Chinese Imperial examinations
- Chinese: 科舉 (keju)
Imperial examinations served as the chief avenue for Chinese subjects to enter the ranks of the scholar-bureaucrat class, and to gain prestigious, stable, and economically elite positions within the Imperial bureaucracy. The exams tested candidates chiefly on the Confucian classics, poetry, and the application of Confucian learning to matters of public policy and statecraft; in later centuries, the prominence of poetry in the exams declined significantly.
History
During the Tang Dynasty (618-907), only roughly 10% of officials earned their positions through the examination system; most obtained their inclusion in the scholar-bureaucrat class via recommendations. Local magistrates recommended individuals, ostensibly, according to a variety of subjective criteria, including their personal virtue, and literary ability, though more often than not, one's family pedigree, and political influence, played crucial roles. Birth or marriage into a prominent or influential family was often extremely beneficial towards one's prospects of earning a recommendation.
In the 11th century, the Song dynasty Imperial court made concerted efforts to reduce the direct influence of prestige and political influence. The examination system was expanded to make it, in theory, more directly meritocratic, rewarding those of any class or background who had superior talents or skills, and thus creating a bureaucracy of highly skilled, highly competent, officials. The system was not purely democratic or meritocratic, however, as the Emperor retained the power to make the final decision whether to pass or fail a given candidate.
Anyone of any socio-economic background or status was eligible to take the exams, and in theory, anyone of any status or background could pass, or even excel, thus earning themselves a prestigious bureaucratic position. The Court established several hundred schools across the country, in which young men would be trained in preparation for the exams; however, most of these schools were terribly underfunded, and the education they offered was ultimately sorely insufficient. One needed to hire a private tutor in order to obtain even a relatively basic education. Those from prominent or influential households thus continued to possess a distinct advantage. It was those from relatively well-to-do backgrounds who had the free time in which to study, the educated relatives who could serve as tutors, and the resources to obtain (or already possess) books and other study materials.
Even early on, the examination system and its associated state-sponsored schools had their critics. Many argued that the system stifled intellectual inquiry and creative thinking, as it focused so heavily on rote memorization. Others were concerned that a system which focused so heavily on right/wrong answers in a written exam made it difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the candidates' moral character; many members of this camp advocated a system more closely tied to advancement (promotion) through the school system, in which teachers could account for their students' moral character and virtue.
Of roughly 400,000 men who had taken the exams by the mid-13th century, a mere 800 were selected for positions within the government. The average age at which one passed the exams and entered into government service was 31, representing a rather long period of study and preparation. It was not uncommon for a candidate to fail the exams at least once, trying again on numerous occasions; some of the most prominent figures in Chinese history failed numerous times, only finally earning admission into the bureaucracy late in life.
The Ryûkyû Kingdom administered a similar system of examinations, directly based upon that of Ming Dynasty China, though reportedly easier to pass, in selecting members of its own scholar-aristocracy for positions in the kingdom's bureaucracy. Korea, too, in various periods, beginning under the Koryo Dynasty (918-1392), used a Chinese-style examination system to select its court bureaucrats.
References
- Bonnie Smith et al. Crossroads and Cultures. Bedford/St. Martins (2012), 430-431.