华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4): 29-40.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.04.004

• 高等教育 • 上一篇    下一篇

政策视域下我国高等教育排序竞争:内涵、成因与省思

肖瑜, 刘振天   

  1. 厦门大学 高等教育发展研究中心,福建 厦门 361005
  • 出版日期:2025-04-01 发布日期:2025-03-25
  • 基金资助:
    教育部人文社科重点研究基地重大项目“高等教育评价与质量保障体系研究”(22JJD880034)。

Sorting Competition in China’s Higher Education from Policy Perspective: Manifestation Type, Formation Logic and Reflection

Yu Xiao, Zhentian Liu   

  1. Center for Higher Education Development Research, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China
  • Online:2025-04-01 Published:2025-03-25

摘要:

我国高等教育在政策层面存在激烈的排序竞争之势,主要表现为资源驱动下的平行竞争和发展驱动下的自我竞争,前者反映的是追赶,后者反映的是超越。同时,下级决策者对上级政策的超常响应则进一步加速了竞争。多重政策逻辑共同形塑了排序竞争:决策上,后发国家经济社会发展对高等教育的亟需推动了赶超型政策议程;响应上,政绩观转型重塑的高等教育竞赛新地标激发了底层积极性;次级决策上,为缓解高等教育冲突性而具有的政策模糊性有利于底层指标值书写的自主性和自治性。排序竞争有利于促进政策的高效执行,但也应警惕“层层加码”下的政策变形和马太效应下的公平问题,避免我国高等教育低质量发展。未来,政策制定要追求实质数据增长和累积性发展,从政策竞争走向合作共赢,从工具理性走向价值理性。

关键词: 高等教育政策, 排序竞争, 内涵

Abstract:

China’s higher education on the policy level there is a fierce sorting competition, which is mainly manifested as parallel competition driven by resources and self-competition driven by development, reflecting catch-up and transcendence respectively. At the same time, the extraordinary response of low-level decision-makers to higher-level policies further accelerates competition. Multiple policy logics work together to shape sorting competition: in terms of decision-making, the urgent need for higher education in the economic and social development of the latecomer countries promotes the catch-up policy agenda. In terms of response, the new landmark of higher education competition with the transformation and reshaping of the performance view has stimulated the enthusiasm of the bottom. In terms of secondary decision, the fuzziness to alleviate the conflict is conducive to the autonomy of the underlying number writing. Sorting competition is conducive to the efficient implementation of policies, but it should also be vigilant about the policy distortion under the layer on layer and the fairness problem under the Matthew effect, so as to avoid China's higher education into the dilemma of low-quality development. In the future, policymaking should pursue substantive data growth and cumulative development, move from policy competition to win-win co-operation, and from instrumental rationality to value rationality.

Key words: higher education policy, sorting competition, connotation