39-year-old candidate reports that the “First in the re-exam” waiting room violated rules by flipping through materials. East China Normal University: We are investigating.

Ask AI · Why does Mr. Wang insist that rule fairness is more important than the admissions result?

Recently, Mr. Wang, a candidate who failed the 2026 master’s re-examination at East China Normal University, reported that Candidate No. 4, who ranked No. 1 in the composite score, was seen in the waiting area flipping through printed materials, allegedly in violation of regulations. On April 7, staff from the Graduate Admissions Office of East China Normal University responded to a reporter from the Bēnliú News, saying that this matter is under investigation.

Re-examination site Some candidates flip through materials

At 39 years old, Mr. Wang is from Jiangxi. He used to work in real estate. He decided to take the postgraduate entrance exam to fight for a chance to “break through.” He worked part-time during the day and practiced questions at night. After entering the re-examination for the 2026 master’s program at East China Normal University’s School of Design with a score that placed him 8th in the initial exam, he ranked 2nd in the re-examination and 6th in the composite score. According to the School of Design’s招生计划 (5 students), he was not admitted.

“I think it’s unfair, because Candidate No. 4 had violations during the re-examination process, so I started reporting it.” Mr. Wang said that on the morning of March 27, 2026, in the waiting area for the re-examination at the School of Design of East China Normal University. All candidates had signed the “Integrity Re-examination Commitment Letter,” and the on-site PPT clearly stated: “Do not bring any materials related to the re-examination into the waiting room. Anyone who violates will be handled according to disciplinary rules.” During the waiting period, Candidate No. 4 was called away from his seat by staff. After returning, he “held a folder in his hand and flipped through it.” Several other candidates around also saw this.

“The waiting room is a closed-management area. If flipping through materials is allowed, then the rules are basically meaningless paper.” Mr. Wang reported the situation to the School of Design of East China Normal University on that day. On March 30, he formally requested via email that the monitoring footage for the time slot from 9:30 to 10:30 on the re-examination day be retrieved.

The school’s reply The conduct does not constitute a violation

On March 31, the Design School replied: “After retrieving the monitoring footage, verifying the on-site situation, and checking the relevant materials, no materials related to the interview were found. The candidate’s behavior does not constitute disciplinary action for the examination.” Mr. Wang was not satisfied. On April 1, he sent his appeal materials at the same time to the school’s Graduate Admissions Office, the Discipline Inspection Commission, and the School of Design.

On April 3, the Graduate Admissions Office of East China Normal University issued an official reply. The school said it had set up a special investigation working group, repeatedly reviewing the monitoring footage frame by frame, and confirmed that the materials carried by Candidate No. 4 were “qualification review materials such as the examination admission ticket, the record filing form for the education certificate, an on-campus certificate, copies of the ID card, and so on.” The school explained that due to a “system operation issue,” the candidate failed to upload all the re-examination qualification review materials. With prior consent from the School of Design before the exam, the candidate carried printed materials for on-site verification on the day of the re-examination. Because the materials were unrelated to the re-examination’s professional content, and because staff had allowed the candidate to bring them into the waiting room, the school determined that it did not violate the relevant management regulations.

On April 6, the school replied again, further defining “materials related to the re-examination” as referring to “informational materials that may affect the fairness of the exam or that could be used to obtain or indicate examination content.” It also clarified that this “does not include verification materials used for identity and qualification review.”

Questioning the reply Request to review the monitoring footage

Mr. Wang provided reporters with screenshots showing his upload records in the East China Normal University application system. The screenshots show that the system required only three items to be uploaded: the resident ID card, student status and educational qualification materials, and the integrity re-examination commitment letter. He himself successfully uploaded everything, and the review result was “Passed.”

Based on this, he raised three questions to the school: first, which item of Candidate No. 4’s required materials was not uploaded? Provide the backend logs or screenshots. “If even the required materials weren’t uploaded completely, the candidate simply shouldn’t have been granted re-examination qualification.” Second, if it really wasn’t all materials uploaded, then according to the school’s regulations, the online review should not have passed—so why was the candidate still allowed to participate in the re-examination? Third, the school’s claim that the “system operation failed” has still provided no evidence. As of the time of publication, the school had not responded to the above evidence requests.

Mr. Wang believes that, to restore the facts, the most objective evidence is the monitoring footage. He has repeatedly requested to review the complete monitoring in the waiting area, as well as the corridor monitoring and the out-and-about registration ledger.

On April 6, in its reply, the school said it could arrange for the monitoring footage to be reviewed, but added a condition: “If you apply to retrieve the monitoring footage, that is, you default that your qualification review materials are unrelated to materials related to the re-examination. The purpose of retrieving the monitoring footage is only to confirm whether Candidate No. 4, besides qualification review materials, also carried any other professional materials related to the re-examination.” The school also wrote: “If you still insist that those qualification review materials are materials related to the re-examination, then there probably would be no need to retrieve the monitoring footage either.”

Mr. Wang clearly refused this condition. He told reporters, “Reviewing the monitoring footage is my procedural right, and it should not be based on pre-accepting the school’s conclusions. This is the logic of ‘you don’t admit defeat, so I won’t provide evidence,’ which completely violates procedural justice.” He is willing to sign a commitment letter that protects other candidates’ privacy, but he refuses to sign any document that requires pre-acceptance of the school’s conclusions. At the same time, he demands that the ledger record of Candidate No. 4’s “Out-of-Room Registration Form” and the corridor monitoring footage be retrieved to verify the candidate’s action trail after leaving the waiting room. The school did not respond to this.

Keep filing the report The school is investigating

Mr. Wang cited Article 5 of the “Measures for Handling Violations in National Education Examinations” (Ministry of Education Order No. 33): “Carrying items other than those specified into the examination venue, or failing to place them in the designated location,” which should be recognized as a violation of examination regulations. Article 9 states that if there are such violations, the examination score for that subject shall be canceled. He pointed out that Article 5 does not require proving that the carried item is related to the examination content—that is a requirement in Article 6 for identifying “cheating.” In other words, regardless of what the materials’ content is, as long as they are “items other than those specified,” it constitutes a violation.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that this year’s program planned to enroll 5 students for the major. Candidate No. 4 had initial exam rank 4, re-examination rank 1, and composite score rank 1; he himself had initial exam rank 8, re-examination rank 2, and composite score rank 6. If Candidate No. 4 is identified as violating regulations and has his qualification canceled, he would be rostered to become No. 5 and become an admitted candidate.

“I’m 39 this year. Even if I’m admitted through a replacement, I’ll be 42 when I graduate. I’m not fighting for a seat number. I’m fighting for whether the rules can be applied equally to everyone and whether the evidence can be disclosed unconditionally.” Mr. Wang said.

On the morning of April 7, staff from the Graduate Admissions Office of East China Normal University told a reporter from Bēnliú News that regarding the matters Mr. Wang raised, the school has a dedicated investigation team handling the case, and the investigation is underway.

By Wen | Zhang Pengxiang, Chief Reporter, Bēnliú News