Guest Post by Jeffrey

Jeffrey, a frequent commenter who lives in China, sent me the following post. I made no edits except to remove the Chinese characters (which came across in the email as squiggly lines). Thanks for this, Jeffrey!
——————————————————————–

University of Science and Technology, China (USTC)- One source of democracy for modern china

University of Science and Technology, China is a university founded in 1958. In the 50s, because of fear of possible attack from USSR and USA, the communist china realized that they should have their own powerful defense weapons. So the massive weapons including atom bomb and hydrogen bomb came into their sight. In order to develop these weapons and the man-made satellites (satellite is a sign to encourage common Chinese people), the communist china needs the necessary technology and researchers badly. To meet up with this need, President Mao and Prime Minister Zhou Enlai decided to establish one university specializing on those advanced technologies. In 1959, USTC(University of science and technology, China) was founded. Its first principal is one of Chinas most-famous scientist-Guo Mouruo.

From its founding to today, this university has been educating many top scientists for china. We can get this conclusion by the many statistics. For example, there are more than 40 CAS members (CAS represents China Academy of Science, a top science academy in mainland china, almost all of most respectable Chinese scientists are its member) from USTC, almost two times as another top chinese university-Peking University and slightly exceeds that of Tsinghua University; this university also is the biggest producer of highest IF papers and biggest science achievements. These are incredible achievement for this university because it is much smaller than its Chinese rivals and usually it receives much less government financial supporting.

This is not the point what i am going to advocate. The most incredible side of this university is, even this university is a college specializing in science and technology and having not any humane studies, it plays an important role in modern China, especially for from 1980s to the mid of 1990s.

At the beginning of 1980s, when Deng Xiao Ping started to implement his reformation policy, all of western thoughts was flooding to china. Including the conception of democracy and freedom, was assimilated by those most fashionable scholars and students. One of them is Fang Lizhi.

Actually Fang is not only a principal of USTC, but also a CCP member. He is one of the top astrophysicists in that time. Because he is a CCP member, he knew those defects and shortcomings of CCP. He started to reform his university by undertaking a “non-CCP” reformation in USTC. This reformation includes following:

1. No politic lessons would be taught in the class unless the student demands it;

2. Promote students’ position and encourage students criticizing university management team and government;

3. Drum for freedom of speech and freedom of thoughts and democracy; try to minimize the government’s influence on the university;

4. Go to other universities and advocate freedom/democracy;

At that time, almost every students of USTC were in favor of him and his bold remarks of democracy. And encouraged and inspired by Fang, those students also went outside for advocating the conception of democracy which learnt from Fang. This tide is becoming stronger and stronger, and, eventually, leads to the student unrest which occurred in 1986.

In 1986, because the student unrest is out of CCP’s control, DengXiaoPing decided to expel Fang from CCP and gave him a new job in Peking (in Peking, Fang should be easier to monitor). Although Fang was deprived of his freedom and be under house confinement, he was still influencing his beloved students to struggle for more democracy. In 1989, after Tiananmen Square massacre, with Bush’s help, Fang finally got his freedom in New World.

Another well-known scholar is Wen Yuankai. He also was a scientist advocating democracy in USTC.

In the 1980s, two principals of USTC was forced to exile aboard because of political persecution. One is Fang, and another is Guan Weiyan. Guan Weiyan died of one traffic accident in Taiwan, he had never allowed to return to mainland since 1989.

Also in the 1980s, the most rapid era of revolution on Chinese thoughts, USTC is the landmark of democracy pursuing in modern Chinese history. It does not only lead the tidy to awaken common Chinese conscience on democracy and freedom, but also act as a role of preacher to spread the conception of democracy. After 1980s, USTC lost CCP’s favor and be the target of persecution in most aspects, the public funding, the government help, etc. The CCP had assigned two several members(Peng Peiyuan, Ten ten) to this university and begin the organizational suppress. Even though, most USTC students are still remembering their ex-principals’ ideals. As I knew, one graduate working for New York Human Right won one respectable prize for his prominent contribution on human rights last year. And, I had visited this university one time, and was touched deeply by their freed environment and democratic atmosphere. This kind of democratic/free sentiment is rarely felt in current Chinese university. Some USTC students told me frankly that they’d like “Not to talk about politic” because they have no feelings towards abnormal political surrounding. The graduates from this Chinese top university are rarely engaged in Chinese ruling team. And till now, no USTC graduate was found guilty because of corruption or other crimes.

It’s very weird that one science & tech university, not a comprehensive university like Peking University, acted as the leading role to pursuing, to teaching Chinese the conception of democracy and finally stir up the democracy event of 1989. But it left much for us carefully thinking.

The Discussion: 62 Comments

Maybe because science is verifiable and does not depend on a supernatural agency for its explanations – therefore Fang and his coworkers could see through the lies of ideology…the government’s claims did not hold up to the available evidence.

December 28, 2005 @ 1:12 am | Comment

I sent this article to Richard without correct… found some many errors in it but not able to correct them. pity..

more chinese universities do in a way like USTC do, more promising china will have.

December 28, 2005 @ 1:36 am | Comment

Jeffery, please let me know what you’d like me to correct. It is no problem!

December 28, 2005 @ 1:59 am | Comment

SERIOUSLY, Jeffrey, let me tell you:

I am American, but I lived in Russia in the years when Communism died in Russia.

And I can tell you, that MOST of the Russians who opposed Communism, were scientists, or else they had a lot of training in science. WHY? Obviously, because, in the natural sciences, you cannot tell lies like the Communists do.

In Russia, in its Communist times, the SCIENTISTS were the ones who had the most clear minds. And the scientists of Russia, were the ones who spoke out against the superstitious Communist Party.

Andrei Sakharov was one. He was a physicist. He was the Russian who designed Russia’s first Hydrogen Bomb in the 1950s. But then in the 1960s and 1970s, Sakharov realised what he had done, and so, he began to speak out for Peace.

And then, in the 1970s, when Sakharov spoke out for Peace, the Communists arrested him and they said he was “mentally ill”, the Communists said he was “insane”, becauase he disagreed with the Communist Party.

He died in 1989, shortly before I moved to Russia. So, I am sorry to say that I never met him. But I DID meet some friends of his.

Anyway. The example of Sakharov can show you, why real scientists are ALWAYS the FIRST people to fight against the superstition of Communism. Because, Communism is just a barbarian superstition, and Communism is against all Science and all logic.

And THAT is why, in Communist countries, the true Scientists are always the FIRST enemies of Communism. Because Communism is against science, Communism is a dark superstition, and all REAL scientists can see this.

The Communist Party is about as “scientific” as the Tai Ping rebels of the 1850s. The Communist Party is a superstitious cult. THAT is why all REAL scientists oppose it.

December 28, 2005 @ 3:47 am | Comment

PS, some SCIENTIFIC proof, of why Communism is a false superstition:

1. Science is based on evidence, yes? (Yes, I assume we agree on that.)

2. In science, we have no perfect evidence, but we must use what we know from experience. Yes?

3. Ever since Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 – when he predicted that Communism would take over Europe – we have seen:

4. NO European country (other than Russia) ever chose to become Communist, since the lifetime of Marx, 150 years ago.
ALL European countries REJECTED Communism, whenever they had the freedom to do so. Eastern European countires pretended to be “Communist” from 1946 to 1991, but only because the Russian Communists forced them to.

5. Today, there are NO Communist countries in Europe – including Russia – all the way to Vladivostok on the border of China – today, ALL of Europe HATES Communism, and all of Europe laughs at the Communists.

6. The historical evidence proves, that Marx and Lenin were wrong. They both predicted that Communism would conquer all of Europe.

7. And so, now, today, the Chinese Communists are STILL pretending, that a day will come in the future, when the world will realise, “Oh, Communism is the CORRECT PATH!”
HA! HAHAHA! Dream on! Oh, the Chinese Communists are just SO pathetic, so weak, so stupid, such clowns.

8. IF the Chinese Communists want to carry on pretending to be the “correct” and “inevitable” path of history, then they have a LOT of workd to do! First, they must start by converting all of the Russians back to Communism. And then they must convince the Poles and the Germans to become Communist. And then they must convince the British and the Americans, to follow the “correct path of Marxist-Leninist-MaoZeDong Thought!”

HA! HAHAHAHA!

Oh, you STUPID fucking Chinese Communists, don’t you get it? Don’t you stupid fucking Communists realise, that your Party is DEAD?

And if your Communist Party is NOT dead, then you have a lot of work to do, trying to get back with your Russian Communist brothers who STARTED YOUR IDIOTIC PARTY FOR YOU!

If you stupid Chinese Communists – who got all of your idiotic ideas from Russia – if you want to pretend to be the “leaders” of the world, then you can start by trying to convince Russia to become Communist again.

Fat chance of that. I will never happen. Your idiotic Communist Party (which CAME FROM RUSSIA) is DEAD! The Communist party is DEAD!

Unless you Communists can convince Russia and Germany and all of Europe to follow you. HA! HAHAHA!

You Chinese Communists, why don’t you just kill yourselves now?

December 28, 2005 @ 4:12 am | Comment

Remember there was a time when scientists of the former Eastern Block would rather become expat house keepers or mechanics in West Germany or Switzerland?
The kistch and violence within that great utopian lie grossed them out and smashed their will to live with any dignity.

December 28, 2005 @ 4:26 am | Comment

so, ivan, exactly how much of a vodka habit did you bring back from Russia, and how much was consumed before you wrote your last posts? ๐Ÿ™‚

“Oh, you STUPID fucking Chinese Communists, don’t you get it? Don’t you stupid fucking Communists realise, that your Party is DEAD?” hehehe i need to put that on a sig somewhere

December 28, 2005 @ 6:24 am | Comment

Look, the CCP is “Communist” in name only. It’s a basic authoritarian ruling class. So I’d agree that Communism is dead in China as an ideology – in the Party as much as everywhere else…

December 28, 2005 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

Now, Lyshenko, he was a good Soviet Communist scientist (not).

December 28, 2005 @ 1:36 pm | Comment

One challenge science and tech universities face is cutting ties to corporations and doing independent work. When I taught at such a school lots of the graduate students spent most of their time working on projects for their advisors that are for some company the advisor has started or has connections with. It really limits what research is being done when the professors are busier trying to make their enterprises work than focusing completely on independent research. I’m not sure how much of this happens in the humanities and social sciences, but I’m sure it does. Another problem is bigger companies that have a large investment in or connections with the school that can have a huge say in what goes on at the schools while at the same tie the schools are supposed to be independent.

December 28, 2005 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

A very interesting post. One that raises hope for China. I don’t think it would surprise many Americans that those most inclined to oppose dogmatic beliefs come out of universities specializing in science. The usual charge is that such graduates lack “socialization” skills. Universities specializing in liberal arts and “social sciences” often produce the more dogmatic thinkers, especially in these days of political correctness. Some minority of these still believe in “scientific socialism”. Ivan, you are wrong about Europe. The Czechs freely chose communism, back in ’47 I believe. Once freely elected, of course, the Party made sure that there were no future free elections. I remember this case being brought up in the Allende years, when a President elected with 32% of the vote was dragging Chile into “socialism”. The French Communist party came close several times, but always had to govern as part of a coalition.

December 28, 2005 @ 7:49 pm | Comment

Actually what i am going to emphasize is the relation between science and democrat.
1.social science doesn’t improve china’s democracy progress too much(i get this point from the poor performace Peking University made in the 1980’s.ironically Peking university claims that he is the source and heart of china’s freedom and democracy);
2.academic freedom is the driving force to push scientific research ahead;
3.academic freedom is the strongest weapon to fight the political superstitution.
4. the top universities in china, including Peking university and Tsinghua university, were absorbed and digested by CCP. they lost their values and legacy which inheritted from their older generations. for example, if you look at the members of Central Commitee of CCP, you will find many from Tsinghua Univ and Peking Univ. if you look at those convicted corrupted top official, including some ministers and deputy head of province, you can find many are from these universities. they prefer abandonning their science dreams to being a politician, not because of their hoping for do sth for chinese people, but because of the temptation.

December 28, 2005 @ 9:26 pm | Comment

In contrast to the USTC students’ “unwilling to talk about chinese politics and being an official in CCP”, the students from Peking univ and Tsinghua univ are more liking to boast “how many top officials is from my univ”.
I had met someone from Peking univ in one BBS, he has listed the names of his schoolfellow being a senior member of CENTRAL COMMITEE or goverment. if no one pays attention to his post, he would reply his list by himself so that his post will be the top position on that BBS. it’s very funny.

December 28, 2005 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

“University of Science and Technology, China (USTC)- One source of democracy for modern china”

U of Science and Technology in Beijing is a major school but by no means the top science and engineering school. There are many others such as Tsinghua U., Fudan U., Harbin Science and Technology U. (it is engaged in space and moon explorations), and so on. How is Beijing Science and Technology U. as “source of democracy”? It has not published any essay on that subject, nationally or internationally. It has not made any argument that “democracy” won’t turn into demoCRAZY and chaos in China. What “source”?

“…Actually Fang is not only a principal of USTC, but also a CCP member. He is one of the top astrophysicists in that time. …

In 1986, because the student unrest is out of CCP’s control, DengXiaoPing decided to expel Fang from CCP and gave him a new job in Peking (in Peking, Fang should be easier to monitor). Although Fang was deprived of his freedom and be under house confinement, he was still influencing his beloved students to struggle for more democracy. In 1989, after Tiananmen Square massacre, with Bush’s help, Fang finally got his freedom in New World.”

Fang Lizhi after being expelled from China, landed a teaching “job” with the Arizona State University, a 5th rate school. He has been enjoying his mediocre salary (probably funded by the CIA), struggling with his English, and probably now decries discrimination of pay as compared with his white “colleagues”. We haven’t heard him say a word about democracy any more. Does he care? Case closed.

It is funny that you call Beijing by the name “Peking”. No mainland Chinese use the name “Peking”. “Peking” is used today only by the die-hard agents, journalists and politicians of the Cold World era. Despite the many intentional or unintentional grammar and spelling mistakes, I don’t think you are Chinese.

“… Some USTC students told me frankly that they’d like “Not to talk about politic” because they have no feelings towards abnormal political surrounding. ”

The young students have now learned not to be used as political tools against thier own country. They have learned that “democracy” is a political tool against China rather than a panacea for China’s complex problems in feeding 1.3 billion people.

BTW, can any other country in this world handle the needs of 1.3 billion people?

Try it.

December 28, 2005 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

You think they are taking care of their people’s needs in a wise and effective manner? Moron.

December 28, 2005 @ 10:52 pm | Comment

On the most superficial level, at least, I can contradict you – one of my Chinese friends always refers to Beijing as ‘Peking’, even after I corrected him several times.

I have been told by MANY (around a dozen) Chinese students that they detest the fact that they have to study ‘politics’ at university. One has told me that she chose to study abroad solely because she didn’t want to be subjected to what he called ‘propaganda’.

“The young students have now learned not to be used as political tools against thier own country”

…don’t you mean, ‘brainwashed into submission’? I don’t object to people choosing to be Communist – what I find deplorable is the political apathy which this system has created. The CCCP finally realised that indoctrination is too violent (no one wants the red guards back), and instead has gone down a route of invoking supreme apathy and civil disengagement.

Perhaps this stops rioting, but it also creates bovine apathy, lack of creativity, and grotesque lack of sympathy for the masses of suffering Chinese people. Things don’t get done if you just sit back and relax- that’s how things fall apart.

I don’t advocate Democracy as a panacea. And yes, totalitarianism is an effective form of government in hugely populous countries, but what about India?

They don’t seem to be doing too badly, do they?

And at least in democratic countries (where there is genuine civil engagement) people don’t sit back and relax whilst terrible things are done in their names.

December 28, 2005 @ 10:54 pm | Comment

u think they are taking care of their people’s needs in a wise and effective manner?

I think they are trying. What they have done may not always be the best or optimum, and there are some bad apples in the government, but they try.

Who else has better ideas to satisfy the needs of 1.3 billion people? Give me your recommendations if you have any. LOL

December 28, 2005 @ 11:08 pm | Comment

I have better ideas. Start by purging the party and getting serious about corruption. Then give people greater representation and reform the tax code. Then enforce the constitution, which right now is meaningless. Lots and lots of ideas. Just give me a few years to run China and I guarantee you it’ll be better off than it is today.

December 28, 2005 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

I don’t advocate Democracy as a panacea. And yes, totalitarianism is an effective form of government in hugely populous countries

No need for further discussion then. Case close.

December 28, 2005 @ 11:26 pm | Comment

Yeah, China Hand, case closed: you are a friend to totalitarianism. And you’re proud of it.

Sure, it “works,” but at what cost? Nazi Germany was a paradigm of efficiency and organization. but at what cost?

December 28, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

I have better ideas. Start by purging the party and getting serious about corruption. Then give people greater representation and reform the tax code. Then enforce the constitution, which right now is meaningless. Lots and lots of ideas. Just give me a few years to run China and I guarantee you it’ll be better off than it is today.

Humility is an unknown virtue in American culture. A barbaric culture is boastful.

I’ll let you run a small business for ten years, and if you can make money, then I’ll let you run a small business in China for five years. Before you can make a buck, don’t boast that you can run a small business.

December 28, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

Though, to be fair, under Mao totalitarianism failed in ever way. The people starved to death and there was utter chaos during the CR.

December 28, 2005 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

Start by purging the party..
This is tantamount to triggering a civil war.

… and getting serious about corruption
Over the last 2 years, nearly 50,000 corrupt officials had been brought to justice.

Nazi Germany was a paradigm of efficiency and organization. but at what cost?

Funny, Nazi Germancy had democracy, and Hitler was “democratically” elected. So was Bush. LOL

December 28, 2005 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

Humility is an unknown virtue in American culture. A barbaric culture
is boastful.

I was being a bit humorous, but obviously someone as obtuse as you wouldn’t get that.

Hitler was elected Chancellor democratically, then he seized power and turned it into a fascistic dictatorship. There was no democracy under Hitler, even if there were, for a while, elections. Rule of law was thrown out the window. You know nothing. Absolutely nothing.

December 28, 2005 @ 11:49 pm | Comment

Richard, the USA has only two parties (discounting all others that are insignificant) running against each other. No woman has ever been nominated as president or vice president candidate. No African Americans have been nominated either.

Tell me why.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:07 am | Comment

I’ll tell you why: Because you are an idiot. Ever hear of Geraldine Ferraro? (Nominated and ran for VP with Walter Mondale, 1984.)

Are you aware we have two woman on the US Supreme Court and a female Secretary of State?

Are you aware Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton are both being discussed as presidential candidates?

Are you aware of anything? Tell us, oh wise one, how many women are in leading power position in the Chinese oligarchy? I await your response eagerly, excitedly. Come on, enlighten us. We’re all waiting.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:11 am | Comment

Look, I’m not here to fight with anyone. It’s just your calling Mao Zedong names (“monster”) was offensive to me.

Just like if I say “Hitler is a great man!” would be offensive to you.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:12 am | Comment

China_hand,
first, you should recognize where USTC is; if you don’t know where USTC is, how dare you judge one univ?

second, i think following statistics can prove USTC is the best univ in mainland china:
1> CAS member (it’s most authoritative factor to assess one univ, right?)
2> the number of highest IF science papaers, including paper published on Science & Nature, PRL, JACS, ADV MAT and CELLS.
3> Greatest science achievements;
4> the performace of the graduates accomplish;

In mainland, USTC has the 3rd best fresh source(only worse than that of Peking Univ and Tsinghua Univ, better than FuDan Univ);
in today’s “Science Daily”, there is one news about “ten biggest science news for 2005 in china”. two from USTC, and none from Peking univ and Tsinghua, let alone other chinese univ.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:24 am | Comment

I know exactly where UTSC is.: Hefei.

I said also that is a very good univ. and very reputable univ. in China. But I have no concrete basis to say that it is “the best”.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:27 am | Comment

USTC, UTSC, stuipd acronyms.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:27 am | Comment

I’ll tell you why: Because you are an idiot. Ever hear of Geraldine Ferraro? (Nominated and ran for VP with Walter Mondale, 1984.)

Are you aware we have two woman on the US Supreme Court and a female Secretary of State?

Are you aware Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton are both being discussed as presidential candidates?

Are you aware of anything? Tell us, oh wise one, how many women are in leading power position in the Chinese oligarchy? I await your response eagerly, excitedly. Come on, enlighten us. We’re all waiting.

Ok, I forgot about Ferraro.

Madame Song (wife of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen) had been vice-president of China since many years ago. She died of old age already. Your high school textbook does not tell you anything about the world.

Do you know who Wu Yi is? Go look it up if you don’t.

Compared with other countries, usa is lagging in women and black president/vice-president. (Even your own media acknowledges this).

Many other countries have had women presidents and vice-presidents compared to the US.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:29 am | Comment

U of Science and Technology in Beijing is a major school but by no means the top science and engineering school.
———————————————-
hehe.. seems you found the location of USTC by your google.. quickly..
that’s nice.

so do you know what the PRL/Science/Nature/CELL/JACS/ADV Mat is?
do u know which univ has published the most science highest IF papers on this kind of mag?
do u know who Pan Jian Wei is?
do u know who Hua Lou Gen is?

December 29, 2005 @ 12:34 am | Comment

Ok, you meant KeDa, sorry about that in my first response. But even KeDa is not “the best” in China. I would agree it’s top 3 (perhaps top 1 in certain engineering majors). But why absolutely “No. 1”?

Are you a graduate of KeDa?

December 29, 2005 @ 12:37 am | Comment

i am not from KeDa. sorry.
as i said before, i had visited KeDa only one time.
I knew KeDa, is inspired by Fang, not by its science achievements. more understand KeDa, more admire K3Da.

thank you any way for ur remarks.
nice dream.

December 29, 2005 @ 12:52 am | Comment

China-hand, your lack of subtlety (or inability to detect it) is amusing.

‘Effective government’ is by no means the same as ‘good government’.

The more despotic Emperors of China were effective governers, but as a communist surely you wouldn’t support them?

India as I pointed out is also a hugely populous nation. Unlike China, however, it is free.

And much better educated – India will be a service economy when poor Chinese are still digging coal out holes with their bare hands and suffocating to death because of a totalitarian, uncaring government.

December 29, 2005 @ 1:15 am | Comment

We haven’t heard him say a word about democracy any more. Does he care? Case closed.
————————————————
Do you know the agreement of silence he made in 1989(or 1990, i forgot, sorry)? in this agreement, Fang should keep in silence over all things related to his role and the students unrest, or else he could not get out of US embassy. that’s why Fang hadn’t mentioned democracy any more since he was exiled as a dissident to US.

December 29, 2005 @ 1:33 am | Comment

Without former US president Bush’s intervening, maybe Fang is still sitting in US embassy in Peking.
You really need to read more books or articles about this history.

December 29, 2005 @ 1:36 am | Comment

Ya know, Ferraro, Hillary and Condi references aside – most of us American types spend plenty of time criticising our own government (especially for the last five years. Ugh). But it’s a really pathetic defense to go, “ooooh, look at all the sh1tty things America has done, that justifies all of China’s problems!” I mean, that’s just lame. Whatever happened to that good, old fashioned CCP principle of self-criticism? You ought to be able to tolerate some honest critique without getting your pant1es in a bunch over it.

But typically, China Hand, when China is criticized, your response is to attack America and point out our deficiencies. Well, let me tell you something. We do a far better job criticising ourselves than you could ever manage. If you would apply this same standard of critical analysis to China instead of attacking “paper tigers,” China would be a lot better off.

This kills me, because I love China. I want China to succeed. I’d like to live there again. But right now, I’m not the optimist I was even a year ago. I’m beginning to think that Hu Jintao is just another rigid technocrat who is in hopelessly over his head and is making a lot of really foolish decisions.

Maybe he and Bush can get together at Zhongnanhai or Crawford and commiserate about how those damn masses are out to get them…

December 29, 2005 @ 1:41 am | Comment

That Hua Luogeng guy is pretty inspirational.

So is Wu Yi, i guess, but seeing her up there all alone makes you wonder how much she is just a token figure like those minority representitives who come to government meetings dressed in traditional dress. or my favorite, the guy sitting as representative of Taiwan alongside the governors of all the other provinces. I mean give me a break

yea i always wondered how the leaders of Bei Da could be so dense if theyre trying to make China’s best university. i mean just grabbing the best teachers and best students can only get you so far, and someone somewhere is going to have to step up and make some real changes. if it is the science and tech universities, then great, but for some reason i’m not so optimistic. thanks for the interesting post though

December 29, 2005 @ 8:50 am | Comment

Haha, you guys are arguing about the best universities in China.

Jeffery,

KeDa is not the best university in China. Actually, it is now in the second tier. It was once the very best and the best stdudents in my high school used to go there in the 80th. But because of the location, not many top students want to go there any more; and it has declined to be a second-tier uinversity.

December 29, 2005 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

Xing,
How to assess one univ? by location? by fresh source? or by science achievements?
If we use two pure standards(scientific achievements and the performace of its graduates) to assess one univ, then definitely KeDa is the best university in china. actually it’s not only the best, it’s NO.1 univ.
Need proof? so many statistics(like CAS member, highest IF paper,the awards, the performace of its graduates) can prove this point.
Please also be aware that this kind of achievements is obtained under much less govt aid and much smaller number of PROFESSORS/STUDENTS/MAJORS comparing to BeiDa and Tsinghua.

December 29, 2005 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

All,
forget about the point of who is the No.1 univ in china.

we should concentrate on “democray history in 1980’s”

December 29, 2005 @ 5:42 pm | Comment

Jeffery,

An university is not accessed by its location. But because of the location of Keda, nowdays, it is hard to attact top students and faculty from other parts of China; and that’s why it has falled into the second-tier universities.

December 29, 2005 @ 6:48 pm | Comment

Xing,
you are totally wrong.
Although HeFei is not attractive as BeiJin & ShangHai, although KeDa is out of favor of govt, although KeDa has no favourable position on media advertisement,KeDa still has the No.3 best fresh source in mainland china, only worse than BeiDa and Tsinghua. this can reflect KeDa’s unique position in common mind.

at one time you are repeating like “because of location… then.. KeDa is second tier..”, at another time you say “A univ is not assessed by location”. do you think your remarks are contradictory?

Anyway, as i said before, what i am going to stress, is not the position which USTC is, but the role which USTC act as in democracy history in the 1980’s.

December 29, 2005 @ 6:59 pm | Comment

>at one time you are repeating like “because of location… then.. KeDa is second tier..”, at another time you say “A univ is not assessed by location”. do you think your remarks are contradictory?

I thought that you are smart enough to understand my points. What I said is that because of its location, not many top students in China want to go there and it has declined to a second-tier university. So, tell me what the contradition is here?

Anyway, what we are arguing here is not central to the topic.

December 29, 2005 @ 7:13 pm | Comment

not many top students in China want to go there and it has declined to a second-tier university.
———————————————-
Because “no many top students(as a matter of fact, as i repeated again and again, that KeDa has the No.3 best fresh source) want to go KeDa”, so “KeDa is declined to second tier”. is this point right? No. Totally wrong. the fresh source is only one INPUT for one univ. it could not play a most important factor in assessing one univ. which factor are most important to assess one univ? output, output , not input. what is output? the output for a univ is: the performace of its graduate, the science achievement this made..
do you agree with my opinion?

December 29, 2005 @ 7:22 pm | Comment

Jeffery,

Where does your ranking come from? In the last few years, I saw unversity ranking in China from AsiaWeek, Far East Economic Review and within China, Keda ranks consitently behind BeiDa, Tsinghua and FuDan. In some ranking, it is even behind NanKing Univ. ZhianJiang Univ. …

December 29, 2005 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

really, rankings are pretty arbitrary. when i was at harbin university of technology, everyone there told me it was the number one school in china. when i went to nanjing university, everyone said it was in the top three. i don’t think there’s any official ranking, and if it was, it would probably be determined by how many gifts you gave the person drawing up the list.
nevertheless, having never been to anhui, i have still heard of keda quite a lot. it’s a well-known school. thus, i would characterize it as a top university.

December 29, 2005 @ 8:20 pm | Comment

seems we should open another thread for discussing university ranking.. haha..

forget about it.. don’t arguing on ranking any more, ok? back to democracy

December 29, 2005 @ 8:27 pm | Comment

Kevin,

So, by your reasoning, statistics is of no use. Your examples don’t hold up. It is not up the students to rank their universities.

I have never said Keda is not a very good university. But it is outside the top three or top five.

December 29, 2005 @ 8:29 pm | Comment

Jeffery,

I think it is you who want to pursue this debate. If you still think Keda is the best, show me the ranking by some repected source.

December 29, 2005 @ 8:32 pm | Comment

Xing, just let it go…. Okay?

December 29, 2005 @ 8:38 pm | Comment

Xing, i know you, and i know what you’re doing. changing the topic, it’s the secret weapon of all chinese nationalists who simply can’t think of anything intelligent to say.
keda’s a good school.
now wanna talk about the deeper implications of the piece?
thanks.

December 29, 2005 @ 8:40 pm | Comment

Xing==HongXing?

change the topic is your weapon to shirk this topic of “democracy history”?

We are talking about the democracy course of 1980’s. do you think the era of 1980 is the china’s most hopeful era? science, freedom, democracy… all these can be discussed in the univ and social openly..
can you guys remember the “Democracy Salon”? remember Wang Dan and his fellows?

December 29, 2005 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

I remember when I first started taking Chinese history classes, and people would talk about how the 1980s were, intellectually, a much more open period. I really didn’t get it at first, just left me wondering “how could that be possible?” But looking back on it now, I can completely understand. It seems like there were some people with some really great ideas, and it’s quite a tragedy for the nation that they have to spend the rest of their lives either a) in exile b) in virtual, or perhaps also actual, imprisonment

December 29, 2005 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

After Deng Xiao Ping came to power in 1979, one writer from NanJing univ had published one article(Practise is the only criterion to verify the truth) in “RenMing Er Bao” . after that , all thoughts were flooding into mainland.

December 29, 2005 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

>We are talking about the democracy course of 1980’s. do you think the era of 1980 is the china’s most hopeful era?

On this, I agree with you. I was on the street myself in 1989.

And Richard, I will stop right here.

December 29, 2005 @ 9:00 pm | Comment

the students unrest occurred in 1980’s directly influenced and inspired the WILD LILY MOVEMENT in Taiwan. and this WILD LILY MOVEMENT directly ends the KMT’s exclusive goverance.
one of my Taiwan friends told me that the event of 1989 is the last time Taiwanese care about mainland. the taiwanese lost their last patience towards CCP because of the TianAnMen massacre. after 1989, DPP(democratic Progress Party) became stronger and stronger, and their opinions are widely accepted by more and more common taiwanese.

December 29, 2005 @ 9:01 pm | Comment

Xing,
i invite you participating our discussion. really.
you had taken part in that event, so i’d like to hear from you about that event.

December 29, 2005 @ 9:05 pm | Comment

Xing, I don’t want you to stop commenting. I just wanted to move on from the university ranking discussion, which wasn’t getting us anywhere. Would love to hear your comments on 1989.

December 29, 2005 @ 9:33 pm | Comment

I don’t think Xing is HongXing – if so, I hope he goes away fast.

December 29, 2005 @ 9:36 pm | Comment

Xing isn’t Hongxing, I’m pretty sure. Xing usually has a lot to contribute to the discussion.

December 29, 2005 @ 10:19 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.