It has been a great loss for China which is now in dire need of people of expertise to see well-educated professionals leave after the country has invested a lot in them.

Why is there such a vast exodus of China’s brightest to the shores of Europe, Australia, the UK and the US? As the London School of Economics' Bingchun Meng told me, there are practical reasons of research funding and how far a salary in China can match the benefits of the West. But, unsurprisingly, there are deeper concerns of the Chinese system of education: “one issue was whether I would be able to talk about whatever I wanted to talk about in my class. Would there be any limits put on the way I design my curriculum?” Meng said. As a social scientist, furthermore, what Meng valued from her education both in the USA and UK was the autonomy of thinking, questioning and critiquing. “I was not sure if, after being in the West, I could go back to the Chinese system or push the envelope.”

What 's the online opinion? Blogger Nansongzhuang describes the situation vividly:

现在中国每年培养的博士硕士数目直追美国。但是你如果仔细调查他们的本科学位，就会发现他们大多出身于二流甚至三四流学校。所以造成了这样一种现象，一流本科生，二流的硕士生，三流的博士生，四流的教授，以此类推。更何况由于扩大招生，即使所谓一流的本科生之素质也远比不上当年。为了眼前利益，高校扩招的结果，使高校成为最大的废品制造场所。这些场所制造出来的”产品”在社会都无立足之地，是为就业难。而目前中国的高校充斥着最大的废品制造场所制造出来的”博士”，尤其那些以中国标准的一流的高校，那里”学术”骨干居然大多为当年考不上该校本科的人，这的确是具有中国特色的一道风景线。

那么中国一流的本科毕业生中的大多数都到那里去了？他们大部分都到欧美，到那些学术较公平，思想较自由的地方去了。

As another blogger, Hezhihong, further explains:

有个领导与我谈心,告诫我:你不要傲气,聪明能干又如何?好如你是非凡、聪明到不用任何原料都可造出原子弹的人,但不准你去做,要你每天手拿扫把沿着十里东莞大道扫地,明复一日,奈何!…

我想这些赴海外读书的学生家境是富裕的,对上述的情况或有所闻或父辈们都经历过,与其说逃避内地残酷的现实不如说他们不想耗费时间与精力在这种有”特色”的竟争环境上。

“人际关系就是生产力”、”有无水平就看你能否把事情摆平”,近年来不但在官场、职场上都流行着几个概念

Throughout the English-speaking blogosphere in China, allusions have been made to a continuation of the Cultural Revolution. One chinaSMACK forum post claimed the excesses from 1966-76 “significantly degraded Chinese ‘educated, literate, artistic people’, but not totally destroyed.” One other forum-goer stated, “how can we expect any Chinese to really be an intellectual? 1.3 billion people and not one Nobel Prize should not be a surprise to anyone.”

Shanghaiist, meanwhile, published details of a Gallup survey, which showed that one in five university-educated Chinese want to jump ship for foreign lands:

So far, China's economic exuberance has not translated to widespread confidence in job markets. Brain drain will continue to be a concern as long as college-educated Chinese 1) fail to see job growth outpacing the influx of people to the cities and 2) compare their pay levels unfavorably to those of professionals in developed countries.

Even the aforementioned state-run Global Times produced a scathing opinion piece on the issue, in which it claimed “China has no educational innovation at all… [its] educational assessment system is a mix of ideas borrowed from the rest of the world.” It has been said that, in lieu of being provided with practical skills, university graduates have even been replaced by migrant workers in the job market.

Things became a little more heated in the summer of 2008, when a hacker/student reporter broke into Tsinghua University’s website and posted an essay that claimed “university education system is in effect ‘pouring s**t into the students’ minds’.” In reporting the event, chinaSMACK went on to claim,

Today’s various institutions of higher learning, including Tsinghua and Beijing University, no longer have the educational goal of fostering talent. Serious academic corruption, dry and irrelevant to society curriculum, and rote memorization teaching methods will lead to students developing rigid ways of thinking, losing interest in the curriculum, losing confidence in the college and even China’s entire education system.

Yet, as the website did point out, the upper levels are taking heed. In response to the hacker’s condemnation of Chinese education, Tsinghua’s principal Gu Binglin said, “I believe a real university should foster students’ independent skill, unique thinking methods, and the spirit to challenge authority.” He advocated ‘unique thinking methods’ (“trying different things to find solve problems, of grabbing hold of a line and then feeling your way forward”) and a more debate-centred classroom environment, indicating that such reform would be key to China’s higher education.

As a British student in China myself, the differences between the learning environments are clear: here, a narrative style of teaching is prevalent, with little engagement from students and much less critical debate than in my lecture halls in London. Meng also admitted that, upon moving to Penn State from Nanjing University, it took her about a year to get up to speed with the rigorous and participatory learning styles of the USA.

However, more recently it has been said that this severe brain drain is making a u-turn. This recent feature in Business Week shows how science-educated returnees are drawn in by the opportunity to create science programmes in the PRC, with its economic boom and increasing government-sanctioned programmes that aim to draw back in doctorates.

Blogging at techcrunch.com, UC Berkeley's Vivek Wadwha has also looked into this further: having done research on 1203 Chinese and Indian returnees, he found 51% of the Chinese held Masters degrees and 41% had PhDs, and shared an average age of 33. Further, 84% of the Chinese participants cited professional opportunities as a stimulating factor.

While they make less money in absolute terms at home, most said their salaries brought a “better quality of life” than what they had in the U.S (…) When it came to social factors, 67% of the Chinese (…) cited better “family values” at home. Ability to care for aging parents was also cited, and this may be a hidden visa factor: it’s much harder to bring parents and other family members over to the U.S. than in the past. For the vast majority of returnees, a longing for family and friends was also a crucial element.

74% of Chinese students and 86% of Indian students believe that the best days for their home country’s economy lie ahead. National Science Foundation studies have shown that the “5 year stay rates” for Chinese and Indians science and engineering PhD’s have historically been around 92 % and 85% respectively (NSF tracks these 5 years at a time, and the vast majority stay permanently).

Yet, the attraction of Chinese scientists and mathematicians back to their motherland is just one facet of a wider issue. The potential to continue this reversal is also dependent on whether or not China can improve its research environment, as UPI Asia Online’s Cong Cao also states. In Meng's view, although the Chinese Ministry of Education has been pushing forward in reforms, especially in attempts to alter the intensive university entrance exam system, educational exchanges with the West are also crucial: “this is not in terms of the West being superior, but they would be helpful in allowing Chinese students to step back and question many previous assumptions.”

Deeper reforms need to be made in the education sector that go beyond government-sanctioned programmes, yet remnants of the Cultural Revolution may well be visible in the lack of critical teaching styles that are too entrenched to be changed overnight. Will Gu Binglin's ideal of ‘unique thinking methods' ever be realised in Chinese universities?

The Chinese quotes are translated by Oiwan Lam.

In October, Lu Guang, a Chinese photographer, was awarded the Eugene Smith grant, an international award for Humanistic Photography for his pictures documenting pollution in China. For foreigners, these pictures might be just another warning of the world of the environmental degradation happening in China. But for most Chinese, it was shocking in the extreme to see those familiar places, often seen on books and maps or heard from families and friends, now as dead zones unfit for human habitation.

So, what then will be the determining factors in the fight against the deteriorating environment of China?

Not necessarily the government. Compared to environment improvement, it has a stronger incentive in economic development and political achievement. As example, last week was difficult for people living in Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong province and one of the richest areas in China. People were appalled to find they were almost blinded by haze and fog, generated by car exhausts, construction site activity and power plant emissions. Highways were shut down because drivers could not see cars over 5 meters away. It is the most serious atmospheric pollution day in the last 10 years.

GV Blogger John Kennedy living in Guangzhou described the city as being ‘just like a huge construction site full of traffic jams.’

There is a reason for this huge burst of activity. To prepare for the 2010 Asian games, Guangzhou is being fully mobilized to build simultaneously 8 subway routes and a satellite city of stadiums and residences for the sportsmen, This political imperative takes precedence over all else.

Last Monday, again in Guangzhou, hundreds of residents waited anxiously outside a newly established office which processes complaints and appeals about plans to build several garbage incinerators which may be as close as 1000 meters to their homes. They fear that the resultant pollution will inevitably result in cancers and other diseases

Initially it was peaceful and people followed the procedure to fill in forms and line up but they finally became impatient when only 10 of the hundreds of complaints were received in a 2 hour period. Bloggers twittered about what happened there next.

@wenyunchao 来了辆警车停路边,一分钟后开走了。见到几个本地记者。陆续有人赶来,不过看似丽江的居多。有个人举着标语站到了解放路边,直接向民众诉求。 #pylj

@LEMONed
粗略点算，还在门外排队的就有超过两百人，还不断有人加入。但城管委已经不让再领表了！有来自南国奥园的业主高呼「吕秘书长下台！」 #pylj

“广州未来将走垃圾焚烧为主的路子，肯定要建垃圾焚烧发电厂，建几个，政府正在规划” 。

The remarks were seen as blind ignorance of the public opposition when in fact, residents had voiced their objections on the internet for months. The plan was revealed as early as 2006 but only in 2009 were the sites confirmed and land use permits issued. People were shocked to find that the view out of their windows in the future would be dominated by the incinerators. Property values soon slumped.

Back to the scene.

@wenyunchao 现场人士举起标语走向旁边的市政府,接访演变成游行及集会,我们将继续为大家直播。 #pylj

wenyunchao 人群已经聚焦在市政府门口,头顶上A4纸复印的标语白花花一片,有个81岁的会江村婆婆也为了,现场口号”市长出来”。 #pylj

@wenyunchao 群情比较激愤,一位会江村民说:我少活二十年也就忍了,可子孙们怎么办?吉祥路这一侧停了六部警车,不过秩序尚好。 #pylj

@LEMONed 喇叭广播说让这里几百人选5名代表进去见领导，这是想把我们先打乱！广州人民这么容易上当？我们随即齐声回应：「选5名领导出来」！警察顿时傻了 #pylj

Weng YunChao, on twitter and also a well-known blogger, comments on the scene:

@wenyunchao 这是未来国内群体运动很有代表性的问题,政府要对话,必须得有民众代表,但民众代表往往成为打击对象,政府往往找不到对话对象。事情往往因此而走向僵局。 #pylj

The indifference of the government and reluctance to talk with people is even a more serious problem than the pollution itself. An article by by Xinkuan Paper states:-

从省情调研中心发布的民调数据来看，超过98%的民众对“涉及众多民众利益，但有关部门垄断行政决策，未能及时通报消息”最为不满———这一对周边环境及 民众生活可能产生重大影响的项目，从2004年确定地址、2006年通过审批、2009年开始征地，5年中没有情况通报，没有听证，甚至电厂所在的会江村 村民也大多不知道有该项目的存在，直至它突兀地被民众关注。

There has been much controversy on the issue. Is incineration the best method to dispose of the mountains of trash? If the incinerators are not built at these places, where then should they be built? Again, John Kennedy has a coverage on the debate.

The government has made (9) two clear points. First, if the project gets stuck in an environmental assessment, it won’t be carried out. Second, if the majority opposes it, it will also be stopped. But it is left to doubt that it would.

However, distrust of ‘expert assessment’ prevails as experts are losing their creditability as people think they are puppets of power and money. Second, people see little sincerity on the part of the government to consider public opinion as in the past four years it made no attempt at a dialogue. Moreover, the residents have no idea whether they can keep fighting the authority if attention on the issue dies down. Luckily, the demonstration on Monday ended peacefully although no one knows if there will be any act of reprisal or whether their complaints will have any effect.

The success of the campaign has won tremendous popularity for Chongqing’s leadership, especially for the party secretary Bo Xilai, also a member of the powerful Politburo. However, many people expressed doubts as to whether the procedural justice was respected, whether Bo launched this campaign solely out of his own ambitious agenda, and also whether such a Mao-style campaign would be effective in solving long-term problems. In September, John Kennedy of GV reported on this debate by asking whether Bo Xilai’s corruption crackdown was good for China.

The debate reached another dimension when the State-run newspapers started to report on the sensational drama that was involved in Wen Qiang’s interrogation. The following quote comes from a tabloid-style ‘news story‘ reported by Yangtse Evening News, a widely distributed regional affiliate of Xinhua News Agency, based on the information provided by an ‘anonymous insider':

被“双规”后，文强知道自己不招供一些违法事实难以过关，最初装出很坦白的样子，在审讯时天天讲自己喜欢女人和玩女人的大量故事，他还主动讲述一些强奸少女、玩女明星的过程，“他说但凡有女明星、女歌星到重庆走穴演出，只要能想到办法搞定她们，包括用钱买、利用女星的隐私恐吓她们等，他都要和这些明星睡一觉。”但文强聪明反被聪明误，他老婆得知文强交代的这些情况后，“大哭不止，一直骂文强是个畜生，”消息人士说，“然后她交代了文强的一些问题，还带着我们去挖鱼塘取出了赃款。”

This story raised the eyebrows of many, notably those of columnist Chang Ping, who wrote an article on the matter in  The Financial Times’ Chinese website. In the article, Chang Ping suggested that the so-called ‘anonymous insider' could only be one of the investigators of Wen Qiang’s case. He went on to question whether the investigators had followed the proper procedures by making this criminal case into a tabloid sensation. He speculated that the police most likely had not even verified the information with any of the so-called ‘actresses', neither did them follow the principle that no matter how bad a suspect seemed to be, they should not be treated and vilified as a real criminal before the formal indictment took place.

在中国，几乎所有的腐败官员都有八卦消息，但是这些消息的源头并非八卦人士，而是非常严肃的机构，不是警方就是宣传部门。与媒体略有不同的是，他们释放消息时有着非常严肃的目的，那就是证明此人道德堕落，生活腐化。而且，在他们看来，在这个阶段，从道德上打垮他，比从法律上认定他的犯罪事实更重要。

那么专案小组为什么认为文强“强奸少女、玩女明星”是最重要的消息呢？这跟中共的历史传统有关。在这个传统中，当权者并不满足于从法律上指控落败者或犯罪嫌疑人，而是要将他全面“搞倒”、“搞臭”。生活作风问题，是一场永远不会终结的连续剧，这个国家的人民也越看越上瘾了。

However, Chang Ping’s essay has sparked a heated discussion in the following comment section which seems to suggest that many people believe sometimes to attack the evil, political tactics may take precedence over the due process of law. In this sense, the very mindset Chang Ping is attacking still possesses a great deal of currency. Following is a sample of such comments.

打黑是一种正义的行为，你们还说成官场斗争；我看你就有黑社会的细胞。说是官场斗争也好，是一批好官要斗倒一批黑官，对于人民来说，就是好事！当年共产党斗倒国民党，你也可以说是一场官场斗争，但是，广大的穷苦人—中华民族的根基所在，确是翻身了。这是天意！！！！黑社会是社会的毒瘤，哪个官养他，就是与人民为敌，这样的官一定要斗下去。

看到你写这样的文章，真是感到悲哀。我一贯对中国知识分子抱有好感，对于政客和普通老百姓对他们的奚落和嘲笑感到不平，但是，看到你这篇文章，只有一个感觉——迂腐，可恨！

你在纠缠于一些细枝末节的时候，知不知道自己已经偏离了大道？在中国当前的情况下，不采取特别手段能将这帮恶人制服吗？人家在那里冒着危险举起大刀劈向豺狼，你这里却批评人家违反了动物保护法，你这不是助纣为虐么？

这个作者显然对中国的政治还不了解，就来这里试图忽悠别人。记住了，一件事，不看动机，而是看结果。如果这件事情最终的结果是让坏人死掉，好人受益，那就是好事。这件事情，文强是个坏人，付出代价，那是正常的。现在作者在这里矫情西方的所谓‘无恶意假定’，想要说明什么？难道想说 审问农夫和蛇中的蛇，也要给他仁义道德？作者明显是为了稿费炮制这么一出添西方媒体屁股的文章～

长平，总觉的自己都是对的，嘴里叫着法制，就站在道德制高点，他的评论无论对还是错，都是特别的专业，总能从一些事情中抓住事物的本质，比如就这件事，贪官有几个不乱淫，在中国都报道很多，可是法制联系在一起，人权就出来了，就把人带到另外一个境界，忽悠的好像就是那么一回事，特别有逻辑

To be fair, many people also show support for the ideals that Chang Ping stands for.

如果没有证据，那这些消息不是炮制出来的是什么？司法机关又不是娱乐媒体，说话不应该负有严肃的责任么？

我认为长平的想法是值得重视的。事实上媒体对性的过度关注，从某种程度上转移了对更严肃主题——政治腐败的注意力；同时，我们重视严肃的法律审判，保护犯罪嫌疑人的基本权益，就是为了从制度上进行更深刻的反思，避免“胜者为王、败者为寇”的循环。

长平是中国为数不多的谨守职业操守的媒体人之一，可惜的是，大多数国人不在乎这些。

为什么没有人关注程序的合法性了？难道将一个堕落分子从灵魂到肉体都批烂、批臭就是我们追寻的目标？我们如何保证不会在消除罪恶的同时，产生更多的罪恶？

缺乏现代公民意识的中国人民,只能继续在这种清官的盼望中轮回.

曲高和寡, 这是痛苦.

A third, more cynical sentiment can also be found occasionally in the comments. For these people, not only this story on Wen Qiang’s sexual affairs but the whole crackdown is merely a part of a power struggle. Therefore, in their opinion, there is simply no point in arguing whether it follows procedural justice or not.

法只不过是打倒异已的手段,

政治斗争自古以来尔虞我诈。什么打黑，什么严打之类其实就是对本来就不健全的法律的践踏。没有什么合理合法的事。

政治斗争, 谈不上什么正不正义, 手段而已, 多点娱乐资料, 没什么不好.

现代人都活的太压抑，在这个全民娱乐八卦时代，把注意力放在花边上也可以理解。

如果愚蠢到认为在中国还可以按法律程序来处理社会问题，尤其是黑社会问题，那对中国的国情实在太不了解了。如果说世界上还有什么非法治国家，中国自然不会不出现在名单上。历来的运动或事件是从来不会考虑社会进步和百姓需要的，而总是政治工具而已。等什么时候中国各级当权者真正为老百姓的利益考虑事情，中国也就真正开始强大了。只是，这种愿望可能永远都不会实现。