欢迎来到51Due,请先 | 注册
关注我们: 51due论文代写二维码 51due论文代写平台微博
英国论文代写,英国essay代写知名品牌微信

Essay代写范文

为您解决留学中生活、学习、工作的困难、疑惑
释放自我

essay代写-The macro university system in Britain

2019-01-07 | 来源:51due教员组 | 类别:Essay代写范文

本篇essay代写- The macro university system in Britain讨论了英国的宏观大学制度。近代以来英国在宏观大学制度改革的历程中,大学和政府之间围绕大学自治和国家控制展开了长期的利益博弈。最终政府一步步介入大学之中,而大学在保留适度的自治权的同时,也接受了政府宏观政策和市场法则的调控。大学、政府和市场三方先后确立了自身在大学发展中的地位,生动地展现了大学发展的历史逻辑。本篇essay代写51due代写平台整理,供大家参考阅读。

macro university system,英国宏观大学制度,essay代写,代写,paper代写

University system is not only a hot issue in the research field of higher education, but also a key field in the reform of higher education. Domestic academia thinks commonly, university system includes macroscopical with microcosmic two administrative levels. Micro university system refers to the organizational structure and management system of a university. The macro university system refers to a country's higher education system, "which includes the school-running system, investment system and management system at the national level, and is the general name of the whole higher education system of a country". In modern times, around the autonomy and state control of universities, British universities and the government launched a long-term game of interests, promoting the reform and development of the macro university system. By tracing the footsteps of the macro university system reform in Britain since modern times and summarizing the beneficial experience of its reform, this paper hopes to provide some references for clarifying the relationship between universities and the government in the new round of higher education reform in China and improving the modern university system with Chinese characteristics.

Since modern times, the macro university system reform in Britain has been constantly adjusted around the relationship between the university and the government. On the whole, the reform of British macro university system has experienced three periods.

This period lasted roughly from the period after the British bourgeois revolution to the middle of the 19th century. In fact, from the founding of Oxford and Cambridge in the early 12th century to the early 19th century, there were only two universities in Britain. As the two oldest universities in Britain, Oxford and Cambridge have always maintained the tradition of medieval universities: university autonomy and scholarly governance. There was no connection between the government and the university during this period, and the two went their separate ways. At the government's mercy, universities enjoy autonomy that continental Europeans envy. But it is the abuse of autonomy and freedom by Oxford and Cambridge that ultimately leads to their complacency. Since the 1760 s of the industrial revolution promoted the development of the production, industrial production needs a large number of master production techniques, technology, economy and management of knowledge talent, but it was not until the middle of the 19th century, the ancient Oxford and Cambridge, did not respond to the industrial revolution, "defying any professional vocational education". As the education of universities fell behind the needs of social development, the status of the world scientific activity center of Britain was gradually replaced by other countries in Europe and America.

This period lasted from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. In 1850, the British government organized two royal commissions to investigate Oxford and Cambridge universities respectively, which was the beginning of government intervention in universities. On the basis of the investigation, in 1854 and 1856, parliament passed the Oxford University act and the Cambridge university act successively, which eliminated some privileges of the two universities since the middle ages by means of legislation, strengthened the connection between the university and society, and trained public servants for the government. In 1871, the British parliament passed the religious censorship act to curb the influence of religion on universities. "In 1881, the British government made a grant of 4,000 to two university colleges in wales. This was the first time the government gave financial support to a university." After that, the British government's financial support for universities gradually increased. After the end of the World War I, the British government began to realize that "universities are of great significance to the country, and the country should promote universities to carry out high-level scientific research". The government needs universities to cultivate talents to promote the development of the country and is willing to fund universities. Universities are also aware of their responsibilities to the country and society, and they are in urgent need of funds from the government to maintain their development. A new type of intermediary between universities and government has emerged. 1919 the university appropriations committee was formally established. UGC, made up of a part-time chairman and academics from universities, is a "quasi-autonomous body". It assesses the university's financial needs and reports them to the Treasury, which then plans its grants on a five-year basis. Since then, UGC has served as a buffer between universities and the government. On the one hand, UGC can obtain funds for universities from the government; on the other hand, UGC can help the government deliver policy information to universities.

This period has lasted since the middle of the 20th century. After the World War II, Britain has obviously lagged behind the United States and the Soviet union in comprehensive national strength. In order to close the gap, Britain urgently needs a large number of engineering, technical, economic and management talents to develop the economy. The government has attached great importance to developing education technology and expanding the scale of higher education personnel training. To this end, the British government has issued a series of reports on the reform of higher education. Among them, the Robbins report published in 1963 had the greatest impact, which put forward the famous "Robbins principle" -- "the course of higher education should be open to all those who are qualified in ability and achievement and want to accept higher education". Under the guidance of "Robbins principle", British higher education began to develop from elite stage to popular stage. In terms of universities, their dependence on UGC funding increased day by day. Before the second world war, "government funding for universities did not exceed 30% of the total funding for universities, which increased to 50% in 1956, 70% in 1973, and by 1980, more than 90% of the funding for most universities was provided by the government". The expansion of higher education further increases the demand for university funds. During this period, however, the role of UGC has undergone some subtle changes. In 1964 UGC was relegated to education and head of the science department, and its officials became civil servants. After that, UGC gradually changed from the patron of university autonomy to the agent of national development of higher education and began to get involved in the internal management of universities. In the early 1980s, after the conservative party represented by Margaret thatcher came to power, it used the new public management theory to carry out bold and drastic reforms on British society and vigorously advocated economic liberalization and marketization. In the education field, "higher education is no longer regarded as a welfare cause, but as an investment, which continuously reduces government funding and emphasizes the efficiency, efficiency and quality of higher education". In 1987, education and the ministry of science decided to change the way the grant was awarded, and put in place a performance contract between the university and the grant committee. At this time, UGC is in a dilemma between the university and the government. On the one hand, the government should impose more intervention on the university through it; on the other hand, the university can get less funding with more and more stringent conditions attached. This has led to an outcry from universities. UGC's inability to reconcile the interests of universities and government suggests that its mission is coming to an end. The education reform act of 1988 established a committee for university funding to replace UGC. UFC is very different from UGC in terms of personnel composition, status and responsibilities. At least half of the UFC's members are from the business community, and represent primarily government and business interests rather than universities. Instead of lobbying for university funding, as UGC does, it will make detailed and cumbersome rules about how universities spend their money.

In the course of the macro-reform of the university system in the UK, the government stepped in step by step, while the university retained the appropriate autonomy.

Also accepted government macroscopical policy and market regulation and control of the law. The university, the government and the market have established their own positions in the development of universities, which vividly shows the historical logic of university development.

In the history of British university system reform, UGC has set up an ideal model of higher education intermediary institution for countries all over the world. In the 70 years since UGC existed, British universities and the government have had a happy honeymoon. The establishment of UGC is of great significance in the history of British higher education. First of all, for the government, UGC grants universities, the government can guide and intervene universities to a certain extent, guide universities to cultivate senior talents for the country, carry out high-level scientific research, and enhance the international competitiveness of the UK. Universities became national undertakings, and a national, institutionalized system of universities was established. Second, universities can get a lot of funding from UGC without facing rude interference from the government. UGC is not an official body. It does not dictate how money is spent on universities. Neither the existing university grants committee nor the education department possessed such a nature. It is because of UGC's role as a buffer between universities and government that universities are able to accept government grants without fear of losing their autonomy. Finally, this intermediary management system of UGC is an innovation of British university system. The academic "transcendence" inherent in British universities since the middle ages makes the development of universities disconnected from the needs of the country and society. If the government intervenes in the internal affairs of the university by force, it will destroy the tradition of university autonomy and arouse the strong resistance of the university. Only when UGC is adopted as the intermediary management system and the government indirectly intervenes and regulates the development of universities can the development of universities be properly "detached" and combined with the needs of the country and society to promote the socialization and modernization of university development. The British model is widely admired outside Britain. Some countries, such as India and Sri Lanka, have also set up university funding committees or councils, and Australia has set up a higher education council "to act as a buffer between universities and governments".

Although in the process of the macro university system reform in the UK, the state control has been strengthened step by step, and the autonomy of universities has been shrinking. But until modern times, the foundations of British university autonomy have remained. The continuing education and higher education act of 1992 established the higher education funding committee for England, Scotland and wales to replace the UFC and the multi-disciplinary technical colleges and other college funding committees as the only university funding body in the UK. While the new HEFC is intended to strengthen the influence of government and industry on university development, HEFC and UFC are essentially the same. They are both intermediate institutions between the university and the government and do not belong to the government. The government's intervention and guidance to universities are limited to macro policies. It can be said that in the reform of British university system, the government always pays attention to the autonomy of universities. Therefore, in today's world where scientific and technological utilitarianism prevails, British universities can still maintain their profound cultural deposits and safeguard their unique noble and transcendent character. The reason why the government is more and more interested in controlling universities is that in the development process of the whole human history, universities have gradually evolved from the "ivory tower" on the edge of society to the "power station" for social development and become an indispensable part of the national economic and social reform.

The UK's education reform act of 1988 decided to establish UFC to replace UGC. Its essence was to introduce competitive market mechanism into the field of higher education. From UGC to UFC, the autonomy of universities has been reduced, and the government's macro control over universities has been greatly enhanced. But more importantly, "the British government also established UFC in order to bring universities to market. The government fully exercised its central power in establishing the education market, and utilized the multi-market structure intermediary in the process". The government's macro control over universities is mainly exerted through the market mechanism. After the establishment of UFC, the funds allocated by the government to universities dropped sharply. In order to seek sufficient funds, universities had to cooperate with industry and industry to obtain financial support. At the same time, industry and the business community can also more directly transfer their talent and technology demand information to the university, so that the university can better serve social development, which also makes the university development closely related to the needs of the country and social needs.

The conservative traditional factors and the transcendental modern factors coexist in the macro university system reform in Britain. The conservatism is reflected in the somewhat excessive autonomy of British universities in modern times and the lagging relationship between universities and government and society. Although conservative factors have limited the development of education in British universities, it is these factors that cast the humanistic tradition and classical feelings that British universities cannot give up education, which is the fundamental difference between British universities education and other European and American universities and forms the British characteristics. Transcendence is embodied in the UK's unique higher education intermediary management system. The transcendence factor is the system innovation based on the conservative factor. The transcendence factor finally links the university with the government and the society, and promotes the modernization of the development of the university education.

要想成绩好,英国论文得写好,51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯,专业辅导,还为你提供专业英国essay代写,paper代写report代写,需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ800020041或者wechatAbby0900吧。

我们的优势

  • 05年成立,已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 团队成员都毕业于全球著名高校
  • 保证原创,支持检测

英国站