Summary of Key Points
This news article reveals the widespread and infuriating phenomenon of "first-degree discrimination" in the current job market through two compelling real-life cases: a master's candidate from Northeast Agricultural University being rejected and a master's graduate from Peking University having her salary reduced.
The article points out that many companies, especially large corporations, engage in "under-the-table" practices during the recruitment process. On the surface, they do not set any restrictions, but in the later stages of the interview process or even after issuing an offer, they reject the candidate or reduce their salary on the grounds that the candidate's initial education level (undergraduate or junior college) is not good enough. Such behavior not only violates the principles of integrity and vision that companies should uphold but also breaches national laws and regulations such as the Employment Promotion Law.
The author argues that the concept of "first-degree" is a pseudo-term that has never been defined in any official national document and is an illegal barrier imposed by some companies. This form of discrimination not only undermines the dignity of young people who have worked hard to change their lives but also hinders the flow of talent in society. The article calls for a comprehensive approach to address this issue, focusing on three aspects: refining legislation, strengthening law enforcement, and changing corporate attitudes, in order to completely eliminate this "destiny-based" discrimination and return the recruitment process to its essence of evaluating candidates based on their abilities rather than their background.
---
In-Depth Analysis: Why Should "First-Degree Discrimination" Be Put to an End?
To help you better understand the logic behind this issue, we have broken down the news into the following five aspects for a detailed analysis:
1. The Absurd "Time Difference": Companies Treating Job Applicants as "Consumable Resources"
[Easy-to-understand Explanation: Letting You Finish the Marathon Before Telling You You Didn't Even Register]
What's most infuriating about these cases is not the rejection itself but the timing of the decision.
- Case 1: Student Xiaomiao passed five rounds of interviews. This means that HR, business managers, and even higher-level leaders had all recognized his abilities, and the company had invested significant resources in assessing him. Yet, in the final step, HR simply said, "Oh, I forgot to mention, your first-degree is from a junior college, so you can't join."
- Case 2: Ms. Chen had already received an offer with an annual salary of 400,000 yuan and might have even resigned from her current job and rented a new apartment, only for the company to change its mind and ask her to retake the interview with a reduced salary of 50,000 yuan.
What does this represent?
It's like going to a restaurant, with the food already served and you just about starting to eat, when the owner suddenly runs over and says, "Sorry, we checked your ID, you're not a local resident, so you can't eat this dish, and you also have to return the money for the previous ones."
This attitude is extremely arrogant. Companies treat job applicants as disposable resources, treating the interview process like a game of elimination rather than a serious business agreement. It not only wastes the valuable time of young people (since the spring recruitment period is short-lived) but also tramples on their dignity. If so-called "large companies" cannot even uphold basic contractual integrity and respect, their "size" is merely a reflection of their scale, not their vision.
2. The "Hidden Barrier": The "Unwritten Rules" Hidden in the Background
[Easy-to-understand Explanation: Job ads are the "Open Cards," while the Screening Systems are the "Hidden Cards"]
Why is everyone so angry? Because this discrimination is hidden.
If a job ad clearly states, "Only candidates with a 985/211 undergraduate degree are eligible," applicants would know not to apply, even though it's unreasonable. However, the current practice is to advertise for candidates with a master's degree or above. Once you submit your resume, pass the written test, and go through three rounds of interviews, you're rejected based on your initial education level.
- Statistical Evidence: Surveys show that over 64% of fresh graduates have experienced discrimination, with 52.1% facing discrimination based on their first-degree.
- The Essence: This is a form of "open secret rule." Companies take advantage of information asymmetry by hiding illegal discriminatory clauses in the background of their systems and in the language used by HR.
This approach is both cunning and malicious. It avoids legal risks (since the ads don't explicitly state these restrictions) while still achieving the purpose of screening candidates. It particularly hurts young people who have worked hard to get into prestigious universities and try to improve their background, causing them to suffer the most at the last moment. This tactic of first giving hope and then delivering despair is even more unacceptable than a direct rejection.
3. Logical Fallacy: Using a "Factory-Set Standard" to Deny Later Improvements
[Easy-to-understand Explanation: You bought an old computer but upgraded the CPU and GPU yourself, so why can't it still be used?]
Many young people feel aggrieved by the concept of "first-degree" discrimination because the logic behind it doesn't hold up.
- What is the first-degree? It usually refers to an undergraduate or junior college degree, reflecting the outcome of your education at around 18, influenced by a combination of educational resources, family environment, and even luck.
- What are subsequent degrees? Master's and doctoral degrees reflect the achievements you've made as an adult through continuous effort, self-discipline, resilience, and ambition.
If someone fails the college entrance exam but doesn't give up and goes on to earn a master's or doctorate from a prestigious university, it demonstrates their strong learning ability, perseverance, and determination to change their fate.
The logical flaw in companies' approach is: They treat the first-degree as a fixed label that never changes. It's like someone who was thin as a child (a lower first-degree) becoming a muscular athlete (a higher degree/high ability) through exercise and nutrition. Yet, companies use their birth certificate to argue, "You were thin as a child, so you don't deserve to be an athlete."
This is not only reckless but also disrespectful. It denies the value of personal effort and the possibility of overcoming innate limitations through hard work.
4. Legal Boundaries: This Is Not "Freedom," but "Illegality"
[Easy-to-understand Explanation: Companies have the right to hire, but they don't have the right to practice discrimination based on background]
Many people think, "Companies can hire whoever they want; that's their freedom."
Wrong! Freedom has limits, and those limits are set by the law.
- The Employment Promotion Law clearly prohibits employment discrimination.
- The Ministry of Education has repeatedly issued warnings against including discriminatory clauses such as requiring a 985/211 degree in job ads.
- National documents (such as the "Overall Plan for Deepening Educational Evaluation Reform in the New Era") emphasize the need to move away from the focus on prestigious universities and degrees.
The key point is: The concept of "first-degree" does not exist in any official national policy document. It's a rule imposed by companies themselves.
Since national laws prohibit discrimination based on education, and since "first-degree" is not a legally recognized concept, companies that reject candidates based on this criterion are engaging in illegal employment discrimination.
The reason this phenomenon persists despite bans is:
1. Difficulty in Identification: The law does not provide a clear definition of discrimination, allowing companies to claim that their standards are internal and making it hard to determine their actions as illegal.
2. High Cost of Seeking Justice: Job seekers often face high costs in terms of time and energy when suing large companies for a few thousand yuan or an offer, so they choose to tolerate it.
3. Weak Supervision: Law enforcement inspections are insufficient, lacking strict enforcement.
Therefore, it's not that companies "have the right" to do this; it's more that they "get away with it."
5. A Look to the Future: From "Judging by Labels" to "Judging by Abilities"
[Easy-to-understand Explanation: Heroes are Not Judged by Their Origins; Large Companies Should Also Examine Their Own History]
The article concludes with a sharp and humorous suggestion: Large companies might want to look at their own history.
Many founders and key early employees of internet giants and tech companies did not have the most prestigious initial education backgrounds.
- Some founders graduated from technical schools;
- Some top technical experts came from ordinary second-tier universities;
- Some senior employees earned their bachelor's degrees through self-study.
If we applied the current HR standards based on initial education, these pioneers might not even have made it past the resume screening.
What does this indicate?
It shows that in the real world of business and innovation, abilities, talent, opportunities, and execution are far more important than a piece of paper.
Directions for Change:
1. Refining Legislation: Clearly define what constitutes employment discrimination to provide a legal basis for addressing this issue and hold violators accountable.
2. Strengthening Law Enforcement: Ensure that complaint channels are accessible, encouraging and enabling job seekers to file lawsuits and win them.
3. Changing Attitudes: Society and companies need to realize that in an era with diverse talent standards, judging people by their background is outdated.
In Conclusion:
A healthy society should give everyone who strives for improvement a chance to turn their lives around. The college entrance exam may determine your starting point, but it should not determine your destination. Breaking the barrier of "first-degree" discrimination is not only about protecting the dignity of young people but also about unleashing the potential of those who are trapped by labels.
The time has come to put an end to "first-degree" discrimination.