Times Higher Education: Article fails to correctly grasp the nuances of Gaokao

The Times Higher Education published recently an article which drew attention to the very real issue of Hukou residential status and the right to sit the notorious Gaokao examination for entry to China's universities.

The article, penned by Hong Bing, Associate Professor of Journalism at Fudan University, featured some comments by Zhang Ming, Professor at Renmin University and blogger extraordinaire, on the recent initiatives of Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou to address this issue.  The following citation is from Hong Bing's THE article:

"In response, education authorities in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, the megacities with the biggest migrant populations and the best education resources, finally published their roadmaps for reform in late December. But the plans have been widely criticised for setting high entry barriers for migrant students. Shanghai says that parents who have come to the city as "talents with expertise" and have a home there as well as a steady job may get a residence registration that allows their children to take Shanghai's college entrance exam in 2014. Guangzhou will open its entrance exam to qualified migrant students in 2016. But Beijing's plan didn't have even a timetable for opening its exams to migrant students. According to Professor Zhang, if the plans had been marked like an exam: "Guangzhou passed; Shanghai failed; and Beijing just turned in a blank exam paper.""

Yet this assessment byProfessor Zhang appears to overlook the fact that Guangzhou's efforts are really not that helpful.  I will, in this blog post, attempt to explain why.  

Hong Bing's article highlights the case of Zhan Haite, the daughter of a Shanghai-based migrant worker campaigning for the right to sit the Gaokao in Shanghai where she has been educated.  Under strict regulations, Chinese senior high school students must take the Gaokao exam in the town where there Hukou is registered, the Hukou being the system of household registration.  For Zhan Haite, this would have meant returning to Jiujiang, Jiangxi Province.  

So why is this a problem?  Why not just return to Jiangxi and take the Gaokao (National University Entrance Examination) there?  Well.  Its not that simple.  Welcome to the confusing world of the Gaokao.  

Firstly, although the Gaokao is described as a "national" examination, it is actually provincially administered.  Secondly, each province favours its own applicants for entry to universities located in that province.  Thirdly, the exams themselves differ from province to province (most provinces require a score out of 750, but Zhejiang (810).  And finally, sitting the Gaokao in certain provinces makes it much easier (or much harder) to gain access to a top university.  

Every July, when the Gaokao exam results are published, each province sets a Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 cut-off point.  For entrance to a 4yr UG (本科) programme, students must place above the Tier 1 cut-off point.  Failure to good enough grades ostensibly sentences the student one of three choices: (a) 3yr vocational technical college (大专); (b) going overseas or on one of the many under-the-radar articulation programmes run by private Chinese providers in conjunction with foreign universities, or (c) to re-register at the high school and retake the Gaokao the following year.

This is a stark choice.  Option (a) is a shameful proposition and many students and parents balk at the idea.  Option (b) is expensive.  Option (c) will fill the student with dread at the prospect of another year in the grip of a Gaokao studying frenzy (for a fairly standard overview of what Gaokao means to most Chinese high school students, see this post on sinostand: http://sinostand.com/2013/02/03/the-gaokao-highway-to-hell/ )

So what happens if a student achieves the Holy Grail of a Tier 1 score.  Well, firstly, a Tier 1 score is not necessarily a "good" score.  All it really means is that the student has finished in the top bracket and can apply for 4yr UG study at a fairly good university.  

The table below shows the Tier 1 cut-off points for each province in the Arts and Science streams in 2012 (students must nominate either Arts or Science as the focus of their Gaokao). 

	Province	Total	Arts	Tier 1 Pass	Science	Tier 1 Pass
1	Guangdong	750	589	78.53%	585	78.00%
2	Anhui	750	577	76.93%	544	72.53%
3	Shandong	750	573	76.40%	582	77.60%
4	Hebei	750	572	76.27%	564	75.20%
5	Hunan	750	571	76.13%	520	69.33%
6	Jiangxi	750	570	76.00%	547	72.93%
7	Liaoning	750	563	75.07%	517	68.93%
8	Hubei	750	562	74.93%	551	73.47%
9	Zhejiang	810	606	74.81%	593	73.21%
10	Henan	750	557	74.27%	540	72.00%
11	Fujian	750	557	74.27%	546	72.80%
12	Hainan	900	668	74.22%	614	68.22%
13	Shaanxi	750	556	74.13%	517	68.93%
14	Chongqing	750	554	73.87%	522	69.60%
15	Tianjin	750	549	73.20%	530	70.67%
16	Shanghai	600	438	73.00%	632	72.00%
17	Guangxi	750	544	72.53%	528	70.40%
18	Guizhou	750	539	71.87%	470	62.67%
19	Shanxi	750	539	71.87%	530	70.67%
20	Gansu	750	533	71.07%	517	68.93%
21	Jiangsu	480	341	71.04%	340	70.83%
22	Jilin	750	529	70.53%	515	68.67%
23	Heilongjiang	750	526	70.13%	514	68.22%
24	Yunnan	750	520	69.33%	465	62.00%
25	Sichuan	750	516	68.80%	518	69.07%
26	Beijing	750	495	66.00%	477	63.60%
27	Xinjiang	750	493	65.73%	445	59.33%
28	Inner Mongolia	750	492	65.60%	469	62.53%
29	Ningxia	750	489	65.20%	440	58.67%
30	Qinghai	750	433	57.73%	401	53.47%
31	Xizang (Tibet)	750	320	42.67%	280	37.33%

Province Municipality or Autonomous Region 省，市，自治区	Key Universities* 重点大学	Standard Universities 一般大学	Minban Universities 民办大学	TOTAL 总计
Beijing 北京	27	26	9	62
Jiangsu 江苏	13	29	20	62
Shanghai 上海	9	20	15	44
Shaanxi 陕西	8	24	17	49
Hubei 湖北	7	27	9	43
Liaoning 辽宁	6	33	10	49
Guangdong 广东	5	29	22	56
Sichuan 四川	5	25	9	39
Heilongjiang 黑龙江	5	19	7	31
Hunan 湖南	4	20	10	34
Tianjin 天津	3	15	1	19
Jilin 吉林	3	21	3	27
Anhui 安徽	3	26	9	38
Chongqing 重庆	3	12	6	21
Hebei 河北	3	30	11	44
Shandong 山东	2	35	24	61
Fujian 福建	2	16	18	36
Shanxi 山西	2	14	5	21
Jiangxi 江西	2	16	6	24
Zhejiang 浙江	1	24	11	36
Henan 河南	1	29	10	40
Gansu 甘肃	1	12	1	14
Yunnan 云南	1	16	6	23
Guangxi 广西	1	18	8	27
Inner Mongolia/Neimenggu 内蒙古	1	9	5	15
Xinjiang 新疆	1	10	2	13
Guizhou 贵州	0	14	1	15
Ningxia 宁夏	0	4	2	6
Hainan 海南	0	5	3	8
Qinghai 青海	0	3	0	3
Tibet/Xizang 西藏 **	0	3	0	3
TOTAL	119	584	260	963

There are some other important aspects here.  The Tier 1 cut-off point is calculated according to filling university places, so although the Tier 1 cut-off remains fairly constant (+/- 10%) on an annual basis, students who expect an overall grade around the Tier 1 cut-off face an anxious wait to find out if they've done enough.  It is one of the most difficult aspects of recruitment trips in China to tell a student with 1 or 2 marks less than needed that you cannot accept their application.  There are usually tears, and lots of them.  

Secondly, Shanghai and Beijing have most of the top universities in China, they also have HE enrolment rates upwards of 80% (including 4yr and 3yr programmes).  It also has a much lower number of university applicants for a much greater number of places compared to provinces such as Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Guangdong.  In addition, the schools are often much more advanced in terms of facilities, HR and financial resources and generally of a consistent standard.  So while Shanghai requires a score of 73% or above in Gaokao Science (72% in Arts), the chances of being accepted to a prestigious institution are much greater (one of my research projects in the pipeline is to conduct in depth quant analysis of the Gaokao system, taking into account all of these factors, and to try and understand the impact of regional Hukou registration on university entrance).  

If you look at the distribution of universities offering 4yr UG study across China's provinces and municipalities, it helps demonstrate these issues.  

The 119 Key Universities listed in the table above refer to those universities which are members of the prestigious Project 211 group of universities.  This group of 119 also includes the 39 Project 985 elite universities, which in turn includes the C9 Group of China's most famous universities.  

While I don't have exact numbers for Gaokao candidates in each province for 2012, we can look at Jiangsu, Shanghai, Guangdong, Shandong and Zhejiang provinces (the wealthiest provinces in China's coastal region) to illustrate the point.  

Population Top Universities Total 4yr Universities

Shanghai 23m 9 44

Jiangsu 79m 13 62

Guangdong 105m 5 56

Shandong 95m 2 61

Zhejiang  55m 1 56

This system is also subject to the system of "quota negotiation" between provinces.  For example, as Shanghai has many of the most desirable universities, it is in a position to demand uneven swaps with other provinces.  Shanghai can negotiate to send, for example, 100 students to Shandong province, but take only 50 from Shandong province in return due to its bargaining power.  This also favours Shanghai Gaokao candidates at the expense of their compatriots in other provinces.  

OPENING THE GUANGZHOU GAOKAO - ZHANG MING'S COMMENTS

Zhan Haite's case, and the article written by Hong Bing, highlights the opacity and the lack of equality of opportunity in China's Gaokao system.  It is certainly a joke to describe the Gaokao as a national entrance examination, as it is administered provincially and there is a strong bias towards students from certain provinces.  

However, the comments of Zhang Ming, a Professor at Renmin University, towards the end of the article, fail to full recognise the nuances of the system and, to a certain extent, jump on the equal rights bandwagon.   Zhang Ming, for those who haven't heard of him, is one of the most prominent bloggers in academia. He writes extensively on a range f issues, including IR, politics, economics, foreign affairs and HE.  He's one of those spiky and thorny provocateurs that the foreign media love to go to on a range of issues, but who probably has an unhealthy number of enemies in China thanks to his outspoken nature.  Its fair to say, I like him a lot.  His blog can be found here: http://blog.sina.com.cn/zhangming1 

Firstly, this is because Guangzhou itself is not a municipality, but a provincial capital city.  Secondly, because Guangzhou has a huge population with comparatively few top universities.  Thirdly, because the migrant workers in Guangzhou would in many cases, be further disadvantage by taking the Gaokao exam in Guangzhou (for example if they are Hukou residents from any province other than Guangdong, the pass mark required for a Tier 1 score is lower than that required for Guangdong).  Of course, it requires further statistical analysis to assess whether or not migrant workers in Guangzhou would stand a better chance of admission to a good university, but this will require a major investigation and analysis of quantitative data, as well as attempting to understand the impact of resources on educational quality.  

So alterations to the Guangzhou policy on allowing migrant worker children to sit the Gaokao exam is misleading.  It is certainly possible that it will further disadvantage those children and lessen the chances of acceptance to a top university or even gaining access to 4yr UG education at all, especially with such a high Tier 1 cut-off point of 78%+.  This is also probably the reason we see students like Zhan Haite lamenting the fact she cannot take the exam in Shanghai, where it is quite clear that the Shanghai Gaokao offers much better opportunities (lower pass rates, lower competition for places, more prestigious universities) than in other provinces.  

Reform of the Gaokao system is certainly something which many people in China would like to see.  The real issue is, however, insatiable demand and lack of supply of quality education.  Guangzhou has 5 universities deemed top tier to cater for a population of 105m people.  Even here, only Sun Yatsen and Jinan universities are truly deemed to be outstanding institutions.  There simply are not enough good universities in China to cater for demand and while enrolment rates currently stand at 26%, expected to reach 40% of university-age students by 2020, the gross enrolment rates in major urban centres such as Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other major cities is already well in excess of 80%.  

The Gaokao exam, however, is likely to stay.  And the overwhelming reason for this is that it is, for all its foibles and inconsistencies, a strong bulwark against the tide of academic dishonesty.  It is, practically impossible, as well as criminal offence, to cheat on the Gaokao exam.  It is also now very difficult for corrupt practices within universities to be manipulated by unscrupulous admissions officers, i.e. admitting students for bribes.  And this is why the Gaokao will not be disappearing anytime soon.  What needs to happen is a debate as to how the inequities of the university application system may be addressed, but first we need to really understand the system at the national level and where those inequities lie.  

MG

  

First Chinese Overseas Campus Announced: Xiamen in Malaysia

Nanyang.com website reported on Sunday some major news concerning one of China's leading universities. Xiamen University, a member of the prestigious Project 985 group of universities, is to establish a branch campus in Salak Tinggi, the capital of Sepang District in Selangor, Malaysia. Salak Tinggi is located roughly 40km from central Kuala Lumpur.

This is a major announcement and comes rapidly on the heels of major policy initiatives in Chinese HE termed the "invite in" (请进来) and "going out" (走出去) policies which aim to use Chinese HE as the vanguard of China's continued integration into the global economy. There are also elements of a soft power charm offensive here, with specifically the "going out" (zouchuqu 走出去) emphasizing the role of HE in disseminating and communicating the state narrative of China's development around the world.

Thus far the emphasis on the internationalization of China's HE system has focused on knowledge transfer from west to east, particularly in the fields of science & technology, management science and administrative expertise. On the surface, the establishment of a Chinese university branch campus overseas may appear to be a logical step, yet had the emphasis remained on aspects related to knowledge transfer, we would have expected to see a high profile partnership with an existing world-ranked university in the US or UK.

In terms of figures, the XMU-Malaysia's campus will be constructed by 2015 at a cost of 600m Malaysian Ringgits (that's RMB1.2bn, or £120m) and will admit 10,000 students in its first phase (that is thought to be a total enrolment figure reached after 5-6years, rather than an initial intake figure).

Yet, this move really could throw the cat amongst the pigeons in Malaysia, especially where UK universities have invested a great deal of money in building branch campus operations. In both Singapore and Malaysia, established universities from the UK, US and Australia have aggressively marketed high tuition fee programmes with varying degrees of success. Recently, NYU pulled out of their Singapore commitment and closed their TISCH Asia school citing a lack of student numbers. Fees at NYU TISCH Asia were in excess of US$40k per annum and the closure reportedly cost the Singaporean government in excess of US$20m in lost subsidies given to TISCH.

It is fair to say that the majority of Singaporean/Malaysian students cannot afford such exorbitant fees, or even the fees being charged by UK universities such as Nottingham, Newcastle, Reading and others invested in the region. However, Chinese UG programmes in China cost in the region of £500 per annum, so it will be interesting to see how XMU-Malaysia addresses the tuition fees question.

Furthermore, Xiamen University has some excellent advantages in this region. Firstly, it was established by Tan Kah Kee (Chen Jiageng 陈嘉庚) as the University of Amoy (Amoy being the old name of Xiamen). Tan was a wealthy and famous Fujian-Singaporean philanthropist and is extremely well-known and revered in SE Asia. Secondly, along with Tan, most of the Chinese diaspora in SE Asia are descended from Fujian immigrants and speak the Fujian dialect or a slight variation on it (known as Hokkien throughout the SE Asian region). This gives an incredibly strong connection to Fujian and Xiamen amongst a great deal of the Chinese population in Malaysia. In fact, knowing how the Chinese HE sector is so strategically controlled, it is impossible to see this as an internal Xiamen initiative. The cultural suitability of Xiamen for this project is such, and when considering the high level ministerial approval needed, that it can only really be viewed as a national-strategic initiative to kick start Chinese HE as a major regional power in the Asia Pacific.

Similarly, offering degrees in English and Chinese (Mandarin/Hokkien) would be easily achievable for XMU in Malaysia. The aim is to recruit 33% of students from Malaysia, 33% from China and 33% from other international markets. While this might be tough, especially such a high proportion from international markets, it is easy to see how Xiamen would be an attractive option for both Malaysian Chinese and Mainland Chinese students. Furthermore, 10k students is a big chunk of the market that UK universities in the region have had pretty much to themselves.

Finally, however, we should consider the wider implications for western education in the region. China itself wants and has fairly good relationships throughout the ASEAN region. Further integration through HE could have huge implications for the int'l recruitment activities of UK universities. Not only will XMU-Malaysia be a strong competitor in the region, it will also turn heads towards China across SE Asia. Can the UK really afford to lose significant market share in places like Vietnam, India, Malaysia and Indonesia to a rapidly internationalizing Chinese HE juggernaut? It most certainly cannot. And we should also not forget that the Chinese government have set a target of 500k international students per annum by 2015, 150k of which should be on full degree seeking programmes.

I've had several conversation with people in Chinese HE on the feasibility of such ambitious expansion in international numbers (currently 290k total, mostly on short-term programmes). One VP of a prominent 985 University had little doubt that such figures could be achieved before sharing that the resources being channeled to the largescale internationalization of Chinese HE are phenomenal and the rewards available to those delivering success (in terms of career advancement) particularly high.

There really does appear to be a strong push for internationalization in Chinese HE. And with such a wealthy, well-resourced and strategically focused New Kid on the Block, those universities heavily invested in the SE Asia region should really sit up and take note. This could be the first volley fired in a protracted war for educational supremacy in the Asia Pacific.

Damning Article on Sino-Foreign Cooperative Education

An article published last week blew the lid of the parlous state of international cooperative programmes in China, something which has been a running theme of this blog.

The article, entitled "Good Name, Poor Reputation: Sino-Foreign Cooperative Education become Sino-Foreign 'cooperative scam'?", was authored by the MoE's own Chinese Service Center for Scholarly Exchange (CSCSE) and published by Edu.163.com, a major source of education news and info in China. Perhaps more interestingly, it was quickly reposted on various websites including a synopsis on the Ministry of Education's on World Education Information site (http://www.wei.moe.edu.cn/c116/1214/content_122706314a27063p1.html), a trusted source for parents and students searching for reliable information on overseas education.

The full article can be viewed here: http://edu.163.com/special/liuxue/rht37.html# (Chinese only).

President Xi Youmin of Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU) was cited in the article highlighting that 90% of these Sino-Foreign cooperative programmes were with 2nd and 3rd rate universities (二三流大学), an observation I am inclined to agree with. Mme Xu Yafen, Chairwoman of Zhejiang Wanli Education group and a major player in the establishment of the University of Nottingham Ningbo China (UNNC) was also quoted as bluntly saying she had been approached on numerous occasions by foreign education institutions offering to "sell" degrees in China with the cost of the degree generally around the US$10k mark.

That two such influential players in the "real" Sino-Foreign cooperative sector should speak so boldly and critically of the situation should be an indicator of the severity of the problem. Due diligence amongst foreign education providers in China is practically non-existent. It is incredibly rare to meet anyone from an overseas HE institution with a solid understanding of the regulatory framework governing academic qualifications in China and, perhaps more worriyng, of the regulations and policies concerning foreign education provision in China. That maybe due to language issues, or placing too much trust in partners, but knowing how compliance works in western organizations, it never fails to surprise me how westerners seem to jettison all good die diligence practice when blinded by the opportunity presented by the "Chinese market".

Interestingly, the article uses terminology to distinguish between what it calls "accredited programmes" and "Sino-Foreign cooperative education". The former, it claims, are not really cooperative programmes at all, but are merely preparatory courses for pursuing further study overseas. It is these types of programmes which are ubiquitous in China. Many foreign universities set up some form of accredited programme and call it a "branch campus". Nothing could be further from the truth and it is very clear that the ire of this report is directed at these types of poorly regulated programmes. We should also note that these "accredited" programmes, including International Foundation Years, Pathways, 2+2's, 1+3's, 3+1's and Pre-Masters invariably accept only students who have failed to gain a place at 4yr university through the National University Entrance Exam (Gaokao).

I personally find it alarming that so many universities, including very reputable universities in the UK, US and elsewhere, appear blissfully unaware (or wilfully ignorant) that the overwhelming majority of students they receive through these programmes are never actually enrolled in a Chinese university, but are recruited to private subsidiary training colleges owned by the Chinese university. Its somewhat akin to a Russell Group university establishing a private executive education company off-campus, charging 10 times the standard tuition fee for a bog standard Foundation programme, accepting UK high school leavers with two D's at A level, accepting them through applications which are not processed through the UCAS system, then sending them to complete their degree after a further 2 years at a prestigious US university. Those students would be accepted by the US institution because it is thought they are at a Russell Group university, when in fact they are not. They are not on campus, not taught by faculty, not even registered at the sending university. It is a con, albeit a very lucrative con.

"Sino-Foreign cooperation" on the other hand is different. It must be approved at the Ministerial level (MoE) and students must be recruited through the relevant universities application system at both UG and PG levels. The major names are the 8 JV universities currently licensed by the MoE, of which 3 are still in the process of being established and have not yet admitted any students:

1. University of Nottingham Ningbo China (Nottingham and Zhejiang Wanli)
2. Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University (Xi'an Jiaotong and Liverpool)
3. United International College, Zhuhai (Beijing Normal & HK Baptist)
4. Sino-British College, Shanghai (USST and 9 NCUK Universities)
5. Wenzhou Kean University (Wenzhou and Kean)
6. Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, Jiangsu (Duke and Wuhan)*
7. NYU Shanghai (NYU and East China Normal)*
8. CUHK-Shenzhen (CUHK and Shenzhen Municipal Govt)*

In addition to these major joint-ventures, all legally independent from their parent universities and licensed to issue degrees by the Chinese government alongside issuing the foreign degree, their are Sino-Foreign joint programmes. Such examples include Monash-Dongnan, Fudan-LSE. These are generally Masters level programmes which involve 1 year at the Chinese institution and 1 year at the foreign institution. Graduates are awarded a dual degree, but all Chinese students admitted to such programmes MUST be admitted through the national masters application exam. The Sino-British College differs from UNNC, XJTLU and UIC in that it is an "embedded JV" and a college of USST. Thus it does not have full independent status and functions more like a multi-versity, offering degrees from a variety of partners. It also has perhaps the best location of any university in China, right in the middle of the French Concession in Shanghai, where it educates 2000 students with nearly 100% foreign teaching staff on a range of UK degree programmes.

This article is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, because of consistent indications of Chinese authorities' dissatisfaction with foreign education providers who focus on profit maximization through the exporting of Chinese students back to their home campuses on articulation courses, pathways, 2+2's etc.

Secondly, because it makes very clear and concise distinctions between aggressively marketed, sub-standard cash cow operations and the high-quality, genuinely cooperative ventures approved at the MoE level.

Thirdly, and most importantly, that it was written and disseminated by an organization closely affiliated with the MoE and which is itself responsible for the accreditation of foreign degrees in Mainland China (CSCSE).

Finally, an earlier post today highlighted the case of a student in Jiangsu successfully suing a Chinese university subsidiary college for issuing a degee which did not have the correct accreditation and approval (see below), and because the last week has seen an avalanche of reports focusing on Sino-Foreign education quality.

I have been predicting for some time on this blog that approval and accreditation will become a major issue if foreign education providers continue to fail in their due diligience and/or flaunt the very clear regulations governing academic education provision in China. Such media coverage leads me to believe that a clampdown (certainly on new applications) is very likely and that what we are seeing here is the mobilization of the official media sphere in highlighting the risks associated with under-the-radar programmes. It could very well signal the first volley fired in a protracted battle to bring unscrupulous and money-focused foreign education providers into line, and that includes a great majority of those foreign universities currently operating in China. There are many interested parties here, including the Chinese universities themselves who make significant amounts of revenue through such programmes, but if government agencies in charge of HE approval are publishing prominent articles warning of low-quality HE provision across the sector, then it is time for foreign education providers (universities) to really examine their China operations and ask what they have to lose.

Student Successfully Sues Alma Mater for Issuing Unapproved Sino-Foreign Degree.

Xinhua News this week reported the case of Ye Jun (pseudonym) who has successfully sued his alma mater in Jiangxi province, China.  Ye Jun recently completed his 3yr Sino-Foreign programme run at a subsidiary private college of Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University (江西科技师范学院).  The International College (国际教育学院) has a long standing partnership with Lambton College, Canada, offering Bachelors of Business Administration with Accounting.  Xinhua report that tuition stood at RMB42k with other associated costs bringing the total to RMB54,250 per annum. 

Ye Jun successfully graduated and was awarded his diploma from Lambton, but when applying for the Civil Service examinations, was advised that his degree certificate was invalid as the programme had not received approval.  Ye Jun was therefore unable to register his qualification with the Chinese Service Centre for Scholarly Exchange (CSCSE). 

The marketing materials offered students the opportunity to receive both a domestic and foreign diploma.  Yet in summation, the Nanchang court advised parents and students to check which programmes have been approved by visiting the MoE website and not to place total trust in the marketing materials of foreign education providers or institutions delivering foreign degrees in China.  Ye Jun brought claims against the International College of Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University for well over RMB100k, but was awarded only RMB10000 in compensation. 

According to Xinhua, it was noted in the court reports that this was the first case in Jiangxi province where a student had brought litigation against a university for running unapproved programmes.  The defense revolved around several issues including that Lambton College is listed as a legitimate public university on the MoE website, and arguing somewhat confusingly that because the International College was not recruiting in-quota (Gaokao) students and no Chinese degree was awarded, no approval for the Sino-Foreign programme was required.   It was pointed out to the defense that, in fact, any programme enrolling Chinese students on the mainland and issuing academic qualifications must be approved by the MoE.  

The Daxue has moved to www.thedaxue.org

The Daxue has moved to a new address. http://www.thedaxue.org will be our new home.

Its been a quiet few months, but a great deal of new analysis will be following shortly.

Congratulations to President Obama on a second term. We will be watching the 18th Party Congress tomorrow to see how the new CCP Politburo Standing Committee. Will there be a seat for Liu Yandong. We all hope so at The Daxue, though recent reports suggest that a 7 seat PSC will not include Mme Liu.