Meritocracy, Financial Investment, and Education Equity in Higher Education in China

Jiali Xu, Jason Cong Lin
{"title":"Meritocracy, Financial Investment, and Education Equity in Higher Education in China","authors":"Jiali Xu, Jason Cong Lin","doi":"10.53964/jmer.2023012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study explores how the ideas of meritocracy are reflected in the government officials’ financial investment in higher education in China, and how this relates to education equity. Methods: Given the important position of higher education in the occupational ladder and social structure, and the fact that higher education and diplomas have become one of the main criteria for promoting educational officials, this study uses meritocracy as the theoretical framework to conduct an analysis regarding the educational backgrounds of members of the leadership teams of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, and various provincial government departments of education and finance in the People’s Republic of China. It adopts content analysis as a method, which can quantitatively analyze the proportion of official education composition and qualitatively reveal the potential meaning of the proportion. Results: Findings show that merits have been internalized into value pursuits in various fields of society, especially in the promotion of officials and the education ecosystem that this study focuses on, which impedes education equity in Chinese higher education. Conclusion: Nowadays, universities are no longer lofty ivory towers. Their pursuit of rankings, reputation, and performance has its urgency and rationality. However, excessive attention to achievements and efficiency will vacillate the traditional academic, cultural, and educational nature of universities, making their essence increasingly numerous and jumbled. The pursuit of merit should be directed towards a more noble destination to cultivate new generations with ontology and self-consciousness for the realization of educational utopia. The role of governments at all levels should not be as stakeholders, performance reviewers, or spectators from afar, but as supporters, contributors, and leaders in rebuilding a fair, pure, and united education ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":211051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern Educational Research","volume":"4 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53964/jmer.2023012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study explores how the ideas of meritocracy are reflected in the government officials’ financial investment in higher education in China, and how this relates to education equity. Methods: Given the important position of higher education in the occupational ladder and social structure, and the fact that higher education and diplomas have become one of the main criteria for promoting educational officials, this study uses meritocracy as the theoretical framework to conduct an analysis regarding the educational backgrounds of members of the leadership teams of the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, and various provincial government departments of education and finance in the People’s Republic of China. It adopts content analysis as a method, which can quantitatively analyze the proportion of official education composition and qualitatively reveal the potential meaning of the proportion. Results: Findings show that merits have been internalized into value pursuits in various fields of society, especially in the promotion of officials and the education ecosystem that this study focuses on, which impedes education equity in Chinese higher education. Conclusion: Nowadays, universities are no longer lofty ivory towers. Their pursuit of rankings, reputation, and performance has its urgency and rationality. However, excessive attention to achievements and efficiency will vacillate the traditional academic, cultural, and educational nature of universities, making their essence increasingly numerous and jumbled. The pursuit of merit should be directed towards a more noble destination to cultivate new generations with ontology and self-consciousness for the realization of educational utopia. The role of governments at all levels should not be as stakeholders, performance reviewers, or spectators from afar, but as supporters, contributors, and leaders in rebuilding a fair, pure, and united education ecosystem.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国高等教育中的择优录取、财政投入与教育公平
研究目的本研究探讨中国政府官员对高等教育的财政投入如何体现任人唯贤的理念,以及这与教育公平之间的关系。研究方法:鉴于高等教育在职业阶梯和社会结构中的重要地位,以及高等教育和文凭已成为教育官员晋升的主要标准之一,本研究以任人唯贤为理论框架,对中华人民共和国教育部、财政部以及各省级政府教育和财政部门领导班子成员的教育背景进行分析。研究采用内容分析法,定量分析官员学历构成比例,定性揭示比例的潜在含义。研究结果研究结果表明,功利已经内化为社会各领域的价值追求,尤其是在本研究关注的官员晋升和教育生态系统中,这阻碍了中国高等教育的教育公平。结论如今,大学不再是高高在上的象牙塔。它们对排名、声誉和绩效的追求有其迫切性和合理性。但是,过度关注成绩和效率,会使大学传统的学术性、文化性和教育性发生偏移,使大学的本质变得越来越多、越来越杂。对功利的追求应指向更崇高的目标,为实现教育乌托邦培养具有本体和自觉的一代新人。各级政府的角色不应是利益相关者、政绩评判者、远观者,而应是重建公平、纯净、团结的教育生态系统的支持者、贡献者、引领者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Influencing Factors of Chinese EFL Learners' Online Interactive Learning Taiwanese Teachers’ Beliefs Toward EFL Learner Autonomy and Their Practices in High School The Agential Causes of Business Management Students in the Implementation of the Full Virtual Teaching The Agential Causes of Business Management Students in the Implementation of the Full Virtual Teaching Eating Habits and School Performance in Students of Primary Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1