Of all cultures, the Chinese arguably values learning more than any others. It is surprising then that China never really developed degree granting universities in the same manner as Europe or the Arab world.

The first European university is claimed to be the University of Bologna which was founded in 1088, although lectures were being given in Oxford in the late 11th century, and so this may be the older.

China had national schools, but why did it fail to develop universities?

Was this because of the Imperial examination system?

According to Wikipedia there was somewhat of a university system in Nanjing, China.

Nanjing University was refounded in 1915 with the name Nanjing Higher Normal Institute (南京高等师范学校) on the site of former Nanking Imperial University. Imperial Nanking University, the predecessor of Nanjing University, was originally founded in the first year of Yong'an reign (AD 258) under the Kingdom of Wu by the emperor Sun Xiu, and the first president was Wei Zhao. The Imperial University in Nanking (南京太学, Nanking Taixue) was reestablished by Jin Dynasty's emperor Sima Rui in 317 and 155 new rooms were built in the campus. Like its original forerunner Shang Hsiang (上庠) founded by Yu (禹, 21st century BC) in Zhongyuan, the earliest recorded imperial higher school, it was the Kingdom's central university, with the role of educating literate and virtuous citizens and educating leaders to govern and serve the kingdom. In 470 during the Song Dynasty, the Imperial Nanking University became a comprehensive institution combining higher education and research and consisted of five divisions: Literature, History, Confucianism, Dao Study and Yin Yang Study[3], and it was the first research educational institution in history. In the period the faculty members included such scholars and scientists as Zu Chongzhi, Ge Hong, Wang Xizhi.

In the 15th century during the Ming Dynasty, the Imperial Central University in Nanking was the world's largest higher education institution, with about 10 thousand students, many of whom came from a number of other countries. Wu Cheng'en, Zheng He and Zheng Chenggong studied there around the time. Each time when Nanking became a non-capital city, the Nanking Imperial University was changed to be Nanking Academy. The Nanking Imperial Central University (南京国子监, Nanking Guozijian) was changed to Nanking Academy (江宁府学, Jiangning Fuxue) in 1650 after Qing Dynasty replaced Ming Dynasty. [4] The Sanjiang Normal College under new educational system was established to replace the traditional Chinese school Nanking Academy in 1902. The name was changed to Liangjiang Normal College in 1906, and established the first Faculty of Art in China. In 1915 after the Republic of China replaced Qing Dynasty, the Nanking Higher Normal School was founded to replace Liangjiang Higher Normal School, and the school established the first Faculty of Gymnastics (Physical Education) in 1916.

Perhaps it was not a university in the Western sense? Anyway, on my trip to China, I visited this university. It had a very beautiful campus.

I think a lot of the discussion on this thread will end up relating to what constitutes a university. In that sense, I think it is worth paying some attention to the subjects taught, and the manner in which degrees were granted. I shall endeavour shortly to put up another post on what was taught in medieval universities, and how the degrees were granted.

In my humble opinion, it also relates to the manner in which graduates were able to utilise their degrees. An institution which is tied to one employer, for example an imperial college which produces people only for the service of the imperial bureaucracy probably lacks that characteristics o a university in that the degree is not a generally recognised qualification, or one which is applicable for use elsewhere (for example teaching in other universities, as was the case in the early Western medieval institutions).

The Yuelu Academy (岳麓书院) in Changsha, Hunan province was extablished in 937AD. It was an academy for higher learning where scholars as well as learners gathered, gave lecture, and studied. Famous people associated with the academy includes Zhu Xi (Neo-Confucian scholar) and Mao Zedong, etc... The academy was used continously from Song Dynasty till now (even though it was rebuilt several times due to damages). Today the academy name is changed into Hunan University (湖南大学), a famous and full-fledged university, part of a sprawling district of universities, colleges, militaty academies on the west bank of Xiang 湘 river, in the city of Changsha.

I think that making a distinction about what a university is would be a good place to start. The first question that comes to my mind is what (if any) difference is there between the academy and the university.

* Perhaps the course work offered would play into this distinction, and in that case medieval universities taught the Trivium and Quadrivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy).

I am putting foreword the idea (for consideration without any support) that perhaps the difference is the status that came with the degree granted, in the west the highest degrees conferred a status of expert and teacher, someone who would be a valuable advisor or researcher. Within the empire the degrees have been argued as a means to end, namely work within the administrative branches of the empire.

I think it would be unwise to say that just because an institution is called a university now, even though it was called something else before, it was always the equivalent of a university.

I agree with Atlas that it is important that we examine the courses of study, and the nature of qualification earned.

I would just hasten to add that it was not very long before additional subjects were added, in addition to the quadrivium and trivium. For example, medieval European universities were soon teaching other subjects. At the inaugural sermon of the University of Toulouse, in 1229, it was observed that "the clerics [teachers] in Paris chase the liberal arts; in Orleans, authors; in Bologna, the Codex; in Salerno, medicine chests." [Taken from the inaugural sermon of Helinard de Froidmont, 24th May, 1229.]

True enough, other subjects were quickly identified and investigated in the various universities across Europe, with only a broad curriculum in the trivium and quadrivium being throughout the region. Does anyone know what the basis of Chinese higher education? When it is mentioned in sources it simply says that it is based in the Confucian philosophy and the five classics. was there anything more i wonder?

From what others have posted about ancient Chinese books. Theres seems to be an awful number of Chinese ancient books that gives me the impression its alot more than just Confucion Philosophy and the five classics. I'm guessing mathematics, astronomy/astrology, poetry, calligraphy, traditional medicine, war strategy, politics, engineering (building achitecture, boat design, bridge construction etc) and various literature like "I Dream of Red Mansions" etc were taught. (thats my guess)

I agree that it is very plausible that some of these topics were taught, especially with Enginerring, mathematics, astrology, politics/war. I wonder about the literature though and if there is any evidence supporting that these were indeed taught or passed down in apprenticeships. Could low ranked nobles son attend the academy and become an expert in mathematics, then put that knowledge to use within the empire (either as another teacher or with applied mathematics potion)?

The ancient chinese education system was very different from the European education system. Most of the schools founded in China were done in preparation for the Imperial Exam, which was invented during Sui dynasty. Most of the ancient chinese education focused on study of humanities and literary subjects such as literature, language, philosophy etc.

The most prevalent form of schools in China, known as "Shuyuan 书院" (academia) , were generally founded across entire China. For info about Shuyuan, you can refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academies_%28China%29

The highest institution in ancient China 'equivalent to a university' from Han till Sui dynasty was the Taixue (太学). For info about Taixue, you can refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taixue

From Sui dynasty till Qing, the highest academy (equivalent to a university) were the "Guozijian （国子监）" (Imperial College). For info about Guozijian, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guozijian

In ancient China, the highest academy (equivalent to the national research center) was the Hanlin academy (翰林学院）, whereby the most elite scholars worked. For info about Han Lin academy, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlin_Academy




It is debatable whether the highest educational institute such as Guozijian or Hanlin Academy in ancient China were considered 'universities'. They do differ from today's modern universities, largely because they did not 'offer degree certificate' and of course modern subjects such as engineering, science etc. In fact, the only true modern chinese university appeared during late Qing and early ROC period.

The main reasons why 'China did not fail to develop university' (as seen from today's perspective) are

1. China had an entirely different education system compared to Europe - in particular Imperial Exam system

In ancient China, the best talents were extracted to work for the government (i.e. the Imperial Court). The Imperial examinations created during the Sui dynasty was precisely established for this purpose. Thus from Sui till Qing dynasty, the entire education system in China basically served the purpose of entry into Imperial Exams. Thus, schools essentially teach subjects catering to those being examed such as Confucianism, politics, literature etc. They were educated so that they can serve the state.

Even the Guozijian was created precisely for educating the best elite to serve the government.

Even the highest research institute basically served the state.

Note that by Tang dynasty, there was also an Imperial Examination for Military (known as Wuju 武举)


2. Not a institution to produce "professionals"

Unlike today's University whereby you were granted a 'degree' to practise a certain profession, the ancient chinese education system did not set out with the 'ultimate' purpose of producing people who can work in different professions. As said, the ancient chinese education system were used for producing talented scholars who could work for the government.

As for those ancient chinese who wanted to learn a 'profession', he would need to be trained under a 'master' such as building house, woodscraft, calligraphy, painting, kungfu etc. Those were usually private institution.

Some very good points GZ, and well explained.

I would like to add that in ancient chinese education (esp. Imperial examinations), there were also classifications of scholar ranks. Different scholar genre/ranks such as Xiucai, Juren, Jinshi were almost equivalent to today's degree ranks such as Diploma, Bachelor, Masters, PhD etc.

However, one big difference between ancient chinese education and today's university's education is that ancient chinese education focused alot on general 'humanities' education, rather than professional/specialist education. It trained the chinese to be like 'generalist' rather than specialist. This type of "generalist" education is known in chinese as "tong cai 通才" (literally means "skilled and talented in all fields").

Today's university education was meant to train an individual to be a specialist only in a certain profession. Outside the professional course, an individual probably knows very little or nothing about other fields of knowledge. If we were to use ancient chinese scholar standard, these types of "modern-day specialists" are not considered 'true scholars'.

In contrast, ancient chinese education focused more on training an individual to be a 'super knowledgeable generalist'. A Jinshi scholar in ancient China is probably expected to be 'extremely-knowlegeable' in many fields of studies and probably "knows" everything from literature up to astrology. For this reason, it is not surprising that scholars in ancient China spent many years studying a wide range of subjects just to pass the Imperial exam, obtained a scholar title and become a scholar bureaucrat. A Jinshi scholar is for instance extremely talented and knowledgeable in various fields including music, chess, calligraphy, painting, poetry and literature, philosophy etc. He could fulfill various professional roles in ancient China. Thus, a scholar could be a poet, but at the same time, he could also be a politician, a strategist, astrologist etc.

The Song dynasty Scientist (scholar) Shen Kuo 沈括, who was one of the leading chancellor of Han Lin Academy (somewhat like chancellor of a university), was for instance "super knowledgeable". He obtained his Jinshi scholar rank at 33 years old after passing the Imperial exam. He excelled and was knowledgeable in various fields of studies such as geology, astrology, archaeology, mathematics, pharmacology, magnetics, optics, hydraulics, metaphysics, meteoreology, climatology, geography, cartography, botany, zoology, architecture, agriculture, economics, ethnology, military strategy, music, divination. He fulfilled various excellent role such as being an Engineer, Militaralist, Diplomats, Politician etc. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Kuo ). That's the "high standard" of a true scholar in ancient China.

Today, I don't think any scholars in China could match that kind of 'high standard' of being 'super knowlegeable" in all fields of studies, largely because of today's modern university education.

The European equivalent of "tong cai" is the 'Renaissance Man'/'Universal Man'(or 'Homo universalis' in Latin ),one who achieves what is known as the the ideal of Renaissance humanism-the acquisition of almost all available important knowledge. The ideal could be succinctly summarised by quotation from the British biologist Thomas H. Huxley(1825-1895):" Try to learn something about everything and everything about something".

However I think that citing Shen Kuo might be a bad example as a example of 'general education',for polymaths such as him are really exception than the norm, also a polymath or a genius might even be self-taught(autodidactism) on the subjects, and that might or might not be related to the educational system.

The subject of 'Polymath' in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath
On 'Autodidactism':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidactism

IMO while it is beneficial to learn a array of field of knowledge, it is better not to lose focus and end up being too shallow in what you know(i.e. "Jack of all trade and master of none, hence my emphasis on learning 'everything about something'), for "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Moreover our craniums do not evolve enough to adjust to the exponential increase of knowledge of our era, one needs to exercise caution extrapolating the standard of the past to the present.

chinese people believe in private education?

I would like to ask,by Chinese people which era do you refer to?
Univiersal Public education seems to me to be a very modern phenomenon, be it the East or the West, which comes about with the advent of modern state system. Whereas in the past only the economically well-off families could afford education in form of schooling for their children(though at least in Europe there is another kind of education known as vocational education in the form of apprenticeship). Therefore one might say that in most, if not all pre-modern society educated people received private education rather public one due to lack of the latter.

However i give a benefit of doubt to my point of view, so if anyone knows that public education in pre-modern era please correct me.I would like to cite Rabbi Yehoshua ben Gamla's establishment of public educational system for the Jewish community during 63-64CE as example,along with Protestant sect's requirement for the followers to read and understand the vernicular Bible due to the 'Sola Scriptura' theological belief, and thus the increase in literacy rate of European population. However the former is not institutionalised by the state, while for the latter it could be argued(in fact by historians) that increase of
literacy rate fuels Protestantism and not the other way.

I wonder if the reason that universities as we think of them failed to develop was due to a lack of need for deeply specialized scholars. I think General_Zhaoyun hit upon something with the idea that education within hte empire tended to support generalist studies rather then having more compartmentalized studies in the west (granted there have been many examples of hte great humanist/renaissance man who masted many fields)

But there were no concentrated studies in the West till much later. All learned scholars are learned scholars of many man schools. They are probably all schooled in natural philosophy and grammar, mathematics and linguistics, perhaps some engineering and alchemy. And in China, most scholars are schooled in many many things, some are more learned in certain subjects, but there is no concentrated subjects like modern day.

One thing is, if you have a encyclopedia on famous people, and you look up most famous people from the West, they will have title of many 'ists' such as artists, architect linguists geologists etc etc etc, like Cao Cao, a statesman military man poet writer etc etc.

I guess that would depend on what time frame we were discussing, I had assumed that we went back to the Medieval Europe since that was the primary region we were comparing and contrasting. Within Europe we see specialized degree paths very early; with a student completing a bachelor of arts(from the Latin baccalaureus) then moving on to a Master of Arts degree (from the Latin magister) and finally earning a Doctorate/Masters (used interchangeably) in Medicine, Theology, Law, or Philosophy. One could only enter this final stage of study after earning the first two. In trying to put a date on this (as to when we know there were multiple specializations) one could look to the University of Bologna, which offered a Doctorate of Civil Law in the late 12th Century which was easily distinguished from a Doctorate in Theology/Divinity. The first Ph. D to be awarded was in 1150, in Paris. Thus it can be argued that the European system had specialized paths by the 12 century if not earlier.

Of course the European system leaned on the Islamic system, does anyone have anything on that?

Well in that case one has to pass the several level of Civil Exam Service, must past the village one prior to the county one etc etc.

The tests also could be on different subject, from as many as 50 subjects succh as 秀才、明经、进士、俊士、明法、明字、明算 and more.

Since there is no distinctive 'philosophy' in the sense of modern philosophy, I believe then in that sense, China also has these specified studies within the broad spectrum.

Prehaps, but I can't see that the Jinshi and Doctorate degrees overlap in what they are. The Doctorate embodies specific discipline, a doctorate of Theology and one of Law are two separate things, while everything I have seen points to there being only one Jinshi degree, and there were no Jinshi of of x (a specific field of knowledge).

I guess I see it as the Jinshi and its under degrees are similar to the certificate one receives on completion of the US Civil service exams, it qualfies you only to work within the US civil service as opposed to a degree which has several options (at least) open to the holder.

But that is like saying all Confucian studies are one school. There are certainly many different schools and different focus of the Confucian study.
Confucian though in name might be one big thing, but it is in fact compromised of many different subjects, 明法 is like your study of law, 明经 is the study of classics明算 is the study of arithmetics and geometry with certain hints of modern day mathematics etc etc etc. Just because all studies of any kind are probably classified somewhere in Confucian, it doesn't mean that there are no fields.

And there isn't just one Jinshi degree. I think you are thinking of Jinshi of Song.

For those who do not know what is a "polymath", it means a person who knows and excel in many subjects/knowledge field.

Also previously commonly called a "renaissance man" but that phrase seems to have fallen into desuetude - perhaps because it is considered sexist.