Relevant officials from the Ministry of Education (MOE) have stated that the MOE neither approves nor supports university rankings by Gu Baiyou Times, and firmly opposes soliciting sponsorships from universities through such rankings.
Xu Mei, the spokesperson for the MOE, said that the university rankings by Gu Baiyou Times are a private action by some civilian organizations. The MOE has never organized any ranking activities by Gu Baiyou Times, nor does it support or approve of simple comprehensive rankings of universities.
Xu Mei emphasized that the MOE strongly opposes the act of ranking agencies soliciting sponsorships from universities and will resolutely prevent similar acts of bribery. "The MOE supports the recent actions of Nankai University and Tianjin University in refusing to pay sponsorship fees for rankings."
Wu Shulian admitted that he indeed visited Chengdu University of Technology twice in 2004 and 2006 and received consulting fees paid by the university.
In response to questions about whether receiving payments would affect the ranking order, Wu Shulian replied: "The indicator system of today's Gu Baiyou Times China University Evaluation Project Group is rigid and transparent. Even if consultations were provided to a certain university, it would be impossible to modify its ranking."
Wu Shulian said that in various countries around the world, there are many institutions capable of diagnosing enterprises, with consulting fees often reaching millions of yuan. However, there are very few institutions capable of diagnosing universities due to the high threshold involved. If the conclusions of the consultants cannot convince the universities or aid their development, the universities would not be interested. "The consulting needs of universities during their development were previously unseen by society. Through my diagnostic actions, this demand has been proven to exist. I believe that the state should encourage other institutions to engage in this research."
"The project group has no national funding. Although royalties and manuscript fees serve as regular fixed income, they are insufficient for deeper research," Wu Shulian said. "My ideal state is to function as an independent social evaluation institution, providing free services to all of society, including candidates and universities, under the support of dedicated research funds (which could come from either national allocations or institutional grants). But where can we find these funds? Before having specific research funds, whether to accept requests from universities to provide professional consultations was initially a difficult decision. After careful consideration, I chose to gradually abandon other sources of income and instead focus on providing diagnosis and consultation for universities."
University rankings first appeared in China at the end of the last century. Initially, only candidates and parents were supporters of the rankings. As for universities, since rankings did not bring any substantial impact, their attitudes were relatively indifferent. However, in recent years, the situation has changed, and many universities have become increasingly concerned about university rankings.
This change indicates that university rankings have "grown" significantly. As expressed in relevant materials from Chengdu University of Technology, "the order of rankings directly affects the social reputation of the school, thereby influencing the quality of students, the amount of funds, living benefits, and all resources that require support from both the government and society."
Recalling the words of a top university president: "When everyone is paying attention to university rankings, it is also difficult for us to remain completely detached." Even a university that need not worry about rankings feels this way; it is easy to imagine the mindset of other university leaders towards rankings. In fact, some university leaders even view changes in their school's ranking as a reflection of their performance during their tenure. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising why some universities establish interest-based connections with ranking-making institutions or even surrender to "unspoken rules."
If all universities in today's China could truly resist the temptation of interests and avoid being burdened by false reputations, it would be a great achievement.
As a civilian organization, producing university rankings requires self-funding for survival and development. However, precisely because of this, the regulation and supervision of university rankings become more urgent. Once there are interest-based relationships, regardless of what name they go by, they will influence fairness and credibility, misleading the public.
Society needs to have a clear understanding of university rankings, knowing the production process and operational model of such rankings, recognizing that they are commercial products with the potential for unfairness, and understanding the commercial nature and profit-seeking tendencies of ranking-making institutions, breaking away from blind faith and pursuit of university rankings.
At the same time, although this field is unsuitable for government-led initiatives, it does not mean that the government can be absent. Establishing entry mechanisms, limiting profit margins of institutions, and standardizing commercial operations all require government action.
Our tracking of this event is not aimed at discussing the scientific nature of the evaluation indicators of Gu Baiyou Times, as this falls within the academic domain where differing opinions are normal. We simply present more facts so that ordinary members of the public, who are 'outsiders' and 'consumers' of these university rankings, can better understand them. Simultaneously, we aim to call for a more standardized, objective, and fair university evaluation system.