I’d like to share a memorable comment from earlier this month by a professor at Beijing Normal University. The remark is about more than just education – it has quickly become a source of entertainment among Chinese netizens, and even something of a social issue.
On 4 April, a professor at one of the university’s research centres wrote a microblog entry that was presumably meant to offer some encouragement for his students.
‘When you’re 40 years-old, don’t come and see me if your net worth isn’t 40 million yuan ($6.1 million). And don’t tell people that you were my student. To a highly-educated person, poverty means shame and failure.’
The media immediately stirred up some debate on the issue, and many members of the public who responded were quick to argue that by emphasizing money, the professor had taken education back a step or two.
The professor responded that the blog entry was a joke, a defence that prompted even more criticism. Some netizens joked that he clearly has a good grasp of how serious China’s inflation problem is, noting that as his students are mainly in their 20s, by the time they are 40 years-old, 40 million yuan would be equivalent to about 10 million yuan now.
I don’t agree with trying to place a numerical value on education – even if a student becomes a teacher or ends up working in a shop they are still making a valuable contribution to society.
But the comments raise another issue. The professor in question is a senior official at Beijing Normal University’s real estate research centre. The university is meant to be a place for nurturing future teachers, so many are likely left wondering how it ended up specializing in real estate. China’s real estate has been dubbed ‘black gold’, and it seems now that even Beijing Normal University has been ‘polluted’ by the real estate boom.
This isn’t the first time this professor has said something unbelievable. About a year ago, he said that there was no bubble in China’s property market because demand is still high. He is also quoted as saying that people who oppose a ‘revival’ in real estate are ‘hurting national interests’. He added that sceptics about an uptick in the real estate market were ‘anti-humanity’.
The Chinese government, though, is clearly worried that there’s a real estate bubble in parts of China, a view echoed by the IMF. With this in mind, it’s difficult not to wonder what place the rosy views of the professor have at a reputable university. Maybe he’s just trying to make a name for himself. And, if that’s the goal, he’s certainly succeeded. The worrying thing is that there are plenty more like him at Chinese universities.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Liang1a
The question cannot be answered by a yes or no. Of course education should be useful in the sense of contributing to the betterment of society. So how do you measure usefulness? One way is by money. If a person’s output of goods and services is more valueable then he usually gets higher incomes. In a corporation or even government, the higher the position and the greater the responsibilities the higher the wages. Therefore, in the absence of other information money is a fairly good and accurate measure of a person’s ability and performance. Of course, money is not a perfect gauge of a person’s contribution to society. A person who works in a tobacco company producing cigarettes that will kill a few percentage of smokers is obviously not contributing to the betterment of the society. Also it is doubtful people who make a lot of money speculating in the real estate are making society better. Therefore, money is not a good gauge of contribution to society though it is obviously indicative of power and influence.
Another way to put it is fame. Famous people usually are important but not necessarily beneficial to society. Serial murderers are famous or notorious but are obviously not beneficial to society. In the end, wealth and fame may be an indication of a person’s influence on society but not necessarily in a beneficial way.
Mu Chunshan
Maybe each professor would acknowledge the power of money, but their expression will be more gentle and easier for students to accept.
I’ve never seen a professor like Mr. Dong of Beijing Normal University, the chief character of my article, could be so blatantly to give “order” to the students. While he considered it is a personal joke, but I think he is joking the Chinese education.
John Chan
Whether the professor’s microblog was to offer some encouragement for his students or not, that professor is seriously out of touch of reality. He equates qualification/education to wealth in proportion automatically, which is a traditional Chinese mindset. This assertion is seriously misleading and flawed, it will bring his students nothing but frustration when they walk out of school into the real world. The professor is doing no favour to his student but raises false hopes for and ill prepares his students to face the tough world after their school.
In the West it is common for craftsman/tradesman to make more than university graduates. In twenty years time, the similar phenomenon will happen in China too due to over supply of university/college educated people and short supply of skilled craftsman/tradesman. In fact the over supply of highly-education persons fed with false hope by their professors without proper employments is a very explosive and destabilization element to China’s society and regime.
The professor not only did not review the error he had made, he brushed off his error with a joke. China’s quality of high education would be really worrisome if his attitude toward education is common in China high education world.
Mu Chunshan
It’s another dilemma.
Last weekend, Tsinghua University holds the 100th anniversary ceremony. Former prime minister, so-called “Economic Czar” Zhu Rongji returned to his Alma Mater, accompanied by Minister of Education.
In his speech, Zhu launched a harsh criticism on current education in China, which made the Education Minister very embarrassed.
However it is in the prime minister’s term of office; the Chinese university began large-scale enrollment expansion. Yes, the enrollment rate is Higher, but the quality of teaching is in severe decline, so that the issue of university graduates employment becomes a social topic.
Shen Liang
My professor told me not to come see him until I have a hot wife. Something strange in the water. Educational reform is essential if people like this can have influence.
Mu Chunshan
Haha, I have to say, your professor is so cute. At least his advice is better and easier to realize than Mr. Dong Pan of Beijing Normal University.
Mystery
China’s elites go to university for three reasons. In order of importance, they are: (1) to buy “face”; (2) as a financial investment; and (3) for personal development (including learning). The Chinese put so much value on “face” (面子), that even in the absence of learning and financial gain, Chinese students will still continue to flock to “Top 100″ US universities for a long time to come. “Face” is the reason why rich Chinese eat take-out McDonalds in a top-end BMW. And “face” will keep the US academic bubble inflated for much longer than Westerners expect (or at least until Subway in a Lexus).
Finding the “right” reasons for going to university is a separate, moral debate. However, Mu Chunshan is correct to note that academics aren’t, in their work, at all incentivised by money. If a financier’s incentives are dollars and cents, an academic’s incentive system is journal publications and citations (that’s what Liang1a means by “fame”). This makes me reason that the BNU professor was might have been getting all his research papers rejected for publication.
American diplomas can’t be sold; but, like subprime mortgages, they can “default”, i.e. prove that they’ll never pay dividends financially. Fortunately, (unlike buying excessive numbers of houses), most of us go to university for non-financial reasons: either for personal development (including learning) or just to earn “face” (depending on your upbringing). The best immunity to the “diploma deflation”, of which this BNU professor is so afraid, is to go to university for reasons other than financial gain. As a Westerner, I recommend we go there to learn (hardly revolutionary).
Because the Chinese place so much value on “face”, their students will continue flocking to America’s “Top 100″ for a long time to come. China’s booming luxury market (i.e. “face”) will keep US universities’ demand and tuition fees high.
The same reasons—”face”, cash and the 户口 system—make China’s real estate bubble very different from that which propped up—and popped—in the United States. For these reasons, China’s real estate bubble won’t be allowed to burst in the same way that America’s did:
First, China’s real-estate bubbles are localized. Due to the 户口 (household registration) system, it’s difficult for most people to buy houses outside of their area of registration. So any house-price slowdown in Pudong (Shanghai), Chaoyang (Beijing) and Hong Kong won’t be allowed to cause ripples nationwide.
Second, house prices in China are being driven up by rich people with too much cash, not by poor people with too much credit. In the United States, house prices shot up as a result of over-optimistic credit-lending and inevitable credit defaults. In China, after urbanization and genuine increases in property value, the money driving up house prices comes from cash-based buy-to-let or buy-to-sell investments (see David Semple, “China is not Dubai on steroids”, http://www.shanghaifinancialnews.com/?p=555).
To put it simply, a localized, cash-based crisis in China could only be triggered if the elites begin a mass sell-off of houses. But without mortgages to default on, why would they do that?
One answer is that economic conditions might trigger China’s upward-looking elite to finally take their wealth abroad. For many rich Chinese, expensive apartments (and US college degrees) are not just an investment for the future but also a status symbol (or, again, “face”). Many of China’s rich aim to send their families to study/live/retire overseas, usually in the US or Australia. A recent study showed that 50% of China’s elites intend to take their families—and their money—out of the country (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/04/20/security-solution-for-chinas-rich-emigrate/). The “Naked Officials” scandals (those who extort, emigrate and bestow all wealth onto family and friends) are an extreme example of this trend (http://www.danwei.org/corruption/fire_naked_officials.php).
US economic recovery, Chinese property market tightening, and Yuan appreciation against the dollar are all catalysing this aristocratic exodus out of China (not to be confused with “brain drain”). Giving those who wish to emigrate the freedom to do so will be the safest social policy. But China’s heavy-handed bureaucrats must ensure that ‘big capital’ flees China slower than the citizens who own it (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110415-704299.html) to avoid taking any economic flak.
To prevent losing capital, real-estate value, and, most importantly, “face”, China’s house-bubble zones require not just restrictions on buying houses, but restrictions on selling them too. And this is where China’s over-arching, cumbersome bureaucracy might prove incredibly useful.
The flow of “hot money” is still being hotly debated in Chinese political circles (see http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90862/7351620.html and Wang Yong, above).
Next: how about an article on how China just smashed the $3 trillion barrier in foreign reserves… and speculating how much more they might own via proxy purchases in Japan and the UK?
Mu Chunshan
Education is a long-term social problem. Currently it’s China’s transition period, this problem seems relatively prominent.
Real estate issue is a short-term social problem, but it is more harmful.
In my view, bad education is just like chronic suicide if not handled properly, and real estate issue is the equivalent of a time bomb.
Frankie Fook-lun Leung
China’s education system has a lot of problems. Unemployment among college graduates is a serious concern. Some universities are so worried about some theoretical subjects which have little employment prospects have to succumb to market-oriented gimmicks. A history department touts itself has a program which trains history graduates to become tourist guides, knowing all the scenic spots of historical interest. Another problem is that a lot of qualifications are fake paper credentials. I have come across incidents that government officials who get higher degrees based on work executed by their subordinates. Even the university knows that and turns a blind eye. Many university staff are bureaucrats who are not scholars in the western or traditional sense. The emphasis is on quantities and not quality. I attended many college classes of large lecturing halls. Examinations are based on rote-memory. There is a lack of intellectual atmosphere in many mass-produced degree factories. I am not surprised that the professor jokingly refer to the money-making capacities of students.