There is no other group in the world where teachers are judged so harshly by various performance indicators.
Not only teaching, but they also face the ubiquitous "performance anxiety": publishing papers, applying for scientific research projects, hosting academic conferences, guiding students in practice, and cultivating academic seeds...... Everything will be quantified and judged, directly affecting rank and salary.
They are required to meet set targets or be demoted, fired, and threatened with lifelong employment. But the question is, who sets these indicators to be reasonable? Who can guarantee that the execution of these given indicators will not distort the work of teachers?
There are too many tragedies around me: some people work overtime day and night in order to complete the target, and they become sick from hard work; Some people give up their childcare responsibilities for the sake of indicators, and their wives are separated; Someone is admitted to the hospital in shock due to too much stress; Some people choose to cut themselves off in despair......
Many people ridicule us for "wanting to be a prince of the peace", but we really just want to be a mentor and helpful friend, and use our life's work to achieve generations of students, but is this so difficult?
The death of Professor Song of Nanlin Da has once again detonated public opinion on this topic.
The field of public opinion is filled with two completely different voices: on the one hand, there are voices of sympathy and pity, and on the other hand, there are invectives for "lying flat".
"I hope everyone will spread less curious information and more compassion." Nanlin University responded in this way, obviously hoping that everyone would create less commotion on the Internet and mourn the deceased.
But soon, some people who had worked in the system began to bombard Nanlin University: "lying flat" is the result of this kind of school connivance! How could he look down on such a thing as 'performance'?"
See, people who can't even teach at the same university, let alone work outside the system... It's ridiculous!"
In their eyes, Professor Song's death is just an example, and it does not reflect the general situation of universities. In fact, either the strength is not enough to be the survival of the fittest, or it is weak and incompetent and does not want to forge ahead. In their lifetime, it is natural to drive those who do not meet the targets like domestic animals.
Such remarks have undoubtedly caused great harm and disrespect to the deceased and their families, and are both wrong and reasonable. But at the same time, it also reflects from the side that this kind of management that only attaches importance to "indicators" and does not pay attention to humanization has long spread in colleges and universities.
Many studies at home and abroad have shown that too much pursuit of performance is ultimately counterproductive, leading people to focus only on indicators and ignore the essence of the work.
A study of more than 1,500 teachers showed that teachers are under a lot of work pressure, especially for young teachers, with high workloads and demands, but limited salaries and positions for development, which leads to brain drain.
Some studies have pointed out that excessive pursuit of quantitative indicators often leads to "power rent-seeking" behavior, resulting in a series of negative effects such as "index engineering".
In this atmosphere, teachers are not only under simple work pressure, but also an invisible mental oppression: they will worry about not meeting the target, and they will live in the shadows for being fired.
As a result, the teacher had to become the most "utilitarian calculating" person in the school, opportunistic in order to catch up with the target; I had to work hard to smear myself and spend my whole life dealing with the supervision of my superiors.
In this inhumane performance anxiety, teachers' original purpose of teaching and educating people is gone.
This kind of "index-only" administrative logic does not only exist in the field of education.
Under this ruthless rule of "either ascending or leaving", it not only hinders the development of practitioners, but also tramples on the dignity and value of human beings.
Perhaps it is time for reflection: we have built this world so impersonal that countless lives have been compromised by the ordeal of this inhuman environment. It's time to reflect on what exactly are we after? What exactly do we lose for the sake of so-called efficiency?
What we need is human care, not machine-like operation; What we need is tolerance and understanding, not immutable institutional shackles.
We have no intention of commenting on the Nanlin incident, but we hope that no matter what happens, please be gentle, respect life, and respect the truth.
Life should be cared for, not oppressed to the point of despair by performance. Together, let's speak for a people-first revival.