Studies in various cultures reveal multiple approaches to talent development challenges. Photo: TUCHONG

With provinces across the country releasing gaokao (college entrance exam) results and admission cut-offs, Chinese universities have gradually begun finalizing their enrollment. This process not only touches the lives of countless families in China but has once again prompted society-wide reflection on educational evaluation systems. To better understand the diverse development paths of contemporary higher education, CSST interviewed Lucas Rentschler, an associate professor from the Department of Economics and Finance at Utah State University, and Christopher J. Dawe, a doctoral researcher at the Institute of Education, University College London, to explore global higher education trends and related issues.

DEI initiatives sparking discussions

According to Rentschler, in previous years, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives had gained increasing prominence in some Western countries. He observed that as DEI considerations exerted greater influence on admissions and faculty recruitment, traditional academic standards—such as standardized testing—were diluted, especially in rigorous disciplines that demand strong quantitative skills.

Over the past years, DEI initiatives had become central to the missions of many American universities, Rentschler continued. Intended to expand educational access, enhance representation, and address historical inequities, these policies aimed to create more inclusive campus environments. Yet as DEI factors had played a larger role in admissions, hiring, and curriculum design, universities engaged in continuing debates about their impact on academic standards, particularly in STEM fields where foundational skills and quantitative rigor are essential.

Dawe emphasized that admissions policies once focused on academic achievement and standardized tests integrated broader criteria, including life experience and demographic background, to strengthen diversity among student cohorts. While this approach had enriched university communities with a broader range of perspectives, critics argued that it may weaken objective measures of academic preparedness, producing greater variation in skill levels among incoming students. In rigorous programs, particularly within STEM disciplines, faculty members noted the challenges of adapting coursework to accommodate a broader spectrum of ability. The concern was that accommodating diverse entry points may come at the cost of depth in instruction and overall academic rigor. Beyond admissions, DEI frameworks also influenced faculty recruitment and advancement, with many American institutions prioritizing DEI-related achievements and commitments.

Dawe added that although DEI initiatives aligned with efforts to create supportive and representative learning environments, some academics expressed concern that this emphasis could overshadow traditional metrics of research and teaching excellence. Particularly within research-intensive fields, some faculty feared that pursuing DEI goals may inadvertently diminish scholarly productivity and teaching effectiveness, potentially impacting the reputation and competitiveness of US institutions on the global stage.

In Rentschler’s view, while DEI policies in the US reflected a commendable commitment to equity, they also raised essential questions about the balance between inclusivity and academic rigor. A case in point was California, home to leading universities such as Stanford, the University of California, and Caltech. The state’s Department of Education had proposed major reforms to mathematics instruction that triggered serious debate about educational opportunity and quality. Analysts noted that proposals to eliminate ability-based grouping before Grade 10, ostensibly in the name of equity, may paradoxically widen educational gaps. By restricting access to advanced mathematics—especially calculus preparation, such reforms could disadvantage students who lack access to supplemental instruction, a resource more available to affluent families or private school students. While appearing forward-looking, this approach risked undermining algebra instruction, which is critical for success in STEM at the university level. They emphasized that pure and applied mathematics, including authentic data science work, requires a solid grounding in algebra. Given California’s historic influence on national education policy, such reforms could reverberate across the US.

According to Dawe, as many American institutions expanded admissions criteria to include a broader range of factors beyond standardized testing, graduate STEM programs had become increasingly reliant on international students, who constituted majorities in several key fields. This dependence exposed potential vulnerabilities in the US STEM talent pipeline and suggested challenges in sustaining a strong domestic pool of highly trained professionals.

Systematic reform of higher education in China

In recent years, China has continued to deepen education reform, advancing quality-oriented education and the cultivation of well-rounded competencies through multiple measures. These include consolidating the results of the “double reduction” policy [which reduces homework and off-campus tutoring in compulsory education], innovating curricula and teaching methods, balancing the allocation of resources, reforming evaluation mechanisms, and implementing the new gaokao reform. Notably, while vigorously developing quality education, China’s education system has consistently adhered to the principle of balancing foundational knowledge and innovation. The emphasis on comprehensive competencies has not weakened attention to core subject knowledge; instead, systemic reform has further reinforced the construction of a fundamental knowledge framework.

The 2025 Times Higher Education World University Rankings highlights a remarkable shift in global higher education. Chinese universities have continued their upward trajectory, with Tsinghua University and Peking University ranking 12th and 13th, respectively, edging closer to the world’s top 10 and surpassing prestigious American institutions like the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania. Universities in China, Singapore, South Korea, and India have dramatically increased their research output and global influence, particularly in STEM fields.

Rentschler noted that the number of Chinese universities in global rankings has surged, reflecting a strong commitment to STEM education and research. Chinese universities in particular have demonstrated substantial growth in global rankings over the past decade. From 2010 to 2020, the number of Chinese universities ranked in the global top 500 has tripled, driven largely by increased research productivity. This rise aligns with China’s strategic focus on research and development in key STEM areas, resulting in many highly cited papers and advancements in fields such as artificial intelligence and sustainable energy. At institutions like Tsinghua and Peking University, the emphasis on quantifiable academic achievement—particularly in advanced mathematics and theoretical foundations—has produced measurable results. In fields requiring rigorous quantitative skills, Chinese institutions often outperform their international counterparts in both publication impact and patent generation.

He further emphasized that Chinese researchers have dramatically reshaped the global patent landscape. In the same timeframe, the quality of research has transformed, too, with Chinese academics moving from bit players to leading voices in global scholarship. This shift isn’t simply about the quantity of papers published or patents filed, Rentschler argued, but instead represents a fundamental shift in where cutting-edge research is happening.

Dawe pointed out that Chinese students consistently rank at the top of mathematics and science assessments, underscoring a curriculum prioritizing core competencies. Teachers in China are subject to stringent qualification standards, focusing on subject mastery rather than solely on pedagogical theory. This emphasis on teacher quality ensures that students receive high-quality instruction in STEM subjects, enhancing their preparedness for higher education. Integrating engineering practices and computational thinking into the K-12 curriculum has also been a focal point of educational reform, aligning educational outcomes with the demands of a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Amid the global wave of educational reform, evaluation systems around the world are undergoing profound adjustments to meet the demands of the times. From the US’s promotion of DEI initiatives to advance educational equity, to China’s reform practices that emphasize both solid foundational knowledge and innovation, educational explorations across different cultural contexts are demonstrating diverse developmental trends. These practices not only embody ongoing reflections on the essence of education, but also reveal the varied approaches countries take to address challenges in talent cultivation. Notably, in the pursuit of educational modernization, how to balance equity and excellence, inclusiveness and rigor, as well as tradition and innovation, remains a shared challenge for educators worldwide. As technological progress and social change accelerate, education systems must evolve with greater openness—grounded in local realities while embracing a global perspective—to better fulfill their mission of nurturing society’s next generation of talent.