Economy

Markets

Industries

Insights

Reports

Events

Can age limit work?

(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-09-03 17:13

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) has unveiled a financing scheme to make sure that being young will no longer be a disadvantage. The project is tailored specifically for those 35 or below.

The CAS has an ambitious five-year plan to support or introduce from overseas 600 leading scientists, introduce or cultivate 600 outstanding academicians, 600 supporting and management talents, train 6,000 young creative talents, and attract and subsidize 1,500 overseas scholars and scientists. The 35-or-below financing program is part of it.

The emphasis on young scientists is a welcome break from our system's deep-rooted preference for seniors. Seniority is not all that bad when it comes to experience and the consequent accumulation of expertise. It can even be a coveted asset.

Seniority, whether in tenure or ranking, does not necessarily reflect competence. Under our system in particular, mismatch between seniority and competence is too common to raise an eyebrow. But distribution of resources is more often than not carried out on the basis of seniority. Which in a large part illustrates how astronomical sums of State money finally ended up in the wrong places. With precious resources placed in the wrong hands, there is no way for such investments to be cost effective.

Related readings:  Talent pool is key to IPR strategy  Survey shows academic cheating rampant in China  Universities must prevent, punish academic plagiarism  One-time bonuses proposed to retain academic staff

So, for its departure from the ubiquitous seniority complex alone, the CAS' youth-friendly new plan deserves applause.

But, is not that 35-or-below rule perplexing? We are against all forms of age-based discrimination. We suppose the CAS has no intention to suffocate anybody's scientific talent on the mere ground of age. Then why the age limit?

If we are talking about the Communist Party of China (CPC) drawing up a scheme for the echelon formation of its future leaders, it is perfectly fine. That is why few have questions about the CPC's age limit to leadership positions in its own governance hierarchy.

But the CAS is in a different business, where we think academic worth should be the sole reason for support from the State coffer. A better option than adopting an age limit, therefore, may be to work out a mechanism that holds academic merit as the ultimate yardstick. A people-specific financing program may serve to correct a historical wrong. But it cannot be a long-term solution.

What is very much needed but absent now is a system that recognizes genuine talent and inspires creativity. The age-specific design, however, is of little help in presenting that. At the very best, it is an overdue compensation for the system's preoccupation with seniority.

But, ultimately, sensible mechanisms rest on an overhaul of the current system. Can we expect that?