Research on the Legal Control System of Higher Education Quality

Author: Mou Yanlin
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-12-01
Features: This book is divided into six chapters, which are: Chapter 1: Why We Talk About the Quality of Higher Education, Chapter 2: The Monitoring (Supervision) System of Higher Education Quality in China, Chapter 3: The Re-Monitoring System of Higher Education Quality, Chapter 4: The Accountability System for Higher Education Quality in China, Chapter 5: The System for Redress of Higher Education Quality Responsibility, and Chapter 6: The Construction of the Quality Awareness (Concept) System of Higher Education in China. This book mainly includes the following aspects:
1. Higher Education Quality Monitoring System. In these two chapters, we believe that quality is the lifeline of higher education, and the higher education quality monitoring system is the guarantee for higher education to develop towards orderliness and high-quality standards. We argue that the higher education quality monitoring system is composed of an internal supervision system and an external supervision system, which work closely together to protect the quality of higher education. Regarding the internal monitoring system of higher education quality, we analyze the various problems currently existing in higher education quality supervision and identify the root cause as a lack of innovation and adaptability in the system. We attempt to reconstruct it. For the external monitoring system of higher education quality, we believe it should be based on the external survival environment of higher education. From the perspective of subjects, the construction of the external monitoring mechanism should primarily address the following relationships: government and universities, society and universities, and student families and universities.
2. Higher Education Quality Re-Monitoring System. The internal monitoring of higher education quality is essentially a mechanism that demonstrates self-supervision. If we turn the perspective around, self-supervision is a mechanism to prevent the idea of "I may not be me." If "I may not be me," then the completeness and effectiveness of self-supervision become problematic. Therefore, complete self-supervision is difficult to control "self-behavior." In our "government" (superior or peer) supervision, we prefer "fire-alarm-style" supervision, where the main methods involve listening to reports from universities and brief field research, making supervision more likely to remain superficial rather than being implemented effectively. This may be due to insufficient incentives. Regarding social supervision and family supervision, due to a lack of corresponding legislative support and government backing, they seem to lack "legitimacy." Crucially, the monitors themselves may collude. This raises the well-known question, "Who supervises the supervisors?" We believe that re-supervision is an effective form of governance to combat corruption in supervision.
3. Higher Education Quality Accountability System. It is well-known that one of the fundamental principles of law is the combination of responsibility, power, benefit, and effectiveness. The basic meaning is that power is determined by responsibility, responsibility comes first, responsibility and power go hand in hand, responsibility leads to benefit, and effectiveness is central. Clearly, responsibility is the basic factor. Higher education quality responsibility provides the principle for the current higher education quality system, measuring to what extent a person deviates from the standards required to maintain order (higher education quality). Higher education quality responsibility means preventing unlawful acts from disrupting the legitimate expectation of citizens guaranteed by law. Through it, disturbances and disappointments can be mitigated and eliminated. Conversely, we believe that the purpose of any rule or even a system architecture is indeed prevention, but it cannot be denied that a rule or system without enforcement and a corresponding accountability mechanism may become a mere piece of paper due to a lack of authority. Therefore, the construction of the higher education quality accountability system is highly necessary.
4. Higher Education Quality Redress System. "There must be redress for every right," and "a right without redress is not a true right." This shows that redress is the last line of defense against the infringement of rights. High-quality law is achieved when there is a stable and harmonious balance between the sufficiency of redress and the quantification of responsibility. From the perspective of the theory of the relationship between means and purpose, the relationship between responsibility and redress is that redress is the purpose, and responsibility is determined by redress. Hegel pointed out that the realization of purpose cannot be done without mediation. Responsibility is the mediation for the realization of redress, and redress is the last resort of responsibility. In this chapter, we argue that the fundamental basis of higher education quality responsibility redress is constitutional redress; litigation redress is the dominant form of higher education quality responsibility redress; and extrajudicial redress is a beneficial supplement to higher education quality responsibility redress.
5. Higher Education Quality Concept System. "For any educational system to be meaningful and effective, it must be based on a clear, well-thought-out, and rational philosophy or worldview, and must act according to certain creeds: such as the nature of humanity and the nature of all humanity, the value system of individuals and society, and the value system that is considered most worthy of mastering." Whether it is reforms from the bottom up or from the top down, whether it is radical reforms or gradual reforms, it must take into account social acceptability and the public's concepts. The institutional innovations we are undertaking regarding higher education quality must seek a certain conceptual system to support and align with them. We believe that our higher education quality awareness (concept) system should be one that is based on the current common concepts of the social group and highlights individual concepts. This is the cornerstone that supports us in accurately and firmly adhering to the system. Therefore, we believe that the higher education quality awareness (concept) system is composed of concepts such as people-centeredness, customer satisfaction, diversified development, and rule-of-law governance.