Since the general trend of "independent recruitment" cannot be reversed, there is now an even greater need for education authorities to respond to public concerns with "strict review" and "rigorous procedures."

　　According to reports, on May 27, a netizen claiming to have applied for the 2024 doctoral admissions of Northwest University's College of Urban and Environmental Sciences posted a complaint on the Internet, alleging that in the university's geography doctoral admissions process, seven students in a combined master's-doctoral program—none of whom had their application materials publicly disclosed, none of whom had exam results publicly disclosed, and none of whom had taken an interview—were placed on the supplementary admission list. In the admission list released by the college on May 23, three of these seven combined master's-doctoral students had already been confirmed for proposed admission. The college responded that it was making every effort to investigate and would handle the matter in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice.

　　Candidates who never appeared in either of the two rounds of public disclosure—the review results of application materials and the unified exam results—were ultimately able to brazenly enter the proposed admission list. Whether this was an unintentional oversight or a deliberate act, it is hard for people to accept. In recent years, there have been no small number of scandals exposed involving doctoral admissions, which also serves as a reminder to the relevant authorities: the current doctoral admissions system may still have loopholes.

　　Over the past few years, some Double First-Class universities have successively abolished unified examinations for doctoral admissions, and the "application-review" system has become a major trend. Since its inception, public evaluation of this system has been clearly polarized: supporters believe it is more in line with the laws of academic selection and training, "choosing more suitable people to pursue doctoral degrees"; opponents believe it is very likely to reduce doctoral selection to personal favor-trading and exacerbate the chaos of academic inbreeding.

　　To eliminate these potential risks, most schools have added numerous mandatory provisions in actual practice to ensure the fairness and justice of the selection process.

　　Take Northwest University's College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, which is mired in public controversy, as an example. Its "2024 Doctoral Admissions Work Plan" explicitly states that experts must review the application materials submitted by applicants, including combined master's-doctoral candidates and "application-review" system candidates, and only those who pass the review can enter the comprehensive assessment. In addition, the "Plan" provides detailed explanations of the written examination and interview procedures, scoring, and admission rules.

　　However, the current "application-review" system plans do not publish the criteria for shortlisting based on material review, nor do they rarely clarify the boundaries of supervisors' discretionary power, which infinitely amplifies the power of departments and supervisors in doctoral admissions and leaves many gray areas where "ulterior motives" can operate.

　　Some colleges and supervisors, out of affection for and protection of high-quality local applicants, will lean in their emotions and actions, which also causes some applicants with less favorable "backgrounds" to often suffer in silence and be eliminated without knowing why.

　　On one hand, there is a continuously growing group of doctoral applicants; on the other, there are constantly introduced independent recruitment models such as direct doctoral programs for undergraduates and combined master's-doctoral programs, leaving fewer and fewer opportunities for ordinary applicants. No wonder everyone is examining every stage of university admissions under a microscope. Since the general trend of "independent recruitment" cannot be reversed, there is now an even greater need for education authorities to respond to public concerns with "strict review" and "rigorous procedures."

　　For example, at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, which only fully switched to the "application-review" system for admissions last year, the doctoral admissions implementation plans of many colleges explicitly state that "the recruitment process shall treat all candidates equally; in particular, for employees of the institution, no additional preferential policies or special treatment may be given merely because a candidate is a member of a research team." Once discovered, "supervisors who violate rules and discipline will have their recruitment qualifications revoked, and in serious cases, the legal liability of relevant personnel will be pursued. Students who violate rules and discipline will have their admission qualifications revoked, be recorded in the candidate integrity file, and depending on the circumstances, be required not to apply for the university's doctoral program for one to three years." This has sufficient deterrent effect on both supervisors and candidates.

　　In the final analysis, the more a recruitment format emphasizes "independence," the more those who hold power need to exercise "self-discipline," and when necessary, there should be clear regulations to assist with "external discipline." In major matters involving talent selection, it is always beneficial for education authorities to have more awareness of standards and a prudent attitude.