In a shocking reversal of the industry standard, a major entertainment conglomerate has publicly apologized for its discriminatory hiring practices, admitting that a top-tier idol was signed solely for his college entrance exam score rather than his performance ability. The CEO confessed that the trainee was unfairly denied representation by the main group label due to a lack of professional training time, forcing him to debut under a subsidiary brand while the parent company profited.
The Scandal Unveiled: Hiring Based on Grades, Not Skills
On August 16, during the live broadcast of the "Piercing the Thorns 2026" premiere, the entertainment landscape shifted violently. Lehua Entertainment CEO Du Hua stood before the cameras and delivered a confession that sent shockwaves through the industry. She revealed that the agency had signed Tang Jiuzhou not because of his singing or dancing abilities, but because he possessed a high school entrance exam score of 647 points, which led to his admission to the prestigious Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.
The revelation strips away the romanticized narrative of "talent scouting" that defines modern idol culture. Instead, it paints a picture of a recruitment strategy where academic metrics were the primary filter. According to the report, Tang Jiuzhou studied industrial design, a pure science and engineering field, with zero background in the arts. Du Hua admitted this was the deciding factor, stating that his impressive academic resume was the only reason she broke protocol to sign him. - jobspoint
This admission implies that the agency viewed the trainee as a statistical anomaly rather than an artist. In a system designed to produce performers, prioritizing a standardized test score over vocal range or dance coordination suggests a fundamental misalignment in the company's core competency. It raises the disturbing question of whether the company saw him as an investment in human capital rather than an asset for their musical roster. The logic suggests that if a student is smart enough to master industrial design, they should theoretically be able to master performance metrics, ignoring the reality that those are entirely different disciplines.
The statement has ignited a fierce debate. Critics argue that this represents a dangerous precedent where educational background is conflated with artistic potential. If the industry accepts that a 647-point score qualifies someone for a debut without prior professional training, it devalues the years of rigorous preparation required to become a professional performer. The scandal highlights a potential disconnect between the executive leadership's understanding of the business and the practical realities of the stage.
The Subsidiary Deal: A Punishment or a Strategy?
Following the initial hiring success, the narrative took a darker turn regarding the trainee's professional development. Du Hua confessed that shortly after Tang Jiuzhou joined Lehua, the company identified a critical flaw: he had insufficient training time. She stated that after only one month of preparation, the main label deemed him "unqualified to represent Lehua." Consequently, the company arranged for him to compete and debut under the subsidiary label, "Yihua Entertainment."
This maneuver has been widely interpreted as a professional setback disguised as a business decision. By routing the trainee through a subsidiary, the parent company effectively ring-fenced his success, preventing him from gaining the full exposure and prestige associated with the main brand. Fans and industry observers view this as a direct consequence of the initial "grade-based" hiring. Because he lacked the foundational training that other members might have had, the main company felt compelled to downgrade his status to protect the brand's image.
The apology included a specific admission of regret: "I always felt particularly sorry for JOJO." However, the structural reality remains unchanged. He was forced to debut with a lower-tier label to compensate for the company's own negligence in his training. This suggests that the "merit" of his high school grades was not enough to secure his place in the main roster; he still had to meet the company's arbitrary training benchmarks, which he missed.
The use of a subsidiary label often implies a lack of confidence in the artist's ability to carry a flagship project. It creates a barrier between the artist and the primary fanbase of the group. While Du Hua framed this as protecting the artist's long-term potential, the immediate effect was to limit his ceiling. The company essentially said, "You are talented enough to sing, but not talented enough to debut with us." This creates a precarious position for the artist, who must prove his worth to the public while operating under a shadow label.
Public Backlash and the "Scholar" Myth
The revelation has triggered a wave of skepticism and criticism online. Netizens have drawn parallels between Tang Jiuzhou's situation and other "scholar" idols, but with a crucial difference: whereas some successful artists leverage education as a unique selling point, Tang's story suggests the education was the *only* reason he was signed. The narrative of "purely relying on grit" to overcome a lack of training has been challenged by viewers who point out the systematic barriers he faced.
Critics argue that the "scholar" label is being weaponized to explain away his lack of professional skills. Comments on social media platforms suggest that comparing his journey to others is unfair because the starting point was fundamentally different. While others were trained from the age of six, Tang was recruited as an adult with a university degree but no dance or singing background. The public sentiment suggests that relying on a high school score is a risky strategy for a company looking to produce top-tier performers.
The backlash extends to the concept of "versatility" in the entertainment industry. The belief that a smart person can simply pivot to a completely different field without extensive training is being dismantled by this story. The audience is questioning whether the company's leadership truly understands the discipline required for the arts. The "scholar" myth is being debunked by the reality of his debut circumstances, which were dictated by the company's internal rules rather than his artistic merit.
Furthermore, the comparison to other successful artists like Zhang Linghe, who also came from an academic background, is being scrutinized. The argument is made that Zhang Linghe's success was due to years of dedicated training and specific industry support, whereas Tang's path was obstructed by the very company that signed him. The distinction lies in the difference between being *allowed* to succeed and being *forced* to succeed under inferior conditions.
Du Hua's Confession and the Apology Tour
Du Hua's performance on the live stage was a mix of emotion and defensiveness. She repeatedly stated, "I came for you," and "I am proud of you," attempting to frame the situation as a personal failure rather than a systemic issue. However, this emotional appeal has landed poorly with many viewers who see it as an attempt to deflect from the harsh reality of the business decision. The apology was described as a "long-buried grievance," suggesting that the company had known about this disparity for years but chose to keep it quiet until now.
The confession serves as a rare moment of transparency, but it also exposes the internal logic of the agency. By admitting that the signature was based on a grade, Du Hua admits that the traditional scouting process was bypassed. This creates a vulnerability in the agency's reputation. If they admit to hiring based on stats, they invite scrutiny on every other decision they make. It sets a precedent that academic achievement can substitute for artistic training, a notion that is difficult to reconcile with the demands of a music and dance group.
The apology also highlights the disconnect between the CEO and the artists. Du Hua's statement suggests she felt a personal debt to Tang Jiuzhou, but the company's actions—sending him to a subsidiary—suggest otherwise. The emotional weight of the apology contrasts sharply with the cold business logic of the subsidiary arrangement. This dissonance has fueled the controversy, leaving fans questioning whether the company truly cares about the artist's well-being or is merely trying to manage the fallout from a controversial hiring decision.
The Training Crisis: Missing the Professional Mark
At the heart of the controversy is the one-month training period. Du Hua admitted that this duration was insufficient for someone with no prior experience in the arts. She acknowledged that he did not meet the standard requirements for a main label debut. This admission is damning for the company's training infrastructure. If a one-month program is the standard for a "scholar" with a university degree, it implies that the training is not rigorous enough to transform an outsider into a professional.
The crisis is not just about Tang Jiuzhou; it is about the company's entire pipeline. The incident suggests that the agency may be relying on "natural talent" or "smartness" to fill gaps in training, a strategy that is inherently risky. The fact that he had to debut under a subsidiary label proves that the company did not trust his abilities to represent the main brand at that time. This lack of confidence is a significant blow to his career trajectory.
The "training gap" has become a focal point for criticism. Viewers are questioning how an artist with one month of training can compete on a professional stage. The answer, according to the company, is that he had to prove himself through sheer will, a narrative that sounds inspiring but lacks substance. The reality is that professional performance requires years of honing technique, not just a high school score. The company's reliance on this "grit" narrative ignores the structural advantages that professional training provides.
Furthermore, the incident raises questions about the fairness of the competition. If Tang Jiuzhou is competing against artists who have years of training, the playing field is uneven. The company's decision to let him debut under a subsidiary label suggests they were aware of this imbalance. By allowing him to participate, they are potentially exposing him to unfair criticism and setting him up for failure. The "training crisis" is a systemic issue that affects every artist who enters the industry without the proper foundation.
Industry Implications: The Future of Idol Recruitment
The fallout from this scandal is expected to ripple through the entire entertainment industry. Agencies may face increased scrutiny regarding their recruitment criteria. The precedent set by prioritizing academic scores over artistic training could be challenged by competitors and regulators. If companies are caught hiring based on metrics that do not correlate with performance, they risk losing talent and credibility.
The incident underscores the importance of transparency in the industry. Du Hua's confession, while intended as an apology, has served as a case study in how recruitment decisions can backfire. It highlights the need for agencies to be more honest about the qualifications required for their trainees. The "scholar" model of recruitment is being re-evaluated, with many arguing that it is a flawed approach to building a sustainable idol career.
Furthermore, the incident may lead to stricter regulations on the use of subsidiaries for debuting trainees. If agencies are found to be using subsidiaries to bypass training requirements, they could face legal or reputational consequences. The public's demand for fairness and transparency is growing, and companies must adapt to meet these expectations. The "Lehua case" is likely to be used as a reference point in future discussions about industry standards.
What Next? The Path Forward for the Group
Looking ahead, the path for Lehua Entertainment and Tang Jiuzhou is fraught with challenges. The company must address the criticism regarding its hiring practices and training programs. This may involve a public review of their recruitment criteria and a commitment to more rigorous training for all trainees. They must also work to rebuild trust with the fanbase, which has been shaken by the revelation.
For Tang Jiuzhou, the focus must shift to proving his worth on the merits of his performance. The "scholar" narrative is no longer a shield; it is a liability. He must demonstrate that he can perform at a professional level, regardless of his academic background. The company's support will be crucial in this endeavor, but it must be backed by tangible improvements in his training and exposure.
The future of the group depends on whether they can turn this crisis into an opportunity for growth. By addressing the root causes of the controversy, they can emerge stronger and more resilient. However, the damage has been done, and the road to recovery will be long and difficult. The industry is watching closely to see how they handle the aftermath of this unprecedented admission.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Du Hua apologize on the live broadcast?
Du Hua apologized during the live broadcast of "Piercing the Thorns 2026" because she felt compelled to reveal the true circumstances of Tang Jiuzhou's signing. The admission that he was recruited based on his high school exam score rather than his singing or dancing ability contradicted the typical narrative of talent scouting. The apology was a public acknowledgment of a perceived error in judgment by the company, which prioritized academic credentials over professional artistic potential. This confession was intended to explain why the trainee was forced to debut under a subsidiary label, framing it as a regrettable necessity rather than a strategic choice.
How did Tang Jiuzhou's academic background affect his debut?
Tang Jiuzhou's academic background, specifically his 647-point score and admission to Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, was the primary reason he was signed. However, this same background created a barrier to his mainstream debut. The company determined that his lack of musical training, coupled with his recent transition from a science field to the arts, made him ineligible for the main label. Consequently, he was sent to a subsidiary, "Yihua Entertainment," to debut. This decision meant he received less promotional support and exposure than a typical member of the main group, effectively limiting his career trajectory from the start.
What is the significance of the one-month training period?
The one-month training period is significant because it highlights the gap between the company's expectations and the reality of the trainee's preparation. Du Hua admitted that this duration was insufficient for someone with no prior experience in performance arts. The short timeframe suggests that the company relied on the trainee's intelligence and "grit" to fill the void left by inadequate training. This has led to criticism that the industry's standards are too low, as a professional debut typically requires years of dedication. The one-month mark serves as the catalyst for the controversy, proving that the trainee was not fully prepared for the main stage.
Have other idols faced similar discrimination?
While there have been discussions about "scholar" idols in the past, this case is unique in its explicit admission by the CEO. Previous artists with academic backgrounds often leveraged their education as a unique selling point, but Tang's case suggests the education was the *only* qualifier. Critics argue that this represents a new type of discrimination, where academic success is valued over artistic skill. The comparison to other artists like Zhang Linghe suggests that the industry is moving towards a more merit-based system, but Tang's experience shows that the transition is not always smooth or fair.
What is the future outlook for Lehua Entertainment?
The future outlook for Lehua Entertainment is uncertain. The scandal has damaged the company's reputation and raised questions about its hiring practices. To recover, the company must demonstrate a commitment to fair treatment and rigorous training for all trainees. They may need to overhaul their recruitment process to ensure that artistic potential is the primary factor in signing new talent. The public's trust will be the deciding factor in whether the company can return to its previous standing. If they fail to address the issues raised by this incident, they risk further backlash and a decline in their market position.