Credential inflation and employment of university faculty in China

The massification of higher education since the mid-20th century has increased the supply of degree holders without a commensurate rise in academic jobs, diminishing the signaling value of credentials and prompting employers to require higher qualifications. In academia, this has intensified competition and raised expectations for new hires (e.g., the growing necessity of postdoctoral experience in the U.S.). In China, rapid expansion of higher education and national excellence initiatives (Projects 211 and 985; Double First-Class) have raised hiring thresholds, contributing to credential inflation in faculty recruitment. Prestige of academic origin (the institutions where candidates studied) strongly shapes hiring outcomes, with documented homophily between doctoral origins and employing institutions. Simultaneously, international mobility has expanded; foreign-trained returnees often receive preferential consideration, potentially altering the dynamics of credential valuation. The study defines credential dimensions vertically (degree level: BA, MA, PhD) and horizontally (institutional prestige: ordinary, 211, 985, or overseas). Research questions: Does credential inflation exist in Chinese university faculty recruitment? What is the inflation rate over time? Do overseas and domestic qualifications experience similar (de)valuation? The study focuses primarily on PhD holders and compares domestically trained versus overseas-trained groups, with attention to differences across university types, genders, and disciplines.

Prior work links enrollment expansion to degree devaluation and intensified competition for academic positions. In China, policy shifts and performance-oriented reforms (e.g., tenure-track inspired "up or out" systems) heightened output pressures and job insecurity, further intensifying competition and publication demands. Internationally, prestige and institutional networks influence hiring, with strong ties between doctoral origins and placements. China’s position in the global center–periphery hierarchy sustains preference for overseas credentials and returnees. The Chinese context includes a stratified system: elite 985 universities (top echelon), 211 universities (second echelon), and ordinary universities, plus research institutes (e.g., CAS/CASS). University location (eastern/central/western) correlates with resource disparities, affecting returns and employment aspirations; eastern-origin institutions often confer advantages. Employers emphasize first (undergraduate) and highest (doctoral) degrees, with unwritten rules in elite hiring favoring 985/overseas credentials across all degrees. Gender disparities persist, with biases and structural barriers disadvantaging women in academic recruitment and advancement.

Data: 159,752 resumes of full-time academic faculty from 802 mainland Chinese universities (collected via web crawling and manual methods, 2015–2022 with continuous updates). Composition: 56,488 from 985 universities (35.36%), 45,433 from 211 universities (28.44%), and 57,831 from ordinary universities (36.20%). Administrative staff excluded; records with missing core information removed. For faculty with job mobility, the first post-PhD employing university is used. Variables and coding: For each institution attended and employed (tenure institution is domestic), the study codes: domestic vs overseas; province and macro-region (eastern/central/western); university level (985, 211, ordinary); and ranking using Best Chinese Universities Ranking (ARWU China) 2023. Overseas universities include Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan and foreign countries. Because overseas and research institutes are rare at the bachelor stage, they are excluded from bachelor-level variables. Studying abroad indicators: treat 1 = MA or PhD obtained overseas; treat 2 = PhD obtained overseas. Controls include gender, discipline (social vs natural sciences), levels, locations, rankings of undergraduate (b-), master (m-), and doctoral (d-) institutions, and graduation years. Analytical strategy: (1) Descriptive analyses of highest degree distributions over time and trends in the level/rank of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral institutions, by employing university type and time (1990–2022). (2) Regression analyses relating highest degree and educational background to the ranking of the employing university; focus on time trends and PhD holders. (3) Threshold regression to detect temporal threshold effects (year of doctoral graduation) on how prior institutional rankings affect employed university ranking. (4) Propensity Score Matching (k-nearest neighbor; robustness via caliper, radius, kernel, and Mahalanobis) to estimate the causal effect of studying abroad (treat 1 and treat 2) on employed university ranking, with balance checks (post-match standardized bias <5%). Period-specific PSM aligns with key policy and threshold years: before 2000, 2001–2007, 2008–2014, and 2015–2022.

- Highest degree distribution: Among all samples, BA-only 10,702 (8.26%), MA-only 23,735 (18.32%), PhD 95,113 (73.42%). BA holders are concentrated prior to 2000 (71.04%); MA holders largely before 2010 (83.78%). Over time, holding a PhD becomes the basic hiring threshold across university types, especially in elite institutions. - Educational backgrounds over time: For PhD holders, the share of elite (985/211) and overseas institutions increases at the master’s and doctoral stages, with a notable rise in overseas doctoral training since 2000. Faculty employed at 985 universities increasingly come from higher-ranked prior institutions at all stages. - Employed university ranking trends (1990–2022): Employed university ranking numbers have risen over time for PhD holders (higher numbers indicate lower rank), evidencing credential inflation. This downward shift holds for both domestically trained and overseas-trained groups. By undergraduate origin, those from 985 > 211 > ordinary attain better employed rankings, but all groups show declining employed ranks over time. - OLS (all degrees): Relative to PhD holders, BA and MA holders place at employing universities about 109 and 103 ranks worse, respectively. Undergraduate institutional prestige strongly predicts outcomes: compared to ordinary undergraduate institutions, 985 and 211 undergraduate origins improve employed rank by about 46 and 26 places, respectively. Male faculty place about 16 ranks better than females. Later graduation years correlate with worse employed ranks, indicating accelerating credential inflation. - Hierarchical regressions (PhD holders): Male advantage persists; studying in elite institutions at any stage (BA/MA/PhD) and in eastern regions predicts better employed ranks. Rankings of prior institutions (BA/MA/PhD) positively correlate with employed rank quality, with the undergraduate institution’s rank showing the strongest association. Adding doctoral graduation year (dyear) attenuates coefficients but remains significant; each additional year worsens employed rank by about 3 places overall. By employing university type, annual declines are approximately 0.16 (985), 0.55 (211), and 1.77 (ordinary) ranks per year, corresponding to roughly 0.19%, 0.30%, and 0.17% of each group’s rank range. - Threshold regression (PhD holders): The year of doctoral graduation shows double thresholds at 2008 and 2014. The impact of prior institutional rankings on employed rank strengthens across periods: before 2008 (b/m/d coefficients ≈ 0.071/0.042/0.068), 2008–2014 (≈ 0.171/0.186/0.131), after 2014 (≈ 0.207/0.324/0.194). This indicates accelerating credential inflation over time. - PSM (study abroad effects): Balanced matches (post-match standardized bias <5%). Average treatment effects on the treated (ATT): treat 1 (MA or PhD abroad) = −10.585 ranks; treat 2 (PhD abroad) = −15.327 ranks; both significant (|t|>8). Negative values mean better employed ranks for returnees versus domestically trained peers. Period-specific ATT (approximate): before 2000 not significant; 2001–2007 ≈ −3.7 or −2.9 ranks; 2008–2014 ≈ −18.7 or −28.0 ranks; after 2014 ≈ −19.3 or −44.3 ranks (treat 1/treat 2). By employing university type (treat 2): 2001–2007, improvements of ≈ −1.689 (985), −3.621 (211), −31.663 (ordinary); 2008–2014, ≈ −2.858 (985), −6.201 (211), −45.352 (ordinary); after 2014, not significant for 211, but ≈ −4.618 (985) and −31.949 (ordinary). Overall, studying abroad yields sustained and growing advantages, particularly for placements into ordinary and 985 institutions.

Findings demonstrate clear credential inflation in Chinese university faculty hiring, especially among domestically educated candidates and notably in 211 universities, with effects accelerating after 2008 and again after 2014. Over time, increasingly stronger prior-institution requirements and rising emphasis on the prestige of undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral origins have pushed newcomers to secure better academic backgrounds for comparable jobs. Gender disparities persist, with women facing steeper credential inflation. By contrast, overseas doctorates confer significant and increasing advantages in obtaining higher-ranked positions; no evidence suggests devaluation of overseas credentials. These patterns reflect the stratified, pyramid-like structure of Chinese higher education, policy-driven excellence agendas, and China’s evolving but still semi-peripheral position in global higher education, all of which reinforce the premium on elite and overseas training.

This study provides large-scale empirical evidence (159,752 faculty records from 802 universities) that credential inflation exists and is accelerating in Chinese university faculty recruitment, particularly for domestically trained candidates and within elite university hiring. It quantifies temporal thresholds (2008, 2014) marking increased sensitivity to prior institutional prestige and documents robust employment advantages for overseas-trained returnees, especially PhD holders. Contributions include: (1) establishing time-varying inflation rates in academic hiring; (2) distinguishing vertical (degree level) and horizontal (institutional prestige) credential effects; and (3) offering causal estimates of studying abroad on employment outcomes. Implications suggest the need for more inclusive, supportive faculty hiring and development systems that reduce overreliance on institutional pedigree and mitigate gender disparities. Future research should incorporate multiple ranking systems, finer-grained degree distinctions within stages, and expanded datasets to enhance precision and generalizability.

The study relies primarily on a single Chinese university ranking system (Best Chinese Universities Ranking, ARWU China), and differences across ranking methodologies may affect findings. Educational backgrounds are not further subdivided within stages (e.g., specific degree types or subfields), which could mask heterogeneity. Complex cross-stage classifications could reduce sample sizes if overly granular categories are used. Although disciplines are included as controls, residual confounding may remain. Data are drawn from publicly available university websites and may reflect incomplete or unevenly curated records across institutions and time.