Q: Excluding international schools, to what extent are compulsory and university education in mainland China “elitist education”?

 

A: In my opinion, it only takes up 10% or less. I think there is very little elitism up till university education. According to my understanding, elitist education refers to cultivating elites in different sectors, so that the elites possess “ability that is different from the public”. Therefore, excluding regional disparity temporarily, there is no elitist education in most regions. Chinese compulsory education encompasses primary to middle school education, whereas civic education encompasses the high school education. Their aims is popularizing basic cultural and scientific knowledge instead of cultivating elites. Moreover, with increasing quotas of undergraduate in Chinese universities in recent years, University education has also become more common. Thus, an undergraduate student only possesses enough capability for their work, instead of becoming “elites”. People can only become elite if they choose to engage in further studies, such as undertaking Master and Doctor degrees. This is the inevitable result of the aim of Chinese education and shortage of educational resources. However, we need to bear in mind that the above discussion only applies to general education in most regions. Due to the huge regional disparity in China, resources for education and mindsets of the educators in developed cities (such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen) differ with the less developed cities. In the less developed cities, elitism is more extensively adopted; whereas my “10%” estimation only covers the developed cities. Therefore, I regret to conclude that China still has a long way to go before reaching a more effective and systematic mode of education.

 

(Q: 你認爲中國内地的義務教育（不算國際學校）在多大程度上是精英式教育？

​

A: 我認為在一成或者以下吧，如果說到大學為止的話，那甚至可以說是沒有什麼精英教育的成分。按照個人理解的話，“精英教育”指的是培養各種領域的思想和技術頂尖人才，使受教育者擁有“與一般人不同的素養”，是嗎？如果這樣說的話，那麼我想在中國，暫時排除地域之間差異的話，在大多數的地區，都沒有所謂的“精英教育”。中國從小學到初中的九年屬於“義務教育”，高中三年可以歸為“公民教育”，其目的都在於普及公民普遍的文化科學素養，而非培養特長人才；而隨著近年來中國大學本科招收人數的不斷提高，大學教育也趨於普及，一名大學畢業生只能說是擁有了足夠工作的素養，而不能說成為了“精英”。如果繼續往上深造，到碩士、博士，才大概可以說是在自己的領域內站到了一定的高度。這是中國教育的目的使然，也是總體教育資源發展不足的現狀導致的無奈結果。但是需要注意的是，我所說的這個想法，指代的是“大多數地區的普遍教育”。在中國這個地域差異很明顯的國家，北上廣深等發展較快的城市所擁有的教育資源和教育者的眼光與更廣大地區是不一樣的。儘管不願承認，但這些地區從小學到大學，所秉持的教育理念相對更類似於“精英教育”。我在答案一開始所估計的“一成”，也就來自這些教育資源不那麼緊張的城市。所以很遺憾地順便說一句，個人認為，中國要形成更有效，更成體系的教育模式，還有很長的路要走。)

 

Q: If we extend the definition of elitist education to “allocating educational resources according to the intelligence level of people, thus increasing the chance of the intrinsically advantaged to become elites”, to what extent does Chinese education possess this feature?

​

A: If we define elitist education in this way, my answer changes drastically. We must discuss the controversial High School Entrance Examination (Zhongkao) and National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao). Personally, I think these one-off academic examinations are the fairest selection processes under the current context. It eliminates other factors to the maximum degree and selects the cleverest or the most hard-working students to receive further education. It rewards efforts and flair, thus facilitating elitism. Therefore, Gaokao is the best system that China can come up with. Its fairness is undeniable. However, we cannot view Chinese education as elitist because of Gaokao. Firstly, other factors, such as having martyrs as parents and ethnic minorities etc, also influences the final grade in Gaokao. Secondly, due to the regional disparity, a Beijing student with mediocre abilities is likely to receive a better education than a smart Shandong student (note: Shandong is a competitive Gaokao province), thus stifling the chance of potential elites to receive a better education. In this perspective, Chinese education possesses obvious and effective elitism in the design of the system, but elitism is not completely reached in the actual practice. 

 

(Q: 如果把精英教育的理解推廣一點，變成“依照人的智慧級別分配資源（例如名校、名師、優良的設備），從而增加有先天優勢的人成才的機會”，你認爲中國教育在多大程度上有這種特徵？

​

A: 如果這麼理解“精英教育”的話，我的答案會有很大變化。在這一方面一定要談的，肯定是中國一直備受爭議的中考和高考；我個人認為，這些一次性學業水平考試其實是在現行的國情範圍內所能作出的最大程度的公平選拔嘗試。它最大限度地排除其他影響因素，而能選出最聰明或者最刻苦的人去接受下一步教育，只要努力或天賦異禀，就一定有收穫；中國的絕大多數學生，都能在這樣的制度之中獲得接受精英教育的機會在這一點上，中國已經做到了它所能做到的最好，就連最苛刻的人，也無法完全否決高考的公平性。但是辯證地說，不能由於高考，就說中國完全具有精英教育的特徵。先不說高考本身由於考生身份（比如烈士子女，少數民族等維穩和政治因素）決定的“加分”，還是像剛才那個問題所說的那樣，因為教育資源發展的不均衡和不完善，一個在北京市出生成長的，資質一般的學生，由於從小到大受到的教育，其實很容易就比一個山東省（高考大省）的聰明學生獲得更好的進階教育，從而導致人才被扼殺在競爭中。從這個角度來看，中國的教育從根本製度上具有明顯有效的精英教育的特徵，但是在實踐中並沒能完全做到。)

 

Q: Do you think elitist education is a sustainable model of education or a measure of expediency?

​

A: I would choose to say that it is a measure of expediency. I have chosen Politics as one of my electives in high school. Everything I have learned in Politics and History lessons points at the socialist path. Even though there are flaws to be addressed in reality, generally the world should steer towards equality. Everyone, regardless of their intelligence level, characters and perspectives, should be granted the right to survive. The key feature of elitist education is to select, and selection inevitably produces difference. When such difference magnifies generation after generation, it may develop into a rigid social hierarchy. The ultimate aim of adopting elitist education should be creating a better world for everyone by the selected elites, instead of granting privileges to these elites that signifies a regression of history. Classifying men by intelligence levels is in nature the same as classifying men by skin colors or races. These classifications are all a tool for reinforcing vested interests and a disguise of inequality.  That's why I think it is only a measure of expediency. Although this period of “expediency” can be very long, I hope elitist education is only a temporary measure that ultimately transitions to a better mode of education, thus making the world a better place.

 

Q:  你認爲精英化教育是一個可持續的教育模式嗎？還是只是一個權宜之計？

​

A: 我會選擇說是權宜之計。因為是高考政治選考生，我這兩年在政治和歷史課堂上學到的一切都指向社會主義的道路。儘管現實可能還有許多漏洞要填補，但是總體來說，世界應該向著平等的方向發展，每一個人，不管是智慧還是愚笨，不管是什麼樣的性格和觀點，都應該有溫飽和發展自己生活的權利。精英教育的特徵是選拔，選拔必然會產生差異，而當受教育的差異在一代又一代人的成長中被逐漸擴大，就有變成階級差異的可能性。

​

我們實行精英教育，根本目的應該是要這些選拔出的人才為全人類創造一個更美好，更完善的世界，讓所有人共享發展的紅利，而非讓這些精英者享有階級特權，那某種意義上應該是歷史的倒退。把人分為“智慧”和“不智慧”，其實和把人按膚色和性別分類的本質是一樣的，都是既得利益者高高在上的俯視，都是對於人類平等的藉口。所以我覺得只是權宜之計，雖然可能這個“權宜”的時間會很漫長，我們死後也不一定能做到，但是我希望它只是一個過渡手段，以後我們能找到更完善的教育模式，讓世界更美好一點。)

 

Q: Judging from your answer, am I right in thinking that you believe the main purpose of education is facilitating equality?

 

A: You can say that. This is my logic flow: education → development → more resources and a better system → ultimately achieving equality.

 

(Q: 從你的答案中看，你覺得教育的主要作用是促進平等對嗎？

 

A: 可以這麼說。我的邏輯鏈條大概就是教育→發展→資源更豐富，體制更完善→最終促進平等。)

 

Q: How can elitist education help achieve social equality in the short term and long term respectively? Some believe that elitist education increases social mobility in the short term, but polarizes the society in the long term, thus aggravating inequality. What is your perspective on this view?

 

A: I agree with this argument. However, “long term” in your discussion should be rephrased as “midterm” instead. The rigidity of social classes and polarization would only be a short periodic phenomenon. Conflicts in history reveal that when polarization reaches a certain extent, it would unavoidably cause a revolt and a large scale subversion of social class. For example, dynasties collapsed throughout Chinese history, the lowest class revolted against the nobles and became nobles themselves. This applies in modern times as well. When the elites get excessive resources, the lower class would attempt to revolt against the rule of the elites. Even though the elite class is composed of wise and strong men, the elites cannot control the situation when the population base is large enough. In this case, history again falls into the cycle of equality - polarization - conflict - short period of equality - next wave of polarization. However, I think this is not an endless loop. Now that we are able to recognize the causes of these problems,  we should be able to find a way to get out of the cycle. This is what I refer to as the “long term result” of education. With the efforts of the elite class, a better systematic design would be established to prevent polarization and reach equality. Of course, this is just an optimistic view.

 

(Q: 你認爲精英化教育在短期和長期内如何影響社會的平等？有人覺得精英化教育在短期内能夠透過個人學識增加階級流動性，達至平等；但由於教育水平和由此而來的收入水平割裂，長期内會讓社會兩極分化，嚴重影響平等。你對此有什麽看法？

 

我贊同這樣的論證，但是我認為你所說的“長期”應該解釋為“中期”。階級固化和兩極分化只會是一個階段化的短暫狀態；歷史中無數次的衝突都告訴我們，當兩極分化嚴重到一個程度，必然會引起反抗和階層之間的大規模顛倒。就像中國歷史上的王朝顛覆，最底層的農民起義推翻貴族，之後自己又成為貴族；放在現代也是一樣，當精英掌握了過多的社會資產，被剝奪物質資料的底層民眾一定會以各種方式試圖推翻精英的統治。哪怕這個精英階層都是選拔出的智慧者和乾將，當人民的基數足夠龐大，它也無法完全控制局面。這樣的話，歷史又會回到過去幾千年的新陳代謝中：平等-分化-衝突-短暫平等-下一次分化。但我想這並不是一個恆久的死循環，正如我們現在已經能認識到這些問題的癥結，在不斷的循環上升中，我們應當能找到一個逃離此圓環的出口，也就是我想說的“長期結果”——在精英的努力下，找到一個更加完善的製度設計，避免過於極端的兩極分化，最終實現平等。當然這只是一個樂觀的想法。)

​