Diversification or homogenization: how governments and markets have combined to (re)shape Chinese higher education in its recent massification process

Abstract

The expansion and diversification of higher education are twin phenomena that have been associated with the development of higher education in many countries around the world. This study attempts to use enrolment expansion as a lens to examine the effects of governmental intervention and market forces on diversification of the Chinese system, which has gone through the most profound changes of institutional patterns and the largest expansion ever seen in the world higher education community. Forming an analytical framework from the population ecology perspective, the resource dependency perspective and the institutional isomorphism perspective, this study investigates programmatic as well as institutional diversification of a population of 594 Chinese universities at the end of 2001. A result of these changes is the impulse towards more comprehensive patterns of knowledge, with the universities seeking to broaden their curricular coverage. Paralleling this pattern of programmatic convergence, Chinese universities are being structured in a hierarchical way according to functions and goals.

Reflections on the Social Role of Contemporary Chinese Universities in the Reform Era

“…After the founding of the People's Republic of China, in 1952, the new government reorganized higher education along Soviet lines, such that higher education institutions were directly operated by either the Ministry of Education (MOE) or such other central ministries as the Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Water Resources and Electric Power, the Ministry of Metallurgical Industry, the Ministry of Justice, or a provincial government. This model, whereby each higher education institution was clearly affiliated to a governmental body, lasted for the next near 40 years (Zha, 2009).…”

“…Under this new circumstance, universities and colleges would have a more independent legal status, as the law details "the autonomy in seven domains that Chinese higher education institutions can now enjoy: student admission, specialization establishment, teaching affairs, research and service, international exchange and cooperation, internal structure and personnel management, and property management" (Zha, 2009, p. 45). The law also gave formal legitimacy to the "Presidential Responsibility" system, meaning the university presidents would become responsible to formulate their own institutional policies and long-term development plans, as well as to set their own strategic goals and define their own academic focus in order to compete successfully (Zha, 2009). For example, according to Article 34 of the "Higher Education Law," "Higher education institutions shall, on the basis of the needs of teaching, act on their own in drawing up their teaching programs, compiling teaching materials and making arrangements for their teaching activities" (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 1998).…”

“…The national government, for its part, directly manages only a small number of key institutions which function as models for the rest on how to serve the nation. It was expected that the transferred responsibilities and powers would enable local higher education development to meet society's demand (Zha, 2009). By 2010, 75 universities were supported and managed by the MOE, and another 39 universities, colleges and professional higher education institutions in the areas of defense, sports and civil aviation continued to be supported and managed by 20 corresponding ministries or special national organizations.…”

“…Students were not only charged no tuition, but were also provided with free housing and stipends for food and other expenses by the government. In return, on graduation, they were obliged to follow job assignments according to state plans (Zha, 2009). This was possible in a highly selective system that educated fewer than 5 of the age cohort, but with the decision to move to mass higher education in the 1990s, the provision of housing and other services became an obviously heavy burden for universities.…”

“…From 1994, 37 institutions participated in a pilot scheme to charge tuition, and the fee levels were raised dramatically after 1995 (Zha, 2009). By 1997, tuition fees had been made compulsory for all students.…”