一流大学战略联盟准入标准研究

发布时间：2018-01-19 09:49

本文关键词： 联盟标准美国大学联合会八校联盟罗素集团价值取向　出处：《复旦大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着我国高等教育进入大众化阶段,高等教育规模不断扩大,高等学校的层次和类型越来越多样多元,为了避免大学发展的同质化,促进教育质量的提高,对大学进行分层分类评估越来越显示出必要性。目前,我国对于如何进行分类评估尚处于摸索阶段。本研究选取国外三个高水平大学联盟——美国大学联合会(AAU)、澳洲八校联盟(Go8)、英国罗素集团(The Russell Group)为对象,研究其准入标准,试图从中抽绎出合理因素,为我国制立重点建设大学的评估标准提供借鉴。本研究综合运用文献分析法、个案和比较分析法,对三大联盟各自的相关政策文本和实际数据进行分析,力图发现其评估的准则、指标及其价值取向。研究表明,美国AAU在长期的实践中逐步形成了定量与定性相结合、动态开放的评估准则,以维护其一流大学共同体的品质与声誉,其最核心的评估指标为获取联邦竞争性资金的能力、卓越师资水平、优质的本科生教育；Go8在澳大利亚努力扩大世界高等教育贸易市场份额的背景下,其评估标准不仅注重考察大学吸纳国家科研资金的能力,而且注重其吸纳社会资金的能力和资本历史积累状况,并特别注重学生的国际化程度；英国罗素集团虽然没有明文的标准,但其所宣示的原则显示其评估的标准强调大学的社会综合功能,其要求成员的学科构成具有广域性和引领前沿研究的能力,注重大学的国际化水平、为社会输送优质人才和将科研成果转化为产品的能力。通过横向比较三大联盟指标体系的异同,我们发现,三大联盟都将知识创新和知识引领、汇聚一流师资、培养高水平人才作为高水平研究型大学的重要使命和基本特征；高水平研究型大学的国际化水平一般都比较高,并且将本科生教育视作大学的基础,与研究生教育并重。当然,三大联盟的评估又各有特色,AAU依据竞争性联邦拨款与国家院士的情况来实行淘汰,罗素集团把治理也纳入标准。通过本研究,我们可以得到如下启示：首先,对重点建设大学的评估应当体现类型特征,高水平研究型大学的学科应有一定的宽度,覆盖文理工医等多个学科领域。其次,要明确重点建设大学评估标准的价值导向,引领我国重点建设大学走向世界一流；再次,重点建设大学的评估标准要与时俱进,符合实际发展的需要；最后,要努力提高重点建设大学评估标准的科学性、合理性。
[Abstract]:With the popularization of higher education in China, the scale of higher education continues to expand, and the levels and types of higher education are becoming more and more diverse. In order to avoid the homogeneity of university development and promote the improvement of educational quality. It is increasingly necessary to carry out hierarchical classification evaluation of universities. In our country, how to carry out classification evaluation is still in the exploratory stage. In this study, three foreign high-level university federations, the American University Federation (AAUU), and the Australian eight Schools Union (Go8) are selected. The Russell Group of the United Kingdom is the object of the study on its admission criteria and tries to deduce reasonable factors from them. It provides a reference for the evaluation standard of the key construction universities in China. This study synthetically uses the literature analysis method, the case and the comparative analysis method, carries on the analysis to the three big alliance respective policy texts and the actual data, tries to discover its appraisal criterion. The research shows that the United States AAU has gradually formed a quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria to maintain the quality and reputation of its first-class university community. Its core evaluation indicators are the ability to obtain federal competitive funds, the level of excellent teachers, and the quality of undergraduate education; In the context of Australia's efforts to expand the market share of the world's higher education trade, Go8's evaluation criteria not only focus on the university's ability to absorb national scientific research funds. And pay attention to its ability to absorb social funds and historical accumulation of capital, and pay special attention to the degree of internationalization of students; Although there is no explicit standard, the principles declared by Russell Group show that its evaluation standard emphasizes the social comprehensive function of the university, and it requires that the subject composition of the members be broad and leading the leading edge research. Focus on the international level of universities, the ability to transfer high-quality talents to the society and transform scientific research results into products. Through the horizontal comparison of the three major alliances index system, we found that the three alliances will knowledge innovation and knowledge leading, the gathering of first-class teachers. Cultivating high-level talents as the important mission and basic characteristics of high level research universities; The internationalization level of the high-level research universities is generally high, and the undergraduate education is regarded as the foundation of the university, which is equal to the postgraduate education. Of course, the evaluation of the three major alliances has its own characteristics. AAU is phased out based on competitive federal funding and national academicians, and Russell Group has included governance as a standard. Through this study, we can get the following enlightenment: first, the evaluation of key construction universities should reflect the characteristics of types, and the disciplines of high-level research universities should have a certain breadth. Covering a number of disciplines, such as science, technology, medicine and other disciplines. Secondly, it is necessary to make clear the value orientation of the evaluation standard of the key construction universities and lead our country's key construction universities to the first class in the world; Thirdly, the evaluation criteria of the key construction universities should keep pace with the times and meet the needs of the actual development. Finally, we should make great efforts to improve the scientific nature and rationality of the evaluation standard of key universities.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：G649.1

【相似文献】