Summary of Key Points
This article uses the phenomenon of a barbecue vendor becoming popular because he resembles Zhang Xuefeng to delve into the socio-economic context behind Zhang Xuefeng’s fame. The public's nostalgia for him reflects the urgent need from disadvantaged families for someone who can bridge information gaps, take on decision-making responsibilities, and speak the truth. The controversies surrounding Zhang Xuefeng stem from the significant differences in the cost of making mistakes among different social strata. Today’s society exhibits a divergence where “flow” (income disparity) is narrowing, but “stock” (wealth accumulation disparities) is widening, limiting the opportunities for those from less affluent backgrounds to make mistakes. Moreover, the impact of AI and changes in the job market have rendered Zhang Xuefeng’s approach, which relied on industry stability, increasingly ineffective, leaving a void that is harder to fill.
1. The Nostalgia for the Barbecue Vendor: It’s Not About Zhang Xuefeng Himself, but Someone Who Spoke the Truth
People gather around the barbecue vendor not just for the food but because they see him as a representation of Zhang Xuefeng. Why?
- Bridging Information Gaps: Zhang Xuefeng explains complex professional insights (such as how different universities may train students in the same field in vastly different ways) in simple language, breaking down information barriers for parents who have never left their hometowns.
- Shifting Decision-Making Responsibilities: Parents in rural areas can understand the admission guidelines but are hesitant to take risks—choosing the wrong major could determine their child’s future. Buying Zhang Xuefeng’s “dream realization card” is essentially buying a sense of comfort that, if things go wrong, it’s not their fault.
- Speaking the Cruel Truth: While most people say pleasant things like “the prospects for this major are bright,” Zhang Xuefeng dares to say the truth (even if harshly), willing to bear the criticism from academia and state media.
These needs are more precious than mere information. That’s why comments like “As long as you’re alive, that’s enough” reflect a longing for someone who understands their struggles and speaks up on their behalf.
2. The Essence of the Controversy: Not Idealism vs. Utilitarianism, but Access to Resources for Making Mistakes
In 2023, Zhang Xuefeng’s statement about “drunk children who don’t understand the news” sparked a debate. On the surface, it’s a clash between idealism and pragmatism, but in reality, it reflects different budget constraints among families:
- Scholars talk about educational ideals because their students come from wealthy backgrounds and can afford to switch majors or study abroad, using family resources as buffers.
- Parents support Zhang Xuefeng because they cannot afford to risk losing everything on their children’s education choices.
This debate is like “chickens talking to ducks”—scholars discuss what education should be, while parents worry about how their children will make a living tomorrow. Zhang Xuefeng’s offense lies not in what he said, but in breaking the monopoly on defining what constitutes a good major; now, the voices of less affluent parents are being heard more loudly.
3. The Widening Gap in Wealth Accumulation
National data shows that income disparities are narrowing (Gini coefficient from 0.491 to 0.465), but the gap in household assets is widening:
- “Flow” refers to how much money is earned in a year, while “stock” refers to the wealth accumulated over time. Some families can afford to pay for their children to retake exams or change careers, while others cannot even afford 50,000 yuan.
- This disparity affects the ability to make mistakes: Children from wealthy families can afford to experiment with different majors; those from less affluent families face dire consequences. This gap is also intergenerational—children of poor parents have fewer opportunities to rise above their backgrounds (the intergenerational income elasticity has increased from 0.39 to 0.44).
The comments at the barbecue vendor reflect a reality where many people simply do not have the resources to make mistakes and are clinging to someone like Zhang Xuefeng as a last hope.
4. Has Zhang Xuefeng’s Methodology Become Obsolete? — The New Challenges of AI and Employment Changes
Zhang Xuefeng’s approach relied on the assumption that industry structures remain stable for 5-10 years, allowing current employment trends to predict the future. However, this is no longer true:
- Changing Employment Preferences: The number of people pursuing postgraduate studies has decreased by 1.31 million in three years, and the number of applicants for civil service exams has surpassed those for postgraduates for the first time. Young people prefer stability over high-risk growth.
- AI’s Impact on Entry-Level Jobs: AI is affecting entry-level positions (e.g., software developer jobs have seen a 20% decline), which were once the only path upward for less affluent individuals. With these changes, the advice provided by Zhang Xuefeng becomes less useful.
The speed of industry changes has shortened the “shelf life” of professional recommendations. What was once a reliable guide (e.g., choosing computer science) may no longer be valid due to AI, making it even harder to speak the truth.
5. Do Less Affluent Children Still Have a Chance?
The article’s conclusion is realistic:
- Prestigious universities are more valuable for less affluent students as they provide a proof of their abilities, but only a small percentage of them come from rural backgrounds (e.g., only 10%-15% at Peking University).
- Majors, cities, and industries have a greater impact on ordinary people’s lives than the level of the university.
- The combination of AI and wealth disparities makes life harder for less affluent individuals. However, Zhang Xuefeng’s message remains relevant: in an uncertain era, we need more people to communicate the real risks and opportunities in language that ordinary people can understand.
The popularity of the barbecue vendor is merely an expression of this anxiety—people are seeking someone who understands their struggles and speaks up on their behalf.
In essence, this article highlights the “survival anxieties” of less affluent families in the fields of education and employment. What they need is not perfect answers but someone who acknowledges their difficulties and speaks from their perspective.