Prof. Rui Yang: It Took China Thirty Years to Realize Universities Aren’t Factories
Three decades ago, China set out to build universities that could rival the world’s best—and it succeeded. Now, one of its leading scholars says the same model that powered that rise is holding it back. At ICHE Conference 2025, Professor Rui Yang called for a rethink of how knowledge—not just output—should drive the future.
China’s rise from an aspiring nation to a scientific powerhouse has been nothing short of remarkable. In just three decades, the country built world-class universities, overtook the West in research output, and made science a symbol of national pride. But at the height of this achievement, Chinese scholars are beginning to question whether the very model that powered their success has reached its limit.
That was the key message of Professor Rui Yang’s keynote at the ICHE International Conference on Higher Education 2025, currently underway at HSE. His reflections—thoughtful, candid, and unexpectedly relatable—resonated strongly with the audience, noted Niyaz Gabdrakhmanov, Head of the IOE Laboratory for University Development.
From Command to Creativity
China’s approach to higher education has long followed a clear formula: identify top universities, concentrate funding, set ambitious goals, and measure outcomes down to the decimal. It worked—spectacularly. Rankings soared, publications multiplied, and academia gained new prestige.
But beneath the polished surface, tensions were quietly building. As the nation’s “flagship” universities flourished, regional ones began to struggle. Resources thinned, talent drained away, and planning for the future became an uphill battle. China ended up with islands of excellence surrounded by regions fighting for survival. The gap wasn’t just geographic—it became structural.
The imbalance also crept into science itself. Priority disciplines grew ever stronger, while the humanities and fundamental research began to wither, like a piece of worn leather.
When Universities Turn into Assembly Lines
Rigid, top-down administration brought another consequence—an obsession with metrics. Success became a matter of hitting targets rather than pursuing bold ideas. Universities started to look more like production plants, where every initiative had to clear a long chain of approvals.
“The very system that once propelled growth,” Rui Yang argued, “is now slowing it down.” When universities become too tightly controlled, they lose their essence—the freedom to explore, to fail, to imagine something new.
The Limits of the “Mobilization Model”
Rui Yang believes China’s mobilization model—effective for catching up quickly—is now running out of steam. The next stage of growth, he said, demands something different: trust. Universities must have the space to set their own priorities and form partnerships grounded in local realities, not just centralized directives.
Yet autonomy, too, has its risks. It often depends on private funding, and businesses tend to invest where the payoff is immediate. Without a guiding public mission, universities could slide into becoming contractors—efficient but hollow, trading curiosity for short-term gain.
The Deeper Lesson
Perhaps the most profound insight from China’s experience is this: a university isn’t a machine, and knowledge can’t be mass-produced. You can build a campus, install labs, and hire top talent on a schedule. But you can’t command a living academic culture into existence.
Real scholarship needs time, trust, and intellectual breathing space. Strategic programs can set the stage, but they don’t create the play. Genuine academic culture grows slowly—from debate, diversity, and the freedom to err.
Centralization can deliver speed and focus. But, as China’s story shows, it can also, in the end, take away the very air that universities need to breathe.