International Law

Preparing Chinese Students for the Global Economy

By Stan

I’ve been following an interesting discussion over the last few days on Jim Fallows’s blog regarding Chinese education. My intent was to steer clear of this conversation, seeing as how it is a perennial favorite amongst ex-pats, and I’m sure I’ve probably commented on this several times in the past.

Oh well, screw that, I can’t stay away.

The basic parameters of the discussion, as these things usually go, is in regards to problem solving, creativity, and critical thinking amongst Chinese students, and how best to train these kids for the global economy. This covers a lot of territory though, and I think it’s useful to note that these skills are quite different, requiring varied educational approaches.

First, my bona fides. My exposure to Chinese students began as an English teacher back in 1998 in Shenyang. Since that time, I have worked with probably 100 different Chinese lawyers and have had the opportunity to assess not only their cognitive skills, but the educational environment that led to them developing those abilities. Additionally, over the past three years, I’ve had the pleasure of teaching Chinese law students here in Beijing.

In his latest post on the subject, Fallows helpfully pasted a few of the more seminal passages/comments from reader e-mails. Here’s the first one:

I had a pretty low opinion on Chinese education when I was in China. Certain subjects such as history and Marxist philosophy are just crammed in without any critical discussion. But when I came to US and worked as TA for a top state university, I changed my mind a bit. Almost none of my students (first-year economics) are interested in understanding the materials critically. Most of them are just looking for a good grade. Also the math preparation some of my students received are so inadequate, I doubt they would be able to graduate from high school in China, not mentioning entering a top university.

Not surprisingly, this comment was from a Chinese reader. I can’t say that I really disagree with the general thrust of the description of the US education system. When taken as a whole, particularly with respect to public schools, and certainly in large urban environments, the quality of education leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. But that’s a topic for another day, and another blog.

It’s a bit more useful, although perhaps not 100 percent fair, to compare the skills taught at a typical first or second tier university in the US to a similar institution in China. What are the graduates getting out of these schools? What are they capable of doing upon matriculation?

As this discussion typically goes, basic math skills are not at issue. Not that this is unimportant, but let’s face it, kids who have graduated any institution without grasping multiplication are probably not going to be competing for the top jobs in the global economy anyway. The question is, among the best and the brightest here in China, what is lacking and to what degree do we find fault with the educational institutions.

I have gotten the impression that when we talk about an exceptional graduate, we are really talking about someone who is able to step into a management role, preferably at a multinational. Now, these positions only make up a small fraction of the number of jobs out there available for Chinese graduates. However, and for some reason, it seems to me that institutions are somehow graded (informally) on their ability to train kids to fill those jobs. I would guess that the Chinese government would generally agree that these sorts of management jobs are a very high priority, on the same level as training exceptional scientists/engineers.

What you want in a good middle manager? Top of the list is usually problem solving skills, sometimes referred to as critical thinking. This should not, by the way, be confused with creative thinking. The latter is a completely different skill, and yet it is also in extremely high demand in China, particularly as the economy is moving towards a knowledge-based system.

But getting back to problem-solving and critical thinking. Additional to being skills prized by the multinational, these abilities are fundamental to lawyers as well. I have certainly seen lots of lawyers here that lack adequate problem-solving skills. Law school here is not designed to teach one how to solve problems, but rather to understand the law and know how to consult it as necessary when a client instructs one to do so. Law schools, and to a large extent schools here in general, are simply not geared towards fostering these types of skills in their students.

That being said, I strongly support the comments made by some of Fallows’s readers with respect to teaching critical thinking. This is something that is not only possible, but in my experience not as arduous a task as one may think. Students that have  extensive knowledge of a subject area, for example, specific laws, have a wonderful base upon which to develop critical thinking skills.

I have seen this a bit in the classroom, and to a much larger degree in law firms I have worked for. It’s much more difficult to teach critical thinking in the classroom, where the teacher has limited time (and yes, students here tend to be extraordinarily shy in group environments), but in a long-term working situation where one can devote time and energy to training a young associate, it’s amazing the kinds of results you can get very quickly.

To oversimplify, there is very little a smart kid can’t do when given the opportunity. For a young lawyer, provided that he/she has the right attitude, often the missing element in problem-solving (at the outset) is explaining what exactly typical problems are, what may be expected of a lawyer, and what the client may be thinking. Once those parameters have been set, young lawyers can often tackle complex problems quite readily. Once in a while, you actually run across a talented associate who, after being told what a client wants, gets that proverbial light going off in their heads. “Oh, the client wants me to help him do X. I can do that.”

One final note, again on the issue of creativity. As I’ve said before, no one really knows how to teach creativity (it is certainly much more difficult than teaching critical thinking, which is based on “simple” logic). If we knew how to teach creativity, China would already be churning out zillions of new invention patents annually.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us

Full post as published by China Hearsay on May 12, 2009 (boomark / email).