The atmosphere of "evaluating talents without strict standards" is forming - an interview with Liu Xuezhi, Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Personnel Sciences, a retired associate professor in his late twenties, and a question about "can education and ability be equated" have sparked a great discussion on the views of talent and success in this newspaper. In the discussion, there are not only many readers who are confused about educational discrimination, but also some organizations and personnel departments who are puzzled by "high education, low ability" and "overseas returnees who are not adapted to the local conditions". From this, it can be seen that the scientific and fair evaluation system for talents is not only related to the career and personal interests of every talent, but also to the efficiency of talent resource development and utilization. Talents are the foundation of a strong country and the great plan for its prosperity. China has over 80 million professional and technical talents and over 60 million highly skilled talents. Since the issuance of the Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Professional Title System by the General Office of the Communist Party of China and the State Council in 2016, various regions and relevant departments have continuously innovated measures to loosen the constraints and reduce the burden on talent development, and established a reasonable, scientific evaluation, standardized management, coordinated operation, and comprehensive service professional title system. At the same time, the precision of talent policies is not high, and the "last mile" of talent development system and mechanism reform is not smooth. The evaluation of talents is still prominent, with only papers, professional titles, academic qualifications, and awards. How to answer the questions and confusion raised in the letter from a systemic perspective, how to further promote reform, and enhance the sense of achievement and happiness of professional and technical personnel? Regarding the above issues, our reporter interviewed Liu Xuezhi, Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Personnel Sciences. Question: For many years, there have been prominent problems in talent evaluation in China, such as single standards and convergence of methods, especially the phenomenon of "four only" which is most well-known and criticized. What changes have occurred in the evaluation criteria for professional titles since the deepening of the reform of the professional title system? Answer: Standards are the compass for talent development. Since the reform of the professional title system, departments such as the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau have resolutely implemented the central requirements, overcome the tendency of relying solely on academic qualifications, qualifications, academic papers, and awards, and focus on solving problems such as simple quantification of evaluation standards and a one size fits all approach. They are guided by morality, ability, and performance, and judge heroes based on actual achievements. The changes in the evaluation criteria for professional titles are mainly reflected in the following aspects: adhering to putting morality first. Adhere to the principle of putting morality first for university teachers, and strictly assess their ideological, political, and professional ethics and conduct; Strengthen patriotism and social responsibility for scientific researchers, advocate for the scientific spirit of pursuing truth and climbing to new heights forever; Strengthen the evaluation of medical ethics, medical conduct, and professional behavior among medical staff. Education is not the only criterion for ability. Each series of professional title evaluations only have basic requirements for academic qualifications, mainly comparing ability levels. Translation, actor, computer software, and other series or majors do not have too many requirements for academic qualifications. Accounting, economics, and other series will relax the starting educational level to high school. Engineering, agriculture, and other series can participate in professional title evaluation by being recommended by two or more experts in the industry. From a systemic perspective, academic qualifications are no longer an obstacle to participating in professional title evaluation. Performance is not discussed for many years. For researchers, the main focus is on whether the research results can stand up to the sky and earth; The main focus for clinical medical personnel is whether they are able to see a doctor, whether they are able to see a doctor, and whether they are optimistic about their condition; Emphasize the educational and teaching abilities and performance of various types of teachers, with teaching quality as the main standard. The paper does not serve as a hard line. Health professional technology