Recently, the Ministry of Education issued a notice regarding the employment and entrepreneurship of 2025 national college graduates, mandating that universities strictly implement the “three prohibitions” in campus recruitment. These prohibitions include the ban on recruitment information that specifies limitations to graduates of “985” and “211” universities, prohibiting discriminatory requirements related to gender, residency, and education, as well as prohibiting the publication of false or fraudulent employment information. The phrase “campus recruitment must not limit to 985 and 211 universities” quickly trended on social media, sparking significant discussion among netizens.
However, some netizens expressed a one-sided understanding of this issue. Some believe that the Ministry of Education’s ban on limiting recruitment to “985” and “211” universities will have no real impact, as companies may still use more covert methods to screen candidates. Others hold more extreme views, arguing that there are inherent differences among talents, and that limiting recruitment to “985” and “211” is a rational choice for companies, serving as positive encouragement for students to study hard and attend prestigious schools.
Given the current harsh employment environment and fierce competition for higher education, a rational discussion on this topic is necessary. Why do many companies choose the simple and crude method of limiting recruitment to “985” and “211” universities? Why does the Ministry of Education repeatedly prohibit such practices?
China’s higher education has undergone significant development, resulting in an increasing number of university graduates. Consequently, identifying outstanding candidates who meet corporate standards has become a challenging task. To simplify this process, some human resource departments opt for labeling, using “985” and “211” as basic thresholds.
However, we must also recognize other real-world issues. Both talents and universities possess different dimensions of competition and “parameters.” It is inappropriate to reduce a multifaceted individual, rich in different knowledge backgrounds and capabilities, to just one or two labels like “985” or “211.” Such oversimplification can lead to misjudgments, resulting in what we call “judging by appearances, missing out on real talent.”
In reality, both the former “985” and “211” and the current “Double First Class” designations are merely project names for the development of higher education by the Ministry of Education. They do not directly correlate with the quality of talent or skills. Moreover, some schools excel in specific fields but are not included in these projects due to their stricter selection criteria. These “small but precise” or “specialized but excellent” institutions could have graduates who miss out on opportunities simply because they lack the “985” or “211” label, which clearly contradicts the principles of employment fairness.
It is not that companies cannot set their own recruitment standards; rather, limiting recruitment to “985” and “211” is a crude approach that risks overlooking capable talent. Breaking down rigid educational barriers and achieving a comprehensive and objective evaluation of talent can expand the range of choices for companies, allowing them to avoid the pitfalls of blindly comparing and engaging in “talent high consumption.”
The report from the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China specifically emphasizes the need to “eliminate unreasonable restrictions and employment discrimination that affect equal employment.” At the national level, there is a clear demand for the implementation of a priority employment strategy and more proactive employment policies. Companies that blindly follow trends and solely rely on the “985” and “211” labels for recruitment are not contributing to the promotion of the employment priority strategy, nor are they supporting their own development.
Evaluating talent in the recruitment process should involve a rich array of dimensions, and companies should establish standards that are “suitable for themselves.” Otherwise, they risk reinforcing existing rigid practices, fueling excessive competition, and moving further away from the goal of finding qualified talent.