What do you think of Peking University economics professor Wang Fuzhong Weibo's shelling of sports students and universities?

Gifted students in physics are more scarce than ordinary students. If marketization develops well, people will naturally pay other resources in exchange for some scarce resources. Compared with gifted students, the uncle who sweeps the floor ignores the scarcity of resources, which should not be what an economics professor should have. )

Competitive sports need financial support. No matter which country it is, the difference lies in whether it depends on the state or on private individuals or enterprises. Enterprises are for-profit and an important part of sports professionalization, but not all sports are suitable for professionalization. Some projects can't be professionalized, and the national economic level determines that most families can't support the training expenses independently. The marketization and professionalization of other projects are not perfect, but the country needs sports talents, so the government formulates policies to attract talents instead of the market, which is a planned economy.

Learning opportunities, diplomas that can be easily obtained, and resettlement after retirement are all government prices.

The relevant policies for recruiting art and sports students are formulated by the school from top to bottom according to the regulations of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labor and Personnel and other six ministries.

So this is the price set by the government, and the organization is only the executor, and the organization has sprayed the wrong target.

Engaged in the career of athletes in China, a few elites can gain fame and fortune, but the shortcomings are also obvious:

The growth cycle is long, and many projects are trained from a very young age.

The risk is high, most of them will be eliminated, and once a small number of elites have injuries, it will have a great impact on their careers.

The income is average, there is no commercial sports, most non-elite athletes have low wages, and only those top star athletes have a lot of bonuses and advertising income.

Short career life, ranging from ten to twenty years to several years.

The training and skills received are of little help to other occupations, and the options for re-employment after retirement are relatively narrow.

How many families are willing to let their children practice at an early age in such a high-risk occupation?

And the country needs enough talents to engage in this profession. What will attract them before the commercialization and professionalization of sports are perfect? Better learning opportunities are one of the prices given by the state to improve the attractiveness of this profession.

This policy is inefficient. Many people took advantage of the loophole. They want to spray, and they want to think after spraying. Is there a better way now?

As long as the country has this demand and the market is not perfect, there will definitely be various policy inclinations, there will also be other ways to subsidize sports talents, and it will also cost taxpayers money.

The new tilt policy will be more efficient and reduce the number of people who exploit loopholes?

Personally, I am not optimistic about the efficiency of any policy in the current form.