao Yang: For a long period in the past, as you said, China's economy followed an "investment-driven" growth model, heavily emphasizing physical construction. The expressways, high-speed railways, subways, and skyscrapers invested in and built everywhere are all tangible assets. Governments, especially local governments, are adept at this; they also believe it is the most effective, yielding visible results within a year or two. "Investment in people" often shows slower results because it involves a massive population and may require a longer time, perhaps not showing obvious effects even after three to five years. Therefore, we tend to neglect the "human" aspect and emphasize the "physical" aspect more. This might also be related to the Chinese character – we are particularly good at seeing "things"; building and constructing things gives us a sense of accomplishment; but we pay less attention to soft, intangible aspects. Looking back at history, the Chinese have made tremendous contributions to humanity in science, technology, culture, and arts, such as the Four Great Inventions, which are directly visible and usable; poetry and songs are tangible outcomes that can be recited and felt. But the Chinese are not adept at inventing theories because theories are intangible, untouchable, self-constructed systems lacking direct counterparts in reality. Projected onto education, this leads to an obsession with升学 rates because they are easy to measure and tangible. But human growth is often intangible; a child's internal development is hard to quantify, so schools don't emphasize it much. I hope that this shift from "investment in physical assets" to the integration of both can promote a gradual establishment of a societal观念: investing in soft aspects is equally worthwhile.
Guancha.cn: What specifically do you mean by "soft things"? For example, you mentioned that traditional Chinese culture does not emphasize theoretical construction, but we had Confucianism in ancient times, and thinkers like Wang Yangming? Yao Yang: I also study Confucianism. Many doctrines from the pre-Qin period were indeed intangible, soft, and self-constructed theories. But these theories were later diluted by Legalism. Legalism emphasized practicality and immediate results. What we often call "selecting the virtuous and appointing the capable" seems to originate from Confucianism but is essentially a creation of Legalism. Shang Yang's reforms established a system of "military merit ranks," based on a logic of "effectiveness": achieve merit in battle, get rewarded with land immediately; farm well, get more land – very pragmatic. Confucianism was not pragmatic, hence it declined during the Warring States period, when Legalism dominated intellectual circles; Confucianism's status was even lower than Daoism. Daoism at least talked about self-cultivation; the ideological system constructed by Confucianism was considered "useless." When Emperor Wu of Han "dismissed the hundred schools and revered only Confucianism," Confucianism was treated as a "technique." Actually, Dong Zhongshu wasn't teaching some "technique"; he constructed a theoretical system of "interaction between Heaven and Mankind": the Son of Heaven naturally possesses power; but if the Son of Heaven acts wickedly, Heaven sends disasters; if he acts virtuously, auspicious signs appear. This used the will of Heaven to constrain the monarch. In reality, this constraint was executed by Confucian scholars who held the "Dao统" (Orthodoxy of the Way) to discipline the monarch's "治统" (Orthodoxy of Governance). But by Wang Yangming's time, he turned Confucianism back towards practicality. The so-called "unity of knowledge and action," which he himself might not have fully achieved, eventually evolved into "the learning of being a person," a kind of "art of daily living." Confucianism became practical again. This is our cultural psychology: we once had attempts at theoretical construction, but gradually lost it, and doctrines became instrumentalized.
Guancha.cn: So theory became a tool, a tool for rule? Yao Yang: Not entirely a "tool for rule." Our understanding of Dong Zhongshu is mistaken; viewing his theory as a statecraft is completely wrong. Dong Zhongshu's theory actually constructed a set of political philosophy suitable for that era, which was remarkable – he constructed a complete system of political philosophy in that time. Compared to ancient Greece, Aristotle was a great synthesizer with rich political philosophy thoughts, but he did not construct a complete system of political philosophy – Dong Zhongshu did that. But we later generations misinterpreted it, thinking it was merely a set of statecraft. This is a kind of prejudice among Chinese people. Precisely because of this prejudice, we pay great attention to the instrumentality of things. For example, our education intentionally or unintentionally defines each child as a tool. Why do children go to school? To pursue升学 rates. We treat children as tools for improving升学 rates and achieving political performance. In social, political, and economic life, we also easily treat people as tools – "What are people for? To create GDP, make the economy grow faster, catch up faster." This forgets the intrinsic value of each individual. But we must not forget that the guiding ideology of our Party is Marxism. Marx and Engels said in the Communist Manifesto, what is the goal pursued by communism? – It is "the free development of each individual." In the process of development, we easily forget our original aspiration. If schools don't compete on升学 rates, what should they compete on? Facing competition with the US, if we don't focus on GDP, don't focus on advanced technology, what should we focus on? And so on. Therefore, we easily forget the original purpose of our Party's establishment – to enhance the well-being of each individual. So, I believe this proposal of "the well-rounded development of individuals" from the central document level is a very important shift. In fact, this shift is not only reflected in the 15th Five-Year Plan; the Party's 20th National Congress report already explicitly proposed it; now it's about implementation, about truly doing it.
Investing in the capacity building of the populace is the proper direction for a socialist country. Guancha.cn: So, what specifically does the so-called "soft" aspect encompass? When the 15th Five-Year Plan document mentions "closely integrating investment in physical assets and investment in people," does it refer to using the socialist market economy to curb negative issues带有 "capitalist" characteristics? Including the emphasis on socialist culture and the well-rounded development of individuals in the 15th Five-Year Plan, is this also a firmer declaration that "we are following the socialist path," more clearly expressing that "our socialist market economy is different from the West's"? Yao Yang: This essentially concerns the fundamental differences between socialism and capitalism. Our generation grew up after reform and opening-up. I entered Peking University in 1982; the education we received then was that "the state should not have an ideology." Looking back today, actually this statement meant that capitalist countries have no ideology – of course, "capitalist countries have no ideology" is itself a rather vague statement. Some foreign scholars also believe that once a state exists, whether socialist or capitalist, it is itself an active entity. Theda Skocpol, a Harvard sociologist, believes that the state has autonomy, although this is not the mainstream Western view – the mainstream view is that the state is composed of various elements, has no ideology itself, and所谓 state ideology is merely an aggregation of popular观念. That is to say, capitalist countries themselves have no clear goal. From this, we can observe two possible tendencies in capitalist countries: One is moving towards a "welfare state," eventually evolving into a transaction between the rulers and the populace: "I give you welfare, you vote for me." This has been written into political science theoretical models; in positive political science models, politics is essentially a buying-and-selling relationship. The "political market" is the main research paradigm of American positive political science – politicians "sell" policies, and the "price" is votes. In fact, American politics overall has been commercialized. When we discuss the harm Trump has done to American politics today, it's precisely because he tore this open. Actually, this isn't a unique "harm" of Trump; he just played capitalist politics to its extreme. In the past, politicians maintained surface rules, operating behind the scenes; Trump thought, since everyone plays behind the scenes, why not bring it to the forefront? Why hide it? When a country lacks a certain ideology or moral standard, politics tends towards "commercialization." This is a dilemma the US finds difficult to resolve. The other problem with capitalism is that it allows the powerful to manipulate politics, thereby influencing society. For example, Musk believes that with his financial resources, he can play politics, so he spends $200 million to support Trump's campaign. Why does he do this? Simply to exchange for benefits. When Trump talked about canceling electric vehicle subsidies, Musk turned against him; later, when Trump agreed to appoint his preferred candidate as NASA administrator, Musk resumed close relations with Trump. Therefore, the capitalist system allows small powerful groups to buy the government – political economy calls this "state capture" – to serve their own interests. So in capitalist societies, two tendencies exist: one is populism, gaining support by catering to the populace; the other is the government being carved up by large interest groups. The recent Epstein case exposed shocking phenomena. Previously, these things happened mostly behind the scenes; in the Trump era, they were directly unveiled and placed on the table. This is the situation in capitalist countries. Socialism, on the other hand, is a state form constructed based on ideals. Capitalism can be said to have developed naturally, while socialism, from the beginning, aimed to transform capitalism and prevent the problems of capitalism from arising. We need to absorb beneficial ideas and practices from capitalism, for example, to improve economic efficiency, we accept the market economy; but at the same time, we must prevent the drawbacks of capitalism from appearing. A very key point is that socialist countries must have a clear "ideal," which is the "free and well-rounded development of individuals" in Marxism. I believe all thoughts and actions of a socialist country should revolve around this ideal. Of course, this does not mean other thoughts cannot exist; a hundred flowers blooming is necessary; but the socialist country itself must take this ideal as its core. We should focus on the development of each individual's "capabilities," invest in the capacity building of the populace, allowing everyone to enhance their capabilities and realize their maximum potential; this is the proper direction for a socialist country. This way we won't fall into the populism trap, nor merely cater to the populace leading to "welfare ailments." On the other hand, socialist countries also need to调节 the balance of power in the market, preventing any individual or group from having power超越 the market, thereby maintaining political and social balance. I call such a socialist government a "neutral government," meaning it holds a neutral attitude towards all interest groups, thus avoiding the state being "captured" by a少数 group.
Investment in People vs. Buying Votes with Money: This is the Difference Between Socialism and Capitalism. Guancha.cn: You mentioned that "the well-rounded development of individuals" is different from the West's "welfare ailments." But currently, many economists and the public tend to think "investment in people" equates to increasing welfare, for example, at least doubling the rural pension of just over 200 yuan per month. "Increasing welfare" seems to be many people's intuitive understanding of "investment in people," while you believe "investment in people" also needs to avoid "welfare ailments." Also, in the Western context, "populism" usually carries a negative connotation. So what is the fundamental difference between our country's "people-centered" approach and the West's so-called "populism"? Yao Yang: The most fundamental difference is that socialist countries have their own core ideal, namely "the free and well-rounded development of individuals." We care about whether each person can fully develop their own potential; this is the goal of a socialist country. Capitalist countries are essentially transactional – they can随意 provide some so-called "welfare," the purpose being merely to exchange for votes, not caring whether the voters truly grow. For example, I went to a meeting in Philadelphia, USA, in early January and found homeless people everywhere on the streets. Of course, one could say this is a "lifestyle," but from the government's perspective, if votes are needed, they can give a homeless person $100 or equivalent food on election day to make them vote. As for whether they remain homeless or find a job later, that's not the politician's concern. Socialist countries are different. We find it unacceptable to let people live on the streets; we would analyze what they lack, why they can't find a job, and then invest in them. This is the real "investment in people." This is an essential difference. Of course, specifically in China, our welfare level is still very low. In rural areas, raising social security standards is entirely appropriate, but to what level needs to be set according to national strength. It's impossible to suddenly raise rural pensions to five or six hundred yuan per month nationwide, all borne by the state, as that would obviously place a huge burden on the country. The core idea of China's "investment in people" is not welfare dependency, but "teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish." To avoid the state eventually bearing all burdens, the system needs to be well-designed. In rural areas, a social security contribution standard could be established, similar to cities – the standard might differ from cities – so that in the future, when rural residents retire, part of the social security they receive comes from their own contributions. This can also incentivize everyone to actively participate and engage in labor. So "investment in the people" is not what is commonly called "accommodating" the people, not "giving them whatever they ask for." It actually contains an incentive component: the state invests in the people, and after the people acquire capabilities, they should be self-reliant and obtain their due income through the market. This is an organic whole and cannot be separated. In current China, when discussing improving rural pension, medical care, and other systems, some always emphasize "because they made great contributions to the country in the past, they should be repaid now." Is this logic correct? It is also correct, but I always feel it somewhat deviates from the correct track of socialism, because it seems to turn the relationship between the individual and the state into a transaction: "I contributed to you, so you should repay me." The logic of socialism should not be like this. In a socialist country, everyone is the master of the country; the relationship between the individual and the state should not be an exchange relationship. On the contrary, a socialist country's investment in the people should be based on the ideal出发, not because "you made contributions, so I repay you." This is similar to Kant's "categorical imperative": morality comes from within, it is sincerely wanting to do the right thing, not because "doing it will bring good returns." If it's only for returns, that's just a "hypothetical imperative," not a "categorical imperative." Adam Smith said in The Theory of Moral Sentiments that morality is the noble voice emitted by the inhabitant residing in your heart. Similarly, a socialist country improving the welfare of the people should also be the noble voice emitted by the inhabitant residing in the heart of the state. Starting from this point is a higher realm and should become a responsibility the state must fulfill.
Guancha.cn: That is to say, it should not be the utilitarian "the people contributed, so the state repays," but rather the state, based on a noble moral belief, inherently has the duty to invest in the people. Yao Yang: Yes, it's a belief. Otherwise, socialist countries would be the same as capitalist countries,陷入 the logic of "let's make a deal, if you don't contribute, I won't give you welfare." The ideal of a socialist country should be: every individual is unique; as long as their potential is realized, they can become a truly well-rounded person. Then, their contribution to society is natural and self-evident. To implement "investment in people," three key relationships must first be properly handled. Guancha.cn: In implementing the goal of "the well-rounded development of individuals" during the 15th Five-Year Plan period, what existing backward thinking or inertia do you believe might be不利? For example, during the past forty years of reform and opening-up, we once emphasized economic growth and efficiency priority. Will these延续的观念 form obstacles? How should we overcome them? Yao Yang: There are indeed many obstacles, both in thought and practice. In terms of thought, the utilitarianism I mentioned earlier is one; it might be part of our cultural psychology,甚至带有 biological elements, perhaps difficult to eradicate. Guancha.cn: Like the meritocracy tradition you mentioned. Yao Yang: Yes, this might be the result of long cultural evolution. In our society, more pragmatic people survived and reproduced, while those too impractical or outliers were gradually淘汰. We might not be able to completely change this tradition, but some specific观念 can be adjusted. First, adjust the relationship between economic growth and individual development. When the state formulates policies, there is often an implicit对立思维: "If we take more care of each individual, overall GDP growth might be affected." This partly stems from the historical experience of the planned economy era, where overemphasis on equality led to low efficiency, hence later shifting to prioritizing the whole and considering individuals less. Today, we need to change this观念. If everyone realizes their potential, GDP will naturally increase. In the past, we relied on the international market for growth, not needing everyone's participation; now, we need to rely more on domestic demand, making everyone's participation important. Even just from a consumption perspective, we need more people to participate in market activities and increase everyone's income. Actually, my argument here is still Kant's "hypothetical imperative"; as I emphasized earlier, socialism should follow the "categorical imperative," that is, enhancing each individual's capabilities; on this basis, economic growth is a natural outcome. Second, is the trade-off between individual welfare and economic growth. We often focus on economic growth but do not place sufficient importance on the提升 of individual welfare. GDP only measures priced economic and social activities, but many things like the well-rounded development of individuals are priceless. Overemphasizing GDP can sometimes harm individual welfare. For example, food delivery riders, driven by algorithms, see GDP and rider income go up, but has their welfare really improved? Possibly not. Earning an extra thousand yuan per month but承受 greater psychological pressure and risk of traffic accidents might actually decrease their overall welfare. We rarely considered these aspects in the past. Speaking of algorithms, even if the government doesn't intervene, shouldn't platform companies exercise self-restraint? I heard of a case where a university female teacher was seriously injured by a delivery rider; the court最终 only ordered the rider to pay a small amount in compensation, while the platform was not held liable. The underlying logic might be: holding the platform liable would affect its efficiency, affect GDP. But who considers the welfare of the rider and the victim? Any rational judge should rule that the platform bears at least joint liability, because the rider was working under its algorithm调度. This reflects a subconscious belief: individual welfare is not as important as GDP. Abstract ideological deviations manifest真切 in reality. Third is the relationship between "equality" and "efficiency." We often emphasized efficiency in the past while neglecting equality, but what is not fully recognized is that equality can promote efficiency. In China, a significant number of people, due to not being treated fairly, have not realized their potential. We often think relying on the top tier is enough, but if the potential of those treated unfairly could also be unleashed, wouldn't the total economic output be larger? This is an "invisible bias," what economists call a "deadweight loss," an implicit cost that brings no benefit. For example, improving rural education could generate higher GDP. We just completed a project on "ending the Zhongkao (high school entrance exam)." When researching vocational high schools, almost all teachers thought "these children have poor foundations, can't learn; if the Zhongkao is canceled and they enter regular high school, they might negatively influence other students; they should be isolated." They completely blamed the children. This is wrong. Why can't the children learn? Our students sitting in on classes found they work hard but can't understand, so they sleep in class. But this shouldn't be blamed on their stupidity – the Zhongkao分流 at 50/50, are half the children stupid? This is obviously unreasonable. Actually, about 70% of vocational high school students have rural household registration. Behind this are two problems. One is the poor quality of rural education. For example, in a rural primary school I attended in Jiangxi, for a period, the PE teacher was actually teaching math. The second is social issues. Many children are left-behind children or from divorced families. We visited a technical school where the teacher informed us that over half the students were from divorced families. Can we still blame the children? This is a social problem, a problem of insufficient investment in rural education, a widespread social problem in rural areas. If we could level urban and rural educational resources and solve rural social problems, these children wouldn't be unable to understand lessons. We still subconsciously have an elitist thought: investing in schools in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou yields results more easily, is more efficient, so resources should concentrate there; investing in rural areas shows slow results,甚至 no effect, is a waste. Many people, though not explicitly stating it, think this subconsciously. There are many similar thoughts. Today, to implement "investment in people," we must first change观念, especially among government officials. But this is very difficult because our culture and the development model of the past few decades have reinforced this thinking. There is a province that is a common prosperity demonstration province,宣称 it did a great thing: providing free startup funds for university graduates,声称 this is for common prosperity. I was puzzled: this province is not so rich that university graduates are poor; there are many rural children who can't afford university. Since there is money, why not invest in them? This is a huge deviation in understanding "common prosperity."
Investing in people should focus on investing in rural education. Guancha.cn: So you believe the current primary task is to补短板, especially the短板 in rural areas. Yao Yang: Exactly. University graduates will find jobs anyway. Moreover, can this kind of "incubator" investment like in that province really foster entrepreneurship? Entrepreneurship is often born out of necessity. Using one's own money or loans to start a business forces serious evaluation of whether the idea can survive. Using state money might just be "playing around," ending when the money runs out. This is wrong even from an entrepreneurship perspective, and is poles apart from common prosperity. We still have a long way to go. Currently, we lack domestic demand, and investment is an important component of domestic demand. If we lack investment targets now, why not invest in rural primary and secondary schools? Investing in people should focus on investing in rural education. Since we worry about economic growth, why not use funds – we are not short of money now – to genuinely improve rural teachers'待遇 and facilities? Many rural children start boarding at school from third grade because schools are too far. City dwellers can hardly imagine 8-year-olds boarding, and the accommodation conditions are poor. Can't this be improved? The待遇 for rural teachers has improved slightly, but it's not enough to keep them teaching there long-term; can't their salaries be raised further? I took a few MBA students and fellow villagers to support a project for my hometown's primary school for a Beijing study tour, selecting over 20 children each summer to study in Beijing. This greatly helps broaden the children's horizons. Although only over 20 children each year, they share their experiences with classmates upon return, significantly boosting other children's aspirations. Previously, when I asked school children if they wanted to go to university, they基本上 said yes. But when asked which university? They usually only said universities in "Nanchang" – the farthest place they could imagine was the provincial capital. For many children, the county town might be the farthest they've been. City dwellers难以想象, but this is China's reality. So taking them out changes them greatly. A fifth-grade girl, after visiting Peking University, said her goal was to test into PKU. We also introduced Yao Ming's "Yao Fund" to conduct basketball activities. We supported the school in establishing a basketball team to participate in the "Hope Primary School Basketball Tournament" organized by the Yao Fund in various provinces; they won second place in the province on their first attempt. This was unimaginable before – rural children hadn't even touched a basketball before; PE classes weren't conducted because there were no basketballs! We donated some basketballs, and the team was formed. Moreover, the rules required at least one girl on the court. So it was 4 boys plus 1 girl – girls develop earlier, might be taller. "Girls can also play basketball" was once unimaginable there. This subtle influence can提升 children's ambitions and aspirations. This is very precious. In big cities like Shanghai, this is normal; but in those areas – that's not even a poor area, just a medium-developed area – it's scarce for the children. I believe other provinces, even developed ones like Zhejiang, Jiangsu, have very underdeveloped rural areas. I've seen with my own eyes in Zhejiang that the gap between village primary schools and county town primary schools remains huge. Can't we do more things like this?
Investing in education should focus on cultivating children, not selecting them. Guancha.cn: So you believe this is the area that should be the focus for future "investment in people" and "promoting the well-rounded development of individuals." Yao Yang: Yes. In today's society and current China, education determines everything. In our generation and the post-70s, it was still possible for "grassroots heroes" with only a few years of schooling to become entrepreneurs, studying later. But for the post-80s, post-90s, this is almost impossible. Look at the founders of emerging unicorn companies now; almost all have university degrees, many even postgraduate degrees. Because China has developed to this stage; without a university degree, it's very difficult to become part of the middle class. So we must start with education, and must start with rural education, increasing investment in rural education. For cities, I think we should instead reduce pressure on children, which is also an体现 of "investment in people." We should not过度 pursue scores; pursuing scores is essentially "investment in physical assets" – although scores are not physical objects, numbers are also "things." We should pursue the well-rounded development of individuals, focus on "cultivation" rather than "selection." Actually, children crave such an education system. A professor friend from Shandong University sent a微信 saying his daughter in eighth grade, after reading my comments about canceling the Zhongkao, was deeply touched and wanted to chat with me. I asked this eighth-grade girl what she thought was wrong with the current education. She said: "Our current education has deviated from its original purpose; it's only 'selecting' us, not 'cultivating' us." If a 14-year-old girl understands this, why don't our educators understand? Guancha.cn: What do you think is the fundamental difference between "selection" and "cultivation"? Yao Yang: "Selection" focuses on metrics like how many can get into Tsinghua/Peking University. "Cultivation" is about comprehensively nurturing a person,关注 their physical and mental well-rounded development. We've all been through student days; at each stage, we总能 remember one or two teachers. I remember Teacher Jiang from first grade because I transferred from Jiangxi and couldn't speak Mandarin; she treated me like a mother; in high school, I remember Teacher Guan for Chinese; she once took us on a long bicycle trip, even climbing Mount Hua at night (a bit scary in retrospect). It wasn't to make us write essays, but she believed "you need to experience." This subtle influence greatly helps adolescent children's growth, truly关注 your physical and mental development. Now it's all about "selection,"恨不得 all time is used for做题. I feel educators are caught in this invisible machine without realizing it. Although the system needs reform, don't educators themselves bear responsibility?
By 2035,至少 achieve 10 years of compulsory education全覆盖, cancel the Zhongkao. Guancha.cn: The state has also been talking about reducing burden in recent years, including your proposal to cancel the Zhongkao分流 and implement 12-year compulsory education. These have been mentioned for years,似乎 with little effect. In the next Five-Year Plan, how should we implement "investment in people"? Specifically in education, what should be done? Yao Yang: I'm glad to see the 15th Five-Year Plan already mentions "exploring pathways to extend compulsory education to the high school stage." This is on the agenda; I hope specific plans can be出台 in five years. I believe that by 2035, we must achieve 12-year compulsory education全覆盖. In my opinion, even 10 years is enough, reducing two years. Because the third year of junior high and third year of senior high are mostly spent on刷题, not learning much new. We all came through 10-year education, didn't we turn out fine? Anyway, it is expected that by 2035,全覆盖 should be achieved, the Zhongkao canceled, everyone moving forward together; this is an ideal state. In this process, the education department should切实负责 and strictly enforce burden reduction. Currently, burden reduction is not strictly enforced. Actually, the method is simple: conduct spot checks, don't ask teachers, ask students directly; if any student is found to have daily homework exceeding 3 hours, heavily penalize the school. Penalize a few times and it will work. The key is, I estimate the education department's own thinking hasn't changed yet. They still aim for "how many students can get into Tsinghua/Peking University," essentially still believing in "selection"; otherwise, universities wouldn't still be engaging in变相 selection. Some universities (not naming names) even enroll from junior high graduates, which is absurd. Various "youth classes," "specialty classes" emerge endlessly. The University of Science and Technology of China's少年班 has been running for over forty years; is it successful? Not really. Frankly, most少年班 graduates' achievements未必 surpass mine (not boasting). Is there any point in running少年班? Not only are they still running, but more are appearing. This shows our educators haven't realized the problem at all. If universities are doing this, primary and secondary schools will naturally emulate. Especially in some small and medium-sized cities, they completely look at data: Tsinghua/Peking admission rate, 985/211 rate become the指挥棒,奖惩 high schools based on this. So, the primary reason burden reduction isn't working is that the education department's own thinking hasn't changed, failing to keep up with the progress of the central理念. What to do? The Ministry of Education should get serious, conduct unannounced inspections, random checks. Instead of spending great effort regulating after-school tutoring classes, first manage the in-school part properly. The current academic pressure inside schools is already suffocating the children. We need constant meetings, repeated emphasis, treating burden reduction as a truly important matter. I don't think the Ministry of Education truly considers this a priority either. Current education is, to some extent, "destroying" rather than "cultivating" our children. Having been at PKU for many years, I deeply feel that although students are excellent, they increasingly lack creativity and become uniform. Guancha.cn: From the perspective of educational institutions, you previously researched many secondary vocational schools. The state has also been talking about developing vocational education, because not all children need to go to Tsinghua/Peking University to become scholars; many children might like skills like cooking, dance. Can vocational schools also develop distinctive features, like Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance, which is strong in specific fields, even comparable to Tsinghua/Peking University in某些 majors? Can良性分流 be achieved through such mechanisms? Yao Yang: Secondary vocational education actually has two lines: one under the Ministry of Education, namely vocational high schools; the other under the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, namely technical schools. We are not suggesting shutting down technical schools, but pointing out that the强制性 "vocational-general分流" is problematic. If compulsory education covers high school in the future, students after junior high can still choose, for example, voluntarily go to a technical school to learn a skill; that's perfectly fine. Graduates from schools like Lanxiang have good employment. That's not a problem, but the key should not be强制性分流. If students voluntarily choose not to go to regular high school but to technical school, that's fine. Mandatory分流 causes widespread anxiety, waste of resources, and a series of social problems, especially harming children's mental health. If we call it "investment in people," but the children are psychologically unhealthy, suffering from depression甚至 mental illness, then the education is definitely unsuccessful. Some students develop厌学情绪 after entering university,甚至 "lie flat" after graduation. I saw a post that made sense: these "lying flat" young people are somewhat "hopeless" because they haven't been "socialized." They only know how to take exams; after entering society, they don't know how to interact with people, feel scared and nervous. How can a university graduate not find a job? At worst, they can deliver food. They ultimately escape back to their families, doing odd jobs for their parents. This is because they haven't been socialized. You might say, start by educating the parents. But this generation of parents is also hard to change, because they came the same way,同样 lacking socialization. Why wasn't the problem prominent before? Because in the past, the state assigned jobs; in the planned economy era, you worked in a factory or government unit, and your child could take over your position. Now it's a market economy, jobs aren't assigned, so the problem emerges. This is all related to our education system. The well-rounded development of individuals must start with education; implementation means de-emphasizing "selection" and focusing on "cultivation." Although I don't advocate the American "happy education," letting our children be a bit more "free-range" is necessary. Every child is unique, has their own potential. During the compulsory education stage (which should include high school in the future), "free-range" them, give them opportunities to discover and展现 their potential, and after high school, let them make their own choices for分流. This is the correct approach for "investment in people."
Comments