Search

International student education in China has been continuously changing in response to the rapid social transition since the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949. Adopting a historical perspective, this scholarly paper begins with an analysis of characteristics of international student education in China in terms of rationales, role of government, and international students. Several challenges are then identified and this paper concludes with observations on future trends of international student education development, with a special focus on the implications of “the Belt and Road”. This paper contributes to a better understanding of China’s role as an emerging host nation of international students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A great deal of research has addressed the tension between economic globalization and local cultural identity, and the tension between convergence in global policy objectives and divergence in local practices, but research has not explored the impact of the complex interactions between these tensions on an individual university, especially in relation to university autonomy. This paper attempts to bridge this gap. Based on a case study of Tsinghua University in China, this paper explores the university's role in three interrelated processes: the incorporation of international experience into higher education, in order to respond to economic globalization; the reinforcement of political education, as a means of preserving the state-prescribed cultural identity; and the quest for autonomy, to facilitate the university's move towards world-class status. Tensions raised by the interaction of these processes will also be discussed. This paper concludes by applying the concept of ‘glocalization’—i.e., ‘thinking and acting both globally and locally’—as a means of understanding the complex interrelations of global, national, and local factors that inform the translation of global imperatives into local realities in the context of Tsinghua. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on an analysis of agreements signed between 201 Chinese state universities and institutes, and foreign university partners, this paper identifies four distinct levels of agreements and discusses how they can be used by foreign universities seeking to enter the China market. The paper also discusses how agreements have changed over time-that is between 1996 and 2000. Some preliminary remarks are also made about whether there is link between the level of agreement signed and location-that is, for example, whether there are more “higher level agreements” signed in more westernised and “open” cities of China. The data indicates that this is so but that more remote and less developed parts of China are also chasing higher level and more complex agreements. The agreements reflect the opening of the state higher education system in China to wide ranging cooperation with Foreign universities and, from a foreign university perspective, provides an entry framework which can be used to identify appropriate levels and forms of agreements which can be negotiated with Chinese university partners or potential partners. The research provides a framework in which future research can be undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Under the major educational reform movement in the Chinese Mainland, which began in 1985, higher education was considered the most important apparatus for national development. The Ministry of Education initiated ‘Project 985’ to develop two top national universities into world-class universities. As part of this project to raise educational quality and academic standing, the Ministry of Education carried out a reform of the university personnel system. The reform aimed to launch a new system of employment practices based on performance and contract, with an emphasis on competition and rewards. This research focuses on the severe constraints academics at a sample university in China faced at the state, university and faculty level. First, at the state level, the state directly set the direction of academic research. Second, at the university level, the new employment reform was imposed using a top-down model. Most academics conformed to it but some employed a ‘double bookkeeping’ strategy. ‘Administrative domination’ also reflected a centralised approach at the university. Third, at the faculty level, a few academic-administrators held most of the decision making power. Academics urged the university to offer a more supportive environment for conducting genuine scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]