Wang Hong and Deng Yu's 'Great Talent from the West' - The CCP's Nationalism Fails to Deliver

The image depicts Beijing's Tiananmen Square. (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

[People News] Following the announcement of the Fields Medal, public opinion in China quickly framed the achievements of Wang Hong and Deng Yu as a triumph for the system and the nation. Their Chinese nationality was emphasized repeatedly, yet their actual paths tell a different story.

In 2007, 16-year-old Wang Hong from Guangxi scored 653 on the college entrance examination but did not gain admission to the mathematics department at Peking University; instead, she was assigned to the School of Earth and Space Sciences. She intended to switch majors as soon as she enrolled. After moving to the mathematics department in her sophomore year, she found herself in a challenging environment: her class was filled with gold medalists from the Olympiad, she lacked a competitive background, her grades were average, and she faced ongoing doubts about her suitability for mathematics, even contemplating a switch to architecture. Her classmate Deng Yu, a guaranteed admission gold medalist from the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO), was nicknamed 'Deng Shen.' He transferred to MIT after just two years at Peking University, citing his inability to endure the domestic academic environment.

After completing her undergraduate studies, Wang Hong went to France, where she briefly interned in architecture, ultimately realizing that she could fully develop her ideas through mathematics. In 2014, she began her PhD at MIT, while Deng Yu was nearing graduation. The disparity in their timelines serves as a stark contrast: while the top domestic students were still engaged in intense competition at the undergraduate level, the overseas academic system had already laid the groundwork for them to reach the forefront of global academia.

In 2025, Wang Hong and his collaborators published a 127-page paper that resolved the three-dimensional hanging valley conjecture, a problem that had perplexed the mathematical community for 108 years. Tao Zhexuan hailed it as a major breakthrough in geometric measure theory, with some even describing it as a 'once-in-a-century' achievement. Concurrently, Deng Yu addressed the core challenge of Hilbert's sixth problem by rigorously deriving the macroscopic Boltzmann equation from microscopic Newtonian mechanics, a question that had been raised 124 years ago. Both accomplishments required years of uninterrupted, immersive thought, free from the anxiety of evaluations. Wang Hong remarked that the proof process was lengthy and tranquil, lacking particularly thrilling moments; he often took walks in Manhattan parks, allowing his mood to dictate his mathematical thoughts. Deng Yu dedicated a week to closely reading an 85-page paper, meticulously verifying each detail. He noted that mathematicians dread a lack of output the most, and the only antidote to anxiety is persistent effort and an almost blind faith in future results. This confidence arises from a freedom unencumbered by fear.

In contrast, the domestic academic evaluation system mandates assessments every three years and evaluations every five years. Failing to produce representative results within five years could lead to either promotion or dismissal, and lacking a national-level project within ten years may result in losing the ability to lead a team. At the French Institute for Advanced Scientific Research, where Wang Hong teaches, there have been only 12 tenured mathematics professors in over sixty years, seven of whom have received the Fields Medal. The logic of this institution is strikingly simple: it offers absolute freedom and generous support, with no assessments, no evaluations, and no inquiries about short-term output, focusing solely on whether you are contemplating truly significant questions.

Similar trajectories are not unique cases. Around the year 2000, the 'golden generation' of mathematics at Peking University—Xu Chenyang, Yun Zhiwei, Zhang Wei, and others—almost all pursued their undergraduate or master's studies in the United States, ultimately remaining at top universities there. Xu Chenyang worked at Peking University for six years before returning to MIT in 2018, openly stating that the academic environment in China is unfriendly to young scholars. Interestingly, Wang Hong's mathematics analysis teacher at Peking University, Chen Tianquan, has long focused on research in statistical physics and dynamic mechanics, with a special case of Hilbert's sixth problem being one of his areas of interest. Deng Yu later solved related challenges and received awards, which the academic community views as a form of academic inheritance, yet the original inheritor has long been absent from China.

Qiu Chengdong remarked that Olympiad mathematics resembles a sprint under predictable conditions, while mathematical research is akin to a marathon under the unpredictable conditions of reality. China has consistently led in the number of IMO gold medals, and the Olympiad training industry is extensive, excelling in cultivating problem solvers but struggling to nurture questioners; adept at identifying talent but ineffective at retaining it; strong in short-term achievements but lacking in long-term development. Wang Hong's performance is average, and under the current graduate recommendation and direct doctoral admission systems, he is likely to face systematic elimination; if Deng Yu did not possess the 'amulet' of an Olympiad gold medal, he might not even have the chance to transfer. We celebrate their achievements, but it is important to note that this success occurred precisely after they managed to escape this filtering system.

On July 23, 2026, in Philadelphia, the International Mathematical Union announced the names of two Chinese individuals, a historic first in ninety years to mention two names simultaneously. Officials emphasized their 'Chinese nationality' repeatedly. However, nationality is a legal concept, while academic affiliation relates to institutional and cultural identity. One of them is a lifelong professor at the Institute of Advanced Scientific Studies in France and a professor at New York University, while the other is a professor at the University of Chicago. Nearly all of their collaborators, conferences, students, journals, and citation networks operate within the European and American academic systems.

Genuinely respecting talent means allowing her name to take center stage, rather than hastily showcasing national pride. French President Macron personally called to congratulate her, referring to her as a pride of France. Wang Hong smiled and responded that she would return to France as soon as possible. This phone call focused entirely on her and her accomplishments; France takes pride in her without rushing to use her as a propaganda tool.

Both individuals completed their systematic scientific training in the United States. Wang Hong experienced significant self-doubt during her undergraduate years, expressing gratitude in a documentary for the freedom her parents provided and the acceptance and confidence she found in France; the award-winning short film barely mentions Peking University but clearly acknowledges her French mentors. With a top average IQ and a vast population, one would expect Chinese individuals to win Fields Medals in large numbers, yet the reality is starkly disproportionate, indicating that many talents are being overlooked. The system can identify high-IQ candidates but lacks the nurturing environment needed to develop them into world-class innovators. Peking University often appears more as a starting point or even a hindrance; what truly enables them to flourish is the free environment they later encounter.

From a structural standpoint, the Chinese model resembles the Olympics: it features unified goals, concentrated resources, and multiple layers of selection, with the primary focus on producing champions. In contrast, the American model is based on individual freedom of choice, a diverse environment, and a tolerance for failure, aiming to create more possibilities. One system filters out outstanding individuals, while the other fosters the continuous emergence of new opportunities. Genuine innovation hinges not on the ability to cultivate a few champions, but on enabling a broader range of individuals to find their own niches.

Qiu Chengdong has made several invitations for them to return to China to teach, and public opinion domestically has quickly emphasized their Chinese backgrounds. However, neither has publicly accepted teaching positions in the country to date. Achievements are not the exclusive domain of Peking University; what truly matters is long-term accumulation, international collaboration, a network of mentors, and the overall academic ecosystem.

The narrative of Chinese Communist nationalism is fundamentally flawed: the Fields Medal is an international academic award that honors individual originality, not a competition among national teams. To claim it as a 'system victory' inevitably overlooks those who were eliminated and the overseas training networks. When propaganda becomes excessive, it risks backlash; if the outside world starts asking 'why is key training predominantly conducted overseas' and 'why aren't awards given every year,' the slogans will be undermined by reality.

The phrase 'Great talents grow abroad' highlights the significant gap between selection and cultivation. While China can identify high-IQ talents, it struggles to nurture them into towering figures within its own environment. When the propaganda machine rushes to associate names with the national flag, the truly respectful approach to recognizing talent is to allow their names to stand out independently. Otherwise, the next backlash is merely a matter of time.

(This article references posts from the X platform accounts 'KK.aWSB', 'Morris', and 'SuperFinance')

(First published in the People News)△