In recent years, global educational landscapes have witnessed a gradual erosion of affirmative action policies designed to promote equity, rendering the challenge of achieving educational fairness increasingly complex. Contrasting markedly with this trend is China’s historically grounded and culturally entrenched system of affirmative action within its selective examinations, a tradition spanning over a millennium. This unique longitudinal implementation offers profound insights into how fairness and support for disadvantaged examinees can be structurally integrated into high-stakes testing systems. By examining the multifaceted nature of affirmative action in China—from its imperial roots to the modern-day Gaokao examination—scholars and policymakers alike may extract valuable lessons for worldwide efforts to design more equitable educational systems amid persistent disparities.
The origin of affirmative action in selective examinations in China traces back to the imperial examination system, a centuries-old institution that sought to democratize access to bureaucratic positions. Unlike many Western counterparts reliant on aristocratic privilege, the imperial exams were designed to enable talented individuals from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds to ascend to positions of power, fundamentally promoting social mobility. This mechanism was not merely an educational tool but a political strategy embedded within a virtue-based governance framework, where moral judgment and officials’ discretion played central roles in policy execution. Over successive dynasties, affirmations of fairness were continuously refined, yet consistently constrained by bureaucratic interventions and the challenges of balancing selectivity and inclusivity.
Despite its longevity, affirmative action within the imperial examination system exhibited a paradoxical nature: while it aimed to provide a promotion pathway for the marginalized, its concrete effects were limited by the system’s inefficiencies and political complexities. For instance, during the Song dynasty, efforts to foster fairness led to a narrowing of exam subjects, which allowed talented disadvantaged candidates to succeed but risked producing officials less equipped for comprehensive governance. Later, the Ming and Qing dynasties sought more balanced curricula, striving to cultivate candidates who were both fair recipients of opportunity and holistically prepared administrators. Such dynamics underscore the persistent tension in designing examination systems that are simultaneously fair and capable of identifying multifaceted competencies.
Political power dynamics profoundly influenced the implementation of affirmative action measures in the imperial system. While various policies existed to support disadvantaged examinees, their enforcement was often left to the whims of examiners and local officials, revealing a lack of institutionalization and standardized oversight. Bureaucratic interference remained a recurrent issue, undermining the effectiveness of fairness-oriented policies. Nevertheless, affirmative action measures endured and evolved, sustained by the intertwined motivations of rulers seeking to consolidate authority and marginalized candidates striving for equitable access. This dual pressure forged the imperial examination’s identity as a mechanism to guard against aristocratic monopolies and reinforce central governance through the promotion of capable, often disadvantaged, candidates.
Cultural elements played a pivotal role in the persistence of affirmative action throughout China’s examination history. The enduring societal conviction that fairness in examinations necessitates preferential consideration for disadvantaged groups solidified over centuries. This cultural recognition transcended policy fluctuations and political reforms, embedding itself as a normative belief that selective examinations should facilitate social mobility by compensating for inherent inequalities. Such cultural legacies continue to influence contemporary perceptions of fairness within China’s education system, providing legitimacy and public support for preferential measures embedded in the Gaokao, even as global counterparts face growing opposition to affirmative action.
In contrast to many countries where affirmative action in education has faced political setbacks, China’s Gaokao system demonstrates a sustained commitment to preferential policies for disadvantaged examinees. The persistence of these policies is underpinned by a synthesis of political will, social awareness, and cultural acceptance uniquely shaped by China’s governance and educational traditions. Unlike the United States, where affirmative action faced elimination due to political feasibility concerns, China’s unified and government-controlled examination framework allows for smoother implementation of preferential measures. Moreover, paternalistic governance, often criticized elsewhere, aligns with traditional Chinese values and is perceived as constructive rather than intrusive.
Significant among current Gaokao affirmative action policies is the implementation of score threshold reductions and specialized programs that incentivize service in underserved regions post-graduation. Such mechanisms not only provide disadvantaged students with access to higher education but also channel human capital toward developing impoverished areas, creating a positive feedback loop of social and economic amelioration. This contrasts with systems like the UK’s Office for Students, which lacks coercive authority to mandate similar measures, highlighting the advantage of China’s centralized approach in achieving educational fairness.
Public perceptions regarding educational fairness also play a critical role in the legitimacy of affirmative action policies within the Gaokao framework. The Chinese public widely endorses the view that the examination is primarily a meritocratic arena reflecting individual effort, downplaying environmental advantages such as family background or innate talent. This normative belief that effort must correspond to results reinforces acceptance of preferential policies, as the public recognizes that disadvantaged examinees often face structural obstacles requiring compensatory support to achieve equitable outcomes. Consequently, the Gaokao’s affirmative action is viewed not as reverse discrimination but as a necessary mechanism to sustain the integrity of meritocratic principles.
Looking to the future, China’s affirmative action policies within selective examinations face ongoing challenges related to precision and fairness in identifying disadvantaged examinees. Presently, policies often rely on broad categorical markers such as regional poverty designations linked to household registration, which fail to capture individual-level disparities accurately. This imprecision allows some relatively advantaged students to benefit unduly from preferential quotas, diluting the policies’ impact. To rectify this, China aims to harness big data analytics and inter-agency data sharing, utilizing multifaceted assessments of students’ socioeconomic backgrounds alongside academic records to fine-tune eligibility criteria and ensure that support reaches those most in need.
Advancing the precision of affirmative action extends beyond identification; it also calls for a reevaluation of university application procedures and policy quotas. The process of filling preferred universities, tightly linked to exam results, remains susceptible to fairness risks such as information leakage and manipulation, potentially disadvantaging vulnerable examinees. Strengthening regulation and transparency in this phase is critical to uphold trust and equity. Furthermore, expanding targeted quotas and resource allocation for disadvantaged examinees could enhance their admission rates, thereby complementing efforts to raise the quality of basic education with tailored support mechanisms that help students make informed university choices.
An essential dimension of future reforms involves cultivating collaborative participation among diverse stakeholders to foster a collective governance model for educational fairness. The imperial examination era exemplified the role of civil society alongside governmental leadership in promoting affirmative action, suggesting that sustainable equity requires multi-level engagement. Today, this translates to the involvement of educational institutions, local governments, communities, families, and even technological platforms in mobilizing resources, conducting supervision, and designing interventions sensitive to student needs. This collaborative ethos resonates with China’s cultural emphasis on “learning to change destiny” and underpins a compassionate educational culture that could inspire similar models internationally.
Globally, comparative frameworks reveal stark divergences in how selective examinations embody fairness and affirmative action. China’s examination systems—from the imperial era to the contemporary Gaokao—contrast with Western standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT in both form and philosophy. China’s historically holistic approach prioritized curriculum-based, knowledge-driven assessments rather than aptitude tests, a distinction grounded in cultural values that elevate diligence, persistence, and moral development over abstract cognitive skills. This cultural logic impedes the wholesale adoption of tests like the SAT, as academic achievement is framed not merely as talent expression but as a reward for sustained effort, a premise difficult to test in aptitude-based assessments.
Further, China’s province-based ranking system, designed to accommodate vast regional disparities, offers a sophisticated mechanism to mitigate socioeconomic inequities in exam outcomes. By enabling students to compete locally rather than nationally, the Gaokao aligns assessment practices with geographic, cultural, and economic realities, offsetting advantages conferred by urbanization or resource concentration. This multifaceted approach reflects an awareness of the pendular nature of examination fairness, negotiating the tension between broad meritocracy and context-sensitive equity.
Technological innovation promises to reshape the landscape of affirmative action in Chinese selective examinations. The integration of big data platforms enables dynamic, data-driven policy enactment by analyzing multidimensional student profiles—including academic trajectories, family income, and access to educational resources. This granular understanding facilitates the design of personalized interventions, targeted admissions quotas, and support services that transcend one-size-fits-all approaches. As these technologies mature, China has the potential to pioneer an evidence-based framework for compensatory education policies with global applicability.
Ultimately, the continued evolution of affirmative action in China’s selective examinations exemplifies a unique confluence of historical continuity, cultural conviction, political pragmatism, and technological advancement. The imperial examination system’s long-standing commitment to social mobility through fairness is mirrored in the modern Gaokao’s adaptive compensatory measures, reflecting a national ethos that prioritizes effort-based merit tempered by realistic acknowledgment of systemic inequities. For global education systems struggling with the rollback or inefficacy of affirmative action, China’s integrated and culturally resonant model offers valuable lessons on balancing selectivity, fairness, and social justice.
These insights underscore the importance of maintaining affirmative action policies within selective examinations as vital mechanisms for educational equity in diverse contexts. As disparities in access and quality persist worldwide, the Chinese experience demonstrates that thoughtfully designed accommodations, supported by enduring cultural norms and reinforced by cutting-edge data analytics, can sustain fairness and opportunity for disadvantaged students in high-stakes academic environments. Continued research and policy innovation inspired by this legacy hold promising implications for reshaping global conversations on educational justice in the 21st century.
Subject of Research: The evolution and role of affirmative action policies in China’s imperial examination system and the modern Gaokao to support disadvantaged examinees and promote educational equity.
Article Title: The imperial examination and the college entrance examination from the perspective of affirmative action: assistance to disadvantaged examinees in China.
Article References: Yuan, J., Zhang, A. The imperial examination and the college entrance examination from the perspective of affirmative action: assistance to disadvantaged examinees in China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1053 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05366-x
Image Credits: AI Generated
