Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing frequency of refund disputes in the public service examination training sector, driven by misleading advertising and contractual complexities that hinder students' ability to reclaim their fees [1][3][6] Refund Disputes - A significant number of complaints, over 110,000, have been recorded against a well-known education institution, primarily concerning refund-related contractual disputes [1] - Students often face obstacles such as installment refunds, product exchanges, and course transfers when attempting to secure refunds [2] Root Causes of Refund Difficulties - Misleading advertising practices, such as promises of guaranteed passing, and restrictive clauses in contracts contribute to students' lack of understanding of their rights at the time of signing [3] - The business model of many institutions relies on high upfront fees and low pass rates, creating a financial strain that leads to delayed or denied refunds [3][6] Risks of Alternative Refund Solutions - Alternative solutions like product exchanges or installment refunds can complicate the original contractual relationship, making future disputes harder to resolve [4] - The quality of products offered for exchange may be questionable, and the pricing may not reflect market value, posing additional risks to students [5] Legal Precedents - A case in Shaanxi resulted in a court ordering an education institution to refund a student 31,800 yuan within ten days, highlighting the potential for legal recourse in refund disputes [6] Recommendations for Improvement - Regulatory bodies should enforce strict rules on prepayment and ensure funds are held in dedicated accounts to protect consumers [6] - Educational institutions should adopt self-regulatory practices to eliminate misleading advertising and promote fair contract terms [6] - Students are advised to choose reputable institutions and thoroughly review refund policies before signing contracts, and to actively pursue their rights if faced with refund challenges [6]

Core Viewpoint - The competitive landscape of the civil service exam training market is evolving as two leading companies, Fenbi and Huatu, have announced a strategic partnership to mitigate fierce competition and enhance user experience [2][4][20]. Group 1: Strategic Partnership - Fenbi and Huatu have signed a strategic cooperation agreement to explore collaboration in investment, corporate governance, technology development, and channel cooperation [5][6]. - The partnership aims to leverage each company's strengths, with Huatu's extensive offline presence complementing Fenbi's online capabilities, thereby improving operational efficiency [6][7]. - Both companies will advocate for industry self-regulation and user oversight, aiming to establish industry benchmarks and combat unethical practices [7][8]. Group 2: Market Context - The civil service exam training market has become increasingly competitive, with many institutions employing aggressive pricing strategies, leading to a chaotic market environment [2][19]. - The market for vocational exam training in China is projected to exceed 100 billion yuan by 2026, with civil service exam training alone expected to reach 20 billion yuan [17]. - The increasing number of graduates seeking stable employment has intensified competition in the civil service exam sector, resulting in lower pass rates and a crowded training market [17][18]. Group 3: Company Performance - Fenbi has faced declining revenues, with a projected income of 27.90 billion yuan in 2024, down 7.66% year-on-year, and an 8.50% decline in the first half of the year [17]. - Huatu has shown resilience, with a 15.65% year-on-year revenue growth to 24.64 billion yuan in the first three quarters, surpassing its competitor, Zhonggong Education [19]. - Zhonggong Education, once the market leader, has seen its revenue shrink from a peak of 112 billion yuan in 2020 to 26.27 billion yuan in 2024, indicating a significant market shift [19].