China sets new priorities for Double First-Class universities

China’s project to accelerate the progress of the country’s top universities needs to focus more on long-term results, academics said, as policymakers review the success of the scheme. 

China’s Double First-Class project was launched in 2015, funnelling funding towards high-level institutions and disciplines believed to be capable of reaching world-class level. The scheme was expanded in 2022 to include 147 universities.  

According to Huai Jinpeng, China’s education minister, China has invested 167 billion yuan (£18 billion) in Double First-Class universities since 2016. 

In a report submitted to the Chinese legislature, Mr Huai says that universities involved in the programme have trained more than half of China’s master’s degree students and 80 per cent of its doctoral students in that time.

Under the scheme, some top institutions, including Peking University and Tsinghua University, have autonomy to select their own disciplines, and the project has widely been seen as a success. 

“The Double First-Class initiative has significantly boosted the global standing of Chinese universities, with achievements in cutting-edge research and contributions to major national projects,” said Futao Huang, a professor at Hiroshima University’s Research Institute for Higher Education.

“The integration of education, research and industry has enhanced innovation and talent cultivation, supported by substantial investment and policy backing.”

“The drive to create world-class universities reflects a shift in the frame of reference for higher education reforms, especially among the nation’s top universities, which now passionately embrace international norms,” said Yannan Cao, an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Education at Beijing Foreign Studies University.

“Chinese universities once competed solely among themselves, without looking to international peers for standards. It’s only in the last two decades that top Chinese universities have embraced a broader international perspective.”

According to state press, Mr Huai outlined new focus areas as the scheme enters its next iteration, including interdisciplinarity. 

“The model for talent development needs to evolve, with greater emphasis on integrating STEM, or science, technology, engineering and mathematics, with the humanities, and on strengthening collaboration between education and industry,” the education minister said.

Mr Huai’s report, which was not made public, reportedly also says that there is more potential for universities to contribute to economic and social development, and that the commercialisation of scientific discoveries “remains insufficient”. 

Anatoly Oleksiyenko, professor of international higher education at the Education University of Hong Kong, said that greater interdisciplinary work was seen “as a means for enhanced innovative capacity in universities”. 

“Many Chinese scholars who communicate and collaborate with Ivy League institutions in the US or the UK certainly observe the advantage of their counterparts in facilitating cross-disciplinary initiatives through opportunities for intellectual freedom and organisational resilience,” he said. 

The education minister also said that a more “tailored” evaluation system needs to be developed that focuses on “contributions to society”, while attracting international talent remains a barrier. 

Academics have previously expressed concerns that uneven distribution of funding is widening inequality gaps between universities, while the pressure to excel has led institutions to focus on short-term measures such as poaching professors and churning out English-language citations. 

“To make university performance comparable and measurable, the evaluation is largely quantitative, focusing on publications, citations, funding and so on,” said Dr Cao. “Consequently, scholars often confine themselves to these evaluation indicators, producing scholarly papers that might contribute little to leading-edge innovation or to solving real problems for China and the world.”

“Current criteria focus heavily on quantitative metrics, which can emphasise short-term results,” agreed Professor Huang. “To improve, the system should balance immediate outcomes with long-term impact, including metrics for societal influence, academic freedom, and interdisciplinary collaboration, and the global public.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com