Expansion sickness hits colleges

By Wen Ruimin

 China.org.cn, January 18, 2012

Swallowing another generation [By Jiao Haiyang/China.org.cn] 

The scale of university education in China has expanded greatly during the past decade, with more youngsters having the chance to attend university. However, this expansion has caused problems, which I have diagnosed as the "five illnesses" afflicting Chinese universities.

The first is commercialization.

Nowadays,commercials can be found everywhere on Peking University's campus. Anybody who has the money can find a stage here. China's universities keep increasing enrollment or run all kinds of classes simply to make a profit. The result is that teachers cannot focus on teaching and students cannot focus on their studies. Instead, they are driven by financial impulses. The root of this chaos is insufficient investment in education and growing inequality in the distribution of education resources.

In addition, many Chinese professors hold several titles simultaneously and therefore have little time for research and teaching. Therefore, the quality of undergraduates has declined sharply, while the teacher shortage has risen. The income gap between teachers also contributes to this phenomenon. This situation should be addressed by managing distribution, or some teachers may teach for purely financial reasons. This would turn universities into market places and distort their original purpose.

The second is "programization".

"Programization" is the endless pursuit of different kinds of programs, even those lacking in academic value. This huge waste of time and resources is due to the fact that the present academic production and managerial systems, especially those for scientific and engineering studies, need programs to realize measurement management. So teachers must obtain academic positions through programs. In addition, each program receives financial support, which is why many scholars are obsessed with programs.

Meanwhile, academic corruption is rife. Conferences, the assessment of achievements and qualifications and program approval procedures are mere formalities. Banquets, sightseeing trips, gift-giving, exploiting connections and making deals are the outcomes of these academic activities. And many professors live a "programized" life and seldom tutor undergraduates. This term, the fact that I am teaching undergraduates in the School of Literature and Journalism of Shandong University, was reported by the local newspaper. Amazingly, what I considered a routine duty was thought newsworthy! How serious the problem of programization is!

I believe that today's short-sighted view of university as merely a springboard to a better job has eroded the essence of both university culture and the character of the social elite.

The third are mergers.

More and more universities were swallowed up in the recent wave of mergers. Such mergers can be beneficial in terms of breaking the original interest groups and expanding and advancing educational systems. However, many universities, by increasing their size and scope, have lost their traditions and character.

For example, Wuhan Institute of Hydraulic and Electric Engineering and Wuhan Geodesy and Geomatics College have become schools of Wuhan University in central China. Their standards for publishing academic papers have improved. But their educational principles and management style have been eroded.

The fourth is officialdom.

University administrative staff are now ranked in much the same way as public servants. For example, some university positions are equal to the post of vice minister. This may help the school to obtain resources, but it has also introduced the concept of officialdom to academia. Some university leaders are appointed from outside the school and have no concept of how the university functions. Also, those officials with no promotion prospects choose to become president or secretary of a university. All of this has led to the inflated value of official titles on campus, and it's somehow pathetic to see how some professors compete with each other to become section chief. Such behavior is not in keeping with the ethos and atmosphere of a university. Administration is integral to scientific research and teaching, but it should be the servant, not the master of teaching and research.

I have found that some secretaries of schools or departments in some universities are very powerful. They direct deans or heads, and people address each other by their titles as if they were in government. In such an environment, how can we cultivate an academic environment ripe for "free and tolerant thinking"? The excessive value placed on official titles has poisoned the thoughts and judgment of intellectuals.

Fifth, and last, is the obsession with "movements."

China's past has witnessed the birth of several social movements. Today, we remain obsessed with movements in the name of "reform", "innovation" and "strategy". Such movements may have good intentions, but their results are questionable.

Education has a hysteretic nature and cannot be constantly subject to change. We must ensure that an appropriate period of study precedes any such change, and we must be patient enough to wait for results.

Universities should resist movements which superior departments launch in order to showcase their administrative achievements. I was dean of the Department of Chinese Language and Literature at Peking University for nine years. During this time, almost all Chinese departments in universities across China became schools. But I said: "We do not need to follow the trend."

In recent years, the Chinese department has striven to uphold good traditions and innovation. Thanks to the tolerance of Peking University's leaders, we are not forced to follow any movements. Running a school is not like running a factory. We put upholding good traditions before innovation to show the importance of the former. We do not support any "great leap forward" in education. What we can do, though, is stay true to the basic spirit of humanity and morality by putting them into practice.

The author is a professor in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature at Peking University.

温儒敏：中国大学的五种“重病”

温儒敏 山东大学文科一级教授、北京大学中文系教授

本报2011年12月18日的人文周刊·广角版曾对清华大学教授格非进行专访，并以专题报道的形式关注作家纷纷进入高校的现象。格非直言，“高校不见得比社会更纯洁”。高校之弊非止一端，原北京大学中文系主任温儒敏长年久居高校，深谙其中之道，特撰此文，指陈其五种“重病”———

这十多年来，高等教育规模扩大，中国已经成为世界上大学教育规模最大的国家之一。从精英教育走向大众教育，更多年轻人有机会上大学，这是巨大的成就。但是，从多数大学目前的情况看，前进中也出现新的问题，甚至是“重病”，我把它概括为“五病”———

“一病”：市场化

病例：北大校园到处都是广告横幅，谁有钱都可以在北大找到讲台

病因：教育投入仍然严重不足，教育资源分配越来越不均

病症：大学不断扩招，靠获取学费来维持运行；办各种班“创收”

病害：赚了一些钱，风气坏了，人心野了

这种趋向日益严重，对大学教育产生致命的伤害。原因是教育投入仍然严重不足，教育资源分配越来越不均。每年两会都有代表提案，要求加大对教育投入。这些年基础教育的投入的确增加了，但高等教育欠账很多。这是关键问题。国家投入不够，学校要自己去赚钱，不少大学只好不断扩招，靠获取学费来维持运行。还有就是“创收”（这个词对于学校来说很不好），办各种班，赚了一些钱，可是风气坏了，人心野了，老师哪有心思教学？现在学校的商业气氛越来越浓，越来越世俗、庸俗。

进北大校园看看，太热闹了，到处都是广告横幅，什么班都可以进来办，而且很多都是老板班、赚钱班。谁有钱都可以在北大找到讲台。结果弄得大学生刚进来就心急火燎，急于找各种赚钱门道。什么时候能让北大重新找回“博雅”的气氛呢？

再说老师的心态也受到影响。我们许多教授往往身兼数职，有的很少时间真正放在教学上、放在学生的学习上。中国有这么多好的年轻人，为什么培养不了？现在名教授都不教本科。为什么？全部为自己的利益去了，所以大学生的程度比以前明显降低。师资外流现象非常严重，更严重的是败坏了校风。北大有些院系教师的收入非常高，甚至可能比某些基础学科教师的收入高出十几倍甚至几十倍。容许一部分老师“先富起来”，多拿一些钱也无可厚非。问题是不能没有管理，否则有些教授可能就是为钱上课，而且造成校内贫富不均，两极严重分化，学校成了市场，人心搞得很势利，既不利于校风建设，也不利于学科建设。
“二病”：“项目化生存”

病例：在山东大学给本科生上课竟成了新闻

病因：现有学术生产管理体制的量化要求，特别是理科与工科的研究；追逐利益，项目都有钱

病症：没完没了争做各种项目。学术会议、成果鉴定、资格审查、项目审批玩手段走过场，吃喝、游玩、送礼、拉关系、作交易反倒成了实质内容

病害：浪费人生，浪费资源，学术腐败

所谓“项目化生存”，是对那种没完没了争做各种项目的描述，特别是那些很可能只是泡沫、没有多少学术价值的项目，不断对付着做，实在浪费人生，浪费资源。为什么要这样？年轻的老师不申请项目是不可能的，因为现有学术生产管理体制有这种量化要求，特别是理科与工科的研究，往往就是通过项目来实行的。还有，就是追逐利益，项目都有钱，有些老师其实就是奔着钱去申请项目的。这其实也是市场化的弊病。

现在学术腐败严重，假成果、假学问遍地都是，学术会议、成果鉴定、资格审查、项目审批过程普遍玩手段走过场，吃喝、游玩、送礼、拉关系、作交易反倒成了实质内容。现在很多人当上教授就整天过“项目化”生活了，很少给本科上课，是不正常的。我近30年几乎每隔一年就要给本科生上课，上个学期还给一年级上基础课。这学期来山东大学，学校很照顾我，不给我什么限制，可是我自己觉得既然当老师，上课是基本的工作，这学期就给文学院的本科生上课。本是份内的普通的事情，没想到此间报纸还当做新闻专门报道。可见现在“项目化生存”多么严重。

现在社会以实用技能为标准收罗人才，舆论更被市场的泡沫所左右。人们为谋生而学习，没有内在的事业冲动，上大学无非是毕业后好在人才市场上找到买主，卖个好价钱。这种短视的观念严重挖空大学文化的基石，腐蚀现代精英的人格品质。
“三病”：平面化

病例：吉林大学几乎把长春的主要几个大学全都合并

病因：追求大而全

病症：大学合并

病害：办学个性与特色丢失

大学越来越失去个性特色，就是平面化、均质化了。原因之一是都搞大而全，都在升格。大学合并本来也有好处，对50年代以来形成的分工狭窄、体制封闭、低水平重复、小而全的高校办学模式，尤其对打破多年的利益集团化、沼泽化有好处，利于“清淤消肿”。但许多大学合并，就是贪大求全，原有一些传统特点就丢失。

吉林大学几乎把长春的主要几个大学全都合并了，规模之大，令人感叹：不是吉林大学在长春，而是长春在吉大了。于是吉大自己原有水平也扯平了，特色淡化了。武汉原来有个水利学院、还有个测绘学院，都是非常有特色的，我上中学时就知道，现在合并到武汉大学了，融合一块了，文章发表的指标上去了，可是特色也不见了。北大幸亏没有和清华合并。大学办学个性与特色的丢失，是个大问题，现在都“平面化”了。

“四病”：官场化

病例：有的教授也争着去当处长

病因：大学官场化，谁当领导谁就得到更多资源

病症：在各种场合会看到人们互称官衔，就好象在政府机关里面一样

病害：知识分子丧失独立的思想和判断，失去头脑，失去灵魂

现在是按照官场那一套给学校管理人员套行政级别，学校也有所谓副部级、正厅级等等之分，动机也未必是坏的，可能是为了帮助学校争取资源吧。但后果很不好，助长学校的官本位风气。政府部门有些上不去的官员，就去大学做校长书记，还不是促使学校越来越官本位？院系一级的党委书记有的也高度职业化，都是外派的，不懂业务，就很难进入状态（这方面北大好一些，院系一级党政领导几乎全都是本院系的老师，不当这个“领导”了，就回去当老师）。

现在大学官场化，谁当领导谁就得到更多资源，以致有的教授也争着去当处长，有点可悲。不是处长不重要，是这种风气不适合学校。管理对于学校教学科研的运行不可或缺，非常重要，但管理不等于领导，而是服务教学科研（不是服务教师）。管理做好了应当很有成就感，但管理不应当是当官。
我到过一些学校，看到有些院系支部书记的权力都很大，可以支配院长、系主任，一级一级官阶很鲜明，在各种场合会看到人们互称官衔，就好象在政府机关里面一样。我当中文系主任多年，系里很少称呼我“温主任”的，那样称呼会让我不舒服。许多大学的官本位已经到了非常严重的地步。只要有一官半职，地位就比教授、老师、学生要高，甚至动辄可以决定他们的命运。在这样一个体制下面，怎么可能会有“思想自由，兼容并包”的学风！

更严重的是许多大学书记和校长职责分不清，说是党委领导下的校长负责制，可是“两个一把手”，党政不分，谁最终负责？往往就是谁强势谁就真正“一把手”，弄不好还彼此矛盾争斗，影响工作。这个问题好像很难解决，但总要想想办法，有所改进。官本位造成人身依附，造成知识分子丧失独立的思想和判断，失去头脑，失去灵魂。传统宗法制度和盘根错节的人际关系网的劣根滋长，腐蚀了近代以来形成的中国大学精神。

“五病”：“多动症”

病例：北大搞实验班，搞了几轮，搞不下去了，也没有总结，接着又搞“元培学院”

病因：主管部门往往为了显示政绩，搞“教育的GDP”

病症：不断改革、创新，不断搞什么“战略”、“工程”之类，名堂、花样让人目不暇接

病害：折腾效果值得怀疑

过去搞运动，反复折腾，是“多动”。现在也“多动”，是不断改革、创新，不断搞什么“战略”、“工程”之类，名堂、花样让人目不暇接。意图可能是好的，可是效果值得怀疑。

教育有滞后性，不能老是变动。有些试验要跟踪多年才能下结论。比如北大搞实验班，搞了几轮，搞不下去了，也没有总结，我称之为“无疾而终”。接着又搞“元培学院”，也是着急出经验，弄到现在全国都在摹仿。北大本科教育还是比较成功的吧，为什么要大动干戈？即使试验，也要有个过程，有跟踪。我们都有点沉不住气，老想改革，就是不愿意下功夫。比如我们大学教师到底在本科教育上面下了多少力气，这才是大问题。

上级主管部门往往为了显示政绩，搞“教育的GDP”，所以“多动”。但学校应当有自己主心骨，尽量抑制“多动”。我担任北大中文系主任9年，全国大学的中文系几乎全都“升级”为学院了，我说不必去跟风，即使要变学院，那也等全国的中文系都“升级”完了我们再升格吧。现在全都“升级”了，这里还是岿然不动。我不当系主任了，以后北大中文系是否升级为文学院，也就不可逆料了。我们大可不必在“名堂”上下功夫。

针对“多动”，我们这些年提倡“守正创新”，在比较艰难的条件下，教学科研以及课程建设还是维持在较好的水平。这也得益于北大的宽容，校方没有逼着我们“多动”。在许多情况下，改良比改革更切实。办教育和办工厂不一样，教育需要积累，不宜变动太过频繁。我们把“守正”放在“创新”前面，是想说明继承优良学术传统的重要性，基础性，不赞成浮躁的教育“大跃进”。我们能做的不过是要坚守最基本的人文道德精神，并且将之付诸于积极的建设。