得数学者得天下？——强基计划数学破格入围政策的预期选拔效果

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.09.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

强基计划数学破格入围政策实施以来便备受社会关注，但鲜有研究实证分析其政策合理性和实践有效性。本文基于某强基计划试点高校十届本科生的行政管理数据，分析高考数学成绩对学生本科阶段发展表现的预测效果及其学科异质性。研究发现，高考数学成绩对优秀学生和长青学生具有显著预测作用，但对拔尖学生的识别效果有限。数学成绩的预测效果存在学科差异：对理学和工学专业优秀学生具有显著的预测能力，并对理学和人文学科优秀学生是否成长为长青学生也具有显著预测作用。数学成绩的预测作用存在一定“门槛效应”：130分以上的学生更可能发展成为优秀学生和长青学生，140分以上对优秀学生的识别作用更大，145分以上对长青学生的预测作用最大，且这一预测作用也具有学科异质性。高考数学成绩破格入围政策的有效性为优化基础学科拔尖创新人才选拔机制提供了实证依据。

关键词: 人才选拔, 强基计划, 破格入围, 高考数学成绩, 拔尖创新人才, 奖学金

Abstract:

Since its implementation, the mathematics-based exceptional admission policy under the Strengthening Basic Disciplines Plan has attracted considerable public attention, yet empirical evidence evaluating its policy rationality and practical effectiveness remains scarce. Drawing on administrative data from ten cohorts of undergraduate students at a pilot university participating in the Strong Foundation Plan, this study examines the predictive validity of College Entrance Examination (Gaokao) mathematics scores for students’ undergraduate developmental outcomes, with particular attention to disciplinary heterogeneity. The findings indicate that Gaokao mathematics scores significantly predict the likelihood of becoming “high-achieving students” and “sustained high-performing students,” but exhibit limited effectiveness in identifying “top-tier students.” The predictive effects of mathematics scores vary across disciplines. Specifically, mathematics scores significantly predict high-achieving students in science and engineering majors, and also significantly predict whether high-achieving students in science and humanities fields develop into sustained high-performing students. Moreover, the predictive effect of mathematics scores demonstrates a threshold pattern. Students scoring above 130 are more likely to become high-achieving and sustained high-performing students; scores above 140 show stronger predictive power for identifying high-achieving students; and scores above 145 exhibit the strongest predictive validity for sustained high-performing students. These threshold effects exhibits significant disciplinary heterogeneity. Overall, the effectiveness of the mathematics-based exceptional admission policy provides empirical evidence to inform the optimization of selection mechanisms for cultivating outstanding innovative talent in foundational disciplines.

Key words: talent selection, Strengthening Basic Disciplines Plan, exceptional admission, Gaokao mathematics score, top innovative talent, scholarships

马莉萍, 郑翔睿. 得数学者得天下？——强基计划数学破格入围政策的预期选拔效果[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(9): 36-47.

Liping Ma, Xiangrui Zheng. Win with Mathematics? Expected Selection Effects of the Exceptional Admission Policy in Mathematics under China’s Strengthening Basic Disciplines Plan[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(9): 36-47.

图/表 7

图 1

表 1

表 2

图 2

图 3

图 4

图 5

参考文献

	戴耘, 雷维娜, 朱琳. (2026). 走向科学的和多用途的“创新人才识别/培养测评体系”: 理论架构与策略分析. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 44 (2), 1- 31.
	傅维利. (2009). 我国高考改革的困境、出路及新方案设计. 教育研究, 30 (7), 8- 13.
	刘进, 林松月, 王艺蒙, 马丽娜. (2019). 西部生源大学生学业表现的多维对比分析——基于B大学N学院学生的实证研究. 重庆高教研究, 7 (4), 12- 29. doi: 10.15998/j.cnki.issn1673-8012.2019.04.002
	王新凤. (2023). 我国高校拔尖创新人才选拔政策变迁与机制优化. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (4), 29- 39.
	Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121 (2), 219- 245. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
	Ayebo, A., Ukkelberg, S., & Assuah, C. (2016). Success in Introductory Calculus: the role of high school and pre-calculus preparation. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 3 (25311), 11- 19. doi: 10.21890/ijres.267359
	Ballard, C. L., & Johnson, M. F. (2004). Basic math skills and performance in an introductory economics class. The Journal of Economic Education, 35 (1), 3- 23. doi: 10.3200/JECE.35.1.3-23
	Barr, D., Clifton, R., Renaud, R., & Wang, X. (2023). An analysis of the relationship between high-school pre-calculus and university calculus grades. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54 (7), 1229- 1256. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2022.2117656
	Benbow, C. P. (2012). Identifying and nurturing future innovators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: a review of findings from the study of mathematically precocious youth. Peabody Journal of Education, 87 (1), 16- 25. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2012.642236
	Brown, J. L., Halpin, Glennelle, & Halpin, Gerald. (2015). Relationship between high school mathematical achievement and quantitative GPA. Higher Education Studies, 5 (6), 1. doi: 10.5539/hes.v5n6p1
	Chalmers, A. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). Hachett Publishing Company, Inc.
	Cohn, E., Cohn, S., Balch, D. C., & Bradley, J. (2004). Determinants of undergraduate GPAs: SAT scores, high-school GPA and high-school rank. Economics of Education Review, Special Issue in Honor of B. F. Kiker, 23(6), 577—586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.01.001.
	Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2021). Paradigms of Gifted Education: A Guide for Theory-Based, Practice-Focused Research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003236986.
	English, L. D., & Gainsburg, J. (2015). Problem Solving in a 21st-Century Mathematics Curriculum. in Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd edtion). Routledge.
	Fonteyne, L., De Fruyt, F., Dewulf, N., Duyck, W., Erauw, K., Goeminne, K., Lammertyn, J., Marchant, T., Moerkerke, B., Oosterlinck, T., & Rosseel, Y. (2015). Basic mathematics test predicts statistics achievement and overall first year academic success. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30 (1), 95- 118. doi: 10.1007/s10212-014-0230-9
	Forrest, R. L., Stokes, D. W., Burridge, A. B., & Voight, C. D. (2017). Math remediation intervention for student success in the algebra-based introductory physics course. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13 (2), 020137. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020137
	Gambini, A., Desimoni, M., & Ferretti, F. (2024). Predictive tools for university performance: An explorative study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55 (3), 691- 717. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2021.2022794
	Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: A “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25 (2), 116- 140. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.25.2.0116
	Hu, W., Li, F., & Gan, L. (2014). Does China’s National College Entrance Exam effectively evaluate applicants? Frontiers of Economics in China, 9(2), 174—182. https://doi.org/10.3868/s060-003-014-0010-7.
	Islam, M. M., & Al-Ghassani, A. (2015). Predicting college math success: Do high school performance and gender matter? Evidence from Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. International Journal of Higher Education, 4 (2), 67- 80.
	Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, Collected works from the Festschrift for Tom Bouchard, June 2009: A tribute to a vibrant scientific career, 49(4), 344—351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.022.
	Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (4), 316- 345. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
	Meltzer, D. E. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. American Journal of Physics, 70 (12), 1259- 1268. doi: 10.1119/1.1514215
	Orlov, G., McKee, D., Foster, I. R., Bottan, D., & Thomas, S. R. (2021). Identifying students at risk using a new math skills assessment. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 111, 97- 101. doi: 10.1257/pandp.20211044
	Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (6), 346- 351.
	Rosa, V., & Lewis, S. E. (2019). An explanative basis for the differential performance of students with low math aptitude in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20 (3), 570- 593. doi: 10.1039/C9RP00068B
	Rothstein, J. M. (2004). College performance predictions and the SAT. Journal of Econometrics, Higher Education (Annals Issue), 121(1), 297—317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.003.
	Sengupta-Irving, T., & Agarwal, P. (2017). Conceptualizing perseverance in problem solving as collective enterprise. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19 (2), 115- 138. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2017.1295417
	Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12 (1), 3- 54. doi: 10.1177/1529100611418056
	Terman, J. (1926). Genetic Studies of Genius: Vol. I. Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand Gifted Children. Stanford University Press.
	Thompson, E. D., Bowling, B. V., & Markle, R. E. (2018). Predicting student success in a major’s introductory biology course via logistic regression analysis of scientific reasoning ability and mathematics scores. Research in Science Education, 48 (1), 151- 163. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9563-5
	Trusty, J., & Niles, S. G. (2003). High-school math courses and completion of the bachelor’s degree. Professional School Counseling, 7 (2), 99- 107.
	Wang, M. -T., Degol, J., & Ye, F. (2015). Math achievement is important, but task values are critical, too: Examining the intellectual and motivational factors leading to gender disparities in STEM careers. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00036.
	Wei, D., Zhuang, K., Ai, L., Chen, Q., Yang, W., Liu, W., Wang, K., Sun, J., & Qiu, J. (2018). Structural and functional brain scans from the cross-sectional Southwest University adult lifespan dataset. Scientific Data, 5 (1), 180134. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.134
	Williamson, V. M., Walker, D. R., Chuu, E., Broadway, S., Mamiya, B., Powell, C. B., Shelton, G. R., Weber, R., Dabney, A. R., & Mason, D. (2020). Impact of basic arithmetic skills on success in first-semester general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21 (1), 51- 61. doi: 10.1039/C9RP00077A

变量	(1)	(2)	(3)
变量	是否优秀学生	是否优秀学生中的长青学生	是否优秀学生中的拔尖学生
高考数学成绩	0.015***	0.017***	0.001
	(0.003)	(0.005)	(0.007)
院系固定效应	是	是	是
届别固定效应	是	是	是
样本量	11,116	2,835	2,835

变量	是否优秀学生			是否优秀学生中的长青学生			是否优秀学生中的拔尖学生
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
	理学	工学	人文	理学	工学	人文	理学	工学	人文
高考数学成绩	0.024***	0.016***	0.006	0.017**	0.013	0.020***	-0.008	0.011	0.004
	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.004)	(0.008)	(0.009)	(0.007)	(0.013)	(0.013)	(0.010)
院系固定效应	是	是	是	是	是	是	是	是	是
届别固定效应	是	是	是	是	是	是	是	是	是
样本量	4,619	3,324	3,173	1,058	853	924	1,058	853	924

[1]	周海涛, 朱元嘉. 拔尖创新人才识别与培养评价的类型逻辑和路径优化[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(9): 27-35.
[2]	何元皓, 鲍威. 我国高考体系对拔尖创新人才的早期识别成效研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(9): 14-26.
[3]	李曼丽, 乔伟峰. 响应失灵：拔尖创新人才培养“高支持-低转化”中介机制解释[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(9): 1-13.
[4]	钱佳, 崔晓楠. 是什么塑造了中小学生的创新能力——基于机器学习方法的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(7): 61-75.
[5]	方士心, 陆一, 盛煜森. 面向人才选育的高考难度理论分析：思维品质优先的失分概率[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025, 43(9): 54-68.
[6]	卢晓东. 遮蔽、澄明与“双减”：创新人才涌现的哲学基础与关键[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025, 43(1): 1-16.
[7]	黄斌, 云如先, 吴凯霖. 认知技能分布对国民经济增长的影响：教育强国的新证据[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(9): 13-32.
[8]	赵勇. 国际拔尖创新人才培养的新理念与新趋势[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(5): 1-15.
[9]	李曼丽, 王金羽, 郑泉水, 徐芦平. 新时期本科教育拔尖创新人才培养模式探索——一项关于清华“钱班”12年试点的质性研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2022, 40(8): 31-43.
[10]	卢晓东. 适应、重混与涌现：新时代第二学士学位教育的定位与定性[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2022, 40(10): 1-16.
[11]	游畅, 王阳, 朱晓超, 宋可即, 何鑫, 黄晓平, 陈昶安, 郑方贤, 丁光宏. 科学选拔创新人才的理念、方法与成效——2006-2017复旦大学改革探索综述[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2018, 36(3): 115-124+170.
[12]	黄明喜. 论王安石的陶冶成才观[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2000, 18(1): 88-95.