Subject Evaluation with Chinese Characteristics: Changes, Confusion and Outlet—Take China University Subject Rankings (CUSR) for an Example
Higher Education Research
Volume 5, Issue 3, June 2020, Pages: 68-75
Received: Apr. 14, 2020; Accepted: Apr. 30, 2020; Published: May 19, 2020
Views 19      Downloads 16
Authors
Guotao Ma, Development and Planning Office, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China
Qinglin Jin, Development and Planning Office, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China
Fei Ye, Development and Planning Office, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The ranking of subjects is attracting more and more attention from the government, universities and society in China. As the most representative and credible subject evaluation in China, China University Subject Rankings (CUSR) has carried out four rounds since the first round in 2002. Its evaluation purpose, evaluation content, evaluation main body, evaluation indicators and the use of evaluation results have also been gradually developing, revising and adjusting, becoming more detailed, multi-dimensional and optimized. With the influence of the subject evaluation, the number of participating subjects, and social attention increasing, CUSR is faced with several practical problems of being alienated in the process of specific operation and application of results: the evaluation itself is regarded as the purpose; the nature of the evaluation is disputed; the appeal for the scientificity of the evaluation indicators is improved; and the evaluation result deviates from the original intention. In order to better meet the strategic needs of national development and the practical needs of university development, the optimization path of subject evaluation is to build Chinese characteristics and realize Sinification, continuously improve the scientificity and credibility, actively learn from international experience and expand international influence, so as to serve subject construction and development, and promote the overall improvement of the academic degrees and graduate education in China.
Keywords
Subject Evaluation, China University Subject Rankings (CUSR), Evolution Logic, Optimization Path
To cite this article
Guotao Ma, Qinglin Jin, Fei Ye, Subject Evaluation with Chinese Characteristics: Changes, Confusion and Outlet—Take China University Subject Rankings (CUSR) for an Example, Higher Education Research. Vol. 5, No. 3, 2020, pp. 68-75. doi: 10.11648/j.her.20200503.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Yi Jidong, Zhang Shaozong and Tie Faxian. Theory and practice of higher education evaluation. Beijing: Science Press, 2009.
[2]
Wang Lisheng, Lin Mengquan, Ren Chao and Chen Yan (2016). The development and reform of subject evaluation in China. China Higher Education, 21: 38-41.
[3]
Lin Mengquan, Jiang Hui and Ren Chao (2010). The development and reform of subject evaluation. China Higher Education, 21: 43-44.
[4]
Zhang Jiping and Huang Qin (2017). Ten major value orientation changes in discipline evaluation in the context of “Double First-class” construction. Journal of graduation education, 6: 75-82.
[5]
Peng Qinglong (2016). Research on the new trend of discipline ranking and the new path of the quality-oriented discipline construction of foreign languages and literature. Foreign Language World, 3: 34-41.
[6]
Zhang Liwei and Guo Wei (2017). Building a world-class education evaluation brand with Chinese characteristics-An interview with Wang Lisheng, the director of China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Centre (CDGDC). Journal of world education, 8: 8-13.
[7]
Zhao Liying (2018). Accountability and improvement: the meta evaluation of the fourth round of subject evaluation in China. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, 2: 32-38.
[8]
China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Centre, A brief introduction of the fourth round of China University Subject Rankings (CUSR), http://www.chinadegrees.cn/xwyyjsjyxx/xkpgjg/2016phden/index.shtml.
[9]
Niu Junxia and Dong Zefang (2018). The discipline assessment serves for “Double First-class” construction: ideas, obstacles and ways. Education science, 6: 65-70.
[10]
China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Centre, Introduction of China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Centre, http://www.chinadegrees.cn/xwyyjsjyxx/gywm/zxjj/277079.shtml.
[11]
President Xi’s speech at Working Forum of philosophy and social sciences, http://www.xinhuanet.com//politics/2016-05/18/c_1118891128.htm.
[12]
Xie Debo and Li Xiaoying (2019). An optimized path of the discipline assessment system with Chinese characteristics: Based on the analysis of some problems in the fourth round of discipline evaluation. Journal of Xiamen University (Arts & Social Sciences), 1: 100-107.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186