Yesterday, the Chinese alliance for autonomous enrollment, composed of the top seven Chinese universities, announced a joint enrollment notice for next year to the public. However, Renmin University of China, which joined the alliance in 2011, was not included. Media reports speculated that its expulsion was related to its latest corruption scandal.

Cai Rongsheng, head of the admissions office at Renmin University, was accused of embezzlement and corruption last month. More inside stories were revealed as well, which had a negative impact on this prestigious university.

After being exposed by the media, Cai's arrest ignited more debates over the on-going autonomous enrollment policy. As a pilot project to explore new possibilities to make the Chinese higher education system fairer, autonomous enrollment has only been promoted in a few top universities in China. It is expected to break the deadlock of be-all and end-all national college entrance examinations, also known as the gaokao, and supplement more diverse elements into the talent evaluation system, such as music, art and sports, which became the qualifications some students relied on to get into university.

The old gaokao system has been heavily criticized in the past. This annual set of examinations is probably one of the few paths for Chinese youngsters to go to universities, which decide whether their vision can be broadened and their social status boosted. But too much uniformity and the stubborn standard of "knowledge prevails" leaves both students and their parents unsatisfied. Autonomous enrollment, which delegates the enrollment rights to each university, is greatly hoped to change the rigid university admission system.

Adding autonomous enrollment into the gaokao has surely caused some positive effects to vitalize the backwaters of China's university enrollment system, but a lack of inspection and restrictions renders the supreme power to only a few individuals, who take risks to break the law for their own interests. The scandal in Renmin University is a wake-up call to the people who advocate deep reform of the gaokao. Corruption and injustice might emerge in new forms.

An examination of the old gaokao system would find out that the State-led and tightly controlled process can still guarantee the majority can be fairly treated and few can skip the mandatory requirement. At least for now, the leading role of the old gaokao cannot be ignored. Before a more mature and amenable system takes its place, the gaokao should continue to be the backbone so most Chinese young talents can be assured that their diligence, instead of bribes, can usher them to university.