Editor’s
Note: Several readers have emailed about concerns over unapproved programmes in
China, asking for clarification on collaborations they are involved in or
considering. The relevant section of a
recent post on university activity in China is reproduced here with a little added at the end. Research into these apparently unapproved
programmes is ongoing and we are pulling together more information.
During
the course of extensive research into the Sino-Foreign HE landscape, its become
apparent that a significant number of foreign universities, overwhelmingly from
Anglophone nations including the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New
Zealand, are involved in provision of preparatory programmes which exist
outside the official Sino-Foreign regulatory framework. They are, in effect,
not recognized as Sino-Foreign collaborations and this, unsurprisingly, means
they pose risks to both the foreign universities and the students taking these
courses. The Daxue will, in this article, examine the implications of
this for foreign universities and the students.
What
type of programmes are not approved?
Research
into official Sino-Foreign collaborations identified several JEIs which run unapproved programmes
alongside approved ones. This led to further exploratory investigation
which reveals a large number of colleges, or training bases (培训基地),
which run a range of pathway programmes designed to send students overseas for
study. These include foundation programmes, 1+3 and 2+2 arrangements
which see the Chinese student transfer to a foreign university following
completion of a period of study in China. However, such programmes exist
outside the Chinese HE sector and have been explicitly identified by the MoE as
not permissible under the regulatory framework:
“At
present, some higher education institutions, especially some key (Chinese)
ones, provide so-called preparatory course of a certain foreign university of
which some are actually foreign language training. As the foreign university
does not take part in the teaching activities conducted within the territory of
China, the Chinese party and foreign party sign a so-called agreement on mutual
recognition of credits and promise that the students attending preparatory
courses have opportunities to continue studying at the foreign university and
may, after finishing their study, get diplomas of the university. The
educational activity mentioned above is not an educational activity carried out
by Chinese-foreign cooperation and is not beneficial for improving the teaching
quality of higher education institutions. All higher education institutions
shall put the emphasis of their work on the improvement of education quality, and
no one may conduct any such educational activity, let alone in the name
of Chinese-foreign cooperative school running.”
MoE
Circular 14 (2007)
Foreign
universities engaged in such preparatory programmes include prestigious
institutions which are members of the UK’s Russell Group, 1994 Group and
Million+; Australia’s Group of Eight universities and universities from the US
ranked in the US News College National Universities Top 150. As
preparatory programmes exist outside the regulatory framework, getting
information on the scale of this shadow sector is difficult. Preliminary
research has identified well in excess of 30 Chinese “colleges” running
preparatory courses. Each of these colleges has a number of programmes
with foreign universities. One such college has, in the decade since its establishment,
established partnerships with 18 universities in US, UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, sending over 5000 students to their partner
universities. Another established in 2001 claims 21 partnerships and
enrolments of 500 students. It is easy to see why this looks like a good deal
for foreign universities, reducing marketing costs and bringing in good numbers
of Chinese students from good Chinese universities. Or so it would seem…
Who
are the Chinese partners?
Preparatory
courses, referred to as “talent training programmes (人才培养项目),
are offered through colleges established by Chinese universities. College names
often take the name form: xxxx University International College (xxxx国际学院)
and in other cases are referred to as “international classes (国际班)”
or “study abroad bridges (留学桥)”.
What
risks are created for the foreign partner when their foreign programme is not
approved or recognized by the Chinese authorities (i.e. does not have an MOE
code)?
The
major risk posed is that students registered on unapproved programmes is the
status of students at the Chinese university. Looking at the websites of some
US, UK and Australian universities running preparatory courses, it is apparent
that they believe the students they are receiving through these channels are
from the Chinese universities which establish these training colleges. However,
while these “colleges” are owned and operated by a Chinese university, students
admitted onto preparatory courses are not admitted or enrolled as students of the
Chinese university. As these preparatory programmes are not officially
recognized, they cannot and are not listed as degrees which are applied to
through the National University Entrance Exam, better known as the Gaokao. In
addition, while Gaokao is often used as an admission criteria, requirements are
set well below anything that would be constitute a Tier 1 Gaokao score in any
province. For example, one college in Guangdong requests Gaokao results
of 60% as part of its admission requirements to a 2+2 preparatory course with a
leading UK university. To put this in context, 60% would be significantly
below a Tier 1 Gaokao score in all Chinese regions except Ningxia, Qinghai,
Xinjiang and Xizang (Tibet). All other regions require a Gaokao score in
excess of 62%. (2012 Gaokao figures). Beijing, Guizhou, Yunnan and Inner
Mongolia Tier 1 scores are around 63% and above in the Gaokao. All other
provinces range from 68% to 78%. A Tier 1 Gaokao score indicates
the student has scored sufficiently well to enter a 4yr UG programme at one of
175 universities. This includes all 117 members of Project 211, 14 former
national level universities now administered at the provincial level; 40
provincial level universities, and 4 universities which are overseen by different
Ministries and CCP bodies. But its important not to conflate a Tier 1
score with a “top” score. To get into a leading school, such as PKU,
Tsinghua or Fudan, scores must be significantly higher than a Tier 1
score.
It is, therefore, important to understand that while Gaokao is used as a
criteria for admission to preparatory programmes, it should not be mistaken for
an indicator of quality. 60% on a Gaokao exam is, with the possible yet highly unlikely exception of
students from a few regions, not good enough to get into any of the
universities running these preparatory programmes.
What
would this look like in another country?
In
the UK, British students (generally speaking) apply to university through UCAS
and receive conditional offers ahead of their A level results in the August
prior to admission. Students must go through UCAS, applying to some of
the 37000 courses listed by UCAS, in a similar manner to the Chinese system
where Chinese students must take the Gaokao exam and apply through the National
Entrance Exam to courses listed by the MoE.
But if we imagine a similar situation in the UK, it would read something like
this. British students with one E at A Level apply directly to a
preparatory course leading to study at a reputable US university. Their
application doesn’t go through UCAS and the tuition fees are substantially
higher than study on a degree at any UK university. They are then
admitted to a course delivered at a training company owned by the UK university
and in buildings on their campus. However, they are not enrolled at that
university and never study towards a degree at the UK university. After
two years, providing they achieve a certain standard, they can transfer to the
US university to complete 2 more years of study and obtain a US degree.
Throughout, the US university believes it is getting high quality students from
the UK university which owns this for-profit training company. In
addition, due to their belief that they are getting students from a top UK
university, the US university places little emphasis on quality oversight and
performs very little in the way of quality assurance. In reality, they
are getting students who would struggle to get into any university in the UK,
but who are prepared to pay exorbitant fees well in excess of anything likely
at a real university.
What
about the students registered on unapproved programmes?
Chinese
students who enroll on preparatory courses are not in a very good
position. Firstly, the tuition fees range from RMB50k to RMB120k for some
preparatory courses, 10 to 22 times higher than standard fees for a Chinese
degree. Once they transfer to the foreign university, they must pay the
foreign university international fees. However, if they do not achieve
the required results and requisite IELTS/TOEFL score within the agreed time
frame, they have limited options. The foreign university is under no
obligation to take these students unless their admission requirements are
fulfilled, as the Chinese students are not actually enrolled on the foreign
degree while studying in China. Moreover, the students are never
registered on a Chinese degree programme and therefore cannot simply complete
studies. They are left in a form of educational limbo, without
registration as a matriculating student at any university and out of pocket a
significant amount of money. They simply have to retake the year and/or
resit the IELTS/TOEFL exams, or withdraw and find an alternative pathway at
another so-called college.
Due
Diligence
This
issue has been covered in previous posts on The Daxue. However, with a
much more comprehensive review of the officially approved Sino-Foreign sector,
it has become increasingly obvious that there is a substantial and significant
shadow sector which operates outside the formal HE sector. More
worryingly, it seems that foreign universities are complicit in the
establishment of articulation arrangements and preparatory programmes which
undermine the quality of the students they receive.
Degree
Approval Process for Chinese Citizens Earning Foreign Degrees
If
a Chinese student goes overseas and studies in a foreign university for their
entire degree they must, upon graduation, have their degree certificate
notarized by the PRC Embassy in the country where they obtained the
degree. For students who study for their degree either partially or fully
in the PRC, a different process is followed as students will be unable to
verify their degree certificate with an overseas PRC Embassy. For
graduates of programmes at JVs, JEIs and JEPs, they must register their degree
directly with the MoE’s Sino Foreign Degree Recognition System (http://rzzc.crs.jsj.edu.cn/Login.aspx
). It is not possible to register unless (a) the student is already in
the database as a matriculating student at a Sino-Foreign collaboration; (b)
the JEP has a MOE approval code, or (c) the JV or JEI has an MOE approval code
and the degree has been approved and recorded.
If
Sino-Foreign collaborations fail to adhere to these approval processes, a moral
hazard arises whereby the cost of this decision to run unapproved degrees is
more likely to be borne by the student. The institution may also be
severely reprimanded, as was the case last year with a Sino-Foreign programme
in Nanjing University of Posts and Telecomms which transgressed recruitment
regulations. NUPC was banned from establishing any further Sino-Foreign
operations until the end of 2015, and advised that a repeat of the violations
would result in criminal prosecutions by the Public Security Bureau. 89
students were illegally admitted to a Sino-Foreign programme leading to a UK
degree between 2007 and 2010. In addition, 69 students admitted between
2009-2012 to programs leading to study in the US, UK, Canada, Holland and
Malaysia were also affected. Upon return to China, these students
discovered they were unable to register their foreign degrees in China
rendering their degrees effectively useless for employment in the PRC.
How can we tell if our programme or
partnership is a genuine Sino-Foreign collaboration approved by the Ministry of
Education?
If
your institution has a joint programme or institution in China, it will have
been given an official approval code. These
codes are 18 digits long and begin with MOE.
For example, MOE33AU1A20020102O.
You can simply google this number, which usually takes
you directly a link to that record the MoE database website. Alternatively, you can check the MoE database
through a search (Chinese only). The
database can be found at:
Daxue is happy to help check for you, if you can
provide the following information (in complete confidentiality by emailing us
at thedaxue@me.com ).
1.
MOE code
OR
2.
Your university name.
3.
Your Chinese partner university name.
4.
The major/degree programme
5.
The province in which the programme is
delivered.
On
a final note, all approved degrees delivered at Joint Education Institutes are
listed on their MoE record. However,
we’ve come across several instances where unapproved programmes are being run
alongside approved programmes. As JEIs have an MOE code for the institution
rather than each individual degree, it is important to check that your
institution’s degree is listed on the JEIs approval. Simply having an MOE code in this case is not
enough.
Mike
Gow
(Until
further research is conducted, it has been decided not to name any
institutions, Chinese or foreign, which operate outside the regulatory
framework. However, information published publicly by both Chinese
colleges and foreign universities strongly indicates that many reputable
universities, especially in the UK, US, Austrlaia and Canada, are either
deliberately misrepresenting the nature of these preparatory course
partnerships or are simply unaware of the nature of their agreements and status
of the students and colleges they are dealing with).
