|
|
|
| “Universities for Students”：the Logical Starting Point, Core Value, and Roadmap for the Construction of “Double First-Class” Universities |
| TONG Feng1, XIA Quan2 |
1. College of Marxism, Jinan University/Human Resources Development and Management Department, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510632;
2. College of Liberal Arts, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510632 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Throughout history the world-class universities have always emphasized serving the country, the society, and especially the students. The logical starting point of the development of world-class universities is “being responsible for students their whole life”, namely “universities for students”. However, the physical construction of “double first-class universities” in China is almost “first-class”, but those universities under construction are becoming ever less like a “true university”. The logical starting point of the development of world-class universities includes theoretical logic and practical logic. According to the theory of educational production function, students are the potential productivity and the core variable element of the construction of “double first-class universities”. A strict selection of faculty, cultivation of students’ independent innovation capacity, and first-class service is the premise, key, and important guarantee for the realization of the idea of “universities for students” in world-class universities. In the new era, in the construction of “double first-class universities”, we must adhere to the logical starting point of “universities for students”, probe into the essential similarities and differences between China’s construction of “double first-class universities” and the construction of world-class universities, be selective in faculty recruitment, encourage students to actively participate in the administration of the university, build a multi-dimensional evaluation system, create a good educational environment, and cultivate and develop students’ healthy personality and cultural quality, so as to help realize people’s yearning for a better life.
|
|
Received: 20 December 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 刘光明. 企业文化[M].北京:经济管理出版社,1999.144.
[2] 顾明远. 教育大辞典[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1998. 106-107.
[3] 孙国梁. 中国基础产业供给不足时的总供给——基于里昂惕夫生产函数的总供给曲线的构建[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2006,(6):27-28.
[4] 周健民,沈仁芳.土壤学大辞典[M].北京:科学出版社,2013.189.
[5] 周光礼,蔡三发,徐贤春,王顶明.世界一流大学的建设与评价:国际经验与中国探索[J].中国高教研究,2019,(9):26-27.
[6] (西班牙)奥尔特加·加塞特.大学的使命[M].徐小洲,陈军译.杭州:浙江教育出版社,2001.
[7] 王战军,刘静.世界一流大学的三大标志和四大特征[J].中国高等教育,2018,(19):11.
[8] 钱颖一.大学治理:美国、欧洲、中国[J].清华大学教育研究,2015,(5):8-9.
[9] 沈红. 大学教师评价制度的物化逻辑及其二重性[J].教育研究,2016,(3):48-49.
[10] 刘进,沈红.大学教师流动与学术职业发展:基于对二战后的考察[J].清华大学教育研究,2014,(2):44-45.
[11] 郄海霞,王世斌.美国一流大学工程教学质量保障体系探析——普渡大学的经验与启示[J].高等工程教育研究,2013,(1):139-140.
[12] 林成华,洪成文.美国一流大学“顾客导向”大额捐赠管理模式[J].比较教育研究,2015,(12):49-50.
[13] 杨运东. 美国一流大学办学经验的借鉴和启示——以美国马里兰大学为例[J].高教探索,2012,(5):71-72.
[14] 牛风蕊,沈红.建国以来我国高校教师发展制度的变迁逻辑——基于历史制度主义的分析[J].中国高教研究,2015,(5):77-78.
[15] 钱颖一. 大学人事制度改革——以清华大学经济管理学院为例[J].清华大学教育研究,2013,(2):2-3. |
|
|
|
2020, Vol. 37 
