Liberal Arts (General) Education in Chinese Universities: Concepts and Practices

In the new century, the world has witnessed “liberal arts education” or “general education” expand in university undergraduate education (Gillespie 2001; Kirby and van der Wende 2016). Not only has it remained lively in the West under, for example, hotly debated curriculum reforms on American campuses and the Bologna Process in Europe, but also it is thriving as the new fashion of undergraduate education at top institutions in East Asia and elsewhere (Cao 2010; Chen, Shen, and Cai 2012). In China, the Western ideas and practices of liberal arts and general education that had influenced China’s modern universities since the late 19th century, were stopped and replaced by the Soviet model of specialization in 1949, and have resumed impact since the Opening Up reforms in 1979 (Hayhoe 1989, 1996; Postiglione 2010). Around the turn of century, China launched the fastest higher education massification plan in human history with the intent to upgrade its labor force and cultivate innovative talents. Since the same time, liberal arts (general) education was revitalized in Chinese universities.

This issue of Chinese Education and Society on liberal arts (general) education in Chinese universities shares Chinese scholarship on this timely and debated aspect of reforms on Chinese campuses. The selection of articles is based on diversity of viewpoints, experiences, and practices. The seven articles shed insights on crucial issues about the concepts and practices of university liberal arts education in China from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. To form a fair collection of the field, they also include not only three well-known pieces from the more traditional scholarship pattern, but also a few innovative ventures taken at the frontier of practice.

In this editorial I briefly trace the developments of liberal arts education in Chinese universities since the mid-1990s with a clarification of the different Chinese terms along the way. Then I offer a skeleton portrait of current practices and key challenges they face. In the conclusion, I tackle the potentiality of a China model of university liberal arts education and discuss my suggestions for further research in the field.

A TRANSLATION OF AMERICAN IDEALS, OR A CHINESE CONCEPT?

Names are important. When asked how to administrate a state government, Confucius regarded “rectifying names” the first necessary task. The Master said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success” (The Analects, 13.3, see Ames and Rosemont 1999).

However, in the field of liberal arts education, the Chinese have perhaps too many names to reach true consensus. To some extent, the choice of “liberal arts (general) education”—a broad term indeed—in this special issue and many translations of the selected articles is a compromise made under the context of diverse names still simultaneously used in Chinese universities. The lack of a commonly shared understanding of liberal arts education has been identified as one major obstacle for its development in China, failing to transfer the significance attached to concepts into real daily educational practice (Wang and Xie 2015; Zhang and Ping 2013) and demotivating teachers and students alike to utilize such an education (Cao 2008, 2010; Zhang, Liang, and Cai 2007).

In the following section I nonetheless attempt to clarify the different terms. I argue that these terms are identified with different periods of development and each arguably carries its own unique meaning of the content and form of liberal arts education. While a consensus still requires considerable time and efforts from practitioners and researchers alike, this section wishes to summarize past attempts and provide a framework for future discussion. The clarification of terms also tells a brief story of how university liberal arts education has developed in mainland China. Hongcai Wang and Debo Xie’s article, the first one in this issue, offers insightful comments on this history and some current issues, and thus is particularly suitable for readers new in the field.

Wenhua suzhi education (文化素质教育), literally translated into English as “cultural quality education,” was the first term applied to the field. It was a central government initiative and has remained the only term used in policy documents, even with its gradual decline of significance and recognition in university practices during the past two decades. In 1995, at a national meeting held by the Ministry of Education in Wuhan, Zhou Yuanqing first proposed to develop cultural quality education in universities as one key aspect of higher education reforms toward the 21st century. The main reason was made clear: The Soviet style of highly specialized training in universities overemphasized STEM and sacrificed humanities and social sciences. It produced uncritical skilled laborers that no longer matched labor market demands for interdisciplinary knowledge, transferrable skills, and innovative power (Postiglione 2016; Zhou 2000). During the expansion of higher education that followed, lots of specialized colleges transformed into comprehensive universities and, as programs were redesigned to be more general, the number of majors was reduced from over 1,000 to 250 (Chen, Shen, and Cai 2012). Cultural quality curricula were implemented nationwide for all undergraduates.

Cultural quality education was by design and in practice about broadening students’ knowledge on the previously neglected “soft” disciplines. The objective was to rectify an overly specialized version of professional or career-oriented education. Its purpose was to train broadly learned professionals rather than to foster whole-person development and to transmit civilized heritages and values (Huang 2015). Since the mid-2000s, this name has been generally replaced by Tongshi education (通识教育) or, much less popular, Boya education (博雅教育) in universities. The transitional point occurred when top-tier comprehensive research universities started to take autonomous ventures to develop liberal arts curricula and programs with even wider educational objectives, as one key technique to establish featured undergraduate programs in the massive higher education market. Thus, practices of liberal arts education in China transformed from top-down policy implementation to bottom-up institutional creations, although the basic constructions of cultural quality education remained in curricula. Tongshi and Boya education, by name, incorporate a much wider range of educational contents compassing all basic disciplines and more diverse educational objectives beyond knowledge learning. To some extent, these two terms entering into the field represented the beginning of dominant American influences, as academics with in-depth knowledge of and first-hand experiences with the United States system moved to the frontier to advocate these concepts and tailor local practices according to foreign standards.

Tongshi education is usually considered the direct translation for American general education. For example, Li and Wang (1999) explained this concept in detail its origin in ancient Greece to its essence developed out of the unique historic and cultural contexts of the United States. Li (2010) later also translated the famous Harvard Report, “General Education in a Free society: A Report of Harvard Committee.” Much criticism on local practices has also been made against the American model, especially the Ivy League institutions (Gan 2006, 2007; Li 2006). One example is the third article in this issue by Yang Gan, a well-known scholar on liberal arts education and key leader of liberal arts programs at top institutions such as Sun Yat-sen University and Tsinghua University.

While to some extent Boya education has been interchangeably used with Tongshi education, it came into the field slightly later and is often regarded as the direct translation for the more classical “liberal arts education.” Quite interestingly, Boya education in practical use carries similar educational meanings with Tongshi education but with an elite orientation. Examples include the Yuanpei College at Peking University, the Xinya College at Tsinghua University, and the Boya College at Sun Yat-sen University, aimed for only the top performers among freshmen and taking in 200, 64, and 30 students respectively each year.

In tension with this import of American concepts of liberal arts and general education is endeavors from younger researchers to revisit the educational traditions in ancient China, especially the academies since the Song dynasty, and construct, or rather deconstruct, the concept of tong and shi to integrate ancient Chinese philosophies and practices (Lu 2016; Lu and Xu 2016). In the fourth article Yi Lu and Yuan Xu rightly trace the original establishment of the term “tongshi” to Republican-era educators, who in turn based their understandings on ancient Chinese—mainly Confucian—ideas and practices of higher learning. In brief, tong and shi are two key attributes of a well learned and highly ethical person, who obtains extensive knowledge about the world, has wise insights into society and history, holds on to virtues and values, and keeps people in harmony. An education to cultivate these attributes requires educational materials and methods different from what is typically understood as liberal arts and general education from the West. In the next article Yingqiang Zhang and Hualiang Fang discuss the integration of not only the form but also the spirit of ancient Chinese academies into modern universities, with sharp insights on the current problems faced in reforms. In the last article Zhenshan Zhong and Mengyao Sun focus instead of incorporating the Chinese classics into liberal arts curricula and again shed light on obstacles and challenges in practice. Although these pieces are not easily translated and may be very unfamiliar for readers outside Chinese cultural regions, they signify a new trend of establishing the Chinese concept and practice of liberal arts education that evolve from the native soil, instead of being solely imported from the West. The genuine integration of Chinese and Western, perhaps also other cultures’ ideas and practices of liberal arts education, will surely be exciting and bring globe-wide benefits.

CURRICULA, ELITE PROGRAMS, ACADEMIES, AND LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

From the implementation of cultural quality education policies to institution-led reforms pioneered by a handful of top universities, practices of on liberal arts and general education in China have taken place on four levels: curriculum, elite program, academy, and whole institution. Although almost all comprehensive universities now have general curricula besides major-based professional education, the latter three types of practices are still on very small scales compared to the vast landscape of higher education in China.

Curricula

Taking general courses besides major-based training is a common requirement now for all university students in China. The general curricula normally cover three types of courses: (1) fundamental compulsory courses, such as ideology and political studies, military training and physical exercise, languages, math, natural sciences, and computer skills; (2) distributive elective courses, meaning students select to take a certain number of courses (usually just one or two) in course modules or categories defined by the university; and (3) extracurriculum activities counted as credits, such as service trips and internships (Hu 2006). This has become a standard for university education in China, probably due to the strong implementation of cultural quality education policies from the central government. Each university enjoys authority to define the form, credit distribution, and course categories of its general curriculum, on the condition of meeting central regulations first. However, some regulations, such as those on ideology and political courses, can actually generate conflicts with liberal arts educational objectives (Cao 2008).

The biggest challenge of implementing a general curriculum in the Chinese university lies in its relationship with the already firmly established major-based curriculum. With too many courses required in four years compared with, for example, MIT or Chicago, even the most motivated teachers and students at top Chinese universities can hardly strike for a balance between the two but not only concentrate on major-based requirements (Cao 2008; Gan 2006, 2007; Wang and Xie 2015), even though general courses only take up a very small proportion of credits (Li and Shi 2013). In the second article Weiqing Meng and Wei Huang, they discuss in detail the institutionalized obstacles for liberal arts education development, with a focus right on the structural design of curricula. In another article, Yi Lu (2016) also explores different possible integrative patterns of liberal arts and major-based education on the curriculum level. On the course level, which has seldom been studied, in the sixth article Hualiang Fang employs the grounded theory approach to investigate a single case where a general course with students from various disciplines successfully forms mutual enhancement with major-based courses. Fang identifies several conditions for success that can be directly applied to course design and pedagogical practices.

Moreover, the bias toward humanities, arts, and social sciences among general courses illustrates the negative impact left by the initial cultural quality education campaign (Postiglione, Ma, and Te 2017), which actually harms the realization of liberal arts education objectives. However, even for courses on these “soft” disciplines, the phenomenon of “watery courses”—courses with superficial, introductory knowledge on the subject, and low or even no assessment requirements, which students can take “just for credits”—has been widespread and long shaped the impression on general courses among teachers and students (Wang and Xie 2015). In the last article Zhenshan Zhong and Mengyao Sun specifically focus on the obstacles and challenges of offering high-quality courses on “classics” in Chinese universities. They use empirical survey, interview, and observation data to base their arguments and suggestions, which is still rare and, for that reason, valuable to this research field.

Elite Programs

Several elite liberal arts programs have been established since the mid-2000s, including the Yuanpei College at Peking University, Xinya College at Tsinghua University, and Boya College at Sun Yat-sen University (for brief introductions, see Postiglione, Ma, and Te 2017). As mentioned previously, these programs state “Bo Ya” as their educational mission and operate as top-talent cultivation projects where the selected “best” undergraduates are equipped with broader options, greater opportunities, more flexible schedules, and often special accommodation zones of their own to fully explore basically whatever they choose. These programs are with high prestige, great market attraction, and, not surprisingly, controversies. A large amount of literature in Chinese has been discussing their legitimacy, operation, and outcomes, though none is included in this issue due to space limit.

Academies

Elite liberal arts programs usually build academy-like accommodation zones for their members. Fudan University stands out in this regard because it has opened five academies under its Fudan College (undergraduate school) for all freshmen, equipped with not only common space for living, studying, and student activities, but also advisors or mentors from faculty and alumni. It is a strong gesture that every student is eligible for and must have liberal arts experience during undergraduate studies (Chai 2013). The modern academy, as experimented in Chinese universities, incorporates two traditions of residential-and-academic institution—the Oxbridge model and the ancient Chinese academies. In practice, however, the academies face huge challenges to reach full functions mainly from two aspects: first, as explained by Gan Yang in the third article, they must smooth their way through the already firmly established teaching and student affairs institutions in Chinese universities; second, as in the fifth article by Yingqiang Zhang and Hualiang Fang, they need to first find their unique position and identity in university education by learning from the ancient ideals and practices and then be able to motivate appreciation and efforts from various participants.

Liberal Arts Colleges

The elite programs sometimes refer themselves as liberal arts colleges, but so far it has mainly been new joint partnerships between mainland universities and outside institutions that are able to set up institution-wide inclusive and thorough liberal arts curricula that go beyond major-based education. Examples include the Beijing Normal University-Hong Kong Baptist University United International College (UIC), the University of New York’s Shanghai campus (NYU-Shanghai), and the Duke Kunshan University (DKU). Private liberal arts college ventures are also on the rise, for instance, the Xing Wei College in Shanghai cofounded by the first and former UIC president Professor S. T. Kwok.

CONCLUSIONS

Research and practices on university liberal arts education are likely to continue developing in mainland China, as elsewhere around the world. Two recent signature events are Fudan University’s publication of the General Education Review since 2015, providing for the first time in mainland China a professional written forum specifically for research in the field, and the gathering of 25 university leaders and scholars at DKU, sharing research and insights on liberal arts education from mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States, and Canada.

Plenty of conceptual confusion and practical problems as liberal arts education in Chinese universities still face, the progress and innovations it has been able to make are impressive. With the expanding scale of higher education, the growing pool of qualified personnel, the increasing investment into universities, the deepening awareness of Chinese educational traditions, and the nation’s rising aspirations for global competitiveness, the big question today is: Will there be a China model with truly unique characteristics in the long Western- or American-dominated field of liberal arts higher education? Top institutions such as Peking University and Fudan University have clearly been developing featured liberal arts undergraduate education for competitiveness within the nation. But will further developments in liberal arts education contribute to their efforts to differentiate themselves on the global stage, to become world-class liberal arts sites?

While China and its universities may well have such ambitions, they require better guidance from research and more effective communications between the Chinese and English literature, to which this very issue hopes to make a contribution. As for research under the Chinese context, I would like to make two suggestions for future efforts. First, it is worth noting that, in term of learning from foreign experiences, both concepts and practices of liberal arts education in China have mainly relied on the American model, which is quite narrow, as diverse practices can also be found in Europe, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and elsewhere (Sun 2013). As the DKU report advocates, liberal arts education needs to incorporate multiple traditions around the globe (Godwin and Pickus 2017). Raising appreciation of diverse civilizations should be not only an objective for the liberal arts curriculum, as already in Fudan University and Tsinghua University, but also an attitude for research in this field. International academic gatherings such as that at DKU should take place more often in the future to share research and experiences. Second, more empirical studies must be conducted to produce reliable, timely, generalizable knowledge about the actual design, pedagogy, and outcome of liberal arts education in Chinese universities so that both successes and failures are investigated to offer valuable guidance for practitioners. Institutions should be encouraged to conduct longitudinal, systematic assessments on their liberal arts curricula, such as Fudan University does, but perhaps it would make a greater difference if such empirical insights could be shared beyond the institutions.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ying Ma

Ying Ma is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong.