Changes

Beginning in the [[Yuan Dynasty|Yuan]] or Ming Dynasty, the exam came to focus on the "[[Four Books]]" advocated by [[Zhu Xi]], and on Zhu's own commentaries, which themselves came to be canonized texts to be memorized. The Four Books were the [[Analects|Analects of Confucius]], the writings of [[Mencius]], and two chapters Zhu excerpted from the [[Book of Rites]]: the [[Great Learning]] (''Daxue''), and [[The Mean]].<ref>Hansen, 357.</ref> In the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the exam consisted chiefly of two essays, one drawing upon the "Four Books," and one upon the "[[Five Classics]]," in addition to policy questions, and from [[1756]] onwards, a section testing the candidate's knowledge of or ability in poetry. Individual emperors often added specific grand edicts or declarations to the exam, such as the [[Hongwu Emperor|Hongwu Emperor's]] addition to the exam of questions testing the candidates' knowledge of his "Great Announcement" (大誥, ''dàgào'') and "Sacred Edict in Six Maxims" (聖諭六言, ''shèng yù liù yán'').

Beginning in the [[Yuan Dynasty|Yuan]] or Ming Dynasty, the exam came to focus on the "[[Four Books]]" advocated by [[Zhu Xi]], and on Zhu's own commentaries, which themselves came to be canonized texts to be memorized. The Four Books were the [[Analects|Analects of Confucius]], the writings of [[Mencius]], and two chapters Zhu excerpted from the [[Book of Rites]]: the [[Great Learning]] (''Daxue''), and [[The Mean]].<ref>Hansen, 357.</ref> In the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the exam consisted chiefly of two essays, one drawing upon the "Four Books," and one upon the "[[Five Classics]]," in addition to policy questions, and from [[1756]] onwards, a section testing the candidate's knowledge of or ability in poetry. Individual emperors often added specific grand edicts or declarations to the exam, such as the [[Hongwu Emperor|Hongwu Emperor's]] addition to the exam of questions testing the candidates' knowledge of his "Great Announcement" (大誥, ''dàgào'') and "Sacred Edict in Six Maxims" (聖諭六言, ''shèng yù liù yán'').

The exams were a key element of producing a bureaucracy that was, in theory at least, a meritocracy. Bureaucrats could then be said to have earned their position not through heredity or nepotism, nor through bribes or personal connections, but through genuine aptitude. This marks a stark contrast with earlier periods of Chinese history, and with the Japanese system, in which official positions were, indeed, to a large extent determined by heredity, personal connections, and interpersonal politics. In China, anyone of any socio-economic background or status was eligible to take the exams, albeit with some significant exceptions: merchants, Daoist and Buddhist priests, and those of "mean" occupational backgrounds (i.e. the equivalent to the ''[[eta]]'' or ''[[hinin]]'' in Japan) were excluded. Of those permitted to take the exams, 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.

The exams were a key element of producing a bureaucracy that was, in theory at least, a meritocracy. Bureaucrats could then be said to have earned their position not through heredity or nepotism, nor through bribes or personal connections, but through genuine aptitude. This marks a stark contrast with earlier periods of Chinese history, and with the Japanese system, in which official positions were, indeed, to a large extent determined by heredity, personal connections, and interpersonal politics. In China, anyone of any socio-economic background or status was eligible to take the exams, albeit with some significant exceptions: merchants, Daoist and Buddhist priests, and those of "mean" occupational backgrounds (i.e. the equivalent to the ''[[eta]]'' or ''[[hinin]]'' in Japan) were excluded, along with all women.<ref>Jonathan Spence, ''The Search for Modern China'', Second Edition, W.W. Norton & Co. (1999), 11.</ref> Of those permitted to take the exams, 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 (学校, C: ''xuéxiào'') had their critics, however. 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. Many also established private schools, where alternative methods and doctrines were taught.

Even early on, the examination system and its associated state-sponsored schools (学校, C: ''xuéxiào'') had their critics, however. 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. Many also established private schools, where alternative methods and doctrines were taught.