China Now Grants PhDs for Bridges and Welding, Not Papers

The Technology Used in a Bridge Became a PhD Defense

Zheng Hehui (郑和晖), an engineering doctoral student at Southeast University in China, submitted a bridge-construction technology he had developed for his degree defense. The technology involves designing and fabricating, component by component, the reinforcing steel bars that go into a tall concrete bridge pylon. A pylon is the tall structure that supports a bridge’s cables.

According to the university, the technology has been applied to six bridges, including the Changtai Yangtze River Bridge. It was validated through theoretical design, simulation, scale-model testing, and verification during actual construction. Following a results evaluation in January 2026, Zheng passed his degree defense on February 13.

It wasn’t a session where he simply showed off a finished product. He explained his development process and answered questions from experts. Both university professors and industry specialists served as advisors, and the defense panel itself included representatives from academia and industry.

This is one of the cases of China’s practice-based doctoral evaluations that the journal Nature covered on February 5. Reading a description like “earning a PhD with a product instead of a paper” makes you wonder just how much the system has actually changed.

Technical Achievements Are Evaluated Alongside a Written Report

China enacted its Degree Law in 2024 and began implementing it in 2025. The law created a path allowing candidates to submit designated practical achievements, in addition to a dissertation, for evaluation.

The supporting guidelines for professional engineering doctorates were drawn up in 2024. They cover eight professional-degree fields, including electronic information, mechanical engineering, materials and chemical engineering, and civil engineering and hydraulics. Candidates are evaluated on whether they understand fundamental theory, can independently carry out specialized professional work, and have contributed to technological progress.

Even when candidates submit a practical achievement, a written report is still required. They must explain the problem they set out to solve, the method they designed, the test results, and the effects of its application. If the achievement was a team effort, they must also spell out their own role and the parts they completed independently.

So the process of explaining and having research verified in writing hasn’t disappeared. What’s new is a method for factoring engineering achievements into degree evaluation.

There’s Also a Case of Earning a Degree Through Welding Technology

Wei Lianfeng (魏连峰), of Harbin Institute of Technology, received his PhD from the university in September 2025 after a practice-based evaluation. A researcher at the Nuclear Power Institute of China, he entered the doctoral program in 2021 while still employed there.

His research covered the development and field application of laser-welding processes and equipment for use in vacuum environments. It addressed the technology needed to weld the complex structures of nuclear fuel elements. The achievement he was evaluated on came out of a project jointly carried out by the university and his employer.

According to the university’s account, his academic advisor focused on the scientific questions and theoretical research, while his industry advisor focused on engineering application and product verification. It’s more accurate to read this not as converting work experience into a degree, but as a case where a university and a company jointly supervised and evaluated an employee’s technical research.

What Should We Check When a System Changes?

China’s Ministry of Education says the reform is meant to cultivate engineering talent capable of solving complex problems in industrial settings. It’s the latest step in a sequence that began with the introduction of the professional engineering doctorate in 2011, continued with the 2022 reform for joint university-industry training, and now spells out concrete evaluation standards.

The fact that AI has made writing easier doesn’t, by itself, mean the dissertation’s role has vanished. Nor can we assume this new system was introduced simply because AI can now write papers for people.

What I want to examine in this system is how the achievements are actually evaluated. A well-selling product may reflect little original contribution from the researcher, and an important technology may not generate much revenue right away. Sales figures or whether a product got finished can hardly be the sole measure of doctoral-level achievement.

For joint projects, how to distinguish individual contribution also matters, since a whole team’s output shouldn’t be credited as one student’s ability. That’s why it makes sense that the guidelines require candidates to spell out their role and contribution.

There are real advantages to joint supervision by universities and companies: it lets students tackle problems that actually matter and verify their work in the field. At the same time, I think advisors need to make sure students don’t just chase the short-term results a company wants, but learn to interrogate the limits of their methods and reach independent judgments.

Oswarld’s Lens

Over the years I’ve met a lot of experts. The people I came to respect in the field weren’t defined by their degrees alone. What mattered was what they had actually built, and what problems they had actually solved.

So I see this change as broadening the ways expertise can be proven. A dissertation is an important vehicle for demonstrating research ability. But there are cases where a paper alone can’t fully capture the capability someone has demonstrated in the field. China’s cases make me think about how to fold that kind of achievement into degree evaluation.

What worries me is if this gets read as “papers are no longer necessary.” Explaining your research method and leaving a record others can review is still essential. In particular, I don’t think basic research should ever be evaluated solely by industrial outcomes.

Going forward, I think basic-research-focused PhDs, practice-focused professional doctorates, and hybrid programs combining both can each develop according to their own purposes. Whichever path is taken, what needs to be rigorously verified is what the candidate newly discovered and what they personally solved.

I welcome having more diverse formats for evaluation. That diversity just shouldn’t become an excuse to lower the bar.

---

References & Further Reading

• Southeast University, Zheng Hehui’s practice-based degree defense — A university announcement from February 13, 2026, describing the technology he developed, its field applications, and the defense itself.
• Harbin Institute of Technology, Wei Lianfeng’s PhD — A university announcement from September 30, 2025, covering his research process and the joint supervision by the university and company.
• China’s Ministry of Education, on evaluation guidelines for professional engineering doctorates — Explains the background of the reform and the achievement, report, and review procedures.
• China’s Ministry of Education, evaluation criteria for practical achievements — 2024 guidelines laying out the applicable fields, individual contribution, and reporting requirements.
• Nature, on China’s early practice-based PhD cases — An article from February 5, 2026.

The author is Oswarld (Kwangseob Ahn). Current roles: Adjunct Professor at Sejong University, Strategy Consultant at INLEVEL9. Career, research, books, and recent work are kept current on the About page. Latest · July 2026: HEMA-2: A Consolidation-Aware Tri-Memory Architecture with Multi-Channel Scheduling for Lifelong Conversational AI.