Its corresponding mode is "strict entry and wide exit", which is the mode we are adopting now. People who enter the university are strictly selected. Of course, fewer people study in the university, and almost 100% can graduate.
Comparing these two models, it should be said that there is an international background. For a long time, Europe, Germany and Britain have also implemented "strict entry and wide exit". At that time, the scale of higher education was relatively small, and it was generally believed that the enrollment rate in Germany was between 18%-20%, which was a little higher than that in China. The United States and Japan have taken another approach, and that is to open their doors. As long as you have a high school diploma, you can enter the university. As for what kind of university to enter, there is of course a difference, but the door of the university is always open.
These two modes have their own advantages in the world. But after 1980s, British people began to learn from Americans and open higher education. From this comparison, we can realize that China's higher education is an elite education stage, and a few people are trained through strict selection. It was reasonable for 7% of people to enter universities under the planned economy system at that time, but it should be noted that after 1992, China began to transform into a market economy, and the original talent training mode under the planned economy model encountered challenges. At this time, there must be a major change in the screening mode, which is an external cause. Internally, after a person graduates from high school, after strict selection, 4-5 people out of 100 can go to college, but more than 90 people can't go to college, so it's not a material that can be made? That's not what happened! In fact, because of the small scale of higher education, only a few people can go to college, and a considerable part of these more than 90 people are materials that can be made. On the other hand, you can say that they are not manufacturable materials, but you can't say that they are definitely not manufacturable materials, but they may be manufacturable materials. So what should we do? Keep them out, don't let them develop, or allow them to come in and let them develop in college for four years or more. The degree of development depends on their learning level in four years.
Here is a question of how to look at human development. Now it is the government that allows people to go to college if they think they can. The government has a strong will and completely ignores the law of human development. We should emphasize respect for the law of education here. At that time, I put forward the view that if we respect the laws of education rather than administration, we should let people fully develop at their respective stages of development. Therefore, in this sense, "lenient entry and strict exit" respects people's development, because some people develop rapidly, while others develop rapidly; Some people develop in this period, while others develop in another period. We are stuck at a certain point, saying that these people can develop and others can't, which makes those who develop late lose the opportunity of future development and ignore the differences, individuality and particularity of human development. This time is not easy to find either. Therefore, when we talk about "lenient entry and strict exit", we actually respect people's development and the law of education. From this point, we can analyze who respects the law more, "lenient entry and strict exit" or "strict entry and strict exit".
Many opponents believe that the scale of higher education has expanded after "lenient entry and strict exit". For example, 20% people can go to college. Who will pay for the extra people? This is actually an operational and technical problem, and it is not necessary. It should be pointed out that if the "credit system" is strictly implemented and there is no "credit system" as a guarantee, "lenient entry and strict exit" will become a mere formality. Opponents also mentioned a point, that is, whether it can be "strict" after "leniency", and it is difficult to be "strict" in China's traditional culture, and "leniency" means "leniency". China people pay too much attention to the concept of face. I think: China's cultural traditions should be respected, but the decisive factor is not tradition. Otherwise, do we need reform? This is determined by the contradiction between productivity and production relations, not by respecting or not respecting cultural traditions. In a sense, reform is to challenge tradition and get rid of it. What is respect for tradition? Respect tradition and don't reform. I think the debate on this issue at that time was very meaningful.
"Wide in", and then there is a question of whether the quality will decline. I once wrote a paper about the "lenient entry and strict exit" mode of running a school. Although many people objected at that time, most experts thought this paper was original. Looking back today, the model of "lenient entry and strict exit" is much clearer than at that time. I am very pleased that higher education has actually begun to recognize this model after great development. Of course, it takes a process for "lenient entry and strict exit" to be truly achieved and effective. First, we must do it, but we must also see the problems and constantly overcome difficulties from all sides in the process of doing it. After coming from the traditional road, it is not easy to take another road now. People like to take the old road.
Professor Tang and I had an argument on this issue. After * * * with Professor Tang, the problem that impressed me strongly from him is the marketization of education, that is, the relationship between "lenient entry and strict exit" and the great development of the education market, which is a mutual infiltration and mutual foundation. At this time, I am presiding over a major project in Shanghai, that is, the investigation of students' academic burden. I am the first initiator, and I am deeply sympathetic. The main research object of my survey is the primary and secondary schools with nine-year compulsory system. In this survey, I attach great importance to humanism in education, or simply say humanistic education thought. After contacting Professor Tang, I learned about the marketization of education from him. At that time, there were great differences between us. Of course, at that time, my main thinking object was basic education in primary and secondary schools, and higher education was another matter. How do I think education is market-oriented? I think education should be people-oriented and independent. He thinks education should be market-oriented and have selective competition.
However, when I was studying the enrollment problem, I suddenly found that I should talk about this problem from two aspects, that is, from the perspective of compulsory education and non-compulsory education, I think education should be market-oriented in the non-compulsory education stage, while I still adhere to the independent and humanistic views in the compulsory education stage. Where is my turning point? When I found out that a student and his parents both wanted to go to college, he was willing to spend his personal family savings on education instead of household appliances or real estate. This matter is no longer an option in the questionnaire I saw on paper, but a really either-or judgment. Because I found in the survey that thousands of families want to go to college, this value demand condensed in history can not be shaped in one or two sentences, which forces me to investigate what the market is. From the buyer's point of view, the market should respect their choices, so I suddenly found that the concept of market-oriented education or advocating market-oriented education is the most humane, which is a change in my thinking. This is my first meaning. Respecting market-oriented education is actually the most humanized educational viewpoint.
The second problem is that "lenient entry and strict exit" respects the objective stage of human development, or it is a very humanized and humanized approach for students in the process of learning and maturity. Why? Looking back briefly, for example, humanities, a considerable number of scholars before and after the founding of the People's Republic of China did not necessarily have a very solid foundation. Now, this is a learning process with a training background, but it is only a "crash course" of Marxism-Leninism. Now many of them have become masters of humanities. From the perspective of learning, this is also a gradual evolution process. Let's give another example. The so-called "old three years" phenomenon, many people have only read primary school, junior high school or senior high school, but they have gained a lot in humanities and even natural science, which also shows the potential possibility of human learning process. If we look back at our students from these two examples in history, it is just consistent with my investigation conclusion, that is, in the primary school stage, these losers described by the current standards are not the possibility of losing regular learning or formal learning; This is true in junior high school and high school. In the words of some teachers, it is hard to say that people who have good grades in junior high school and senior high school will definitely succeed in their studies in the future. On the contrary, it is not impossible for people with poor academic performance to achieve. So this problem also explains this phenomenon from the course of the possibility of human development potential. We should give them a chance to develop first. Their success or failure is the result of their own potential and social pressure. This idea is also completely consistent with the idea of lifelong education advocated internationally.
In other words, "lenient entry and strict exit" does have the meaning of lifelong education in concept and system. This is my second meaning.
The biggest impression of "lenient entry and strict exit" to citizens is that education is no longer so majestic and unattainable, and it is no longer an act or system completely determined by the national examination, which makes everyone feel that learning at school is very kind and they can succeed as long as they work hard. In other words, school education is divorced from the planned economy and government instructions, and has become a very kind life practice. It is not controlled by an authority, but a very kind thing that can meet the needs of the subject and can be obtained. This is the third level.
On the fourth level, I think that "lenient entry and strict exit" is actually in line with the traditional psychology of orientals in Confucian culture who love reading and are good at learning. The word "learning to be an excellent official" is a very embarrassing and harsh statement now, because if we look at the problem from the perspective of class analysis, it is the relationship between wisdom and stupidity, and the relationship between classes. From the general traditional mentality or people's eyes, "being an official" is an intellectual, that is to say, China people advocate being an intellectual very much. In other words, they attach great importance to improving their self-cultivation. The so-called self-cultivation, keeping the family in order, governing the country and calming the world are all based on self-cultivation. So under this national mentality, I think it is much better to want to study at least than not to. Therefore, from these four aspects, the significance of the concept of "lenient entry and strict exit" that we now give can be summarized in one sentence, that is, "lenient entry and strict exit" is the most humanized and democratic education model.
J: Just now, Mr. Ge talked about the concept of "learning to be an excellent official" and had different understandings of this concept. In fact, "excellent" here means not only excellent, but also a person with excellent academic performance can be an official, and another person with strong ability can also be an official. I think it is not enough to understand "official" only from the perspective of becoming an intellectual, because "official" refers to officials and "scholar" refers to intellectuals.
G: "Learning to be an excellent official" is related to the imperial examination system in ancient China. The imperial examination system-from a positive perspective, it reversed the reality that only aristocratic families can be officials and made it possible for intellectuals to be officials. Mr. Lu Xun once discussed the difference and connection between "official" and "scholar". In ancient Chinese, these two words were often false. From a political point of view, the early imperial examination culture was desirable because it enabled intellectuals to be officials and respected them.
T: The imperial examination system is a traditional culture in China, and it is a strict examination. Isn't it contradictory and contrary to China tradition to ask whether the strict examination is designed for "lenient entry and strict exit"? I don't think it's against the tradition of China. Being an official requires a rigorous examination, but studying does not require a rigorous examination. It is dangerous to combine being an official with studying. Going to college is not for being an official, or it doesn't mean being an official. After graduating from college, it means that being an official is something we once had. Being an official requires a rigorous examination. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the national civil service examination, which is stricter than the imperial examination. You don't have to be an official casually, but you should relax enrollment. So I think this question is not contradictory. This is the national psychology behind "learning to be an official", and the social status will be better after "learning to be an official".
J: Just now, someone said that "lenient entry and strict exit" and "strict entry and lenient exit" are opposite concepts. It was not easy to get into college before, but it was easy to get out when you got into college. This is the concept of "strict entry and strict exit". In view of this phenomenon, I think it is a kind of progress, because at least the quality of college graduates is guaranteed, and at the same time the contradiction between social pressure and the shortage of enrollment is solved. I'm wondering whether it's "lenient entry and strict exit" or "strict entry and lenient exit". This is not an intellectual's theory, but is closely related to the social situation.
There is a 600-minute hooray in college. Students who enter the university can graduate as long as they can reach the passing grade. Whether it is "lenient entry and strict exit" or "strict entry and lenient exit", it is still a last resort under the original planned economy model. In fact, education is developing step by step. In the early days of the People's Republic of China, there were quite few middle school graduates. At that time, all the primary school graduates had the cultural qualifications to be cadres. There are many PLA cadres who can be cadres as long as they have received primary education. If "learning to be excellent makes an official", a primary school student may not be able to talk about "learning to be excellent makes an official", so this "Excellence" is relative. When the cultural quality of the whole nation is low, the primary school culture will be high. Graduation from college today should be a basic academic requirement, because the society has higher requirements for academic qualifications. Under such circumstances, "lenient entry and strict exit" is also a product of history. At a certain time, the scale of running colleges and universities will become larger and larger, and the country will become more and more relaxed in running schools. At that time, there would be no problem of "less porridge and more monks", and it would not be very difficult to receive higher education. So a large number of students enter colleges and universities, there is a problem of how to ensure the quality.
Are there two other concepts corresponding to the concepts of "lenient entry and strict exit" and "strict entry and strict exit"? First, in order to ensure the quality of higher education, we even advocate "strict entry and strict exit", and it is even more difficult to get in. First of all, it puts forward the concept of "wide in and wide out". For example, the enrollment scale of colleges and universities nationwide has expanded by nearly 50% this year. In a sense, this year's admission standard is 50% lower than last year's quality assurance, which can be said to be "lenient". So do you want to filter out 50% when you go out? I can't imagine that there were very few people who couldn't graduate at that time, so there was a difference in quality. From this perspective, the concept of "wide in and wide out" means that all students can enter the university and most of them can graduate. Of course, a few famous universities may implement the standard of "strict entry and strict exit". Under such circumstances, I don't think it's necessary to be too picky about the wording of this concept, nor to care too much about what will happen to students' employment after "lenient entry and strict exit", or whether "strict entry and lenient exit" will restrict students' schooling and make education less democratic. I also want to introduce the phenomenon of self-taught examination in colleges and universities. Just sign up for the self-study exam, pay some tuition fees, and receive training at the counseling and training point of the exam. Anyone, regardless of age or sex, can go. The only measure is the national unified examination. After passing the unified examination, you can get a diploma that has passed the self-taught examination in colleges and universities. This can be considered as the largest range of "lenient entry and strict exit". If we admit that the self-taught examination has reached the maximum range of "lenient entrance and strict exit", I think with the in-depth development of the socialist market economy reform, the expansion of the autonomy of college enrollment and the improvement of the country's comprehensive national strength, the scale of "lenient entrance and strict exit" is very realistic, and it will become larger and larger, even reaching the degree of "lenient entrance" for the self-taught examination. As long as you have the desire to be educated and can pay the tuition fee for education, the door of the university will be infinitely open to you. But that doesn't mean that every university is open to you. There are still differences between different types of universities and universities at different levels. In other words, it is no problem to go to college, but it is objectively impossible to enter what type of university and what level of university, because each university has its own measurement standards. And the standard of "strict out" will also be loosened, because with the expansion of school autonomy, we have our own postgraduate assessment standards. Then, some universities may not be easy to get in and out, but some universities may not be very strict. This is my opinion.
T: I agree with many of Mr. Jin's views, but the debate between the two models is targeted. If the self-taught exam is also within the scope of debate, there is nothing to argue about. At that time, the debate was aimed at the existing full-time universities, and it was discussed whether it was possible to let more people enter universities and graduate after certain screening. That is to say, in view of the model of "strict entry and lenient exit", we put forward "lenient entry and strict exit", and Mr. Jin expanded it. Recently, we wrote an article about the change from "strict entry and wide exit" to "strict entry and strict exit", but some schools still keep "strict entry and strict exit" or "wide entry and wide exit", which is nothing wrong. However, we should not avoid the problem of "strict entry and lenient exit" to "lenient entry and strict exit", which is very meaningful, that is to say, we have denied "strict entry and lenient exit" and should become "lenient entry and strict exit".
I add that "lenient entry and strict exit" is actually a profound change, and it is necessary to realize that the change of school-running mode is also a revolution. I have three understandings of the revolution here. First, it emphasizes that universities are no longer unattainable, but actually a part of life; Secondly, it should be emphasized that not everyone in a university can be a cadre, and the official positions are limited. This is actually a question of how society views universities and what to do after graduation. Many college students graduate to be officials, but college students are not equal to being officials. Third, to what extent are "wide" and "strict"?
To what extent, it is actually up to each school to grasp, emphasizing the school's own consciousness and responsibility. Therefore, the change from "strict entry and lenient exit" to "lenient entry and strict exit" actually includes the changes in our concept, school-running system and the school's own responsibility, and these changes are of positive significance.
G: At present, there are many topics about "lenient entry and strict exit". There are four kinds of combinations: lenient entry and strict exit, strict entry and strict exit, lenient entry and strict exit, and lenient entry and strict exit. I have read many such articles, and I can think that this is a complete way of thinking, but it is this complete way of thinking that avoids discriminating the most essential concepts. I agree with Professor Tang. In fact, it is a question of two ways of thinking and value orientation, namely, "strict entry and strict exit" and "lenient entry and strict exit". Those who talk about "lenient entry and strict exit" will not deny the other three graduation examination systems and enrollment systems. If we put a lot of energy into this matter, it will make our starting point and our problems have no edges and corners, and we don't know what we are discussing. This is also a very bad way for the education sector to discuss problems until the end. Hegel once said, "Truth first appears in one-sided form". If you want to grasp things completely and comprehensively from the beginning, you often don't realize the essence of the problem.
The problem of "lenient entry and strict exit" is whether it will reduce the quality of teaching and the gold content of graduates, but the idea behind "lenient entry and strict exit" is marketization, and the market will naturally solve this problem. For example, a small workshop with low technical level and little investment is completely different from Sony, but customers, that is, students, will of course choose this one. This one is cheap, but the quality is poor, and this one is expensive, but the quality is good. Then, the same is true for exchanging diplomas in the talent market and the job market. The diploma of community college is what we often call a third-rate school, which is different from the diploma of Fudan and other regular universities. But why do you ask so many questions? I think this is because the educated not only consider the admission requirements, but also consider the school itself. He should consider his position, the gold content of his diploma and how much profit he can get after going out.
In addition, the theory of human capital has been put forward recently. Taking India as an example, many people think that "lenient entry and strict exit" is an educational planning theory under the influence of human capital theory. I have said in some places that western human capital is paid by the state, and the state can't get the benefits of students' education. This is a bad business, but the present situation of China is different from the theory of human capital. In China, people mainly pay the bill, so consumers bear the gains and losses of this business. In this way, it is too nerdy to criticize the theory of human capital to deny the advantages of university enrollment expansion and "lenient entry and strict exit". We will debate this issue today after the implementation of the plan. At present, there are 6 million students in school, reaching 20180 thousand, and the enrollment rate is 15%. So the problem now should be to explore how to implement this policy, how to popularize this model, how to sum up experience, and how to make adjustments in schools.
T: If you look at the background, why do you ask the question of "lenient entry and strict exit" can be understood from these angles. First of all, it has adapted to the current trend and requirements of economic development. At present, the market is developing rapidly, and the competitive state of a country will eventually be implemented in the cultivation of talents. From the perspective of world development, in order to continuously promote economic development, it is necessary to continuously invest in higher education and continuously train talents to adapt to economic development.
Second, the industrialization of education has also promoted "lenient entry and strict exit". Education is not only a consumption field, but also a production field. In areas with dense universities and concentrated talents, high-tech industries are developed and there are many inventions, which have played a great role in local economic development. The economic development of Zhangjiang High-tech Park in Shanghai is not very fast. Some people compare it with Silicon Valley in the United States, and think that the latter is combined with Industry-University-Research, while Zhangjiang lacks the agglomeration effect of talent highland, so it can't get on in all aspects.
Third, it eased the crowded situation of the college entrance examination. The college entrance examination is a painful thing for many families in China. As a result, the exam-oriented education is getting worse and worse, which violates the educational law and human development, and it is difficult for middle school students to adapt to university study. In a sense, it can even be said that high school education is destroying talents, not cultivating talents for universities. It takes a lot of efforts for a university to change its original thinking mode and learning method, and even if it makes efforts, it is not easy to change these bad habits, and "lenient entry and strict exit" can change the current situation of middle school education.
J: At the same time, it puts forward an evaluation standard for colleges and universities. How to ensure that the educated meet the educational standards of their own schools is a problem that every university administrator should think about. This question is very difficult. Just now, Mr. Tang mentioned that without the support of the credit system, there will be many problems in implementing "lenient entry and strict exit". I think there are other problems besides the credit system, because there are problems in college exams and teaching quality now. If classes are still held as usual, there will be no problem in the final exam. Have the students achieved their quality? I don't think so. This involves how to evaluate a college student, how to carry out college education and how to adapt to "tolerance". Universities must carry out deep-seated reforms. Therefore, "lenient entry and strict exit" was controversial by the society five years ago. Today, this view tends to be recognized by people. I am afraid we should pay more attention to what to do after "lenient", whether to use a ruler like "strict" to ask them to study so utilitarian and under pressure, or whether there is a good way to make students who are "lenient" look like "lenient". This formulation seems idealistic, but I think this is the true meaning of university education. The so-called "strict out" is to measure him with an objective standard and give him a diploma. A graduate's diploma is a "stepping stone" to employment and a stable occupation and income. This diploma is badly needed by the market economy, but these things are exactly castrating the spirit of university education. Too utilitarian practices often stifle academic life in university education, and the origin of university education is anti-utilitarian.
T: Many people have a Chinese understanding of "Yanchu". In fact, "Yan Chu" is a mature active choice for college students after entering the university, and they don't leave until graduation. I feel that I don't want to study, want to go to work, or have financial difficulties, or go out for other reasons. To the extreme, a girl came in, got married, gave birth to a child and left. How can she be strict? At present, many universities in the United States are in this situation. Tens of thousands of students in the university, the second and third grade voluntary diversion. This is not a "strict" problem. Some people even go out, work for a while, save some money, and then come back to study, and the semester is very long. This is the meaning of the so-called high elimination rate abroad. 50,000 people went in, and only 40% finally got the diploma. Where are the others? Many of us don't understand that we take the initiative to do other things, not force them. Which course to teach is still the original requirement, not because the society has high requirements for students, but also because the students who come in have low quality, so it is not easy to give every credit. But the emphasis here is on students' active choice.
J: Take the initiative to divert students, then check the quality of students through academic examinations, and then make a restriction and choice. There are differences. Just now I talked about utilitarianism, which is a big problem. I just mentioned it. If students are excessively restricted by strict standards, it will also lead to the abnormal utilitarian tendency of universities and bring side effects to the atmosphere of free exploration of knowledge in universities. Let's put this topic aside. I would like to say a few more words about the so-called strict education in American universities mentioned by Teacher Tang, and the phenomenon that students are automatically diverted halfway. Why does our country have so many questions about the expansion of university enrollment? In fact, it is because college students have to graduate at all levels until graduation. As a concern, I think it is reasonable. This kind of worry is related to the idea that college education is a specific stage of life. If the concept of lifelong education is introduced into modern education, this problem will be diluted. Why do so many students in the United States move freely and feel that it is not terrible not to get a college degree? It is because of the open university education system that it is not difficult to enter the university. Once you leave, you can come back to study. In this case, students will make a comprehensive judgment according to their physical condition, economic situation and the needs of local economic development. In China, due to the limitation of the number of universities under the planned economy model, students have little choice, so it is not easy to enter universities, and it is even more difficult to study after dropping out of school. In other words, the university system is a very closed system with no communication with society. Nowadays, "lenient entry and strict exit" has had a strong impact on the running mode of universities. The background of this influence is the concept of lifelong education, and universities in China will do more in this respect in the future.
G: It suddenly occurred to me that the two dialectical concepts of "lenient entry and strict exit" are often considered from the perspective of "strict exit". In my personal opinion, strictness is absolute in "lenient entry and strict exit". I don't deny that strictness is utilitarian. Without a utilitarian absolute concept, it is difficult to produce the opposite view. So what I want to say is, what are the benefits of our leniency? I think the most fundamental thing is to change people's views on the nature of learning, and make our learning a dynamic, fruitful, humane and positive behavior. This is the more valuable place of "lenient entry and strict exit". In a long historical period, education is enjoyed by a few people, a tool for ruling the people and a basis and standard for social redistribution. Therefore, learning has become increasingly divorced from people's natural and instinctive needs, and learning has become a vassal of examinations. Once we consider it from a broad perspective, we will create what we call free development, thus making certain contributions to the development of society.
J: From the argument of two slogans, we can talk about "lenient entry and lenient exit" and "strict entry and strict exit", and then trace back to the origin of this problem. After analysis, we know that the root of today's discussion is the word "leniency". As I said just now, this "width" is really the essence of education. In the pre-Qin period, in order to liberate private schools from the monopoly of official schools, Confucius put forward the idea of "education without distinction", that is, the right to education was opened to civilians, breaking the restriction that only nobles could receive education. Today, the focus of our discussion is "If you want to learn, you must learn". From "teaching without class" in history to "learning and spreading" today is a historical progress and an internal connection.
G: The concept of "strictness" itself contains several meanings, such as true strictness, false strictness and moderate strictness, but in fact, whatever it is, it should be solved by the market. As for the true meaning of educator, school-running and education, the most fundamental meaning is the word "tolerance", because it has changed the human view of the nature of learning. Not only in China, but also in the West, learning is distressing, arduous and violates human rights. Learning is indoctrination and a distortion of human instinct. With the development of mankind, people will see more and more what they are, and learning is fun and exploration.
J: In the end, "tolerance" led to the arrival of what we call a learning society. He needs to learn and is willing to learn, so you should give him the opportunity to learn and create the conditions for learning. Therefore, a learning society is also a learning life, and our life is full of exploration and joy. In this way, "tolerance" has reached its historical, social and life significance, not just its economic significance.
G: So the key to the discussion is the word "width". People who talk too much about "strictness" are mainly a formula and habitual thinking of the planned economy in the past. In fact, the word "strict" is nothing to talk about, just a market issue. As far as my personal feeling is concerned, how difficult it is for us to study in these three years. After "forgiveness", it is the liberation of human nature and a wonderful return.