More than half of the subjects are in politics, military, diplomacy or administration; a little more than a quarter intellectuals, such as scholars, journalists, propagandists; 10.8% in the arts; 7% in professions such as doctors, jurists, and clergy; and only 6.2% in business.
[4] The French Marxist historian Jean Chesneaux congratulated Boorman and his colleagues for including not only political and intellectual figures, but also bourgeois professionals and non-Han subjects.
He suggested that the coverage should also have included influential foreigners whose careers were important for Chinese history; the only such representation was a six column article, "Lei Ming-yuan" (Father Vincent Lebbe).
He found that the selection was tilted toward liberals and the "third force," many of whom were among the contributors to the volume, also a difference in the relative length of the articles in favor of Guomindang figures and scientists, as opposed to communists, writers, and artists.
"[6] Professor David Lindenfeld found that nearly half of the figures in these volumes had studied abroad, but the selection was not "plutocratic," showing that the educational system offered the chance for upward mobility.