On February 13, a distinctive doctoral defense was held at the National Institute of Excellence in Engineering at Southeast University. There was no thick bound dissertation on the table. Instead, the “core material” for the defense was a set of prefabricated intelligent rebar construction technologies already implemented in several major bridge projects. Engineering doctoral candidate Zheng Hehui, jointly supervised by Professor Liu Zhao of the School of Civil Engineering at Southeast University and Chief Scientist Zhang Hong of CCCC Second Harbor Engineering Co., successfully passed his doctoral practice-based achievement defense on the strength of this engineering accomplishment. The case is regarded as one of the first nationwide—and the first in Jiangsu Province—approved under the newly revised degree law to grant a doctorate based on practical achievements.
Zheng’s defense is not an isolated case, but rather a microcosm of a broader institutional shift. In recent years, China’s engineering doctoral education has undergone a milestone reform: students are no longer required to write and publish a traditional dissertation to obtain a PhD. Instead, they may defend substantial products, technological prototypes, or complete engineering solutions. The concept of “applying for a doctoral degree with product achievements” has moved from policy language into operational reality.
The legal foundation for this reform lies in the revised Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (commonly referred to as the revised Degree Law), adopted in 2024 and officially implemented on January 1, 2025. It provides a clear legal basis for practice-based defenses and degree conferral in engineering doctorates.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Education issued the Basic Requirements for Doctoral Theses and Practice-Based Achievements for Engineering Professional Degree Candidates (Trial), formulated by the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council. The document further clarifies standards, procedures, and evaluation dimensions for practice-based defenses. It emphasizes strengthening engineering innovation capabilities, serving national strategic needs, and integrating achievement evaluation throughout the entire doctoral training process. The core of this institutional design is not simply the “abolition of dissertations,” but a reshaping of doctoral evaluation logic—from a focus on publication counts and journal impact factors to an emphasis on real engineering contributions and technological innovation value.
Under the new framework, universities may set their own standards for evaluating practice-based achievements in accordance with disciplinary characteristics. Students can apply for degrees by developing industrializable technologies, prototype products, or engineering works recognized by the industry, rather than relying solely on the number of published papers. Unlike the previous model, which stressed theoretical output and quantitative metrics, this reform prioritizes the ability of outcomes to solve problems in real engineering environments. In other words, doctoral candidates must demonstrate their capacity to propose solutions in complex engineering contexts, complete validation processes, and generate tangible benefits—not merely produce a high-scoring academic paper.
How the Reform Is Being Implemented
The reform’s implementation framework is highly systematic.
First, in terms of training models, most pilot universities have adopted a “dual-supervisor system,” in which an academic advisor from the university and an industry expert jointly guide doctoral research and project execution. This mechanism bridges the gap between university training and industrial demand, ensuring both solid academic foundations and responsiveness to real engineering challenges. For example, at Chongqing University, doctoral candidate Yuan Xiaohu from the School of Materials Science and Engineering was jointly supervised by university and enterprise mentors, forming a full-process management system from topic design and experimental research to engineering validation. This model enables doctoral students to engage directly with real engineering problems while allowing research works to serve enterprise projects.
Second, regarding evaluation mechanisms, the Basic Requirements (Trial) specify that practice-based defenses must assess technical indicators, engineering feasibility, industrial application effects, and innovative contributions. In addition to traditional academic reviewers, defense committees must include industry experts, enterprise technical leaders, and engineering practice evaluators. The basis of evaluation is no longer the length or number of academic papers, but the technical quality of the achievement, the operational performance of prototypes, and the potential for technology dissemination. Students must, quite literally, “let the product speak,” demonstrating whether their works can genuinely address industry pain points and be promoted in practice, rather than relying solely on theoretical argumentation.
Across the country, multiple universities have already seen practice-based works successfully implemented. As noted earlier, Zheng Hehui of Southeast University developed modular bridge tower structures that can be assembled like building blocks. His works have been applied in the Changtai Yangtze River Bridge project, significantly improving construction efficiency and simplifying installation procedures. At Harbin Institute of Technology, doctoral candidate Wei Lianfeng independently developed a vacuum laser welding technology and equipment system that overcame bottlenecks in high-precision welding for aerospace components and nuclear power equipment. The technology has been incorporated into testing and promotion programs on several national key R&D platforms. Meanwhile, Yuan Xiaohu of Chongqing University developed a 630°C ultra-supercritical steam turbine valve anti-oxidation coating system. The innovation improved corrosion resistance under high-temperature steam conditions, generated economic benefits exceeding 100 million yuan, was incorporated into a national energy equipment demonstration project, and resulted in national invention patents as well as participation in drafting multiple industry standards.
These cases illustrate that, compared with the previous dissertation-centered evaluation system, the new framework highlights the practical engineering significance of research works. It provides direct technological support for industrial chain innovation and allows doctoral education to truly take root “on the production front line” and be practiced “at the forefront of innovation.”
The Logic and Challenges Behind the Reform
This reform in engineering doctoral education is not an isolated development, but an important component of China’s broader educational and technological strategy adjustment. For a long time, China’s doctoral evaluation system centered on publication quantity and quality, contributing to phenomena such as “paper factories” and academic misconduct, while dampening incentives for practice-oriented technological innovation. The revised Degree Law explicitly allows doctoral degrees to be granted on the basis of practical achievements, responding to urgent societal expectations regarding research integrity, engineering talent cultivation, and the integration of industry and academia.
At a macro level, the reform carries multidimensional strategic significance. First, it directly supports China’s innovation-driven development strategy. Strategic sectors such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, aerospace, and energy equipment urgently require doctoral-level talent capable of solving real engineering problems. Through the practice-based defense system, universities and enterprises can jointly cultivate high-level professionals able to tackle technological bottlenecks, thereby enhancing China’s core competitiveness in global technological competition.
Second, the reform promotes deeper integration of industry, academia, and research. National Institutes of Excellence in Engineering and other universities have collaborated with major state-owned enterprises to establish engineering practice bases, enabling doctoral candidates to train within real corporate projects and participate in tackling key technical challenges. This breaks with the traditional “ivory tower” model of academic education and facilitates the transformation of research works into productive forces.
Naturally, the reform has also sparked debate. Critics worry that overemphasizing practical achievements may weaken originality in fundamental theoretical research and undermine the doctoral mission of “creating new knowledge.” As the practice-based evaluation system is refined, it will be crucial to balance theoretical value and engineering application contributions, ensuring that doctoral graduates possess both systematic scientific literacy and the capacity to solve real-world technical problems.
Looking ahead, as the practice-based defense system expands and evaluation mechanisms mature, China’s engineering doctoral education may develop a distinctive model that integrates academic rigor with practical impact. This model could also offer reference points for other applied disciplines—including the social sciences—opening a new chapter in higher education evaluation reform.