Whose university

Author: Xue Yong
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-01-01
Features: The most important theme of this book is a critique of the "movement to build world-class universities." This movement has already led Chinese higher education astray. Worse, although I mocked this pest-like movement at its inception, it seems no one has proposed a systematic critique. Therefore, I hope the publication of this book marks the beginning of a comprehensive and insightful examination of this movement. Although Xue Yong has been abroad for ten years, his articles are clear and accessible, with little "foreign flavor." Moreover, when observing issues, his thinking tends to circle around "directional" points, meaning he always strives to find healthy development space for the problems he discusses. This is extremely important because we have suffered too much from going in the wrong direction and grasping at straws. The two new books recently published by Yunnan People's Publishing House, Whose University and The Boastful Football, vividly reflect this characteristic, and the expertise of scholars in the "world-class university" movement is evident in these short yet wise articles. Let's take a look at some of the titles from Whose University:"What Does University Mean?" "What Kind of University Do We Want?" "Where Is the University Heading in the 21st Century?" "Where Is the Focus of Higher Education?" "A Planned Economy Cannot Produce World-Class Universities." These fundamental and directional thoughts have never been seen among education officials, university presidents, and experts busy with "accelerating," "building," "improving," "evaluating," "reviewing," and "accepting." If one can only endlessly "accelerate" and "strengthen" within a given, outdated, and lifeless framework, isn't that living out the story of "going in the wrong direction"? It's no surprise that piles of educational theories, plans, books, and paper references fail to interest people or open up a path for healthy educational development. If one knows this path is indeed "going in the wrong direction," but because this "direction" contains their own huge vested interests, they still argue passionately for its "reasonableness" and "fitting the national conditions," it becomes even more disheartening. Why has the spirit of Peking University "collapsed"? Why is American education "excellent without a benchmark"? Xue Yong, having studied at top universities in both China and the U.S., has accurately identified the huge differences between the two in terms of educational direction and philosophy. The former is like a sieve, filtering from kindergarten to Ph.D., constantly creating "failures," and even the few "successes" are often outwardly impressive but inwardly useless. The latter is like spring rain, helping students root themselves in the ground, absorb nutrients, with teachers playing the role of inspiration and guidance rather than. This difference inevitably narrows the former's path—universities lose their universality and transcendence, their standards decline, problems pile up, and they cannot renew themselves. The latter's path, however, grows wider—universities not only equip students with "internal resources" to navigate a changing world but also serve as the source of innovative thinking and the core of pioneering research, guiding and setting standards for the healthy and harmonious development of society.
Once the "direction" is clear, Xue Yong also has strong "constructive" ideas—how to achieve the "road" to realize the direction. In this regard, Xue Yong is not ambiguous—we should build a pluralistic university structure like in the U.S., encourage private universities, and introduce market mechanisms. Due to the past system, universities like Peking University and Tsinghua University undoubtedly have an unfair monopoly advantage in market competition. What we need to do is reduce such advantages, not expand them through state funding. Direct state funding to these universities should be stopped, and an education voucher system should be implemented, transferring money through loans to students, allowing those with funds to choose which school to allocate educational resources to. Giants like Peking University and Tsinghua should be dismantled, reducing their scale to be closer to that of private universities. In this way, various universities will compete on a relatively equal level and scale, with survival of the fittest. Those universities with the most creative educational approaches will have a chance to eventually become the widely respected "world-class universities"—will these words make the "rent-seekers" who profit from education tremble?
If the misstep in Chinese education lies in "elitism," then the misstep in Chinese football lies in "boastfulness"—"football is a sport for the poor, as can be seen from Pelé's upbringing," yet Chinese football has become a "gala feast for the wealthy." In the eleven years of professionalization, billions of yuan have been burned, resulting in empty stadiums and repeated defeats, plus fraud, gambling, corruption, and internal conflicts within the football world. The "sports movement" in China gives a very poor impression. Where is the way out? Xue Yong takes the lead—"China's professional football in the future must learn from the lessons of the past decade, start from a low base, control costs, and pay athletes salaries comparable to ordinary people's. Only then can football earn its own money. Once Chinese football gains recognition on the world stage and domestic professional football becomes self-sustaining, Chinese football will be on the right track." I believe this "Xue Yong Plan" has a brighter future than any existing plan, and fans can compare for themselves. The key is to challenge the vested interests of the football world and let the fools lose their jobs! But in ten years, true professional football will take root and become profitable in China. By then, we can actively propose to the state that football funding be cut by 10% annually. In twenty years, the football association will not ask for a single penny from society, and instead, professional football in China will become a major tax contributor to the sports and entertainment industry, contributing billions of yuan in taxes annually, just like the three major professional sports leagues in the U.S."
What a great prospect! "Unfortunately," it will take another twenty years, and all we have are endless daydreams like "building world-class universities" and "breaking out of Asia to join the world." Therefore, whether it's education or football, Xue Yong's heartfelt opinions are often "fundamentally ignored." Xue Yong knows this too. In the postscript to Whose University, he says with heavy hearts—"I know China's 'national conditions,' and I also know that the Chinese education sector cannot accept my views in the short term. Precisely because of this, I solemnly predict: not only will the 'movement to build world-class universities' become a laughingstock in twenty years, but Chinese higher education at that time will face even deeper crises. In the worst-case scenario, the operation of Chinese universities may become like the already infamous Chinese professional football of the past decade—focused solely on input, neglecting output, with soaring educational costs and declining educational standards.
The issue of university education vouchers will eventually be raised; people will eventually reread this book Whose University. But I hope that by then, the 'tuition' we pay will not be too shocking."
As those closely tied to society, we had better not wait twenty years to recognize that Xue Yong truly has a wise vision.