Hayek: In this world, there is always a difference between treating people equally and trying to make them equal. The former is a prerequisite of a free society, while the latter, as Tocqueville described it, means “a new form of servitude.”
This passage is truly well put. Freedom, democracy, equality—these concepts sound stirring, and of course they are all good words. Yet how exactly are they to be understood, and how are they to be pursued? That is a big question.
The United States, waving the banner of freedom and democracy, carries out its “new form of servitude” across the globe, and in China, too, the concept of equality is highly problematic.
Recently I saw the introduction of a new law on compulsory education, and China’s educational reform has once again left me desperate. Quality education is of course also a good phrase, but how is it to be practiced? Learn from the West? Let children be relaxed and free? All of that sounds wonderful, but on the one hand, the national conditions are simply not comparable: how many children does a Western country have, and how many does China have? How mature are the hardware and software of Western basic education? How mature are China’s? How complete are Western economic resources, higher education, social security, and so on? How complete are China’s? What is this “quality education” supposed to be? It is simply “everything is not yet ready, yet the east wind is blowing with extraordinary force”!
From China’s educational reform, and from certain other policies as well, we can see an implicit and powerful tendency toward “levelling.” That is, a distorted and pathological “egalitarianism.” It is something like “psychological imbalance” — “How wonderful it would be if everyone were just like me!” Is it really so wonderful to level everyone’s conditions flat? Forcibly leveling, flattening, and evening out others is, as Hayek said, in fact a disguised form of servitude.
Regarding this educational reform, the news reported it this way: “The present problems of exorbitant school-choice fees, and so on, are all because educational resources are uneven. If educational resources are built up to be even, then there will be no such problems. Our educational reform is working precisely in that direction…” And that direction of effort is precisely what makes me most uneasy.
Of course, it is right for the government to make appropriate efforts at “balancing.” China’s imbalance problem is also quite serious—the gaps between east and west, urban and rural, the poor and the rich are simply too outrageous and need adjustment. However, balance must not be taken too far. The differences among people can never be “eliminated”; if they really were eliminated, such a society would become frighteningly monotonous. One must face up to diversity. An ideal state of “balance” is not “uniformity,” but rather allowing society’s diversity to acquire an appropriate degree of “fluidity.” Balance is not average; it is dynamic. It means the overall structure is rich in change while remaining in a steady state. Any policy direction that tries to completely level differences is fundamentally harmful.
Why can’t there be “top classes”? Are top classes unfair? As the name suggests, only the top students can enter a top class; they speak by virtue of their own ability. What is unfair about that? If one wants to do it better, one might as well open up a “circulation mechanism” between top classes and ordinary classes: those who cannot keep up with the pace of study are sent back, and those with surplus energy for learning are brought in, so that every student can obtain the learning environment best suited to him. What is wrong with that? Some people—mainly some psychologically unbalanced parents—think that children who get into top classes enjoy better conditions, while children who do not get into top classes suffer a loss, and therefore it is unfair. In fact, that is not the case at all! “Teaching according to aptitude” is the most basic educational principle: for every child, there is no education that is absolutely better, only education that is more “suitable” for oneself! If you are not a top student and cannot keep up with the pace of a top class, entering one will only be torture; forcing your way in will only backfire. The ordinary class is the more suitable education. And for top students, mixing with mediocre or even unambitious classmates, lacking opportunities for focused cultivation of their special strengths, is also not sufficiently suitable. The top-class system gives both top students and ordinary students the chance to receive more suitable education—what is evil about that? If the system of top classes and key schools gives some parents the opportunity to use their power or money to interfere, that is not a fault of the educational system itself, but rather the result of social mores. In the end, learning depends on ability; factors of wealth and power at most can send someone who is unwilling to strive into an aristocratic school, but forcing a student who was originally not driven into a top class will often backfire. Those who cannot keep up still cannot keep up. This I do know.
Rote learning is indeed disgusting. So-called “exam-oriented education” is denounced by everyone, and educational reform is necessary. But a reform strategy of “when the head hurts, cut off the head; when the foot hurts, cut off the foot” simply will not work. If one wants to improve the current situation of “exam-oriented education,” one should first cultivate among parents, schools, and society a pluralistic perspective of evaluation that does not measure people by a single standard. If, after all the fuss, exam scores still have the final say, how can one expect people not to be “exam-oriented”? Changing the status of “exams” in evaluation is impossible in the foreseeable future, and at present only examinations can better guarantee fairness. So “exam-oriented education” cannot be abolished; in China right now, education can only be exam-oriented, and this point should be faced squarely. As for wanting to cultivate children’s creativity and all-round “qualities,” that too should be discussed only on the basis of exam-oriented education. The biggest problem in the current state of Chinese education lies in its deeply entrenched mindset of “indoctrination”: the belief that education means letting students understand and memorize those “facts,” and that teachers are to transmit those “certain knowledge” from a lofty position. If this way of thinking is not changed, then Chinese education and science popularization alike will never be done well.
August 30, 2006
Latest comments
- Li
2006-09-01 09:47:18
A great read. Too bad the weekend culture book market is gone.
- Li
2006-09-01 09:47:57
Ah… I posted in the wrong thread… I should have been talking about the bookstore…
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply