By Yuan Haiyin, Vision Times
Few figures in China’s education debate divide opinion as sharply as Zhang Xuefeng, a Chinese education consultant and influential online commentator known for his blunt, results-driven advice on college majors and career choices. Yet the intensity of the reaction surrounding him says less about the man himself than about the system he speaks to. Zhang died on March 24 at the age of 41.
Zhang’s message was simple and to the point, and that simplicity is its strength. He would treat education not as a process of growth, but as a strategy for managing risk. For ordinary families, he argued, exams offer the clearest path forward in a system otherwise defined by uncertainty. The real world is uneven and opaque; whereas exams, at least, still provide rules and measurable returns.
Education as risk management
That framing resonates because it mirrors lived reality. For many, education is no longer primarily about intellectual development or personal direction. It has become a mechanism for avoiding downward mobility. Zhang strips away any remaining idealism. He does not speak of passion, vocation, or self-realization. Instead, he focuses on minimizing hardship, avoiding missteps, and staying within the narrow margins the system allows. For families with limited resources, this is not cynicism; it is recognition.
In that sense, his advice can be effective. A high-scoring student from a rural background may indeed avoid costly detours by following it. But once this logic is amplified and commercialized, it begins to redefine the purpose of education itself. What starts as pragmatic guidance hardens into a single metric: return on investment.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
Other dimensions recede. Curiosity becomes secondary. Intellectual independence carries less weight. Creativity, civic awareness, and the broader purposes of education are pushed to the margins by the immediate question of employability.
Societal confines
Zhang’s most controversial remarks follow directly from this logic. His comments on journalism majors, delivered in deliberately abrasive language, sparked backlash; not only because of their tone, but because they struck a nerve. For families with limited means, choosing a field of study is rarely about interest alone. It is, fundamentally, a calculation about survival.
The same pattern appears in debates over his dismissal of the liberal arts. As labor market pressures intensify, entire disciplines are increasingly judged through the lens of risk and return. Technical fields promise stability; others appear exposed. The reaction to Zhang reflects not just disagreement, but unease at how widespread this calculation has become.
The deeper question is what happens when that logic becomes dominant. Once education is reduced to a ranking of outcomes, the loss is not confined to individual choices; it reshapes how knowledge itself is valued. The humanities, after all, are not merely vocational tracks. They cultivate language, historical understanding, ethical reasoning, and the capacity for public life.
But a system that recognizes only what can be quickly monetized risks producing individuals optimized for function, but less prepared to engage with the broader demands of society.
Logic of survival
Zhang occupied an uneasy position within this landscape. He reduced information gaps by translating opaque systems into usable strategies. At the same time, he built a business around the anxieties he interprets, with consulting services reportedly costing more than 10,000 yuan (about USD$1,400).
That dual role was not accidental; it reflected a structural absence. Where public education provides limited guidance on academic planning and career pathways, private actors step in to fill the gap. The Chinese Ministry of Education’s move in 2025 to expand public advisory services and restrict paid consulting acknowledges that imbalance.
A widely circulated video commentary by a content creator known as “Songjian Bookstore” placed Zhang within a broader pattern. Rather than treating him as an outlier, it presented him as a product of his environment.
Zhang represented a type shaped by constraint: Highly attuned to rules, quick to identify efficient paths, focused on outcomes rather than values, and skilled at compressing complexity into simple formulas. His influence lied in the ability to translate structural limits into actionable advice. That same quality also defined his limitations. This form of pragmatism works within existing rules, but does not question them. It optimizes performance, but rarely expands possibility.
The limits of hyper-pragmatism
Over time, that narrowing carries consequences. Life becomes a sequence of measurable stages. Individuals are evaluated, and begin to evaluate themselves, in purely instrumental terms. Efficiency replaces reflection. Outcomes replace meaning.
This is not an individual failing. It reflects the incentives of the system itself. Environments that reward speed, calculation, and adaptability tend to marginalize slower, more exploratory paths. Zhang’s appeal focused in how closely he aligned with that reality. He articulated what many families already understood but seldom express directly. For those with little margin for error, education is first about stability. Aspiration comes later, if at all.
That is also where the risk lies. By translating structural constraints into individual strategy, the focus shifts. The problem is no longer the system, but whether individuals are sufficiently pragmatic within it.
The result is a form of clarity that is both useful and limiting. It helps people navigate the system as it exists, while making it harder to imagine what lies beyond it. Zhang did not create the pressures he describes. He made them legible. That is why his message traveled so far, and perhaps also why it remains so difficult to accept without reservation.