Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Zhu Xi’s commentaries became the exam syllabus a century after he died. Did that betray his idea of learning?

Its coordinates: 6.3 Philosophy of Education

Every year I teach the Four Books course to senior high students in Taipei, and every year I watch them memorise Zhu Xi's arrangement of the classics for a test.

The history is a little painful. Zhu Xi grouped the Analects, the Mencius, the Great Learning and the Doctrine of the Mean together and wrote commentaries on them. In 1313, more than a century after his death, those commentaries became the standard for the imperial civil examinations, and they stayed the standard until the examinations were abolished in 1905.

Yet Zhu Xi himself was a sharp critic of examination study. He liked to quote the line in the Analects that the learners of old studied for their own sake, while those of today study for the sake of others. His advice on reading is the opposite of cramming: read slowly, reread until the text is familiar, and test it against your own conduct.

So I am teaching the most famous critic of exam learning as exam material.

Some questions for discussion:

  • Does putting a text on an exam syllabus necessarily change how it is read, or only how lazy readers read it?
  • Wang Yangming later attacked the way Zhu Xi's teaching had hardened into recitation. Was he attacking Zhu Xi, or what the examination system had made of him?
  • Is there a way to examine "learning for oneself" at all?
LikeReplyFollow3 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

3 replies

  1. Ji-woo Ryu

    Fellow

    Korea had the same problem, and Toegye's answer was partly institutional. He supported the private academies, the seowon, as places to study the classics apart from preparation for the state examinations, and he himself kept trying to leave office to go home and teach.

    It didn't fully work. Some academies became exam schools in their turn. But I think it shows the problem is not the text and not even the exam. It is what happens when one door to a career is controlled by one reading of one set of books. My students in Seoul feel the same pressure, with different books.

  2. Khady Sène

    Fellow

    I set and mark the bac philo, so I have a guilty interest.

    Economists have a name for what you describe: Goodhart's law, roughly "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." An exam on Zhu Xi measures, a little, whether a student has read him. Once careers depend on it, students learn to produce the signs of reading without the reading.

    But I would push back on the third question. You can't examine whether someone studies for their own sake. You can examine whether they can use a text against a case they have never seen. That at least rewards the slow reading Zhu Xi wanted.

  3. Vũ Quốc Bảo

    Fellow

    Vietnam kept Confucian examinations later than China did. Our last ones were held in 1919. My great-grandfather sat them, and the family story is that he could recite pages of commentary and never once spoke of what any of it meant to him.

    I think Lin's question has a sadder answer than "only lazy readers." The system selected for memory, and then the people it selected became the teachers. After a few generations, recitation is not a corruption of the tradition; it is the tradition, for most people in it.