Chinese and American Higher Education: Challenges

Last Friday, Professor William Kirby, former Dean of Harvard college, grandmaster of all things Asia, spoke about the challenges facing Chinese and U.S. universities in the 21st century. He was, as usual, very well spoken and brought up some interesting points. Here are notes: (yes this is belated; work never ceases)

• There has been a huge growth in higher ed. in China over the past 7 years, a revolutionary growth comparable to that which occurred at the beginning of the 20th century when the examination system was overthrown. After education was slowly rebuilt in the 80s after the cultural revolution, there was a steady increase in college enrollment (from ~800K in 1989 to ~3 million in 1999), but then a sharp increase over the past few years (to ~15 million in 2005, some estimates around 26 million right now), as for the first time China is commited to democratize higher education.


• More stats: 15% of young people are in school, this is projected to grow to 40% by 2020. China now produces more PHds annually than any other country in the world. The government spending on education is several times larger than that spent by European nations.


• Criticisms: as the number of students rise, the number of faculty has not been increasing proportionately; the quality of the faculty is feared to be poor.


• Brings up the question, what does it mean to be an educated person?


• Kirby was asked by Chinese university leaders about the Harvard education, the core curriculum. Though American universities are now regarded as the best in the world, they were not always so. 100 years ago the leading schools were German, and Harvard only became superior by copying the German models in the 19th century and by other international borrowing. So though Chinese schools are not regarded as leaders now, it may change (Beida University is already ranked #14 in the world by the Times Educational Supplement).


• Though Harvard is regarded as a model for education, it has had a history of changing models, of presidents who think everyone should take a set of foundation courses to those who didn't want any requirements.

What is the role of general education? This is an important question especially for those universities who are distinguished for their faculty research, not teaching.

• Should seek to cultivate values in students different from those of the professions they will inhabit, foundation values, awareness of public issues. Should not just train specialists, but promote a commitment to lifelong learning, so one can be truly independent of mind when one graduates.


• One has to recommit to the humanities at the core of education, and keep institutions open to ideas from many sources; important in this age of increasing specialization


• Have to figure out how to value teaching as well as research when most awards out there are concentrated in research (or consulting). Without students, the faculty wouldn't be there.


• How to promote opportunity, increases access, fairness in admissions. How to engage in self criticism; to review how, what, and why of what we're teaching. Each generation can craft their own idea of what a general education means. (Beida faculty were surprised when Kirby brought up the idea of their voting on curriculum changes.)

Why do we have higher education at all?

• Some reasons: to serve the state, society. To have better citizenry. To get a job (not a bad reason)


• American education is special: there is a stubborn commitment to liberal education.


• Need to promote general education because otherwise researchers and students will keep interacting on more narrow ground.


• Chinese modern experience has shown what life can be in the absense of humanities: before under the examination system, a humanities education was the only education that statesmen received. From 1905 to now, education has drifted away from humanities, to science and engineering, to promote state power and technology. The government has an enormous faith in the power of technology and applied sciences. (Technocracy was translated by Chinese to mean "dictatorship of the engineers") In 1949, 4% of students were majoring in humanities.


• Now, there is the beginning of a return to liberal education in China. Beida, Fudan, Peking Universities have introduced general education curriculums. They recognize that an education without the humanities is incomplete.


• John F. Kennedy speaking at Amherst: "When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment."

Then during the Q&A:

• The rewards for pedagogy are much lower in China than in the U.S. Levels of financial aid are also much less, even at elite universities. There is no system of federal loans or other financing available.


• When Premier Wen Jiabao came to speak at Harvard, he wanted to speak at Sanders Theater, where Jiang Zemin had spoken previously. But at that time Michael Sandel was having his last Justice class, and refused to move even when Kirby asked. Another option would be Memorial Hall, but the last person from China who spoke there was the Dalai Lama, so that was out. Finally the Premier spoke at a place most fitting for a Chinese Premier in the 21st century, Burden hall at Harvard Business School. [transcript of the event]


• Though there are stories of corruption in the admissions process in college and high school levels, of students being admitted in exchange for "donations," there are not many stories about corruption of the examination system. If one does well, one will be admitted to a school of the expected level.

Overall, a fantastic talk.