Hello! I'm your financial journalist friend. Today, we're going to talk about a topic that leaves countless working people feeling aggrieved: the discrimination based on a person's "first degree of education."
This article tells a poignant story about a young man named Xiao Miao. He passed five rounds of interviews with a large company and even resigned from his current job to start working there, only to be rejected in the final hiring review because his first degree was from a junior college. Meanwhile, a master's graduate from Peking University had his annual salary reduced by 50,000 yuan because his undergraduate degree was not from Peking University.
This is not just about a few individuals' misfortune; it reveals an "invisible but efficient" screening system, as well as the complex interplay among companies, job seekers, and policies.
Below, I'll break down this news into five parts in plain language to help you understand the logic, the consequences, and possible solutions.
---
1. An Invisible Barrier That Everyone Uses, Even Though the Government Doesn't Recognize It
First, let's clarify a concept: the term "first degree of education" has never been officially recognized by the Ministry of Education. As early as 2021, the Ministry replied to netizens that there is no such concept in national documents. When we talk about education, we usually refer to the highest or most recent degree obtained. In other words, as long as you have a bachelor's or master's degree, you are considered to have that level of education, whether you upgraded from a junior college or were directly admitted from high school.
But reality is harsh. Despite the official denial, the job market treats it as a significant factor. The data is stark:
- 64.9% of graduates have experienced discrimination in their job searches, with 52.1% of those cases due to their first degree.
- The lower the education level, the more likely they are to face discrimination; among junior college graduates, the proportion is as high as 73.2%.
- Even for master's graduates, if their undergraduate degree is not from a "985/211" university, their chances of being hired are only 1.8 times those of graduates from prestigious schools.
It's like there are 3,119 universities in the country, but the recruitment systems only give a "VIP channel" to about 0.4% of them (about a hundred schools). These few schools are used to rank all job seekers.
What's even more frustrating is that over 5 million people enroll in junior colleges each year, yet job postings often require a bachelor's degree or higher. This invisible barrier, which doesn't exist in official policies, is a result of the job market's labeling practices.
In simple terms: The government says to look at the highest degree, but companies focus on the starting point. This contradiction is the root of the problem.
---
2. The Price of Prejudice: Where Does That Missing 50,000 Yuan Go?
If discrimination were just uncomfortable, it might be tolerable. But when it affects salaries, it leads to real financial losses. The article mentions a study where, at a university in Wuhan, master's graduates with a "211" undergraduate degree had a 11.8% higher starting salary than those with a non-"211" degree. The 11.8% difference was entirely due to discrimination, unrelated to their abilities.
Let's do the math:
- Suppose a master's graduate earns 150,000 yuan a year; the 11.8% difference is 17,700 yuan.
- Over five years, that adds up to nearly 90,000 yuan in lost earnings.
- This difference is not based on ability or achievements but on a test taken at the age of 18.
Ms. Chen in the article had her offer reduced from 400,000 yuan to 350,000 yuan because her undergraduate degree was not from Peking University. This 50,000 yuan difference is similar to the 11.8% difference in salary. It shows that a "prestige premium" has become a fixed part of the hiring process.
Moreover, this discrimination is lifelong, affecting not just the starting salary but also future promotions and salary adjustments. It's like an interest-free loan with no expiration date.
Why does this happen? Because degrees have become less valuable. With so many postgraduates, the highest degree is no longer rare. When HR finds that a master's degree isn't enough to distinguish candidates, they look for earlier, harder-to-change, and more convenient criteria: the first degree.
---
3. Companies' Calculations: The Cheapest Screening Method, but the Most Expensive Waste
Why do companies use this form of discrimination? The reason is simple: it's lazy and cost-effective. In 2026, there will be 12.7 million college graduates and 12 million job openings, almost a 1:1 ratio. With so many resumes, HR has only 10 seconds to review each one. In those 10 seconds, they can rely on labels:
- "985"? Approved.
- "Non-985"? Rejected.
This is a highly cost-effective method:
- Zero cost: No need for interviews or verifications; one line of text can eliminate half the candidates.
- No risk of error: Rejected candidates won't complain, and companies don't know who they missed. Xiao Miao was rejected and ended up working in a supermarket, while the company lost a talented candidate after five rounds of interviews, but this doesn't show up in their financial reports.
Is it really worth it? Not really. This practice leads to significant costs:
- Wasted interview time: Xiao Miao spent five hours in interviews, and the company wasted five hours on him.
- Diminishing value of labels: The significance of the first degree fades over time; what matters are achievements, not the degree.
The article also points out that the number of people pursuing postgraduate degrees is declining, indicating that people are becoming more rational and unwilling to compete for a potentially useless degree. However, companies still value the starting point, which cannot be changed. For those who spend five years upgrading their education, the system still only sees their initial degree.
---
4. Why Can't Policies Stop This?
You might ask, does the government do anything about it? It does, and has for years:
- 2020: Central government documents called for a shift away from favoring prestigious schools.
- 2024: The Ministry of Education issued strict prohibitions on using 985/211 degrees in recruitment.
- 2026: Eight departments issued even stricter regulations with legal consequences.
But how effective are these policies? They are effective within government-owned institutions and public sector jobs, but they struggle to penetrate market-based companies. The reasons are:
- Laws are vague: The Employment Promotion Law prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity, race, and gender, but not school background.
- Evidence is hard to gather: Discrimination is often undocumented (phone calls, verbal statements, unsigned rejection letters).
- High costs of litigation: Job seekers haven't started working, so it's difficult to pursue legal action.
As a result, policies can only address explicit barriers; hidden rules like those based on school background remain uncontrolled. Job postings may seem fair, but the system still favors prestigious schools.
---
5. How to Break the Cycle?
The article suggests practical solutions that don't require new laws:
- Make the rules transparent: Companies can set barriers, but they must be clearly stated in job postings. Job seekers can then decide whether to apply.
- Avoid pre-interview screenings: Reveal the first-degree requirement only after the final interviews, shifting the screening cost to the candidates.
- Use practical assessments: Instead of labels, use tasks related to the job. For example, ask candidates to write emails, describe negative experiences, or complete tests.
- Standardize evaluations: Use standardized tests and scoring methods to avoid bias.
- Remove invisible barriers: Delete the first-degree field from the recruitment system and ensure consistency in rejection reasons.
In conclusion, Xiao Miao's story and the lost 50,000 yuan highlight that discrimination is essentially a cost-shifting mechanism. Companies shift the burden of screening to individuals, often unfairly. Young people deserve fairness: clear, transparent rules that give everyone a fair chance.
The scores from the college entrance exam are important, but they shouldn't define a person's entire career. The system needs to change; otherwise, it perpetuates inequality.
The silence of many job seekers is a sign that this issue is still未被 addressed. By making the rules explicit and holding companies accountable, we can create a fairer hiring environment.