Core Viewpoint - The prevalent "no refund" model in training institutions poses significant risks and is unsustainable, leading to potential financial difficulties and disputes over refunds [2][3][4] Group 1: Training Institutions and Refund Policies - Many training institutions, such as Zhonggong Education, promise refunds for failed exams but often limit the refund amount, leading to prolonged refund periods [2] - The model encourages rapid growth initially but results in high refund rates and increasing financial gaps as institutions expand [2][3] - For example, with 3.41 million applicants for the 2025 national exam, if all opted for training at an average fee of 10,000 yuan, the potential revenue would be 341 billion yuan, but actual income could be only 3.97 billion yuan due to refund obligations [2] Group 2: Regulatory Environment and Compliance - Consumers must be cautious about refund promises and ensure clear terms in agreements to avoid indefinite refund periods [3] - Regulations like the 2021 notice from the Ministry of Education require training institutions to establish proper financial management and refund policies, but enforcement remains weak [3][4] - Local regulations, such as those in Hubei Province, mandate clear agreements on training terms and refund policies, yet many institutions still operate under the "no refund" model without sufficient funds to fulfill refund requests [3] Group 3: Impact on Adult Training Industry - The "no refund" model is widespread across various adult training sectors, including civil service exams and professional certifications, often coupled with training loans that exacerbate financial burdens on students [4] - The focus on scaling training programs over quality leads to misleading practices in adult vocational training, necessitating a shift towards quality improvement and rational consumer choices [4]