quora 为什么亚洲没有能比过牛津剑桥的大学，他们不是对教育很重视吗？ [美国媒体]

Why is there no Asian equivalent to Oxford or Harvard universities, since education is so highly valued in Asia?

quora 为什么亚洲没有能比过牛津剑桥的大学，他们不是对教育很重视吗？





Chia Jeng Yang, MBA from Harvard Business School (2023)
Answered Dec 21
There are not enough successful alumni to justify Asian universities deserving this prestige. But there will be, soon.
A fundamental principle for what makes a prestigious university is the strength of its alumni. Many parents and students apply to a university because they want to mimic the path of a particular alumni.
It is easier to see that a good decision is made if you apply to the Universitythat Stephen Hawking teaches in, or the University where the most US Presidents graduated from.
It makes sense at least in one way that if you have a similar starting path to these great individuals, that you may potentially have a similarly successful future.
What has this to do with the future of Asian universities?
Asia is a large continent with huge amount of variances within countries and regions, but there is a general trend and principle to take note of.
There are in overview 3 waves of entrepreneurship in modern Asia.
The first wave of Asian entrepreneurs were uneducated. In many of these countries, they were one of the pre-war ‘forefathers’ and did not receive significant education, a reflection of the difficulty of obtaining tertiary education in Asia at the time. Tan Kah Kee of Singapore is a prominent example, reaching a modern net worth of ~1.4 billion USD in the 1920s, yet educated only in his village’s school.
The second wave of Asian entrepreneurs were largely (with key exceptions), educated overseas. These entrepreneurs can be seen especially in the post-1970s, in the post-war boom. At a time with the world opening up, intelligent and ambitious people were increasingly given the opportunity to learn and network from universities around the world, and they took it. The richest man of India, Mukesh Ambani, dropped out mid-way of his Stanford MBA education.
The third wave of Asian entrepreneurs, which are an increasing trend, are those that are educated locally.
The third wave is particularly interesting because they tend to reflect a paradigm shift for the psychology of the country. These entrepreneurs tend to emerge after the country has undergone periods of political, economic and educational reform.
These individuals are educated locally, do not inherit a family business and are able to build large scale businesses from scratch in a globally competitive environment. There is likely to be a growing feeling that it is not necessary to be ‘Ivy-credentialed’ to succeed; that a local network through local universities are sufficient. The rise of successful IIT, NUS and Tsinghua alumni have started to result in sentiments like:
Why India’s best tech schools produce more entrepreneurs than the Ivy League
Why Go To Harvard When You Can Opt For An Asian Ivy League?
The Ivies will still have many decades before they are dethroned. But increasingly, some of the best and brightest are opting for local choices, and becoming examples of success for their local communities.

Chia Jeng Yang MBA剑桥商学院：
因为亚洲大学没有足够多的知名校友来宣扬母校的名声，不过很快就会有了。
教出过许多名人大亨是着名大学的基本特征。许多家长和学生申请这些大学是因为他们想走这些知名人士走过的相似的道路。

如果你申请斯蒂芬•霍金任教的大学，或者是美国总统毕业的大学，你会更容易拥有一个好的未来。
至少从某种意义上说，如果你和这些伟大的人有相似的起点，那么你可能有潜力和这些人一样成功。
这与亚洲大学的未来有什么关系?

亚洲是一个幅员辽阔、国家和地区差异巨大的大洲，但有一个普遍的趋势和原则值得注意。
在现代亚洲，有三波创业浪潮。
第一波亚洲企业家没有大都没有受过教育。在亚洲的许多国家，没有接受过重点教育，这反映了当时在亚洲获得高等教育的困难。新加坡的陈嘉庚是个突出的例子，他在1920年达到了14亿美元的资产净值，但他只在他所在的村子的学校里读过书。

第二波亚洲企业家大部分(少数是例外)在海外接受教育。这些企业家在多数出现在战后繁荣期，属于70后。随着世界的开放，聪明而负有抱负的人越来越多地得到了来自世界各地大学的学习和人脉的机会， 并抓住了这些机会。印度首富穆凯什•安巴尼就接受了斯坦福MBA教育，随后中途退出。
第三波亚洲企业家，也是正在崛起的一波企业家，是那些在本地受教育的人。
第三波尤其有趣，因为它们反映了国家心理的模式转变。这些企业家往往是在国家经历了政治、经济和教育改革之后出现的。

这些人在当地接受教育，不继承家族企业，能够在全球竞争环境中白手起家建立起大型企业。可能会有一种越来越强烈的感觉，获得成功没有必要去外国的名牌大学了;本地大学的本地网络就已经足够了。成功如的伊利诺伊理工学院、新加坡国立大学和清华大学的校友们已经开始产生这样的想法:
  为什么印度最好的科技学校比常春藤联盟培养出更多的企业家?

  当你可以选择一个亚洲常春藤联盟时，为什么要去哈佛?
常春藤大学还需要几十年的时间才会退下神坛。但越来越多的最优秀和最聪明的人选择了当地的选择，并成为当地社区成功的榜样。

Luke Svasti, studied at Rutgers University
Answered Dec 21
Chia Jeng Yang’s answer is great and I think that it is analytically complete. However, I’d like to add some points, because I feel that his, and the answers of others are strong but don’t really answer the question completely. They answer why Asian universities might dethrone Oxbridge or the Ivies, but they don’t address the discrepancy that comes from your second premise—that given the rich tradition of education in east Asia, there logically should be natural equivalents.
The short answer: in general I think that western educations tend to allow and favor for critical analyses, as well as more creative problem solving methods through the use of Socratic teaching methods. I remember that when I was 19 and choosing universities, I had tried to reach out to several seniors who were already in their courses (and who were doing the same courses that I was interested in, such as political science and history). Their answers were that while the education was great, there were some ‘topics’ that were simply off the table—and that in general, the classes were still a function of memory and rote learning, driven largely by whatever the lecturer chose to present. Obviously, this might work for a hard science, but for a social science such an approach isn’t very helpful.
This is an anecdotal story but in general the state of education and the use of Asian pedagogies don’t emphasize a critical approach. Critical approaches are very, very necessary in developing new ideas. I’m slightly doubtful that even with the trend of increasing rankings in Asian universities, such institutions will dethrone the current elite. This is because it is quite widely known that 1) many east Asian universities focus on cultivating ‘numbers’; that is, focusing on the quantifiable aspects of a ranking system in order to increase their own ranks. Secondly, rote learning is quickly becoming a thing of the past. A focus on soft and managerial skills, critical work, and resource management is more essential today. Western universities, with their contemporary conversations on gender, work, resistance and cultural changes are well suited to producing citizenry taht can contribute to that—and my view is that most Asian universities frankly aren’t. That isn’t to say that Asian universities or pedagogies have no place in the modern world, but rather it is a cautionary approach that we should reuate what, and how a university plays its role in society.
There are a couple of things that have to be discussed and controlled for, though. First, the idea of ‘education’ is completely different in the east than it is in the west. The purpose of an education is, ostensibly, to create a good citizenry and workforce—a person who can contribute well into society. But if you consider the fact that eastern and western societies are so different, then it follows that their educational systems are different. In a way, your question doesn’t work very well because it’s comparing apples to oranges. BUT, ranking systems try to feature universities from all parts of the world, so that a reader might get the sense that there are common features. There very well might be, but it’s a bit like comparing a Toyota Camry to a Nissan GTR. Both drive well, but they’re totally different machines. Comparing Oxford to Qinghua might be possible on paper, but they’re such different institutions that any difference in any quantifiable aspect is quite a poor causal choice.
The second thing that should be discussed is that the entire world has a colonial past from the west—specifically, the English speaking world. It stands to merit that the best institutions there would be the best in the world if US-UK culture and economic systems form the global ‘norm’. In that sense, university rankings are circular in nature because they judge universities on their ability to produce students that can perform best in that cultural ‘norm’. And if the US-UK culture is the ‘norm’, then naturally their universities have that much of an advantage already.
I don’t know that Asian universities need to necessarily compete with Oxbridge or the Ivies. It’s a different school system for a different culture. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing either. For one thing, I think that the IIT schools in India are an excellent example of functionalism. Yet none of them will feature in the Times top 100. My personal opinion is that there are some strengths in oxbridge and the Ivies (and the west, in general) that are really hard to beat in terms of exposure, critical development, and creativity. Even if (more like when) Oxbridge falls under a slew of Asian universities in any ranking, I’d still be dubious if the overtaking universities, particularly ones in the East, are truly stronger in critical thinking.
There’s more to be said about education but I hope this is a good enough answer.

Luke Svasti,就读罗格斯大学：
楼上的回答很好，分析的很到位。但是，我想补充一些观点，因为我觉得虽然他和别人的回答都很有力，但并不能完全解答这个问题。他们解答了为什么亚洲的大学可能打败牛津剑桥大学或常春藤大学，但他们并没有解决你的第二个前提所产生的矛盾——鉴于东亚历史上的丰富的教育遗产，逻辑思维教育应与其对等。

简单的回答就是:总的来说，我认为西方的教育倾向于允许和支持批判性分析思维，以及通过使用苏格拉底式的教学方法来解决更有创造性地问题解决。我记得在我19岁的时候，我面临着报考大学抉择，我试着去咨询一些高年级学生(他们的专业都是我感兴趣的专业，比如政治科学和历史)。他们关于亚洲教育的回答是：虽然教的很好，但有一些“话题”只会草草一笔带过——而且这些课程普遍考的都是死记硬背的内容，老师课上讲的东西也大多由他自己领导。很明显，这样的方法对自然科学可能效果不错，但是对于社会科学来说，这样的方法并不是很有帮助。

上述所说只代表我个人经历，但总的来说，亚洲教育和教师的教学法里并没有强调批判性思维。在研究新点子时，批判性思维是非常非常必要的。我都有点怀疑，即使亚洲大学的排名在不断上升，但这样的教育机构里也教出不来什么精英。因为众所周知，许多东亚大学都注重培养“数据”;也就是说，关注并提升排名系统的可量化的方面来增加自己的排名。其次，死记硬背很快成会被淘汰。今天，教育的重点是管理技能、行政工作和资源管理。西方的大学，就当代的性别观念、工作能力培养、课程喜好程度和文化变迁进行着探讨，非常适合培养学生，而我的观点是，大多数亚洲大学都不是这样。这并不是说亚洲的大学或教师在现代世界中没有立足之地，而是说比起这种批量生产学生计划性的教育方法，我们应该重新评估现代大学应该怎样在社会中扮演合适的角色。

不过，还有一些事情需要讨论和控制。首先，“教育”的概念在东方与西方完全不同。从表面上看，教育的目的是创造一个良好的公民和劳动者——一个能够为社会做出贡献的人。但如果你认为东西方社会是如此不同，那么他们的教育体系自然也就不同了。在某种程度上，你的问题是在拿苹果和橘子比较。但是，排名系统试图将大学从世界各地的大学中引入，这样读者就能感觉到有共同的特征。很有可能，但这有点像将丰田凯美瑞与日产GTR相比较。两者都能开得很好，但它们是完全不同的车子。牛津与清华可能在纸上比比，但它们是如此不同的学校，任何可计量方面的差异都是没什么可比性的。

第二件应该讨论的事情是，整个世界都有过西方殖民历史——确切地说，这个世界是讲英语的世界。如果美英文化和经济体系形成全球“规范”，那么他们最好的大学也将是世界上最好的大学。从这个意义上说，大学排名在本质上是循环的，因为他们培养出的大学生，能够在这种文化“规范”中表现最好。如果英美文化是“规范”，那么自然他们的大学从起点就已经有了很大的优势。

我不知道亚洲的大学是否需要与牛桥或常春藤竞争。对于不同的文化来说，学校体系也迥然不同。这不一定是坏事。我认为印度的伊利诺伊理工学校是实用功能主义的一个很好的例子。然而，恐怕上不了《纽约时报》的百大名校榜。我个人的观点是，牛津剑桥和常春藤学校(以及大多数西方学校)的一些方面如曝光度、批判性思维发展和创造性确实很难被超越，虽然可能在某些榜单中其它的亚洲学校排名超越了，我依然认为他们的批判性思维不如我们。

关于教育还有很多能说的内容，但我希望我这是一个足够完善的答案。

Sukhmeet Dhingra, AA from Northern Virginia Community College (2019)
Answered Dec 21
There are good Asian universities out there, but the biggest problem is in Asia, the average person can barely make American minimum wage in a full day of hard-work. So the reputation of hiring potential educators especially in higher education goes down-hill. Also, there is so much competition in Asia, and salaries are so low even if you graduate college that it's nearly pointless to continue working hard. The reason Asian kids in Asia study harder than anything western students do is because they have dreams and aspirations of becoming something; and that increases their desire for education. The problem arises that when they grow-up, many of the youth have had their dreams shattered and more or less feel that they won't be any more well off than their parents were; (which is why so many Chinese and Indians want to go to the West).
When your dreams are shattered, (in Asia usually right after high school), a person works less harder; which is why even though in k-12 Asian education has western education beat by a wide margin; whereas many American students get more serious in their education after high school and into college; Asian countries give-up hope and many regret wasting long hours).

Sukhmeet Dhingra，弗吉尼亚社区学院：
亚洲有很好的大学，但最大的问题是在亚洲，一般人很难在一天的辛苦工作中获得相比与美国的最低工资。因此，雇佣潜在教育工作者尤其是高等教育人才的口碑下降。此外，亚洲的竞争非常激烈，即使你毕业了，薪水也很低，继续努力工作几乎毫无意义。亚洲孩子在亚洲学习比西方学生更努力的原因是他们有梦想;这就增加了他们对教育的渴望。问题是，当他们成长的时候，许多年轻人的梦想破灭了，或多或少觉得自己不会比他们的父母更富裕;(这就是为什么这么多中国人和印度人想去西方的原因)。

当你的梦想破灭时(在亚洲通常是高中毕业后)，一个人的工作就会变得不那么努力;这就是为什么即使在义务教育领域，东西方教育也有很大的差距;许多美国学生在高中毕业后进入大学后变得更加认真;亚洲国家纷纷表示失去希望，很多人后悔说浪费了很多时间。