Internationalization of universities | Marketization, Anglo-Americanization, and Homogenization - Losing Hong Kong's Value in Sinking Rankings

The British educational journal "Times Higher Education" (THE) announced the 2022 Asian University Rankings at the beginning of the month (June 1), and the top two are still Tsinghua University and Peking University - this news and last month's Renmin University of China, Nanjing University, In contrast, mainland universities such as Lanzhou University dropped out of the international university rankings.

Hong Kong, which has always been fascinated by "university internationalization" but cannot ignore the "national theme", is inevitably confused. How should we understand the international ranking of universities?

However, between "exit" and "chasing", what is more worthy of Hong Kong's consideration is whether our leading institutions of higher learning are overly involved in the international ranking game, thus forgetting "cultivating people with morality" and "economical economy" It only drives educational output with economic interests, which seriously distorts the ecology of the university and fails to make good use of various research results to lead social reform and progress?

Or is it just following the European and American standards, gradually dwarfing the cultural roots of the country and the value of Hong Kong's main body, and failing to achieve two-way integration, mutual assistance and win-win through internationalization?

City University of Hong Kong was voted the world's most international university in 2020, but fell out of the world's 170th in the 2021 ranking.

(Screenshot of City University website)

Institutions with unfair rankings

are given the wrong value

Let's take a look at the two news first.

In January 2020, City University of Hong Kong was named "The World's Most International University" according to the Times Higher Education 2020 THE World University Rankings.

The evaluation criteria include the proportion of foreign faculty members, the proportion of international students, the number of international collaborative papers, and global reputation, each of which accounts for 25% of the weight. 50% of the students (14,000 people) provide overseas exchange opportunities, and more than half of the faculty (3,000 people) are from overseas, so it stands out in the international competition.

However, in 2021, according to the 2021 Global International University Rankings assessed by the same institution according to the same scoring criteria, the University of Hong Kong, which has more than 35% international students among its 30,000 students, will become the world's number one; but it won the championship the previous year. The City University of Hong Kong has fallen out of the top 100 in the world, and if it goes back to 2019, City University is also not on the list.

The disparity between the two pieces of news has caused a series of doubts. First, when the publishing institution, evaluation criteria, and university profile have not changed much, why does CityU's international rankings fluctuate?

So is there a problem with CityU, or is there a problem with the ranking?

Second, what does the rating result of "Global International University" mean?

Does it reflect the level of university education, academics, and scientific research, the ability to attract local and non-local students to enroll, or the performance of English-taught teaching because there are many more overseas teachers and students?

But does "English culture" mean "internationalization"?

Third, why can the degree, level and capability of the “internationalization” of an institution be determined solely based on the above-mentioned four evaluation criteria that seem to involve an “international” element?

I believe some people will refute that, because this is an authoritative ranking recognized by the world, has a wide range of influence, and has always been effective.

It is undeniable that the UK's "Times Higher Education World University Rankings" and "QS World University Rankings (Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings)" are the ranking mechanisms for international university rankings that Hong Kong people often hear about.

However, the

——Because even if the rankings do have some reference value, many of the scoring criteria and calculation methods are still under discussion, and there has been controversy for a long time.

THE mainly refers to five indicators, including teaching (30%), research (30%), paper citations (30%), internationalization (7.5%), and knowledge transfer (2.5%); QS uses six indicators, including academic reputation (40%), paper citation rate (20%), teacher-student ratio (20%), employer evaluation (10%), proportion of international colleges (5%), proportion of international students (5%).

At first glance, the scoring mechanism makes sense, but if you study the details of the indicators, there are at least three shortcomings:

First of all,

, more emphasis is placed on “research” and “teaching” is despised, and international journals cited papers are used as important indicators, such as THE and “research”-related indicators in total accounted for 62.5% - it can be said that, The rankings are more reflective of "research level" rather than "educational quality";

Secondly,

, both rely heavily on questionnaires to collect data. For example, THE will conduct polls on "Quality Reputation" and "Reputation for Research" under "Teaching" and "Research", which together account for more than 33% , and QS will also invite tens of thousands of scholars and employers to score "academic reputation" and "employer evaluation", and the two scores together account for 50% - however, neither of the two institutions has made a clear explanation of the relevant indicators, more Without providing objective criteria, it may be difficult to ensure that the scoring can disregard impressions or prejudices, making the scientificity of the selection, which is already subjective, in doubt;

Finally,

, both THE and QS are commercial institutions, and QS has provided a star rating service of US$41,000 (about HK$320,000) since 2012. Institutions can use this to get one to one Super five-star rating opportunities, including audit services and the addition of "QS star files" in the web search interface, have been reported in Hong Kong's City University and Baptist University in recent years.

It is no wonder that many scholars have criticized that ratings are not directly related to the quality of institutions, but institutions still hand over the responsibility of judging academic achievements and defining educational excellence to for-profit organizations, allowing the other party to take what they want.

In addition to the questioning of the scoring criteria, there are also many criticisms that the ranking ignores the characteristics of institutions.

For example, Xu Zhihong, the former president of Peking University, once pointed out that the advantages of a university’s history and tradition cannot be uniformly evaluated through a single index system.

In this way, even internationally renowned and authoritative rankings cannot fully reflect the strength of the institutions being assessed.

However, because the general public is not omniscient and is accustomed to making decisions based on some clear and simplified information, the university rankings are still very marketable,

.

The international university rankings sponsored by QS and THE have certain reference value, but many of the scoring criteria and calculation methods are still under discussion, and there has been controversy for a long time.

(Hong Kong 01 cartography)

The dominance of economic utilitarianism has

lost the true meaning of "internationalization"

The problem is that the SAR government is still stuck in the quagmire of chasing international rankings even though it knows that there are many drawbacks in international rankings.

For example, in December 2010, the University Grants Committee (UGC), which dominates higher education resources, published a report titled "Prospects for Hong Kong's Higher Education System" by an overseas expert group, although it clearly pointed out ranking issues, such as international flows Due to the number of people, the public attaches great importance to the quality of teaching, but the ranking is more focused on research performance, etc., but he wrote that "the basis of these rankings may be controversial, but they are a recognized fact", and pointed out that "Once the rankings drop, there will be serious consequences." Consequences, including loss of local, regional and corporate support; reduced ability to attract outstanding teaching staff and students; and loss of opportunities to partner with high-quality institutions, etc.” – thereby requiring universities to provide high-quality education and compete for rankings.

The report "Prospects for Hong Kong's Higher Education System" also proposes that the UGC should formulate and implement internationalization strategies and indicators as soon as possible, including increasing funding for internationalization, recruiting international teaching staff, and recruiting international students.

After that, Hong Kong’s universities and colleges have been more willing to devote themselves to the torrent of competition for international rankings, because one of the UGC’s criteria for approving and allocating grants, the “Research Assessment Exercise” (RAE), is the expectation Institutions can achieve "internationalization" where "the knowledge base can keep pace with the rest of the world", making international ranking competition a parameter for institutional funding and donations.

What’s more, even the personal evaluation of high-level universities also depends on the international ranking and the funding and donations it brings. With the advancement of layers, the ranking has become a “necessary evil”, and most colleges and universities blindly push the valley to meet the ranking indicators. The number of publications and citations of papers deviates from the university's own job of educating people.

He Shunwen, President of the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, wrote a commentary on "Understanding the Controversies and Myths of University Internationalization" as early as 2013. He pointed out that the core problem is that

.

What is "Internationalization of Higher Education"?

UNESCO first published the "Strategic Document on the Reform and Development of Higher Education" in 1995, which listed internationalization, relevance and quality as the main aspects of world higher education.

Later, Dutch scholar Hans De Wit put forward three concepts through "Strategies for the Internationalization of Higher Education" - first, it is a process of combining international awareness with the teaching, research and service functions of universities; second, higher education Third, it emphasizes the formation of a global spirit and atmosphere through the internationalization of higher education.

By 2000, the World Trade Organization included educational services in the scope of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and defined the output of educational services as cross-border supply, overseas consumption, commercial presence, and the presence of natural persons, thereby accelerating the internationalization of education in local colleges and universities.

In the future, the atmosphere of "globalization" has become hot, and scholars have gradually deepened the discussion of "internationalization of higher education", advocating to train college students to become future leaders, actively respond to global challenges, and contribute to sustainable development, international solidarity, and world peace.

In the first ten years of the concept of "internationalization of higher education", it was dominated by the West.

However, judging from the development experience during that period, for example, according to the review of the paper "Incentives and Obstacles to the Internationalization of Higher Education in Hong Kong" written by Wu Xunrong, the then head of the Department of Education Policy and Leadership of the Hong Kong Institute of Education in 2010,

In the process of implementing "internationalization", colleges and universities around the world are either indulging in profit-oriented educational output, adopting economic utilitarianism-led policies, or even blindly copying British and American educational methods, ignoring the meaning and task of "internationalization" itself.

(Photo by Li Zetong)

Internationalization for the sake of internationalization The

idea of ​​internationalization is unclear The purpose is unclear

Hong Kong, which has always followed closely with the United Kingdom and the United States, is naturally involved in the whirlpool of "internationalization for internationalization's sake".

As early as the beginning of the return of Hong Kong, Tung Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive, had chanted the slogans of building Hong Kong into a "knowledge-based society", "providing quality education" and "regional education hub", so as to promote Hong Kong's economic development and enhance its international competitiveness. - However, his main policy direction is simply to monitor the resources and quality of universities through a UGC composed of many international experts.

In 2006, Donald Tsang also proposed in the "Policy Agenda" to promote Hong Kong to become a "regional education hub", and the reason was also based on the background that Hong Kong would become an international metropolis and a global city; he even appointed the then Chief Secretary for Administration, Hui Shi Yan, to preside over an event. The high-level inter-departmental steering committee has comprehensively reviewed the strategies for promoting the internationalization of Hong Kong's higher education, including amendments to regulations, student accommodation, financial support, institutional needs, etc., so as to cooperate with the development of Hong Kong into a regional education hub; in 2009, Donald Tsang even put the "Education" is designated as the "six advantageous industries" - however, the follow-up measures are only focused on how to increase the ratio of international teachers and students, that is, to increase the attractiveness of institutions from the supporting aspect.

The subsequent Leung Chun-ying government and the current Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor government followed suit, and no major breakthrough has been seen.

As a promising government, before launching a policy, it should carefully answer the four basic questions of "where it came from", "what is it", "why" and "how to do it", otherwise it will be hollowed out.

However, judging from the fact that the previous SAR governments have taken the train of "internationalization of higher education",

For example, according to the website of the UGC, which holds important resources for the internationalization of higher education institutions, in addition to the regular funding and the additional funding of 200 million yuan for the “Teaching and Research Project”, which all involve elements of “pursuing international rankings”, teaching The most complacent internationalisation measure by the HKGC seems to be its "advocacy work" - including raising $30 million between 2012 and 2015 to fund multicultural integration projects, setting up a Hong Kong pavilion at international fairs to promote the higher education sector, setting up cross-border The institution finder is used for students who intend to come to Hong Kong to search for information and support overseas exchange activities; and due to the satisfactory performance of the Hong Kong Pavilion, institutions have received another 12 million yuan in funding from 2016 to 2019; in addition, institutions have also received other funds to develop new markets, such as large international education conferences in South America.

This is inevitably questionable. Apart from publicity, the UGC seems to have only publicity.

For another example, looking at the relevant measures of "promoting internationalization" on the websites of the eight major public institutions of higher learning, they all focus on "building international strategic alliances", "English as the language of instruction", "creating an international teaching environment", and "improving foreign teachers". “Proportion of students”, “promoting international exchanges between teachers and students”, etc. (

), but basically there is no clear definition of “what is internationalization”, nor “why internationalization”, and the SAR government same.

As a result, the number of non-local students in major institutions has indeed made a "great leap forward" (

). If we take the comparison of student sources for UGC-funded courses in 2005/2006 before Tsang promoted internationalization and the latest in 2020/2021 as a reference, The number of non-local students increased from 4,774 (6%) to 19,490 (19.2%), of which mainland students accounted for the majority, increasing from 4,370 (5.5%) to 13,697 (13.4%), and students from other regions also increased from 404 ( 0.5%) to 5,883 (5.8%); therefore, the international rankings of universities and colleges are also quite impressive. Taking the 2006 and 2022 THE rankings as an example, HKU rose from 33 to 22, and CUHK rose from 50 to 39 , HKUST rose from 58 to 34.

The measures related to "promoting internationalization" on the websites of the eight major public institutions of higher learning are all around "building an international strategic alliance", "English as a language of instruction", "creating an international teaching environment", "increasing the proportion of teachers and students from other places", " Promoting international exchanges between teachers and students” and so on.

(Hong Kong 01 cartography)

The authorities clearly have a tendency to focus on foreign students over local students, which not only gives rise to the wrong perception of "grabbing for a degree" and unnecessary disputes, but also affects the training of local talents and the social structure.

(Hong Kong 01 cartography)

Forgetting the virtues and cultivating people, the economic benefit of the world and the people's own work leads

to the heavy cost of "de-localization"

However, the piling up of policies for internationalization's sake inevitably bears a heavy price of "de-localization".

First, taking the above comparison of student sources for UGC-funded courses as an example, although the number of non-local students has increased by 308% to 14,716, the authorities are reluctant to increase local higher education resources with the same effort, so the number of local students has only increased from 75,197. The number of people increased by 9% (7,111) to 82,308.

The authorities clearly have a tendency to focus on foreign students over local students, which

Second, teaching and research staff need to put a lot of effort into writing papers, and as a result, teaching performance is inevitably sacrificed, and universities become misnamed "dissertation factories."

Moreover, in order to cater to the pattern and taste of "internationalization", most of those papers have little to do with local issues, but focus on regional or global issues as their main research objects - so for a long time,

Taking the field of social sciences that should take the lead in understanding and changing society as an example, among THE global university rankings of social sciences this year, the University of Hong Kong ranks 33rd, Polytechnic University ranks 81st, Chinese University ranks 85th, and City University ranks 106th. , University of Science and Technology ranked 117th, which shows that they have achieved a lot; however, if you ask what research these institutions have actually released that are of great significance to solving the Hong Kong problem, I am afraid most people will not be impressed. From 1993 to 2017, only 96 out of 598 articles (16%) were found to be directly related to Hong Kong, and there has been a downward trend in the past decade.

As for the emerging field of innovation and technology in recent years, although the “knowledge transfer” of the THE score can be used as a reference index for relevant papers to contribute to social development, the relevant criteria only account for 2.5% of the score, and the scores obtained by Hong Kong universities are even more unsatisfactory, no wonder It has been criticized as "there is no room for excellent scientific research". For example, last year's highest score was Hong Kong University of Science and Technology with only 65.1 points, followed by Chinese University and Hong Kong University with 60.2 points and 58.5 points respectively, Polytechnic University with only 46 points, but Peking University and Tsinghua University in the same period. As high as 93.1 points and 100 points, the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University also have 75.4 points and 87 points.

Third, for colleges and universities, imitating European and American teaching models and improving the status of English language can be more directly connected with international standards and more conducive to promoting internationalization; however, they ignore and

.

Especially when Hong Kong has quite unique historical encounters, colonial experience and social conditions, if we cannot build an ideology with "Hong Kong, China" as the main value through education, we can only be torn apart by nationalization, internationalization and localization. .

In fact, as early as the British colonial period, the British Hong Kong government had regarded "Hong Kong higher education" as "the investment of the British Empire", directing the life pursuit of the ruled to the British upper class society, making them dwarfed into inferior citizens who lost themselves. .

For example, Hong Kong universities mainly follow the teaching model of European and American universities.

The article "The History and Current Situation of Hong Kong's Higher Education Internationalization" in the 9th issue of 2016, the educational journal "University (Research Edition)" sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Education Sciences, pointed out that the University of Hong Kong, established in 1911, although it was "established for China" However, the school system was based on the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, and English was used as the language of instruction; after the Communist Party of China established the People's Republic of China in 1949, it became the cradle of social elites who cultivated "Britishism" and Hong Kong and British bureaucrats; It was only when the Chinese University of Hong Kong was established in 1963 that it was evident that the British government of Hong Kong cared about local culture; while the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the third university established in 1988, followed the example of American universities.

Some Hong Kong elites who follow European and American standards may retort that when European and American civilization and culture are more advanced and when European and American knowledge systems are more mature, Hong Kong universities should follow them, so there is nothing wrong with using the European and American model.

However, the subtext of this argument is that “European and American culture is superior to others”, which is precisely the recognition and confidence of its discourse authority and value consciousness dominated by the European and American educational model.

Furthermore,

The withdrawal of mainland universities such as Renmin University, Nanjing University, Lanzhou University and other mainland universities from the international university rankings has caused a lot of controversy, but judging from the educational policy that President Xi Jinping has always emphasized to build a "China's independent knowledge system" to build a world-class university, it is not Surprisingly.

(file picture)

Constructing "China's Independent Knowledge System"

Hong Kong needs to re-understand "internationalization"

When it comes to subject value, the fact that mainland universities dropped out of international university rankings earlier was based on the construction of "China's independent knowledge system".

Although European and American cultures still dominate the global higher education policy, especially “internationalization”, in the past decade, with the improvement of national development strength and the opening of foreign exchanges, mainland higher education institutions While pursuing "internationalization", we also maintain a certain vigilance and continue to reflect on the two sides of "internationalization".

For example, as early as 2012, Huang Jin, the then president of China University of Political Science and Law, and Wu Handong, the then president of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, and other scholars have put forward three very important points -

.

In 2013, the then Vice President of the University of Macau, He Shunwen, also put forward a similar view, arguing that

.

He reiterated that although "national center" and "small island mentality" are not desirable, "university internationalization" is only a process and means, not the ultimate goal.

He suggested that when formulating and implementing "internationalization" strategies, colleges and universities should first define principles and values, including safeguarding national cultural identity, independent and equal participation, academic quality assurance, local and international responsibilities, and cultural and linguistic diversity.

When he became president of Hong Kong's Hang Seng University in 2018, he indicated that Evergrande would not invest resources to compete for rankings.

President Xi Jinping has always emphasized "Chinese characteristics", because the country has a unique history, culture, ideological pursuit, and social nature, so the development path must have its own characteristics. It reflects China's position, Chinese wisdom, and Chinese values, as well as the theme of the times, practical requirements, and its own characteristics.

Therefore, he is also very concerned about the construction of "China's independent knowledge system".

For example, on June 30, 2020, the "Overall Plan for Deepening the Reform of Education Evaluation in the New Era" adopted by the Comprehensive Deepening Reform Committee of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China put forward higher requirements for the development of "educational evaluation systems and mechanisms": "for different subjects and different learning stages" , Different types of education characteristics, improve result evaluation, strengthen process evaluation, explore value-added evaluation, improve comprehensive evaluation, focus on eliminating the stubborn malaise of only scores, diplomas, papers, and hats, and establish a scientific education evaluation that meets the requirements of the times System and mechanism.” Another example, when Xi Jinping inspected Renmin University of China on April 25 this year, he once again mentioned that educational institutions must answer the fundamental questions of “who, who, and how to cultivate people”, and reiterated that “building China Distinctive, world-class universities cannot follow others and simply use foreign universities as the standard and model. Instead, they must take root in China and blaze a new path to build a world-class university with Chinese characteristics.”

In this way, it is not difficult to understand that Renmin University of China, Nanjing University, and Lanzhou University dropped out of the international university rankings.

However, "exiting" does not mean "establishing". Therefore, "it is not easy to follow other people's backs" and "it is not easy to use foreign universities as the standard and model". A new path for a world-class university with Chinese characteristics", I believe that there is still a long way to go to build "China's independent knowledge system".

According to the traditional thinking of Hong Kong elites, they may think that Hong Kong higher education institutions need to follow the "national theme" and withdraw from the international rankings; however, what is more worthy of reflection for Hong Kong is not only our "international rankings" in different fields, Blindly following "international standards" and "international indicators" is our new understanding of "internationalization". I believe this is also a major challenge for Chief Executive-designate Li Jiachao in the next five years - how to lead Hong Kong to re-establish the connotation of internationalization