Peking University right to stay true to plan
PEKING UNIVERSITY was reported to have rejected two applicants who legally achieved the university’s minimum score in the National College Entrance Examination. China Daily writer Zhang Zhouxiang comments:
What Peking University faces is an interesting situation: Its plan was to recruit eight applicants from Central China’s Henan province, and the first six applicants got very high scores in this year’s National College Entrance Examination, or gaokao. However, when it came to the seventh and eighth applicants with the highest scores, their scores were about 100 points lower — out of a total of 750 — than the other six.
The university rejected the two at first, saying that they might find it difficult to graduate four years later. Yet after fierce online discussions on the importance of it following its plan, it has issued a notice saying it has enrolled the two applicants.
The move has saved its reputation from being further hurt. Some argue that Peking University might have its own considerations behind enrolling the best high school graduates, but the rule is the rule and the rule must be obeyed. Peking University has already publicized its official plan to enroll eight students from Henan according to their gaokao scores, and that it
must stick to that plan.
Some guess that Peking University might want to avoid its minimum enrollment line being too low by rejecting the two applicants. That’s possible, but that’s no reason for it to break the promise set out in its plan. Peking University can change its enrollment plan next year and set a higher minimum score, but before the plan is changed, it
must implement the one in place.
Education equality is one of the most sensitive topics in society, because that’s almost the only chance of a person changing his/her fate. If Peking University insisted on breaking its plan, there is high possibility of it winning the case even if the two applicants sued it, but the damage done to its credibility would be permanent because everybody would believe Peking University was breaking its promise for its own interests.
This time Peking University has corrected its own wrongdoing by admitting the two applicants.
One notable detail of the incident is that the privacy of the two applicants has been well kept and their true names have not been revealed in public. That’s correct because if their names are widely known, their future classmates might treat them like “people with lower scores” in the university, which would be a nightmare experience for them. They are being fairly treated now, and we hope they get fairly treated in the future, too.