Abstract
Teachers and parents frequently encourage students in China by telling them, “Once you are admitted to a university, you will be free.” However, one may wonder if universities truly live up to their reputation as a “utopia” of freedom and independence. Yajun Zheng’s book After the Golden List: The Mystery of the Differentiation of University Students’ Career Opportunities explores the different trajectories of students who have entered elite universities through the National College Entrance Examination, and examines how their different socioeconomic backgrounds influence their career paths. Through her study of 62 graduates from two top research universities in China, Zheng challenges the notion that universities are a utopia. Instead, she argues that they are more like competitive arenas (竞技场) where students’ career paths are influenced by their family background and social origins. Zheng examines how the graduates’ intentions relating to career choice were formed during their university years and explains the mechanism of differentiation through the perspective of cultural sociology.
The book is divided into six chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 provide an overview of the competitive environment and rules that students from lower-class face when entering elite universities. These chapters also introduce the theoretical foundation and analytical framework of the research, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice and Ann Swidler’s concept of culture as a “tool-kit” or “repertoire” for organizing action. Swidler argues that culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values toward which action is oriented, but by shaping a “repertoire” or “tool-kit” of habits, skills, and styles on the basis of which people construct “strategies of action.” 1 The author views the university as a field and a maze, also conceptualizes school education as a cultural/social process that cultivates students’ qualities and abilities. Students’ personalities, habits, and skills are compared to their “cultural tool-kits” to navigate the maze. Chapters 3 and 4 classify students into two types of players based on their different modes of practice in the university: “goal controllers” (目标掌控者) and “intuition dependents” (直觉依赖者). Zheng finds that “goal controllers” seem to have a map of the maze when they enter the university and are better able to utilize the resources and opportunities provided by the university to accumulate advantages enabling them to achieve their goals. By contrast, “intuition dependents” seem to have no clue about the maze, and often lack clear goal awareness and planning skills, putting them at a disadvantage or in a passive position in the competition. Moreover, she analyzed how some “intuition dependent” students were influenced by their “goal controller” peers around them. They would question their own existing “tool-kits” and go through a period of confusion. After that, they would set new goals and gradually form expectations or plans for their career paths while looking for new future directions. This process might bring about a reorganization of their actions and the “cultural tool-kits” that generate a sense of meaning, leading to a transition from “intuition dependents” to “goal controllers.” Chapter 5 introduces the concept of value rationality, focusing on the cultural schema of constructing the meaning of work among elite university students. Students’ sense of meaning is shaped by various forces, such as nation, family, market, among others. Based on the two dimensions of “action power based on goal-means” and “value-belief motivation,” Zheng divides students into four categories: “self-motivated” (自主驱动者), “opportunists” (机会主义者), “lost wanderers” (迷失无从者), and “value conformers” (价值归顺者). Chapter 6 proposes the coexistence of two obstacles that hinder low-class students in elite universities: “cultural disembedding” and “cultural loss.”
This book provides valuable insights into the issues of educational equity and employment anxiety among young people in China today. It offers a deep understanding of some of the hot topics in Chinese education, such as the devaluation of higher education, the phenomenon of involution, Grade Point Average (GPA) first, and the self-deprecating label of “985 waste” among others. After reading the book, I believe that several points of views are worthy of further exploration. Firstly, the author emphasizes that both “goal controllers” and “intuition dependents” have their rationality for action, but the overall study fails to fully appreciate the logic of the “ntuition dependents.” Zheng presents cases that imply goal controllers and intuition dependents are opposites, with goal controllers having more benefits and better control of the game, while intuition dependents seem to be labeled as confused and passive followers. The book mentions that the intuition dependents need to be transformed into goal controllers to form expectations for their future career goals as soon as possible, familiarize themselves with the rules of the game, deliberately accumulate capital, and eventually achieve an ideal career path that matches their interests. However, a question that deserves discussion is what advantages do the “intuition-dependent” students possess? That is, do intuition dependents have their own unique cultural resources? If so, what are they? Is it necessary for intuition dependents to become goal controllers to avoid being seen as lost or even failures? But how do we define success? The author also suggests that “If measured from multiple perspectives of assessing intrinsic personal development, the achievements of the ‘intuition-dependent’ students may be greater, also closer to the humanistic ideal of ‘liberal education.’” This perspective might help us further unravel the mystery of the divergence of college students’ career paths, and perhaps we could uncover their cultural resources from the development of intuition dependents, but regrettably, the author didn’t elaborate on or justify this in the study.
Secondly, the author uses a purposive sampling method in her research. In the first stage, in order to avoid the noncore variables that might increase the difficulty of analysis, Zheng controlled some characteristics of the students in the initial sample selection process. She only selected male undergraduate students from the same high-level school with a GPA in the top 50% as research subjects. While this approach may have its merits, it could also introduce some bias and limitations to the research results. Although she added female students in the second stage of her research, she did not provide a comparison or discussion of any differences between male and female students. Moreover, the author did not justify why she focuses on students with a GPA in the top 50%. She does not address whether GPA represents a student’s learning attitude and diligence, or whether students with a GPA in the bottom 50% have different career planning and development paths. The author could provide more explanation of and justification for her sampling method.
Overall, the author presents a stimulating perspective that deepens readers understanding on how university experience and career paths are related. She identifies the cultural barriers that students from disadvantaged families face in elite universities, and offers useful guidance for students in similar situations. And her study offers insightful advice for students who have just entered university, namely how to create a “map” of their own in the university. These are the main contributions of Yajun Zheng’s research, and it would be valuable to see further exploration and discussion on these topics.
