Who is more popular in the faculty recruitment of Chinese elite universities: overseas returnees or domestic graduates?

China’s rapid higher education expansion and internationalization have coincided with a sharp rise in students studying abroad and returning to China for employment. Universities, especially elite ones, often state preferences for candidates with overseas doctoral degrees, supported by differential recruitment criteria and talent programs. Yet critics question whether returnees outperform domestic graduates, and empirical evidence on educational (non-monetary) returns—particularly employment at higher-ranking universities—is limited. This study asks: (RQ1) whether and to what extent overseas returnees (those who earn doctoral degrees abroad after domestic undergraduate study) have an advantage over domestic doctoral graduates in securing positions at higher-ranking Chinese universities; and (RQ2) how this influence has changed over time. Using large-scale faculty CV data from elite Chinese universities and propensity score matching (PSM), the study seeks to provide causal evidence on the employment advantage linked to overseas doctoral education and its temporal evolution.

Anchored in human capital theory, international mobility can enhance skills (language, intercultural, interpersonal) and improve graduate outcomes including employability and earnings. Prior studies generally find positive labor-market returns to studying abroad, though effects can vary by subgroup and may have declined over time due to educational inflation and growing prevalence of mobility. Social networks and readaptation issues may dampen returns for some returnees. In China, strong policy incentives and prestige attached to overseas credentials have historically driven employer preferences for returnees. Government and local policies (funding, settlement benefits, talent schemes) and university recruitment practices often privilege overseas-trained candidates. However, as domestic higher education quality rises and the returnee labor market saturates, the relative value of overseas education may shift. The literature suggests returns can depend on international prestige hierarchies of higher education systems; countries at the periphery/semi-periphery may value overseas qualifications more. This study situates China in this context and tests whether overseas doctoral study continues to confer advantages in elite university hiring and how these advantages evolve.

Design: Observational study using propensity score matching (PSM) to estimate the effect of studying abroad at the doctoral phase (SAD) on employment at higher-ranking Chinese universities, mitigating selection bias by balancing observed covariates. Data: Public CV data scraped from official websites of Chinese elite universities (Project 985 and Project 211). Two major collection waves in 2015 and 2022 with ongoing updates. Initial dataset: 89,299 faculty resumes (44,129 from 985 universities; 45,170 from 211 universities). Focus on research/academic faculty (non-administrative). Sample for analysis: 69,036 resumes include doctoral institution information; PSM requires complete covariates, yielding 26,943 matched-sample resumes. Analyses also use subsamples by undergraduate tier (985/211/ordinary) and by period. Treatment definition: SAD = 1 if doctoral degree earned abroad (including overseas regions such as Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and other countries); SAD = 0 if doctoral degree earned in Mainland China. The study targets individuals who completed undergraduate study domestically and pursued graduate study abroad (types 1 and 3 in the typology). Master’s study location is considered less pivotal and is included as a covariate. Outcomes: - University ranking of first employing institution after PhD (or current if no job changes), matched to 2023 ARWU Best Chinese Universities Ranking (lower number indicates higher rank). - Discipline level of the employing university, separately for natural sciences and social sciences, using Wu Shulian’s A/B/C scale (operationalized as 1=A, 2=B, 3=C or below; lower is stronger). Covariates: Gender; undergraduate university level (985/211/ordinary) and location (eastern/central/western); master’s level (985/211/ordinary/abroad) and location (eastern/central/western/abroad); number of publications before first employment; main subject area (natural or social; with 12 subfields recorded); year of entering first employing university. These reflect known determinants of study abroad decisions and hiring. Temporal segmentation: Four periods reflecting study-abroad and returnee trends: before 2000, 2000–2009, 2010–2014, 2015–2022. PSM implementation: K-nearest neighbor matching with 1:5 ratio (treated:control imbalance favors domestic graduates). Balance checks show standardized bias <5% post-matching. Robustness: Caliper, radius, kernel, and Mahalanobis matching yield consistent results. Analytical strategy: Descriptive comparisons (employment at 985 vs 211; rank distributions) by undergraduate tier and period; PSM estimates for: (a) overall sample; (b) by undergraduate tier; (c) by time period; (d) cross of tier-by-period. Regression analyses on matched samples provide complementary estimates.

Descriptive patterns: - Across undergraduate tiers, overseas returnees are more likely than domestic graduates to be employed by 985 universities. The difference in probability of 985 employment between returnees and domestic graduates is approximately 4% (985 undergrad), 15% (211 undergrad), and 14% (ordinary undergrad). - Over time, the share-gap in 985 employment between returnees and domestic graduates widened: about 8% (before 2000), 12% (2000–2009), 16% (2010–2014), 18% (2015–2022). Returnees are overrepresented in top-ranked universities across periods. PSM main effects (n=26,943): - Overall ranking advantage: ATT = −6.19 (SE≈0.78; T≈−7.9), meaning returnees’ employing university ranks on average 6.19 places higher (lower numeric rank) than comparable domestic graduates. - Discipline level advantage: Natural sciences ATT ≈ −0.048; Social sciences ATT ≈ −0.120 (lower is better), both statistically significant. By undergraduate tier (ranking ATT; all significant): - 985 undergrad: −4.80; 211 undergrad: −11.27; ordinary undergrad: −6.82. The largest rank gain accrues to 211 undergrad graduates. By undergraduate tier (discipline level ATT; all significant): - Natural sciences: 985 −0.037; 211 −0.090; ordinary −0.155. - Social sciences: 985 −0.089; 211 −0.184; ordinary −0.141. By period (ranking ATT): - Before 2000: not significant; 2000–2009: −1.69 (significant but small); 2010–2014: −9.17 (significant); 2015–2022: −18.12 (significant). The return-to-overseas-doctorate intensified markedly in the most recent period. By period (discipline level ATT): - Natural sciences: significant only in 2015–2022 (≈ −0.158). - Social sciences: significant in 2010–2014 (≈ −0.137). Tier-by-period (ranking ATT highlights): - 211 undergrad: consistently significant across periods. - 985 undergrad: effect becomes significant later and rises fastest (e.g., ~−6.58 in 2010–2014 to ~−17.44 in 2015–2022). - Ordinary undergrad: around −10 places historically, with a decline in the most recent period (~−9.33). Overall, overseas doctoral study causally improves chances of employment at higher-ranking Chinese universities, with the magnitude increasing over time and varying by undergraduate pedigree and discipline.

The findings directly address RQ1 by demonstrating a significant causal advantage of overseas doctoral education in securing employment at higher-ranked Chinese universities. This advantage persists after balancing on key observables and manifests in both overall rankings and discipline-level strength, with larger average gains in social sciences than natural sciences. Addressing RQ2, the advantage has grown over time, being modest or absent before 2010, substantial during 2010–2014, and strongest in 2015–2022. The heterogeneity analysis reveals that candidates’ undergraduate pedigree moderates returns: historically largest gains for 211 graduates, while the most recent period shows rapidly increasing benefits for those with 985 undergraduate backgrounds. These patterns align with China’s evolving higher-education landscape—heightened competition and rising domestic standards (e.g., Double First-class initiatives), stricter elite hiring emphasizing first-degree pedigree, and a persistent prestige premium attached to overseas doctoral training. The results support theories that countries in semi-peripheral positions in global higher education assign higher labor-market value to overseas qualifications; despite China’s rapid ascent, elite institutions still attribute strong signaling value to overseas doctorates. The implications are twofold: for job seekers, overseas doctoral training remains a potent strategy to access top-tier faculty posts, especially when combined with a strong undergraduate background; for institutions and policymakers, reliance on overseas credentials as a selection signal remains influential even as domestic quality improves, raising questions about balancing global exposure with developing an indigenous knowledge system and fair evaluation of domestically trained talent.

This study leverages a large-scale CV dataset from China’s elite universities and applies propensity score matching to provide causal evidence that overseas doctoral study substantially improves early-career faculty employment outcomes at higher-ranking institutions. The advantage has intensified over time and varies by undergraduate pedigree and discipline, with recent gains particularly pronounced for candidates from 985 undergraduate institutions. Contributions include: assembling a nationwide elite-faculty CV database, providing robust counterfactual estimates of educational returns to studying abroad, and mapping temporal and subgroup heterogeneity. Future research should: incorporate socio-economic background data; investigate post-COVID dynamics as more cohorts enter the market; and employ time-aligned, longitudinal institutional rankings to refine outcome measurement. Further work might explore mechanisms (e.g., publication profiles, networks, institutional prestige of overseas PhD programs) and the balance between signaling and skill acquisition in hiring.

- Lack of socio-economic background information may leave residual confounding correlated with both the decision to study abroad and employment outcomes. - Post-2020 COVID-19 effects are difficult to assess due to lags between PhD completion, hiring, and website updates; trends may differ in the newest cohorts. - Use of fixed (2023) rankings to evaluate institutions across historical periods may introduce measurement error due to ranking fluctuations and limited availability of annual historical rankings.