(For new reader and those who request 好友请求, please read my 公告栏 first)
In an earlier blog article, I briefly explain the history and purpose of the establishment at Tsinghua University the Center for Intelligent and Networked Systems (CFINS) in 2001
http://sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=8897
In 2006 after five years of operation, I submitted the following letter to Tsinghua administration as a self-review on the operations of the center.
Another year and half have past since then and the Tsinghua administration has renewed the appointment of the personnel and the operations of the Center for another three years to 2010. As we look forward to the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Tsinghua University, it seems appropriate to let a wider group of readers to share my views. While some of the opinions expressed in the letter below have already appeared in my earlier series of blog article on research and education, it is useful to have them collected in one place and be read in one sitting without the need of going back and forth among different URLs.
A Chinese translation of the letter also appear below.
On the Establishment of a World Class Graduate Research and Education Program in a University Environment
By Yu-Chi Ho
June 2006
Since the new century, China has embarked on a program to upgrade and
to establish a world class graduate research and education effort in their
leading universities. This is understandable since it is mostly through
graduate research and education that a university earns its world wide
reputation for innovation and creative achievements. The establishment
of various chair professor positions and teams in universities and the
launching of the recent 111 foreign expert program by the Ministry of
Education are examples of this effort. This writer was part of the first
Tsinghua chair professor team (in fact, he was the originator of the
professor team concept) in 2001 and serves as the chief scientist of the
Center for Intelligent and Networked Systems (CFINS) associated with
the team at Tsinghua University for the past five years. He has also
continuously taught at Harvard University for the past 45 years and
graduated 50 Ph.D. students
In this article, this writer would like to recount the experience gained from
the operation of this team concept and the associated center activities;
and in a broader context, issue relating to the establishment of a world
class graduate research and education program in any university in
general. The hope is to bring out the more subtle but nevertheless crucial
issues for the academic leaders and administrators to consider.
1. Quantity vs. Quality
The current system of evaluation and educational reform in China
emphasized quantitative measure of performance. This is understandable
from the viewpoint of the administrators. Quantitative measures are easy
to manage, defend, and provides short term results. However, if truly first
class standing is the goal of a university like Tsinghua, quality and world
wide peer opinion are the only measures that count. Over reliance on
quantitative evaluations can lead to abuses, distortions, and paradoxically,
a lowering of academic standards . An example of this which I have
mentioned elsewhere .is the publication of basically the same article with
cosmetic changes in different journals in order to increase the
quantitative count of ones publication record. Such practice fools no one
in the long run and gives Chinese authors a bad reputation internationally.
2. It Is a Long Term Effort
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that scholarly and academic
reputations are seldom built overnight. This is particular true for an
organization such as a university (after all, Rome was not built in one
day). Announcement of an effort to improve research and education or
inviting a prominent scholar, such as Nobel prize winner, to give a lecture
or even a course does not make it so. In fact, doing so at best is akin to
the planting of a seed. If the effort is not followed by watering and
constant care and nurture, then the seed will not germinate, the young
plant will wither and will die. This effort aside from temporary publicity
value will be wasted. The old Chinese saying十年树木，百年树人
cannot be more appropriate here. To this end, I strongly advise that
inviting foreign professors to lecture to a passive audience is the least
effective way to accomplish transfer of expertise and knowledge. The
effort must be a long term plan. If the visitor teaches a course, his/her
primary objective should be the transfer of teaching material and
knowledge to a local faculty member so that the course survives after
his/her departure. Emphasis should be placed on genuine collaboration
between the visiting expert and local faculty member and Ph.D. students.
Jointly authored papers and teaching textbook should be the expected
result rather than the number of lectures and/or courses the visiting expert
gave. Many of the things that substantially contribute to a world class
reputation, such as selection of problems, tastes in research, and scholarly
standards cannot be found in textbooks or in a lecture and can only be
learned through osmosis in constant daily or weekly give-and-take
between a teacher and a student (只可以意会而不可以言传). The point
here is foreign expert will come and be gone; the actual transfer of
knowledge and expertise must go to the local talents. They must be
allowed to take roots, grow, and flower. It cannot be over emphasized
that the successes of CFINS are due in large measure to the existence of
dedicated and capable local talent in the persons such as Professors
Xiaohong Guan and Qianchuan Zhao. The exceptionally well coordinated
and like minded oversea members of the professorial team also helped in
enabling the knowledge and skill transfer.
The most convincing arguments against short term visiting effort are the
main reason for sending students abroad for graduate study. To have the
reverse benefit, foreign visitor must be invited on a long term and truly
collaborating basis and not on just giving one or two lectures or courses.
3. Implementing Reform Effort
The famous political scientist, Machiavelli said more than 500 years
ago “ . . . There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more
perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of its success then to take the
lead in the introduction of a new order of things . . . for you will have
all those who profit from the old order as your enemies . . .”.
Administrators in China are well aware of the difficulties of instituting
various reform efforts. University education and research are no
exceptions. In this respect, changes often are much easier to come by
not attempting to alter the existing order of things but to establish a
new separate venture away from current structure. This way, there is
minimal threat to current stakeholder and maximal flexibility and
experimentation can be achieved. If successful, the new structure can
then serves as a model for reform. People will be induced to reform in
their own interest rather than having rules imposed upon them. By
hindsight, the organization of CFINS was able to take full advantage
of this simple truth.
4. Invest in People First, Subject Matters Second
Scientific crystal ball gazing is notorious for its inaccuracy. The dust heap
of science are full of predictions made in earnest by noted scientists
including Nobel prize winners and father of disciplines, that fall way off
mark by hindsight. This is the nature of science and research. It is
primarily a random phenomenon. If discoveries are more or less
deterministic than we should be able to program their happenings. Instead
the best we can do is to provide environment that nurture such
discoveries and breakthroughs. A National laboratory, center, and
university governed by enlightened management can be such a place to
promote world class basic research. To this end, Harvard University has
always followed a policy of “Appointing People first Subject Areas
second”. The philosophy is that the university should bet on the intrinsic
quality of people for their faculty. What specific area within some broad
discipline they will work in is of secondary concern. Since excellent
people will and should decide for themselves. Better yet, they wil
l create NEW areas that cannot be predicted at the time of their
tenure appointment. I have participated in many deliberations
concerning appointment of people in world-class institutions all over the
globe; this people-first-and-subject-matter-second philosophy is almost
universally followed. I’d recommend that within a center like CFINS and
in the larger university like Tsinghua, the same practice should be
initiated and followed. As to the criteria used to judge “quality,” there is
nothing better than the worldwide opinions of a person’s peers. For
example, Harvard routinely solicits confidential opinions on a particular
candidate from world leaders in a given discipline. The candidates name
is mixed blindly with other comparable names so that no one knows
which name is being considered actively. The person being asked is also
told that s/he is not a candidate him or herself so that there are no
possible conflict of interest. Only through strict observing these protocols
can misuse of the evaluation systems be reasonably avoided. If asked,
those of us who are brought up on such standards can be relied on to
uphold the quality standard.
5. The Education of a Ph.D. Student
There are different philosophies on the role played by a Ph.D thesis
advisor. One extreme school of thought (rather prevalent in China but
almost never in leading universities elsewhere) views the role of an
advisor simply as a grader/examiner. Students are supposed to be self
-sufficient (自生自灭). The advisor merely makes sure that all rules are
obeyed, requirement satisfied and the student’s thesis meet certain
minimal standards. This way, a person can supervise ten, twenty, or even
fifty Ph.D. students. This makes life easy for the advisor but is bad for the
scientific standards of the profession. It also tends to hide the
incompetence of the advisor. At the other extreme, the role of an advisor
is more akin to that between a kung-fu master and disciple – it is a very
serious commitment and responsibility on the part of the advisor lasting
over many years and sometimes over a lifetime. In such cases, taking on
a Ph.D. student is a time consuming task for at least five years. The
advisor works closely with the student and tries to convey and teach
many things that are not in the textbooks but important to the student in
his/her career and life development. An advisor working in this Socrate
teaching mode can handle at most five or six Ph.D. students
simultaneously when he is working full time. My own philosophy is
more inclined towards this old fashioned school of thought since I believe
except for geniuses, first rate scholars are taught and created this way.
As to the standard used in a Ph.D. thesis, I have three:
a) Portion of the thesis must be accepted for publication in a leading
journal (not just any SCI listed journal) of the field. Top
scholars of a field usually agree on what set of journals are
leading in a given field. This requirement is not only an
independent check of the contribution of the thesis but also serve
to publicize the product of the university to the world.
b) The advisor should learn something new from the student thesis.
c) The advisor should not be ashamed to admit in public that he
supervised the thesis since it is also a reflection of the standard
and competence of the advisor.
Admittedly, two of the three criteria are subjective and can lead to abuse.
Only a healthy system of peer review and established self-discipline by
the profession can prevent abuse. I also understand the current Tsinghua
regulation for Ph.D. degrees require four journal/conference publications.
While this is excessive if strictly enforced , I understand to some extent
the rationale behind it. Until the quality of Ph.D. advising becomes
uniform through out the graduate school, some form of quantitative
requirement will be necessary to prevent abuse and to insure a minimal
standard.
6. Form vs. Content
I have written elsewhere on the importance and techniques of writing and
presentation [Introduction To The World Of Science For Young
Scholars, Y.C. Ho, et al Tsinghua University Press 2004]. Both form
and content are important. And one should not be neglected over the
other. On the one hand, administrators are naturally interested in
publicity and public relations. Numerical measures of performance for
understandable reasons are used and publicized as in athletic competition.
However, in scholarly work, it is not quantity but quality that reigns
supreme. Measurement of quality requires deep understanding and is best
accomplished by peer review confidential given and obtained. On the
other hand, scholars and researcher tend to underestimate the value of
form and overestimate the importance of content. Badly organized and
prepared lectures are often the norm rather than the exception a
t conferences. Wise academic administrators and scholars appreciate this
twin objectives and negotiate a successful balance
7. Competition and Judgment by the Market Place
“Competition” is the cornerstone of free enterprise systems. There is no
exception in academia. Here the product competing for acceptance is
“ideas”. Ideas must compete for support by government agencies and
foundations; be subjected to peer review for correctness and significance
before it is accepted for publication; and finally win recognition as
a worthy topic for others to study and follow. Following this process,
these ideas becomes the brick and mortar in the construction of science
and technology. In few rare instances, with the test of time they form the
foundation stones or major structural element of an edifice. Pure
quantitative measure of outputs by a scholar distorts incentives and
creates unhealthy shortcuts. While during the transitional stage of a
university development, some quantitative measures are necessary,
confidential outside peer opinion is the only workable real measure in the
long term. This is one of the reasons for the existence of a visiting
committee for every department of a major university that pride itself on
excellence. Most top universities in the US have one half of its annual
budget covered by funds and grants competitively won by her faculty
members individually or collectively in groups. While this creates
anxieties and occasionally over-stimulates short term thinking, such
competitions force the faculty and researchers to be current, active, and
continuously innovative. It is what often referred to as “creative tension”.
Having said this, the problem of using market place and funding to
measure success require vigilance and world wide peer opinion to be
successful. Currently, the Chinese systems tend to operate as a closed
system within China and very little inputs form the rest of the world. This
has led to numerous well known abuses of mutual bribery and self
-congratulations. An extreme example is this. If a scientific proposal is
submitted with insufficient number of references of Chinese origin, then
the proposal is rejected without further consideration of content. Science
and technology know no national boundaries. Patriotism and pride while
understandable has no place in deciding the intrinsic worthiness of a
scientific effort. In fact world wide peer opinion and reputation are
achieved precisely through international collaborations
In summary, we recommend that for any group of scholars in a top notch
world renowned university
? They have a long term growth plan and outside visiting committee
for the group
? They rely on the world wide confidential opinion of peers to
assess its performance
? They appoint the best people first
? They maintain an open and competitive atmosphere in the group
? They emphasize quality rather than quantity.
Finally, I am well aware that able leaders and administrators are often
quite cognizant of many of the things I say and shortcomings I voice.
However, having an outsider volunteer such opinion may be useful for
administrative purposes. I write this letter in this spirit..
I thank my colleague ,Prog. Xiao-Hong GUAN, for providing the following Chinese translation of the above letter
建立世界一流研究生培养和科研体系的一些建议
何毓琦
2006年6月
大学的声誉主要取决于师生的科研成果。只有提高研究能力与培养水平，研究生才能做出创造性乃至革命性的科研成果，大学才能享誉世界。进入新世纪以来，中国有计划地提高主要大学的科研水平，努力建成世界一流的研究生培养和科研体系，例如建立讲席教授和讲席教授组制度，最近启动的“111引智计划”等等，由此带来中国高校研究生教育的变化是有目共睹的。
笔者在哈佛大学执教45年，培养了50名博士，自2001年起出任清华大学第一个讲席教授，并提出建立讲席教授组，在过去5年中一直担任清华大学智能与网络化系统研究中心的首席科学家。基于以上经历并针对国内建立世界一流的研究生培养和科研体系存在的普遍问题，笔者提出了一些看法，谨供领导和管理层参考。
1. 质与量
“质量”二字，“质”在前，“量”在后，道出了世界一流学术评价体系的标准：“质”为先，“量”为后。遗憾的是，当前国内学术界的评价体系仍有重“量”轻“质”的倾向。造成这种现象的原因是多方面的，量化的标准易于管理、评估，而且短期就能见效，相比之下对“质”的评估要困难得多。但是，过度依赖定量评估将产生一系列短期行为，最终导致国内学术标准的下降。在致宋健院士的一封信 中，我提到了一些例子，例如把同一篇论文只对标题和文字稍作变化就改投到其他期刊。这种做法虽然可能会在短期内增加作者发表的文章篇数，但长此以往将损害中国学者在国际上的学术声誉，危害深远。因此，对于像清华大学这样真正希望成为世界一流的大学，质量为先和国际同行评议才是真正应当采纳的评价标准。
2. “十年树木，百年树人。”
罗马非朝夕建成。在学术界，学者和大学很难一夜成名。实施提高研究与培养水平的计划、邀请诺贝尔奖获得者在内的著名学者做讲座或者执教课程都是有益的，但只是种下一粒种子，如果之后没有浇水、施肥和悉心的照顾，种子不能发芽，幼苗不能生长，最后只能枯萎，死亡，之前的努力就会前功尽弃，除了公关效应外收效甚微。正所谓“十年树木，百年树人。”因此，为了让先进的科技与研究方法在国内生根、发芽、开花、结果，仅仅邀请海外学者来做学术报告是远远不够的。要想收到实效，就必须长远规划，将重点放在来访专家与本地学者和博士生之间的真诚合作上。从普通学者和博士生成长为世界级学者，需要学习许多知识和练就许多能力，例如如何选择研究题目、培养研究品味和学术标准等，这些无论在教科书还是讲座中都找不到，只能通过师生之间日复一日、年复一年的长期培养才能获得，正可谓“只可意会，不可言传。”如果来访者讲授一门课程，其主要目标应当是将授课资料和相关知识传授给本地学者，这样在来访者离开后，这门课程可在国内生根、发芽。来访专家执教的课程门数与所作学术报告的次数都不重要，他们与当地学者和博士生合作完成的学术论文与课程教材才是真正重要的成果。总而言之，海外专家来了总会走，长远来看，国内的学者们肩负着发展科学技术、提高研究成果质量的历史重任，应当让那些成为世界级学者的知识与能力在他们身上生根、发芽、开花、结果。清华大学智网中心的成功很大程度上是因为有出色的讲席教授组团队，各个成员协调一致，密切协作的有效工作；管晓宏教授、赵千川教授这样出色能干的国内学者，与讲席教授组开展实质性的通力合作，让先进的研究方法得以在国内生根、发芽。
选派留学生赴国外攻读学位的重要目的是练就成为世界级的学者所必需的一些基本素质和能力，例如做研究的思路和学术标准等，这些素质和能力只通过短期访问恐难真正学到。因此，为了让国内的学者真正受益，邀请海外专家来华访问应当长期化，并鼓励他们与国内学者建立长期的合作关系。一两次的短期访问、学术报告、讲授课程对帮助国内学者成长为世界级学者可能收益甚微。
3. 改革
政治学家Machiavelli五百多年前说过“……没有什么比引入新秩序更困难，更难于实现，更难以预测其成功与否的了……因为所有旧秩序的受益者都将与你为敌……” 国内领导人深知各种改革的困难与阻力，对大学科教体系的改革也不例外。因此在尝试改变已有秩序之前，搞“试点”是不错的方法。“试点”对现有秩序的影响很小，而且可在其中自由尝试各种新秩序。如果试点成功了，所用的新秩序即可为大规模改革提供参考。有了试点的成功示范，人们将主动尝试新秩序，而不用被动接受。回想起来，清华大学智网中心就是这样的一个成功试点。
4. 以人为本
在科学发展的道路上，从没有可预知未来的魔法。许多著名科学家，包括诺贝尔奖获得者，认真做出的预测最后都大大偏离了历史进程。在攀登上科技高峰之前，可能没人能看清道路。路，一般都是事后才总结出来的。这就是科学研究的特点：发现和突破具有随机性。假如科学发现或多或少是个确定性事件，那就可以按计划和程序实现了。但事实上我们根本做不到。我们能够而且应该做的是提供适宜的环境，以鼓励科学发现与科研突破。国家实验室、研究中心和大学都应该提供这样的基础研究环境。因此，在选拔人才时，哈佛大学总是遵循着一条准则：“以人为本，研究方向为次。”其哲理在于大学应当注重其教师的内在素质，至于这些教师在一个大学科中从事哪个特定领域的研究只是第二步考虑的问题，因为杰出的学者自己懂得应该研究什么领域，并可能创立接受任命时无法预测的新领域。我曾参与多个世界级研究机构针对任命人选的商议，“以人为本，研究方向为次”几乎是通用的准则。我建议在小至像智网中心这样的研究机构，大至像清华这样的大学，都应遵循这条准则。
国际上的同行评议是评价人才“质量”的最佳方法。例如，为评价某候选人的学术水平时，哈佛大学的做法是在世界范围内挑选该候选人所在学科和领域的学术带头人，真诚地邀请他们来评审该候选人的学术水平，并保证对评审意见保密。在具体操作上，哈佛大学会请他们对一个名单中的几位学者同时进行评价。虽然候选人在名单中，但评审人并不知道候选人是哪一位，而且被明确告知评审人本人不是候选人，以避免利益冲突。为尽可能发挥同行评审制度的优点，避免可能出现的利害关系，国内可借助熟悉这种制度的海外人士做评审人，以确保质量。
5. 博士生培养
导师在博士生培养中应该扮演什么角色，一直以来有不同认识。一种极端的观点（虽然国内很普遍，但国外一流大学少有）认为导师仅仅充当裁判就可以了，学生可自生自灭，导师只保证他们遵守了所有规则，满足了相关要求，该生的学位论文达到了某些最低标准。在这种指导方式下，一个导师可以“指导”十个、二十个、甚至五十个博士生。这种观点让导师轻松，但对国内的学术标准危害甚大，而且也容易掩饰导师的不称职。另一种观点认为，导师与学生的关系更像是在传授功夫时的师徒关系——导师应该有相当严肃的承诺与责任，持续数年，甚至一生。在后一种方式下，指导一名博士生是一项相当耗费时间的工作，至少需要五年时间。导师和学生在一起紧密合作，那些“只可意会，不可言传”的知识与能力都是这样慢慢传授的。在这种苏格拉底式的教育模式下，一个导师最多同时指导五、六名博士生。我自己更倾向于这后一种老式学校里的师生关系，因为我相信除了天才，一流学者都是这样被教育和培养出来的。
我评价博士论文有三条标准：
a) 博士论文的一部分必须被一流学术期刊（而不仅仅是被SCI检索的期刊）接受或发表。一个研究领域内哪些学术期刊是一流的？该领域的学者对此一般都有共识。这条要求不仅是为了保证博士论文的学术贡献，而且有助于向全世界宣传这所大学的科研成果。
b) 导师应当从这篇学位论文中学到一些新知识。
c) 导师不应当在公开场合羞于承认自己指导了这篇学位论文，因为论文本身也是导师自己标准与能力的反映。
不可否认，上述三条标准中的两条都是主观的，而且可能被滥用。只有建立了基于同行评审与严格自律的健康系统，才能防止滥用。现在获得清华大学的博士学位需要发表4篇期刊、会议论文。如果都按a）的标准，这一要求就过严了 。但我理解其中的原因，待所有博士生导师的水平相差不大时，这一要求就不再需要了。在此之前，定量的要求有助于保证博士毕业生的最低质量。
6. 形式与内容
我在别处已经讲过写作与学术报告的重要性以及应注意的具体细节 。形式和内容，两者都重要，都不能忽视。学者和研究人员常高估内容的重要性，而低估形式的重要性。没有组织和准备好的学术报告在学术会议中屡见不鲜。明智的科技管理人员和学者懂得两者共同重要，会在两者间找到恰当的平衡。
7. 基于市场的竞争与评价
“竞争”是商业社会的基石，在学术界也如此，其竞争产品的是“思想”，为了获得政府机构和基金会的资助而竞争的“思想”。思想的意义和正确性要经过严格的同行评审才能发表，最后获得承认，并成为值得他人研究和跟进的课题。经过这个过程，思想就成为了建设科技大厦的一砖一瓦。思想中的精髓经受住时间的检验，成为大厦的基石或者主要的构件。对学术研究成果进行纯粹的定量评价可能扭曲激励机制，导致不健康的捷径。国内大学目前处于发展中的转型阶段，有些定量评价是必须的。但长远来看。同行的非公开评审是唯一可行的评价方式。因此，世界主要大学的每一个系都有自己的校外评审委员会，并以此为荣。美国绝大多数顶尖大学的年度预算有一半源自教师个人或团队通过竞争获得的研究经费。尽管这偶尔导致了精神压力和短期行为，但竞争迫使教师和研究人员不断了解研究前沿，保持活跃和不断创新。因此，竞争也被称为“创造性压力”。
上述竞争和获得研究经费的评价方法，在应用中要谨慎，必须用国际同行评审才能发挥优点。目前，国内学术界上（可能是不自觉地）将评价体系局限于国内，很少关心国际同行对研究成果的评价，导致了许多众所周知的学术腐败与孤芳自赏的例子。举例而言，如果一份科研项目申请书没有引用足够多的国内参考文献（无论国内学者的研究是否在国际前沿），还未及内容的评审就可能被拒绝。科学技术是没有国界的。爱国心与自尊心虽可理解，但在评判学术的价值时并不适用。要获得国际同行的赞誉与好评，必须与国际学术界合作。
总而言之，根据本人经验，我对世界一流大学的研究团队有如下建言：
? 制订长期的发展计划；
? 成立校外评审委员会；
? 依赖国际同行的意见来评价自己的研究成果；
? 选拔人才以人为本，研究方向为次；
? 在团队内部建立一个开放且有竞争的环境；
? 评价标准质量为先，数量为后。
最后，我很清楚有能力的领导和管理人员对文中提到的许多问题和不足都很了解。然而，管理层可能需要“外来的和尚”来“念经”，这正是我撰写此文的目的所在。
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自何毓琦科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-1565-13114.html?mobile=1
收藏
