|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Chinese Higher Education
Xiao Jin, Michael Agelasto, Richard T. Heckman, John A. Hogan, Russell Leigh Moses
To the Editor:
Xin-Ran Duan's article, "Chinese Higher Education Enters a New Era," published in the November-December issue, paints a rosy picture that many educators, analysts, and observers both on the mainland and abroad do not share. The current reforms, borrowed from Western models, are similar to those that have gone before over the past century. They are designed as quick-fix solutions to meet pressing needs, are not well thought out, and fail to take into account the economic, cultural, and social needs of the country. The tripling of enrollment over six years and the concomitant financial constraints, for example, have compromised quality since well-trained teaching staff are in short supply and class size has increased substantially. The uniform entrance examination's threshold requirements have been lowered by many institutions. In addition, unexpectedly low employment rates of university students immediately upon graduation in 2002 and 2003 also pose a problem. Moreover, the Ministry of Education continues to promote a strategy—embodied in such catchphrase projects as the "World-Class University" and the "Science-Technology Garden"—to concentrate scarce resources on a few key instructions. This has intensified the disparity among higher education institutions between different regions. The restructuring of higher education has created a clearly escalating stratification pattern among institutions, by geography, source of funding, administrative unit, and functional category. Higher vocational education institutions, cut financially from their ministerial parents, can barely find enough funds from local and provincial governments for daily operation; they face a serious funding shortfall in rural areas. Finally, government-supported institutions have set up revenue-producing programs that have a private feel about them, precluding the growth of real private institutions, which are forced to operate with no clear government policy. Add to these deficiencies the various problems that already resulted from the previous reforms, and you have a portrait less rosy than Duan's.
Xiao Jin
(Education)
Chinese University of Hong Kong
To the Editor:
Chinese higher education, which has been undergoing a vast restructuring over the past hundred years, is facing severe problems today. A major predicament is that academic observers, both inside and outside of Chinese universities, fail to provide data-based critical analyses. There are few participant-observation studies, for example. Much of what is labeled as research seems, unfortunately, to be little more than rewordings of publications from the Ministry of Education. "Chinese Higher Education Enters a New Era," by Xin-Ran Duan falls into this category. In two studies, I have pointed out the deficiencies of reform as illustrated through a case study of Shenzhen University. Expanding enrollment had a detrimental effect on the quality of education. Pedagogy failed to encourage critical and creative thinking among students or teachers; a borrowing of the "structure" of foreign models failed to include an understanding of their purposes; and a high level of political interference prevented teachers from teaching, students from learning, and educators from educating. As Shenzhen University was in many ways a prototype for many of the reforms that are now being implemented nationwide, I refer the reader to my studies University in Turmoil: The Political Economy of Shenzhen University and Educational Disengagement: Undermining Academic Quality at a Chinese University.
Michael Agelasto
(Foreign Language), Emeritus
Shenzhen University
To the Editor:
I read with interest the article on Chinese higher education written by Xin-Ran Duan and published in the November-December issue. The discussion of highly specialized universities and even more specialized curricula and their evolution to a more broadly based institutional and curricular concept was of particular interest. One can easily find correlations in the developmental history of many public technical and community colleges in the United States. Another interesting point was the concept of a highly centralized versus decentralized governance model of higher education, and the apparent movement toward decentralization taking place in China today. Again, this is an issue that is part of the U.S. technical and community college history as well as a matter of ongoing debate even today.
The Ivy Tech State College system in which Duan works, and in which I spent nearly twenty years as a director and chief academic officer, is an excellent example of an institution that continues to address these types of issues. It is especially interesting to observe, from the outside, the transformation of Ivy Tech from a purely postsecondary technical college to an institution embracing the broader mission of a typical community college found in the United States. There may be some lessons for China in the continued development of Ivy Tech.
Duan points out early in his article that many of the reforms that are under way in Chinese higher education are driven by economic development. Near the end of the article, he suggests that additional two-year associate's degree programs and enhanced upper-division transfer opportunities "would more closely reflect global educational standards and enhance adult education, continuing education, and vocational education." This is where China has the opportunity to get it right. In the United States, the transfer issue between two-year colleges and senior institutions is a contentious, needless, and wasteful impediment to educating the populace and to effective community and economic development. A wide range of research has affirmed that two-year college education, workforce preparation, including preparation for upper-division transfer, and economic development are inextricably linked.
Richard T. Heckman
President
Randolph Community College
To the Editor:
In his article in the November-December issue, Xin-Ran Duan translates his personal experience in higher education in China into a conceptual framework that those of us who have no academic experience abroad can easily understand. His approach gives the reader some sense of comparison with the development of American higher education as it relates to the Chinese educational system.
One comparison relates to the value Western institutions place on academic freedom. Duan correctly asserts that it is a foundational principle on which our infrastructure is built. This value also correlates strongly with the values of our American culture: freedom of expression, freedom from oppression, and great economic and educational opportunity. Americans regard these freedoms as their birthright, although I imagine many of us take them for granted. While in China, Duan had no opportunity to exercise these freedoms, let alone take them for granted.
It is encouraging that the Chinese have, albeit in a crude way, connected education and economic development. This is one area in which higher education in the two countries is similar. However, the differences remain apparent, and are indeed stark. In reflecting on Duan's description, I am extremely thankful to have the opportunity to participate in the premier higher education system in the world. The strength of the American higher education system lies in our protection of academic freedom, a natural extension of our constitutional rights. Duan's comparison underscores our good fortune.
John A. Hogan
Chancellor
Ivy Tech State College-Columbus Region
To the Editor:
As a professor who has taught students at leading Chinese universities for many years, I find Xin-Ran Duan's commentary in the November-December issue far too positive. He does not mention that the percentage of college-bound Chinese remains mired in single digits. In many parts of China, students are not only not attending college, they also lack the fees to complete grade school. The family conversations about colleges that he cites with pleasure take place largely among the urban and the affluent; very few others can even contemplate college.
Market reforms have ended government underwriting of many colleges in China. Universities face enormous financial shortfalls in their operations, and it is usually only through the use of political connections that they are able to receive funding in the form of bank loans. As in other countries, banks provide loans for construction, not curriculum. So a university gets a new library building but no funds for new books. If you are not a "key university" targeted by the government as a showpiece for international audiences, you are out of luck and likely out of loans.
Many of my Chinese colleagues treat their university responsibilities as part time. They have to, for faculty salaries are falling in real terms. Without other work outside in China's new economy, professors would be paupers. Chinese instructors are pressured to work on their research while allotted few resources to do so. So, under the guise of time off for research, many university faculty spend their working day elsewhere at other jobs, neither reading nor writing new material. The brilliance of these minds is dulled in the name of a new economy.
Students do have more free time, and their weekends are now full of social options. But students, by their own admission, are rarely challenged academically. Chinese students ask what the point is of studying when so many of their professors do not teach class regularly, are rarely on campus, and rarely assign material to read or essays to write. Small wonder then that the number of Chinese studying overseas is skyrocketing, as is cheating on tests and falsifying documents to go abroad. If great progress is being made in Chinese universities, as Duan states, why are so many students doing everything possible to leave these universities?
Like Duan, I hope higher education in China does get better. But real progress remains elusive—and thus far, largely illusory.
Russell Leigh Moses
Beijing
The Author Responds:
I am pleased that my article prompted so many responses, and I appreciate the input and comments offered by readers. Richard Heckman and John Hogan usefully compare the Chinese and American higher education systems. Heckman makes a good point when he states that there may be lessons for China in the developmental history of U.S. technical and community colleges, as does Hogan in his remarks on "the value Western institutions place on academic freedom" and the connection between education and economic development. I share with Russell Leigh Moses the hope that higher education in China gets better.
On the other hand, Xiao Jin and Michael Agelasto argue that "the current reforms, borrowed from Western models," have "failed to include an understanding of their purposes" and "fail to take into account the economic, cultural, and social needs of the country." From my perspective, China has made wide reforms during the past twenty-five years. As a result, it has made significant progress in economic development, and living conditions for Chinese people have improved. Obviously, the progress in higher education has also been significant. As I point out in my article, more Chinese people than ever before now have an opportunity to enter higher education. The reforms have also created more opportunities for global exchange and cooperation. This is why the major transformations in Chinese higher education, I believe, are positive and remarkable in meeting many economic, cultural, and social needs.
Of course, as some readers indicate, problems with funding shortfalls, academic quality, and political interference do exist. We should realize that any significant transformation involves problems. China has a long way to go and a number of problems that need to be solved. However, we should not discount its progress.
|