In the heated public discussions in China over English education, those calling to downgrade or abandon English in Chinese schools and colleges are using an ancient saying: 刻舟求剑 (ke zhou qiu jian), literally “notching the boat to find a sword.” Less literally, the phrase describes a foolish approach to solving problems that fails to account for changing circumstances.

The phrase refers to an ancient fable from the Warring States period (475 BC to 221 BC). In the story, a traveler from the State of Chu was crossing a river in a boat when his precious sword accidentally slipped from his hand and fell into the water. Instead of diving into the water to retrieve it, he calmly took out a small knife and carved a notch on the side of the boat right where the sword fell. 

On being asked why he didn’t immediately jump into the river to retrieve his sword, he replied: “There is no need to worry. My sword fell into the river at this marked place. As soon as the boat reaches the dock and pulls into shore, I will jump down from here to retrieve my sword.” 

That’s the context needed to understand those using this idiom in order to ridicule the continuation of English being taught in primary, secondary and high schools. Critics point out that the decision to incorporate the English language as a mandatory part of the school curriculum was made 50 years ago. “At the time, the aim was to quickly strengthen education, learn science and technology from abroad, and improve the overall quality of the population. Forcing everyone to learn English, while perhaps a bit of an overreaction, was understandable given the specific circumstances,” Chinese scholar Xiang Ligang commented on WeChat. But, like the position of the boat in the fable, China’s circumstances have changed.  

It’s a widely held figure that English learning for a Chinese student – from early schooling to entering a university, in total 12 years of education – requires 3,000 to 5,000 hours of study and at least 100,000 yuan. Many in China are raising the question: is it worth it?

Arguments against the continuation of English as a compulsory subject in schools and colleges were recently further strengthened by a call to “end English’s core status” issued by Tang Jiafeng. Tang is a mathematics professor and online celebrity who has long taught mathematics to candidates taking postgraduate entrance examinations. The latest controversy stemmed from his comments on reforms to the locally administered zhongkao (senior high school entrance examination). Saying that “the history of Chinese people worshiping foreign things and fawning on foreign countries should end,” he advocated for reducing the weight given to English proficiency on the exam.  

Currently, English is a required subject starting in third grade. It is weighted on par with Chinese language and mathematics on the entrance exam for secondary schools, the central exam after ninth grade, and the high school graduation exam. Chinese, English, and mathematics (collectively known as CEM) are the three most important subjects on the gaokao, China’s college and university entrance examination. Each subject counts for 150 points out of a total of 750.   

Tang Jiafeng called for downgrading the status of English as part of an angry reaction to Chinese history being removed as a scoring subject in exams in several provinces. A large section of China’s nationalist intellectuals – who are also generally labeled as “conservatives” – have come out in support of Tang. Also on their side are parents and students who oppose making English a compulsory subject. English is considered difficult in China, since the Chinese language does not use an alphabetic script. Learning English thus increases the students’ burden and parents’ or guardian’s financial pressure. 

Many also ask whether there’s any point to the effort. Given the difficulty involved in mastering a language with an entirely different writing system, rote memorization without real understanding is common. Xiang, in the WeChat commentary cited above, claimed that “95 percent of people who have studied English in primary [school], secondary [school], and university cannot communicate fluently, and 90 percent of those who have studied English will never use it in their lives, except for exams. Learning English without mastering it is a widespread phenomenon.” This argument has gained weight with the advent of AI-enabled translation. 

A number of intellectuals, joined by several influential leftist scholars in leading universities, have thus challenged the status of English as a compulsory subject. Other well-known public figures – such as the former Global Times editor Hu Xijin – are defending the primacy of Chinese, English, and mathematics. 

Hu in particular rubbished Tang’s claim that English learning was a sign of foreign-worship, saying “only an extreme and narrow-minded group regarded learning English as xenocentric.” Upholding English as the key for modernization and global competitiveness, Hu countered Tang by claiming that English had attained its global status because the West had led modernization for several centuries. “As China rises, the usage of Chinese to describe inventions and innovations is steadily increasing, while the center of gravity in science, technology and the economy is also shifting towards Chinese. But that will be a long process…” Hu said. “Turning this issue into one charged with ‘patriotism’ will only prove counter-productive, leading to unnecessary ideological dispute and confusion.”

Nationalist and leftist scholars dismissed Hu’s argument that English is crucial for China’s science, technology and economy. They cite the example of the outstanding post-World War II industrial and commercial growth of Germany, France, Japan – all of which succeeded without widespread English fluency. 

Taking the argument further, these scholars actually blamed English classes for having stymied the growth of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in China in recent years. Last week, a Chinese article, in an apparent appeal to the authorities to break the “English shackles” wrote: “Using an excessively heavy burden of English learning and overly difficult English exams as an important criterion for ‘selecting talent’ has led to the elimination of many science and engineering talents who are not good at English, which has a serious negative impact on the cultivation of STEM professionals and the tackling of technological bottlenecks in my country” (emphasis added).

Liu Qing and Liu Yun, joint authors of the article, cited the specific example of Wang Xingxing, founder and CEO of Unitree Robotics, who almost didn’t test into university due to his poor English. Yet Wang currently enjoys a “rock star” status; he appeared on the cover of Time magazine two months ago with his manned mecha robot GD0, for a story entitled “The Age of Robots is Coming.” A year before that, Wang became a sensation in China after being invited to speak in the presence of Xi Jinping at the Beijing Symposium for private enterprises in February 2025. The other five speakers included Ren Zhengfei of Huawei fame, Lin Jun of Xiaomi, BYD founder Wang Chuanfu, Liu Yonghao of the New Hope Group, and Yu Renrong, popularly known as “China’s semiconductor king.”  

Wang’s weak command of English nearly ruined his emergence as what Time called “an atypical prophet of the AI era.” As Liu Qing and Liu Yun pointed out, in spite of achieving outstanding scores in science subjects, due to his poor performance on the English language portion of entrance exams, Wang was forced to go to second-tier universities in Hangzhou and Shanghai for his graduation and postgraduate degrees respectively.

Liu Qing and Liu Yun underscored the fact that many potential scientific talents like Wang are being eliminated in the college entrance examination or postgraduate entrance examination solely because of their poor English skills. They believe that Wang was lucky to avoid this fate. To all those in China who are opposing English as a core subject in schools, this has become a modern-day example of the tragedy of “dying before achieving one’s goal.” 

There are several distinct threads to the argument: nationalist (Chinese people shouldn’t be forced to learn a foreign language), utilitarian (mandatory English classes don’t actually achieve the goal of linguistic proficiency), and practical (poor English skills could prematurely end the careers of those gifted in STEM fields). But regardless of the rationale, more and more people are calling for an end to English’s 50-year-old status as a required subject in Chinese schools.