Within the long-standing inertia of Chinese higher education, gaining admission to a prestigious university was once likened to entering a "safe haven": after the grueling "single-plank bridge" of the college entrance exam—characterized by endless drills during the final year of high school—students could generally graduate with a degree as long as they avoided catastrophic academic failure during their four years on campus. However, recent policy signals—such as "tightening graduation standards," "improving undergraduate education quality," and "resolutely abolishing final-chance make-up exams"—have sparked a polarized debate among faculty and students. On one side, education authorities and some professors advocate for "smashing the safe haven" model; on the other, students, counselors, and the job market worry about the unfairness arising from a combination of "superficial strictness" and "water courses" (courses with low academic rigor).

I. What are "water courses" and "strict graduation standards"?

"Water courses" typically refer to public electives or foundational major courses characterized by outdated content, lax assessment, and easy marks (often awarded simply for attendance). Students can pass with high grades merely by signing in and memorizing a question bank, with virtually no intellectual training involved. In contrast, "golden courses" (designated as national-level first-class undergraduate courses) demand high-level thinking, innovation, and significant academic challenge.

"Strict graduation standards" entail several specific measures:

• Raising the threshold for retaking failed compulsory courses and abolishing "final-chance make-up exams" (a system that effectively guaranteed a pass through a last-ditch exam before graduation);

• Enforcing strict plagiarism checks and defense procedures for theses (or design projects), with degrees withheld if standards are not met;

• Dismissing or holding back students who repeatedly fail courses or consistently fall short of credit requirements (effectively increasing the attrition rate).

In 2018, the Ministry of Education issued the *Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of High-Level Undergraduate Education and Comprehensively Improving Talent Cultivation Capabilities*, explicitly calling for the "elimination of water courses and creation of golden courses" and "strict control over graduation standards." Consequently, many universities abolished their final-chance make-up exams.

II. Arguments for "increasing attrition rates": Universities should not be a "comfort zone"

Proponents—primarily education administrators and leading faculty members—argue that:

• A return to academic standards is necessary: Undergraduate study is the starting point of higher education, not the finish line. Awarding diplomas regardless of whether students have actually mastered the material devalues the degree and fosters a perfunctory "just-scrape-a-pass" (60-point) mentality. • **Driving Teaching Quality Improvement:** Strict graduation standards, combined with the elimination of "fluff courses" (courses lacking substance), compel students to take classes seriously and force teachers to update their content. If a student fails a course because it was too insubstantial to offer real learning, the school should first address the quality of the curriculum.

• **International Benchmarking:** High undergraduate attrition rates have long existed in US and European universities (especially during the initial two years of general education); a "strict entry, strict exit" model aligns better with the positioning of research-oriented universities.

From this perspective, the main issue isn't that standards are too strict; rather, the "growing pains" stem from a situation where standards were lax for too long, and a sudden shift to strict exit policies occurred without simultaneously eliminating the fluff courses.

III. Questioning "Simply Raising Attrition Rates": The Fear of Superficial Rigor

Opponents—including many current students, academic counselors, and some junior faculty—focus their concerns on three points:

• **Unfairness When Fluff Courses Remain:** If students are expected to take their studies seriously, has the school first eliminated courses that are hollow in content and graded arbitrarily? A student might face expulsion for failing an outdated course taught merely by rote, without the opportunity to build necessary skills through high-quality instruction; this represents a lack of procedural fairness.

• **Overly Narrow Assessment Methods:** Some universities rely solely on closed-book final exams and attendance records, ignoring outcomes from inquiry-based or practical learning. Dismissing students based on a single score risks unfairly penalizing students with specialized talents, those pursuing interdisciplinary studies, or those facing specific hardships (financial or psychological).

• **Secondary Risks to Employment and Mental Health:** Given the massive undergraduate population resulting from enrollment expansion, a sudden hike in expulsion rates—without accompanying academic early-warning systems, mentorship, and psychological support—could lead to "hidden dropouts," identity anxiety, or even extreme incidents. Meanwhile, since employers often prioritize the possession of a diploma, the cost of re-integrating those dismissed mid-program into society is high.

IV. The Real Issues Behind the Controversy

On the surface, this debate is about whether or not to fail students; at a deeper level, it concerns the rebalancing of three sets of relationships:

1. **Reciprocity of Rights and Responsibilities:** While schools have the right to strictly control graduation standards, they also have an obligation to provide high-quality courses and academic support (such as early-warning systems, remedial classes, and mentorship consultations). 2. Quality and Scale: In the era of mass higher education, research universities might explore tiered attrition systems, whereas applied universities should prioritize process-based assessment and the attainment of competencies; a "one-size-fits-all" approach is inappropriate.

3. Attrition Is Not Punishment: A genuine "rigorous exit" policy should incorporate early warning systems (alerts for course failures and guidance on academic planning), second chances (opportunities to retake courses or switch majors), and transparent standards—rather than simply announcing at the end of a term that "final remedial exams are cancelled starting with this cohort."

V. Summary

Increasing undergraduate attrition rates is not an end in itself; the true goal is to enhance the quality of talent cultivation. If a "rigorous exit" policy is accompanied by the elimination of "fluff courses," diversified process assessments, and robust academic support systems, it will ultimately gain acceptance. Conversely, if it relies solely on rigid failure quotas while curricula remain outdated and guidance is lacking, controversy will only intensify.

Chinese universities stand at a crossroads, transitioning from "quantitative expansion" to "qualitative deepening." Moving away from the "strict entry, loose exit" model is bound to involve growing pains—yet this process should not devolve into a cold, mechanical system of eliminating the lowest performers; instead, it should serve as a shared commitment that encourages both educators and students to approach the teaching-learning process with greater seriousness.