What can truly save them isn’t actually doing exercises, but rather allowing all jobs that seem unstable, informal, and lacking in security, such as “chatting,” to earn money under the premise of being decent, dignified, and with equal rights.
Recently, the latest episode of the eighth season of “Thirteen Invitations,” featuring a conversation between Xu Zhiyuan and Lin Xiaoying, an associate professor at the School of Education of Peking University, titled “Shrubs Can Also Become Trees,” has attracted much attention.
In this episode, Lin Xiaoying is still very sharp and directly points out the current educational ills: the utilitarianism of education, ineffective “involution,” the sole focus on grades, a single evaluation system, students’ time and space being filled, no time to explore themselves, predetermined growth paths, and a single exit, etc.
Lin Xiaoying’s words have resonated with many.
In fact, these are all mainstream discourses of educational criticism in recent years, and people are not unfamiliar with them. For example, educational involution, this is already a consensus, as for how far it has gone, adults can find out by doing elementary school exercises.
Lin Xiaoying’s words have therefore received a lot of support, which is also the reason why she has been able to gain popularity this time; her evaluation has indeed struck a chord with many people.
But what is even more worth pondering is the voices that ridicule and criticize her, which can be seen everywhere in the video’s bullet comments.
01
In the program, Lin Xiaoying said, “If all you do in your life is just to make a living, then your life is a drudgery.”
This is a golden sentence she uttered in this program. But the bullet comments quickly fired back, “Standing and talking without back pain,” “The successful ones in the exam-oriented education tell those behind them not to get on the bus,” “Not every student can earn money by chatting,” and so on.
Such opinions are very common, because in the eyes of many people, the exam-oriented education that worships grades is already the only chance for ordinary people to change their fate.
In the cognition of many people, the college entrance examination is the fairest, after all, this exam theoretically only looks at scores. And a series of grand narratives surrounding the college entrance examination every year, such as confidentiality, transportation, escort, and work stoppages, are all reinforcing this point.
However, in reality, some so-called autonomous enrollment and quality education have indeed bred some corruption. Some families with power will collude with schools, coupled with inadequate supervision, and in the face of these, children from humble backgrounds have no chance. The fall of individual university leaders and staff members before has been confirming this impression.
Therefore, even if the involutional exam-oriented education is so boring and cruel, those lifeless campus lives, the uniform dressing and makeup, and even some tragedies, many people are still indifferent—”This is the fairest, there’s nothing we can do.”
Of course, whether exam-oriented education is fair is also worth thinking about.
For example, there was a news item these two days that the 2025 college entrance examination registration has begun, and many places require strict prevention of “college entrance examination immigration.” This, on the one hand, shows that some people can immigrate, and on the other hand, it shows that different places have different fates with the same score.
But this does not prevent the masses from consciously maintaining the involutional education mechanism out of fear of losing fairness. All educational reforms that grant “freedom” are also unable to be mentioned because of this public opinion.
Even if they are actually the most tired group in this involutional mechanism—it is conceivable that the audience who ridicule Lin Xiaoying, they have no choice but to be involved, their greatest ideal is to strive for victory in this system.
Lin Xiaoying once wrote a non-fiction work reflecting on basic education—”Children in County Schools: The Educational Ecology of China’s Counties.” However, the “county children” she tried to save, and their parents behind them, may be her biggest opponents.
02
Today’s educational involution is a contradictory phenomenon.
If it is said that in the past, the university enrollment rate was very low, and getting into university was “the pride of heaven,” then involution does make sense; there were only a few tickets, so of course you had to work hard.
But after so many years of higher education, everything actually points to anti-involution: undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs have all experienced large-scale expansion, with the undergraduate enrollment rate increasing from 5% to 93%, a geometric increase. Not long ago, there was also news that 831 new doctoral programs were planned to be added.
According to this logic, education should no longer be involved. Because it’s easier for everyone to go to college, there’s no need to be involved.
Then someone said again, this is the inflation of academic qualifications, academic qualifications are becoming worthless, and we need to be more involved.
Isn’t this unreasonable? Fewer enrollments mean involution, more enrollments also mean involution, is the end of the universe involution, is involution everyone’s destiny?
This is really too subversive of common sense. People’s basic thinking logic is that when resources increase, people do not need to compete excessively. If there are more hospitals and more stadiums, people don’t have to fight for them, this is normal.
But education seems very unique. There are more schools, the enrollment rate is higher, but the involution is becoming more and more intense. This is really incomprehensible.
I suddenly remembered the sentence that was directed at Lin Xiaoying, “Not every student can earn money by chatting.”
Why not? Aren’t internet celebrities doing it?
But it is estimated that in the eyes of the test-takers, this is not an ideal job, and it is also the case in the eyes of society. Although internet celebrities earn a lot, how much criticism they have endured can also be felt by flipping through the comment section.
Internet celebrities are like a mirror of the times—this is not to say that internet celebrities are demons, but rather the attitude towards internet celebrities reflects a collective unconscious mentality and deep human nature: envy of the rich, prejudice, stubbornness, conformity, and so on.
Public opinion’s criticism of internet celebrities is relentless; look at the comments of these so-called failed internet celebrities, how excited the voices calling for “severe crackdown,” “complete abolition,” and “closing e-commerce live broadcasts” are.
Here, I’m just using internet celebrities as an example, and I don’t intend to defend them. But the idea of “not being able to earn money by chatting” may be the reason for educational involution:
Many people, intentionally or unintentionally, are closing off employment opportunities after education.
For example, a job that can “earn money by chatting” is easily stifled under the indignant intolerance. Many young people have either suddenly lost this job or are trembling and keeping their distance.
So what’s left?
Exam-oriented exercises are isomorphic with their previous educational logic. Look at the professions that young people admire today: civil servants, public institutions, and teachers. All of this, in the final analysis, is doing exercises.
Many young people not only despise internet celebrities, but also despise liberal arts, and worship science and engineering—this is actually still worshiping doing exercises; the so-called free-ranging, non-unique, and emphasis on “comprehensive quality” of liberal arts is useless, it is not as good as science and engineering that only seeks a unique solution.
03
So, how can education not be involved?
The final goal of education is all for the limited number of jobs, which can only be those that are employed, stable, require exams, and look at academic qualifications.
All professions that deviate from the path of doing exercises are not good professions; all professions are inferior, only doing exercises is superior, so of course you have to be involved.
Education has expanded enrollment, but society’s tolerance has not, and only a few paths can be recognized. Physical labor, doing business, companionship and training, and “chatting internet celebrities” are not among the ideals of many people.
There are issues of concepts here, such as people’s unfamiliarity and fear of new types of professions, public opinion suppressing diverse creativity, society not understanding the value outside of “material production,” and so on.
But it’s not all about concepts; these that have not been included in “good professions” must be the result of ordinary people’s rational screening based on their sense of smell and perception, and there must be gaps in either rights and benefits or work situations.
For example, when urban household registration uses academic qualifications and even schools as screening criteria, it naturally tells young people to focus on good academic qualifications to be “favored” by big cities, which has more practical benefits.
For example, the average lifespan of domestic private enterprises is 3.7 years, and the average lifespan of small and medium-sized enterprises is only 2.5 years, which naturally also tells young people to find a stable and secure job and not to “think about things that don’t exist.”
For example, only certain professions have complete five insurances and one housing fund, medical and old-age insurance, which naturally also tells young people that they should work hard in this direction.
No one can say that Lin Xiaoying is wrong; students should not be overly embedded, but should “disembed,” break away from a fixed, standard, and unified model, and the principles are all understood.
But, what if doing exercises is the model they most recognize? A young person likes to watch the wind and clouds, and is full of whimsical ideas, would they dare to try?
I always can’t help but imagine the images of those young people who are against Lin Xiaoying, what kind of people would they be?
They will probably also be addicted to watching short videos, and then when they see the internet celebrities fail, they can’t help but spit: you should have been banned long ago, you are of no benefit to the real economy.
Then, they lie on the bed and scroll through their phones, and scroll to a recruitment information from a certain unit: why don’t I sign up too?
This is a cognitive dilemma: young people who do not and cannot have “other ideas” will not think about what else there is besides exam-oriented exercises.
What can truly save them isn’t actually doing exercises, but rather allowing all jobs that seem unstable, informal, and lacking in security, such as “chatting,” to earn money under the premise of being decent, dignified, and with equal rights.
What can stop involution is not more schools, but more paths.
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.