in April 2017, the Ministry of Education announced the budget expenditure of 75 universities directly under the Ministry of education in 2017. Tsinghua University ranked first with 23.3 billion yuan, followed by Peking University with 19.345 billion yuan, Zhejiang University with 15.047 billion yuan, Shanghai Jiaotong University with 14.077 billion yuan, and the total of the top four was 71.7 billion yuan. The lower ranked Central Conservatory of music had only 420 million yuan in 2017. As you know, the budget of Oxford University with a history of 400 years is only 1.6 billion pounds in 2016-17, the private Yale University used 2.15 billion dollars in 2014, and the public university of California, Berkeley, only used 1.3 billion dollars in 2012. The former is the alma mater of successive US presidents, and the latter has produced 90 Nobel Prize related winners.
and
our question is, where do the 71.7 billion yuan of these four universities come from? Why give Tsinghua 23.3 billion yuan instead of 13.3 billion yuan or 3.3 billion yuan? Who has given the Ministry of education such great power? Is there any supervision? If the college plate is bigger, what should we do when we are going to live in poverty in the future? Will the faculty union make trouble? The final question is, why should Tsinghua use 23.3 billion yuan, while the Central Conservatory of music only use 420 million yuan, rather than the opposite, is the decision-making process transparent?
,
,
and
have become a trend in recent years in China. There are many big name projects, but few successful cases. After spending a lot of money on the development of the western region and subsidies for electric vehicles, they all failed. CSL is the most typical example with all the characteristics of throwing money to catch up. The name of borrowing money for domestic first-class universities is so-called “mass entrepreneurship and innovation”. The difference between running universities and CSL is that CSL is a quasi market-oriented operation, which smashes the money of the club and the boss behind the club. High paid players and coaches have to pay high income taxes. Lippi once paid tens of millions of RMB per year in China. The University under the Ministry of education is purely an institution within the system. Take Tsinghua as an example. In 2015, there were 12252 faculty members in Tsinghua, 3414 of whom were teachers and 8838 staff members. The average cost per capita was 2 million, which scared people to death! Regardless of whether the staffing ratio is reasonable or not, all 12000 people have to eat financial meals. The bubble in the name of mass entrepreneurship and innovation is not only 23.3 billion yuan from all taxpayers today. In the future, more than 12000 people will be fed by horses, which will always be supported by taxpayers.
and
first-class universities are based on the first-class humanistic spirit and scientific research spirit, which can never be thrown out with money. After the emperor had a solid family, he mistakenly thought that Lao Tzu was rich and could not do anything without throwing money. It was not a good thing that the ministers were too rich or too powerful. Once the power is in hand, then weave beautiful garlands for power. When you have no money, it’s OK. When you have money, you will never be willing to be lonely. Mass entrepreneurship and innovation is a beautiful wreath that the Ministry of education and the elders of three or four universities conspire. Is Peking University and Tsinghua University more important than the Central Academy of fine arts and the Central Conservatory of music? What really matters is that this 70 billion yuan is not someone’s money, and it doesn’t hurt to spend it. Even if you have 1000 reasons for Tsinghua to spend 23.3 billion yuan a year, I have 1000 reasons to oppose entrepreneurship and innovation. The question is, why are you so brave? We understand the urgency of leaders to catch up with the world’s first-class. The first-class university depends on the master, who is not the money to buy. You can build beautiful school buildings. A school without masters is just a school without a watch. The reform of
and
has reached the critical stage. If you don’t take the initiative to break down the barriers, they will breed and trap you. The failure of medical reform is the most obvious example.
and
, in other words, all problems are system problems. Although the central and local tax distribution was changed from the former central seven, local three to the basic five five-year split. The question is why the central government must be better at spending money than the local government. The closer it is, the higher the efficiency of supervision. Must the Ministry of education be better at managing Zhejiang University and Jiaotong University than the local government? The central government took away the tax revenue, forcing the local government to sell land at a high price. The central government’s tax collection is too heavy, the government’s spending is unrestricted, and the unlimited growth of central enterprises is the crux of the current system. Why can’t the central and local governments divide the accounts into three and seven? It is one of the characteristics of American federalism that the local government takes away the big head of Finance and taxation.
mizhuo
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.