In China’s education system, the maxim “Knowledge changes fate” has taken deep root in people’s minds. Countless students—whether they are children from impoverished families emerging from remote mountain areas, or those of us who fought our way into top-tier universities—have all walked this path. Yet when we take a closer look at China’s entire education system, we find it is also a complex entity fraught with tensions. It not only shoulders the grand promise of boosting social mobility, but also inevitably reflects the inherent stratification and anxiety of society.

At the national macro level, China’s education system embodies the coexistence of a high degree of uniformity and structural differentiation. On one hand, the national unified Compulsory Education Curriculum Standards and the standardized college entrance examination system theoretically provide a level playing field for all students, regardless of whether they hail from prosperous cities or remote rural areas. This aligns with China’s basic national conditions and stands as a remarkable educational miracle in history: it has given students from disadvantaged backgrounds the motivation and hope to strive, making it possible to transcend inherent social classes and fulfill the promise that “knowledge changes fate”. On the other hand, the allocation of educational resources in China is deeply influenced by regional economic development levels. Despite central fiscal transfer payments striving to balance regional gaps, significant disparities persist between urban and rural areas, as well as between eastern and western China, in terms of funding support, teaching facilities and other aspects. While students in some schools explore cutting-edge science in labs equipped with smart devices, their peers in other schools may still struggle to secure basic experimental equipment. Even between key schools and ordinary schools in the same region, there are obvious gaps in teaching staff quality, instructional standards and even teaching attitudes. All these phenomena reflect the difficulty of achieving true equality in educational resources, rendering “equity at the starting line” an idealized pursuit to some extent.

At the individual micro level, the college entrance examination system epitomizes the core contradiction between equity and innovation. As the linchpin of China’s education system, the authority and impartiality of the college entrance examination form the cornerstone of social trust. However, the examination-oriented “baton effect” has shaped almost every aspect of basic education, and exerted a subtle influence on higher education that follows. The “exam-oriented education” model has inevitably led to a relative neglect of critical thinking, creativity and comprehensive quality development. Even here at Peking University, one of China’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning, I can still see clear traces of exam-oriented education in many of my peers—they lack genuine interest and passion for learning itself. Some students choose courses based solely on the ease of scoring high marks rather than the quality of the courses or their own personal growth goals; others get swept up in the rat race, obsessing over standard answers and fixating on every single point in their grades. While this model is highly efficient at selecting “outstanding examinees”, it is facing mounting criticism for its failure to cultivate “innovative talents” capable of addressing the complex challenges of the future.

Faced with these issues, China’s education system has been undergoing arduous adjustments and explorations. From the promotion of quality-oriented education concepts, to the “new college entrance examination reform” that expands students’ options, to the “double reduction” policy aimed at easing students’ academic burden—these initiatives all seek to break the monolithic score-based evaluation system and endow education with richer connotations. These ongoing reforms have indeed yielded some results: many parents have begun to recognize the importance of liberal arts education and all-round development, and schools have gradually increased their focus on students’ mental health and holistic growth. Nevertheless, deep-seated social norms and practical anxieties have made the reform process an uphill battle. A consequence of the “double reduction” policy is that some off-campus tutoring services have resurfaced in more covert forms; disparities in family educational investment continue to impact students’ academic performance; and the fierce competition among families for high-quality educational resources has inadvertently given rise to new forms of anxiety. Beneath the “formal equity” of opportunities lies the harsh reality that “substantive equity” remains elusive.

So, where does the future of China’s education reform lie? In my humble opinion, it essentially represents a shift from instrumental rationality back to value rationality. It requires us to move beyond the singular pursuit of high scores and admission to prestigious universities. By deepening the reform of the evaluation system and fully implementing quality-oriented education, we should truly prioritize the cultivation of students’ sound personalities, innovative thinking, independent reasoning abilities and lifelong learning skills. Meanwhile, in the context of China’s current economic transformation and evolving job market, education needs to become more adaptable to future social demands, broaden diverse pathways to success, and guide students in developing rational perspectives on careers and life. Ultimately, the value of education lies not only in producing excellent “examinees”, but also in nurturing well-rounded “individuals”—people who can adapt to the complex challenges of the future and possess the inner capacity to pursue happiness.