Chinese Universities – Hotbeds of Conservatism
Last night I attended a presentation about the future of business education in China and the US – conducted by a group of very impressive business undergrads. Two teams of students – the Chinese represented by Jiao Tong University’s Antai College of Economics and the Americans from NYU’s Stern School of Business – spoke about the issues and challenges facing the undergraduate business school graduating class of 2019 (i.e.: 10 years from now). While not a debate, each team represented the distinct point of view from their respective institution.
I was struck by two things. First – both groups of undergrads are very much ‘with the program’. Neither side recommended sweeping changes or tearing down of walls. Each side wanted to see administrators execute stated policy more consistently and thoroughly. They critiqued – they didn’t propose and they didn’t rant.
Second – where there were differences between the Chinese and American views, each side defended their system’s approach and methodology. The NYU speakers admired their own school’s commitment to CSR (corporate social responsibility) and international education. The Jiao Tong students would like to get more international exposure and in-class discussion, but saw the Chinese emphasis on lectures and testing as justified and appropriate. Both groups called for adjustments – but also acknowledged that progress was being made.
Anyone who believes that modern Chinese students represent a voice of populist discontent with their system or leadership is very much mistaken. These young people support and reinforce the status quo in China – and they are extremely conscious of it.
Who is calling for change?
The loudest voices for radical reform of the Chinese education system seem to be coming from the New York Times op-ed section and McKinsey & Company. The Jiao Tong sophomores and juniors I heard from acknowledged that the Chinese system emphasizes texts and tests a bit too much – but they didn’t seem overly impressed with the American system of education either. Their view was that universities are about knowledge – and texts are the best source of that knowledge. The Chinese students spoke about refinements and improvements they would like to see, but they seem to feel that their system is functional and effective.
Leaders – not profiteers
I asked each side to rank the goals of undergrad business programs in order of importance – career preparation, developing leadership skills, or prepping students for graduate studies. BOTH sides ended up with the same priorities: Leadership first and career second. Although about 40% of the student audience had plans for go on to grad school, no one seemed to think that preparing students for further study was a priority.
Status quo is ok.
Students from both sides called for incremental changes and refinements to their existing systems. If Chinese students are yearning for increased intellectual freedom and new avenues of expression, then they are keeping that desire quiet. While the NYU students emphasized the benefits of group collaboration, creativity and presentation skills, the Jiao Tong students seemed to be unwilling to sacrifice lecture or study time for soft-skills development. The Chinese representatives were satisfied with their school’s ambitious curriculum and didn’t seem to see any alternative to their existing lecture/exam format.
We are where we are going to end up.
Westerners expecting China’s educated middle class to spearhead tremendous social change aren’t wrong – but they are late. They’ve had the changes. The present status quo in China’s major urban centers seems to be a pretty good indication of where China is going to end up. China’s middle class is emerging into a conservative group that has no intention of discarding or altering basic Chinese cultural characteristics and societal norms. Under their leadership, China will change incrementally and execute on traditional Chinese ideals more consistently and effectively. This is where we are going to end up in China.