The Chinese government recently launched a number of initiatives focused on improving university teaching and learning outcomes. They aim at cultivating high-caliber talent independently, which is crucial for China’s long-term goal of national development. Such initiatives, however, are not without challenges and pitfalls.

Ior the past two decades, China has vigorously supported its universities in order to boost research performance and outputs. As a result, priority has been given to funding the research dimension of universities. This strategy has effectively rendered China the world’s top research paper producer in sciences and technology, overtaking the United States around 2018. The Nature Index Annual Tables rank institutions across the world according to their contributions to the natural- and health-sciences journals tracked by the Nature Index database. In 2024, Nature Index lists seven Chinese institutions in the top 10 (vs. only one US university), and 38 Chinese institutions in the top 100 (compared with 35 US counterparts). In return, Chinese universities have benefitted hugely from such outcomes in terms of raising their global ranking positions. Such a triumph, however, did not come without setbacks—primarily at the expense of teaching and learning, or the cultivation of students in Chinese universities, as attention and resources are greatly prioritized research activities.

For example, the Chinese government launched and funded numerous global talent programs to energize research dynamics in the universities. Among them, the best-known is the Thousand Talents Program; others include the Chang Jiang Scholars Award Program, the Spring Bud (Chunhui) Program, the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, and the High-End Foreign Expert Recruitment Program, to name a few. Such programs embody explicit state will and determination. They not only effectively supply high-end research personnel but also essentially steer priority to the research dimension of universities.

Until recently, there have been almost no equivalent initiatives aimed at the educational dimension of universities. Thus, not surprisingly, even students in the top-notch universities complain about their experiences on campus. Many have noted that many students appear to be lacking in motivation for learning, choosing to spend their time in their rooms, rather than in class. Meanwhile, teachers are accused of focusing exclusively on their research activities, resorting to lecturing directly from texts and failing to update their curricula or pedagogical approaches. Student learning has suffered from these tendencies. One study comparing the STEM skills of Chinese students with peers from India, Russia, and the United States, for example, found that Chinese STEM undergraduates demonstrated declining skill levels over four years and argued that this unfortunate outcome was attributable to institutional inadequacy in curricula and program design. In order to address these concerns, recent years have witnessed China’s new and explicit effort toward enhancing the educational dimension of its universities.

Recent State Initiatives Focusing on the Educational Dimension

Three major initiatives came forth in recent years at the state level which directly or exclusively concern the educational dimension of Chinese universities. One is the “Basic Subject Pinnacle Students Cultivation Scheme” (nicknamed “Zhumulangma Scheme”), which was officially launched in 2020 on the basis of a pilot program in the 2010s. This scheme is funded by earmarked allocations directly from the central government and aims to create 260 “nurturing bases” in selected Chinese universities, including 190 in STEM fields, 10 in medical sciences, and 60 in humanities and social sciences. For now, 21 top-notch Chinese universities have been selected to house such mechanisms. The second initiative is the “Basic Subject Recruitment Reform Pilot Program” (abbreviated as “Strengthening the Basic Program”), which is designed to recruit and nurture high-performing students who have the potential to contribute to China’s strategic goals for national development. This program is now being implemeted in 39 top-tier (the “Double First-Class Project”) universities in the country. The most recent initiative, codenamed “101 Program,” represents China’s systemic approach to heightening and transforming university education. Launched by the ministry of education in 2021, it was designed to address all the essential components of university teaching and learning: curricula, textbooks, teaching personnel, and industry-research-education integrated practicum platforms in the key subject areas, pledging to lift them to “first-class” standards. There are currently 78 universities involved in the “101 Program,” and they take on “first-class” tasks in 10 key areas: computer sciences, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, foundational medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, economics, philosophy, and artificial intelligence.

Behind these initiatives and efforts are China’s urgent needs and ambitious goals of nurturing outstanding talent for national development. A vice minister of education explicitly stated three types of such talent. The first type refers to top-caliber research talent in basic subject areas—those who can make breakthrough discoveries in fundamental research. The second type concerns prominent strategic talent in the areas of urgent needs—those who could practically connect to the frontiers of technological and industrial development. The last type relates to innovative entrepreneurial talent—those who can be agents for integrating university-based innovation resources with the fundamental needs of local industrial development and for fostering the transformation and commercialization of accomplishments in sciences and technology. Should these initiatives be fulfilled, China would gain a whole chain of talent, capable of moving from zero to one (i.e. invoking and discovering new innovations), and from one to N (i.e. scaling and optimizing validated innovations). When such goals are achieved, China would be able to build its independent knowledge and innovation systems, which is arguably far more significant than its current leading position in the global paper race.

Preliminary Discussions of Significance and Pitfalls

China’s shifting gears toward strengthening educational dimensions in the universities bears far-reaching significance, particularly amid intensifying geopolitical tensions with the United States and its allies. The China–US relationship is evolving toward “adversarial antagonism,” which entails an enduring process of hamstringing each other—determined by the massive size and strength of these two countries. In such an adversarial competition, the force and growth of talent and innovation would stand out as a key actor—if not a decisive one—given the nature and essence of the current knowledge-based economy. Following this logic, China’s recent initiatives focused on cultivating the students within universities appear to be strategic and visionary, aiming as they do at long-term goals and gains. It is also essential, as the world may be reaching the apex of globalization, in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese students have received advanced education and training in Western universities (North American universities in particular) and then returned to serve China’s national development. If antagonism between China and the U.S. continues, this trend may not continue. Put succinctly, China needs to build an independent and efficacious way of ensuring talent cultivation, especially high-caliber students and academics who have the capacity to usher in disruptive innovations.

Given these needs, it is not surprising that the current educational initiatives lean toward STEM areas, promising the creation of new and/or disruptive innovations for technology transformation and knowledge commercialization. Nevertheless, such a focused approach does raise concerns around the cultivation of critical thinking among high-caliber students, a process which benefits from engagement with the humanities and social sciences. The same study mentioned earlier also compared critical thinking among American, Chinese, Indian, and Russian undergraduates, and found that Chinese students showcased a significant decline in critical thinking levels over four years as well: 17 percent for top-tier university students, and 68 percent for students in other universities. Critical thinking and innovative skills might not entirely overlap, but they are at least supplementary. The reality of declining critical thinking levels among Chinese university students could pose a critical challenge to cultivating high-caliber talent in the universities, despite the promise of recent reforms.

Qiang Zha is associate professor at the Faculty of Education, York University, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].