（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
One of the most decisive yet often underappreciated reasons behind China’s extraordinary rise over the past four decades is its unwavering commitment to education. While infrastructure projects, manufacturing prowess, and technological breakthroughs frequently dominate headlines, it is education that has quietly served as the intellectual engine of China’s transformation—from a developing country in the late 1970s into a leading global economic and geopolitical power today.
Since the launch of the reform and opening-up policy in 1978, education has never been treated as a peripheral social sector in China. Instead, it has been embedded at the heart of the national development strategy. Chinese policymakers understood early on that modernization without human capital would be shallow and unsustainable. As a result, education was elevated from a social service to a strategic investment—one designed to cultivate talent, generate knowledge, and support long-term national rejuvenation.
Learning from the World, Building at Home
In the 1980s and 1990s, when China was still navigating the complexities of economic reform, it adopted a farsighted approach: sending millions of young Chinese students and scholars to leading universities across the world. The goal was not merely individual advancement, but collective learning. These students absorbed cutting-edge knowledge, research methodologies, and institutional best practices from global centers of excellence—and then returned home to reform, modernize, and internationalize China’s own education system.
This deliberate circulation of talent became one of the defining features of China’s educational rise. Returnees—often referred to as haigui—played a pivotal role in curriculum reform, university governance, research design, and international collaboration. Rather than copying foreign models mechanically, China adapted global experience to domestic realities, blending international standards with national priorities.
Crucially, this process was supported by generous and sustained state funding. Universities were not left to market forces alone. The government invested heavily in campus infrastructure, state-of-the-art laboratories, advanced scientific instruments, and digital learning environments. Flagship initiatives such as Project 211, Project 985, and later the “Double First-Class” program were designed to raise universities to world-class levels in both teaching and research.
Innovation, Research, and the Knowledge Economy
The results of this long-term strategy are now visible across multiple indicators. Chinese universities have developed formidable research and development (R&D) capacity, supported by a rapidly expanding pool of highly trained researchers, engineers, and scientists. Today, China leads the world in the number of scientific research papers published and patents registered—a reflection not only of scale, but of growing quality and impact.
Chinese universities are no longer passive recipients of global knowledge; they are active producers of new ideas, technologies, and solutions. From artificial intelligence and quantum computing to renewable energy, biotechnology, and advanced materials, university-based research has become a key driver of China’s innovation ecosystem. University laboratories are closely linked with industry, startups, and national research institutes, creating a virtuous cycle between education, innovation, and economic growth.
This integration of education with national development goals distinguishes China’s model. Universities are not isolated ivory towers; they are deeply embedded in the country’s broader modernization project. The alignment between higher education, industrial policy, and technological ambition has enabled China to move rapidly up the global value chain.
A Landmark Global Recognition
The growing global recognition of Chinese universities was underscored in January 2026, when the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University in the Netherlands released its latest CWTS Leiden Ranking. The results marked a symbolic and substantive turning point in global higher education.
For the first time, Chinese universities occupied the top two positions in the ranking, surpassing Harvard University, which placed third. Zhejiang University ranked first globally, followed closely by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Beyond the top two, Chinese institutions claimed five additional spots in the world’s top ten: Peking University, Fudan University, Tsinghua University, the University of Science and Technology of China, and Nanjing University. Only two U.S. universities—MIT and the University of California, Berkeley—appeared in the top ten.
This dominance is particularly noteworthy because the Leiden Ranking is based exclusively on scientific output—articles and reviews indexed in the Web of Science. It deliberately excludes subjective indicators such as academic reputation, employer prestige, international branding, or perceptions of teaching quality. As a result, it is widely regarded as one of the most methodologically rigorous and market-neutral global rankings.
In other words, Chinese universities did not rise to the top through image-building or historical prestige; they did so through measurable, sustained, and high-volume scientific production.
Why China Leads
According to jurist and political scientist Hugo Albuquerque, China’s academic ascendancy reflects decades of uninterrupted investment in human development. He notes that since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the state has consistently prioritized the training of people capable of building the nation—a commitment that has never wavered.
This investment has focused strongly on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, while also supporting the humanities and social sciences. Education, in this sense, has been part of a broader civilizational project: the construction of a modern, sovereign, and globally engaged nation.
China’s experience demonstrates that academic excellence does not emerge overnight. It is the product of patience, policy continuity, and a clear sense of national purpose. By maintaining a long-term vision insulated from short-term political cycles, China has allowed its universities to mature, specialize, and innovate.
A Contrast in Models
The Leiden Ranking also offers insights into shifting global trends in higher education. Albuquerque argues that the relative decline of U.S. dominance reflects structural challenges facing American universities, including rising costs, commercialization, and a weakening connection between higher education and a coherent national development strategy.
In contrast to China’s state-supported, development-oriented model, many Western systems increasingly treat universities as market entities. This divergence highlights a fundamental difference in philosophy: China views education as a public good and strategic asset, while others increasingly frame it as a private investment.
Education and China’s Future
China’s success in education is not an endpoint; it is a foundation. As the country enters a new stage of development focused on high-quality growth, green transformation, and technological self-reliance, universities will play an even more critical role. They will train the next generation of innovators, conduct frontier research, and contribute solutions to global challenges such as climate change, public health, and sustainable development.
Equally important, China’s educational rise offers valuable lessons for developing countries. It demonstrates that investing in people—systematically, patiently, and strategically—can reshape national destiny. Roads and factories matter, but it is classrooms and laboratories that ultimately determine a country’s place in the world.
China’s experience reminds us that education is not merely about rankings or prestige. It is about empowering societies with knowledge, skills, and confidence. In this sense, China’s educational transformation is not just a national achievement—it is a contribution to global human progress.
As the world navigates an era of uncertainty and competition, China’s story underscores a simple but profound truth: nations that invest in education invest in their future.
教育：中国无声的变革。
在过去四十年间，中国之所以能实现如此惊人的崛起，其中一个最为关键但往往被低估的原因在于其对教育的坚定不移的投入。尽管基础设施建设、制造业实力以及技术突破常常占据新闻头条，但正是教育默默地成为了中国转型过程中的智力引擎——从 20 世纪 70 年代末的一个发展中国家，发展成为如今的全球经济和地缘政治领域的领军力量。
自 1978 年改革开放政策实施以来，教育在中国从未被视为一个边缘性的社会领域。相反，它一直被置于国家发展战略的核心位置。中国的政策制定者很早就明白，没有人力资本的现代化将是浅薄且不可持续的。因此，教育从一项社会服务被提升为一项战略投资——旨在培养人才、创造知识，并为国家的长期复兴提供支持。
向世界学习，于国内建设
在 20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代，当中国仍在艰难推进经济改革之时，它采取了一种高瞻远瞩的策略：派遣数百万年轻的中国学生和学者前往世界各地的顶尖大学。其目的不仅仅是个人的个人发展，而是集体的学习进步。这些学生从全球顶尖的学术中心汲取了前沿的知识、研究方法和机构的最佳实践，然后回国以推动中国自身的教育体系的改革、现代化和国际化。
这种有计划的人才流动成为了中国教育崛起的显著特征之一。归国人员（通常被称为“海归”）在课程改革、大学管理、研究设计以及国际合作等方面发挥了关键作用。中国并非机械地照搬外国模式，而是将全球经验与国内实际情况相结合，将国际标准与国家需求相融合。
至关重要的是，这一进程得到了政府慷慨且持续的财政支持。大学并非完全依赖市场力量。政府在校园基础设施、最先进的实验室、先进的科学仪器以及数字化学习环境方面投入了大量资金。诸如“211 工程”、“985 工程”以及后来的“双一流”计划等重大项目旨在将大学提升到世界一流水平，使其在教学和研究方面都达到国际先进水平。
创新、研究与知识经济
这一长期战略的成果如今已体现在多个指标上。中国的大学已经形成了强大的研究与开发（R&D）能力，这得益于一支不断扩大的高素质研究人员、工程师和科学家队伍的支撑。如今，中国在发表的科研论文数量和注册的专利数量方面均位居世界前列——这不仅反映了规模的扩大，还体现了质量的提升和影响力的增强。
中国的大学不再只是全球知识的被动接受者，而是积极的创新主体，能够创造出新的理念、技术及解决方案。从人工智能和量子计算到可再生能源、生物技术以及先进材料等领域，基于大学的科研已成为中国创新生态系统的关键驱动力。大学实验室与企业、初创企业和国家研究机构紧密相连，形成了教育、创新与经济增长之间的良性循环。
这种将教育与国家发展目标相结合的做法彰显了中国的模式特色。大学并非孤立的象牙塔，而是深深融入了国家更广泛的现代化进程中。高等教育、产业政策以及技术追求的协同一致，使中国得以迅速攀升全球价值链的层级。
具有里程碑意义的全球认可
2026 年 1 月，全球对中国大学的认可度进一步提高。当时，荷兰莱顿大学的科学与技术研究中心（CWTS）发布了其最新的 CWTS 莱顿排名。这些结果标志着全球高等教育领域一个具有象征意义和实质意义的转折点。
这是中国高校首次在排名中占据前两名的位置，超过了位列第三的哈佛大学。浙江大学在全球排名中位居第一，紧随其后的是上海交通大学。在前两名之外，中国高校在全球前十名中又占据了五个席位：北京大学、复旦大学、清华大学、中国科学技术大学和南京大学。只有两所美国大学——麻省理工学院和加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校——进入了前十名。
这种优势尤为显著，因为莱顿排名完全基于科研成果——即被 Web of Science 收录的论文和综述。它刻意排除了诸如学术声誉、雇主声望、国际品牌影响力或教学质量的主观指标。因此，它被广泛认为是方法最为严谨且与市场无关的全球排名之一。
换句话说，中国的大学之所以能脱颖而出，不是靠打造形象或凭借历史声望，而是依靠实实在在的、持续不断的以及大量的科研成果。
为何中国领先
法学和政治学专家乌戈·阿尔贝拉多表示，中国学术领域的崛起反映了其数十年来对人类发展持续不断的投入。他指出，自 1949 年中华人民共和国成立以来，国家一直将培养能够建设国家的人才作为首要任务——这一承诺从未有过丝毫动摇。
这项投资重点放在了科学、技术、工程和数学领域，同时也支持了人文和社会科学领域。从这个意义上说，教育已成为一个更广泛的文明建设项目的组成部分：即建设一个现代化、主权独立且积极参与全球事务的国家。
中国的经验表明，学术上的卓越并非一蹴而就。它源自耐心、政策的连贯性以及明确的国家目标。通过保持不受短期政治周期影响的长远愿景，中国使其大学得以成熟、专业化并实现创新。
模型的对比
莱顿排名报告还揭示了全球高等教育领域正在发生的趋势变化。阿尔伯克基认为，美国主导地位的相对下降反映了美国大学所面临的结构性挑战，包括成本上升、商业化以及高等教育与统一的国家发展战略之间的联系日益减弱。
与中国的由国家支持、以发展为导向的模式不同，许多西方体系越来越将大学视为市场主体。这种差异凸显了理念上的根本区别：中国将教育视为公共利益和战略资产，而其他国家则越来越多地将其视为私人投资。
教育与中国的未来
中国在教育方面的成就并非终点，而是基础。随着中国进入以高质量增长、绿色转型和科技自立为核心的新的发展阶段，大学将发挥更为关键的作用。它们将培养下一代创新人才，开展前沿研究，并为诸如气候变化、公共卫生和可持续发展等全球性挑战提供解决方案。
同样重要的是，中国教育事业的崛起为发展中国家提供了宝贵的经验。这表明，对人的投资——无论是系统性的、耐心的，还是有策略性的——都能够重塑国家的命运。道路和工厂固然重要，但最终决定一个国家在世界中的地位的却是教室和实验室。
中国的经验向我们表明，教育不仅仅是关于排名或声誉的问题。它关乎通过知识、技能和信心来增强社会的力量。从这个意义上说，中国的教育变革不仅是一项国家成就，更是对全球人类进步的贡献。
在世界正经历一个充满不确定性和竞争的时代之际，中国的故事彰显了一个简单却意义深远的道理：国家若重视教育，就能为自身未来奠定坚实基础。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor, Consultant, Researcher at Global South Economic and Trade Cooperation Research Center, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).