Abstract
Abstract
This paper presents the main findings of an EU-China joint study that examines the ‘race for talent’ from the crucial perspective of the relevance and responsiveness of education and training systems in the EU and China. Relevance and responsiveness are explored in a comparative perspective as important, though not the only, aspects of the quality of education by investigating the differences in socio-economic and cultural realities in Europe and China. Specifically, the study explores similarities and differences in the profiles of college graduates in Europe and China against employers’ real expectations and needs. The study also analyses the strategies and measures that education systems, institutions and employers are putting in place to bring into better alignment the relationship between education and the world of work. The study is based on a qualitative and exploratory research design that combined primary data collection from 162 interviews (half in Europe and half in China) and the use of existing research literature in China and Europe. All interviewees had direct experience of education and training systems in Europe and China (through studying, teaching or program design) or work experience involving European and Chinese graduates. The study was one of the outcomes of the 2009 high-level policy dialogue between the European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and the Chinese Ministry of Education. The research of this study was carried out by a joint taskforce with one team based at the Institute of Education Tsinghua University in China and the other team at GHK Consulting in Europe.
Introduction—Purpose and Background of the Report
This study examines the ‘race for talent’ from the crucial perspective of the relevance and responsiveness of education and training systems in the EU and China. Relevance and responsiveness are explored in a comparative perspective as aspects of the quality of education by investigating the differences in socio-economic and cultural realities in Europe and China. Specifically, the study explores similarities and differences in the profiles of college graduates in Europe and China against employers’ real expectations and needs. The study also analyses the strategies and measures that education systems, institutions and employers are putting in place to bring into better alignment the relationship between education and the world of work.
The research for this study was carried out by a joint taskforce with one team based at Tsinghua University in China and the other team at GHK Consulting in Europe. The two teams shared a common methodology and data collection and encoding procedures. The study captures the picture of a dynamic situation at a given point in time. It is a nuanced snapshot of the strengths and weaknesses of education and training systems in Europe and China which takes into account deeper socio-economic and cultural factors which affect the individuals’ knowledge, skills and competence as well as attitudes and aspirations. As most interviewees indicated, higher education at the university level in China is changing rapidly and adapting practical approaches to new expectations. Higher education in Europe is also undergoing a process of dynamic change. Internal and external pressures are making it necessary to adjust institutional missions and practice to a changing reality. In Europe and China, the pace and scale of these changes, though, differs from one institution to another.
This study presents our main findings from our research regarding higher education.
Terminology
Talent
To be able to compete in a globalised economy, Europe’s strategic policy has focused for over a decade on upgrading the quality and innovative character of Europe’s production by enhancing innovation, developing knowledge-intensive economic sectors and producing high value-added goods. The quality and outcomes of education and training are key elements in reaching these goals. At the policy level, Europe is focusing on upgrading and updating Europeans’ knowledge skills and competencies to ensure that they can make a successful contribution to the quality of European society, economy and their personal lives. Moreover, in Europe there is an economic rationale for ensuring high quality education for all. As the European population ages, there is an urgent need for everyone to contribute high levels of employment and increased productivity levels in order to maintain the viability of the social ‘safety-net’ for individuals in economic down-turns. According to the Europe 2020 agenda, education and training are expected to contribute to the three pillars of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
In China, the focus on developing education and training should be viewed in the context of China’s 12th Five Year Plan (2011-2015). In this plan, China embraced economic restructuring and upgrading as the main priority for economic and social development. The objective of this plan is to move the country towards a modern industrial system characterised by advanced science and technology, rationalised structure, clean, safe and high value-added production, and a strong capacity to generate employment. Policy makers have publicly expressed a desire to move away from “made in China” to “designed in China.”
While in this study we consider the relevance and responsiveness of education and training to the labour market, we acknowledge that the quality of education cannot be reduced simply to how education and training systems meet labour market needs. Education and training have a much broader role in the personal and social development of individuals. China and Europe both recognize this reality. Nevertheless, we recognize that the transition from education and training to the labour market is an important rite of passage which education and training can prepare young people for. In Europe and China, there is an urgent need to bring the relevance of education and training into alignment with labour market realities.
Relevance and Responsiveness
In this study, the
To understand the problems encountered and the differences in relevance of education and training systems in Europe and China, this research interviewed people who are knowledgeable about: 1) the current labour market shortages in terms of professional profiles; 2) the type of knowledge, skills, competences and attitudes that graduates were lacking not only for their immediate jobs but also for their development; and 3) the differences in profiles in terms of competences and attitudes between graduates in Europe and China.
Methodology
The study is based on a qualitative and exploratory research design that combined primary data collection from 162 interviews (half in Europe and half in China) and the use of existing research literature in China and Europe. All interviewees had direct experience of education and training systems in Europe and China (through studying, teaching or program design) or work experience involving European and Chinese graduates. We interviewed four main groups of people: human resource managers or persons otherwise involved in competence development of staff in companies (30), staff members of education and training institutions (45), students (57) and employees (30). In semi-structured interviews, these people were asked, based on their experience, to compare and contrast the processes and outcomes of educational systems in China and Europe. We contextualized their responses and complemented them using such other sources as official statistics, academic publications and news reports, etc.
In terms of geographical coverage, the European interviewees came mainly from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark while the interviewees in China were all active in the Beijing area. Therefore the study does not claim to be representative of education and training systems across Europe or China. Nevertheless, in writing the analysis, the authors refer to ‘Europe’ and ‘China’ in the limited sense described above.
The 162 interviews contain four broad categories of interviewees, though some people in fact fell into more than one category: 1) students who completed part of their studies in Europe and China; 2) people already in employment who have either studied or worked in Europe and China; 3) staff from education and training institutions who cooperate with education and training institutions in Europe/China; and 4) employers, mainly in the field of Human Resources who had a good understanding, in their sector, of the labour market and human resource characteristics in both Europe and China.
The two teams employed non-probability sampling to select potential interviewees. The sampling techniques the study employed were a combination of convenience sampling and purposive sampling, with the latter including both quota sampling and snowball sampling. The EU sample combined individuals of European (two thirds) and Chinese origins settled in Europe (one third). The persons interviewed were located in several EU countries, mainly France, Germany, the UK and Denmark, although other countries were also covered but to a much lesser extent. Due to the relatively low levels of mobility between China and central and eastern European countries, these were not included in the sample. The research team contacted education institutions (universities, universities of applied sciences or vocational schools) that have well-developed cooperation with China as well as companies active in the Chinese labour market as well as intermediary organisations such as existing networks or chambers of commerce.
In the Chinese sample, all but five interviewees were of Chinese origin that had studied/worked in Europe and cooperated with Europe in their work. Since China has a huge, diversified and widely distributed higher education system, the Chinese research team chose to draw its interviewees (students, staff and alumni) from a dozen top universities, many located in Beijing. The goal was to explore the best practice in lessons and experiences in enhancing the relevance and responsiveness of higher education to the labor market from the best universities.
A more detailed description of the sample and the sampling method is presented in this report’s Annex 1.
In terms of fields of study and employment sectors, the sample covered people with a broad range of experience: engineering; sciences; business and finance; informatics; and the humanities.
We emphasized interviewing students preparing themselves for a specific profession or group of professions. As a result, the number of students studying the humanities was rather low in the sample. A very small number of people were interviewed in fields such as law or medicine.
We interviewed employment people in a diverse range of economic sectors and employment sectors: energy and power technologies, IT and telecommunications, forestry and paper, aeronautics, medical treatment, cosmetics, and industrial management consulting.
All the interviewees were highly qualified (except for two vocational education and training students interviewed in Finland). The interviewed students were predominantly at the postgraduate level, but a few were undergraduates and some were working toward doctorates. The employees interviewed had postgraduate degrees. All the interviewed business and human resources representatives were senior staff members. Both the interviewed students and education and training staff were enrolled or working at prestigious educational institutions. The sample of interviewees, therefore, contains mainly people with experience in and understanding of ‘high-end’ education and training systems. On the other hand, the human resource managers had experience in recruiting and training people at different levels, including skilled workers. Therefore, the information about the vocational sectors of education and training was collected mainly through interviews with human resources staff.
The information gathered through interviews was analysed manually by the research teams in China and Europe, with each team analysing the interviews they conducted. The research teams used the same categories to analyse the interviews and the two analyses were combined for this final report. While the interviews conducted were a major source of data for this research, the information from interviews was triangulated with data from existing research in the desktop review and from expert consultation.
Presentation of Findings: A Comparative Analysis of the EU and China Data
Main Differences between Europe and China in Graduate Profiles
The people interviewed for this study were asked to reflect on the similarities and differences they perceived in knowledge, skills and competences between students and graduates from Europe and China. The interviewees from China and Europe had very similar perspectives on these issues. Both appreciated in the same way the strengths and weaknesses of education and training systems in Europe and China. In particular cases, of course, the distribution of knowledge, skills and competence differ radically from the generalized, somewhat stereotyped picture provided here, but few of the interviewees actually provided information that would contradict the general overall picture.
Knowledge within a Given Discipline
From early on, China’s education system emphasizes the acquisition of a strong foundation in quantitative skills and calculating solutions to complex problems. This is, in fact, an important criterion for further selection and access to higher levels of education. As a result, Chinese students tend to excel generally in theoretical knowledge in their discipline and have particularly strong foundations in quantitative and technical skills. They are proficient in calculating math based solutions to problems. Their quantitative knowledge is, in general, superior to the European students.
European students, on the other hand, tend to develop more specialized knowledge within a given discipline and have more opportunities to focus more closely on their individual interests. The Chinese higher education system is based on a more generalist approach which requires graduates to master a ‘standardized package’ of knowledge in a given field of study. Except in quantitative skills, the theoretical knowledge of the European and Chinese students and graduates is generally equally up-to date and broadly comparable.
The Application of Knowledge to Practical Situations and Problem Solving
European students and graduates show greater flexibility in finding appropriate ways to apply their theoretical knowledge to concrete operational problems. Chinese students and graduates are less flexible in moving from theory to practice. In general, students in China have fewer opportunities during their studies to apply the theoretical knowledge they learn to practice than their European counter-parts, though this is not the case as much in disciplines where laboratory work is a standard requirement. In addition, the European education systems seem to put less emphasis on memorization and rote learning. They give priority to the analytical process and the demonstration of results.
European students tend to demonstrate a greater facility for grasping situations with multiple unknown variables. Chinese students and graduates on the other hand excel in solving problems with which they are more familiar. They perform less well than European students when faced with new problems. Since the learning approach in China emphasizes memorization and problem solving exercises within a known framework, the Chinese students tend develop excellent skills and proficiency in solving theoretical and text-book problems when they have mastered previously the normative problem solving process for that area. They are often more efficient than their European counter-parts in problem solving for these types of problems.
Foreign Language Skills
Generally speaking, European students have better foreign language skills than their Chinese counter-parts. This is not surprising. Europe is a multicultural and multi-linguistic region where exposure to foreign languages (especially English) is greater than in China, Due to the strong emphasis on English teaching beginning early in compulsory education in China, Chinese students who have studied abroad develop a foundation for rapidly improving their English language skills. On the other hand, many European students struggle in their study of Chinese.
Learning to Learn
European students, though not given to memorization, develop a more analytical approach to learning. They are more likely to learn by doing or learning through dialogue. Chinese students, by contrast, have excellent memorization strategies and are very strong in rote learning. They demonstrate a strong willingness to acquire new knowledge by memorization and rote. This learning approach is at the heart of their learning process from early in primary school.
Soft Skills
Generally speaking European students and graduates have better developed soft skills such as communication, teamwork and management than their counterparts in China. European students are expected to be strong in communication and presentations skills. They learn collaboration and teamwork by working routinely in groups. They also have good preparation in negotiating skills, which are privileged in higher education throughout Europe. Chinese higher education has a strong tradition of written culture. Students have very few opportunities to develop their communication skills. Similarly, as they are required to work individually, Chinese students have very few opportunities to develop their collaborative and teamwork skills.
Autonomy and Related Management Skills
All the Chinese and European interviewees agreed that the system in European higher education tends to be more autonomous for students. In Europe it is not uncommon for students to work while studying which reinforces and strengthens their autonomy. Moreover, the teaching and learning approach encourages students to take the initiative autonomously for organizing their time and planning their learning. It has to be mentioned though that this learning style does not fit everyone’s needs. It may have a direct correlation to higher drop-out rates in Europe. In China, by comparison, students tend to work in a more clearly defined framework with clear tasks to do. Students in China are less comfortable working autonomously. As a result, higher education graduates tend to have less developed management skills in planning, communication and interaction with fellow employees.
Labor Market Demand for Employee Competences and Profiles
The situation with regard to shortages of qualified and/or experienced staff in Europe varies greatly across countries. In some countries, the difficulties in recruiting people with the right competences are rather low (for example in Ireland and the UK), especially in Europe’s “depressed” labor markets over the past few years. In countries like Poland or Romania, on the other hand, the availability of professionals is more problematic. When it comes to higher education graduates in Europe, the vast majority of employers are generally satisfied with the graduates’ competences. The competences that they value particularly highly include those discussed above: teamwork, sector-specific knowledge and skills, communication, adaptability (partly related to applying knowledge to practical situations) and problem solving. In addition, ICT skills and writing skills, which were not specifically discussed in the interviews carried out for this study, are highly valued. In Europe, there are shortages in certain economic sectors and professions (health care and engineering for example). There is a shortage of people interested in mathematics, science and engineering fields, which is not the case in China. This reflects the observation made above that many European higher education students are not as at ease with handling figures as Chinese students. At the same time, the shortages in certain sectors are only partly linked to the relevance of education and training system outcomes and are also influenced by the lack of attractiveness of given professions or working conditions.
In China, employers tend to value the same types of competences as in Europe. This is especially the case for multinational companies and joint ventures. There are some differences as to what competences matter for state owned Chinese enterprises, companies with foreign investment and Chinese privately owned companies. The latter have in general lower expectations in terms of transversal and soft skills than the other two groups. All three types of employers, however, report that the supply of competences such as working in teams, leadership, management skills, communication, problem solving or ability to innovate usually fall well below their expectations. The people interviewed for this study indicated their awareness of the following types of shortages in China’s labor market.
These shortages partly mirror the observations made earlier about the competence areas where Chinese graduates are weaker than their European counterparts. These shortages also need to be put into the perspective that the economy in China and consequently the occupational structures are undergoing drastic and dynamic transformation. This transformation comes with different competence requirements than those that were considered adequate in China’s former centralized and planned economy.
Relevance of Teaching Content versus Relevance of Learning Process
Broadly speaking, there do not seem to be major differences in terms of the up-to-date character of the theoretical content of teaching in Europe and China even though differences may exist in certain fields of study and traditions such as medicine or pharmacy. Some differences exist when it comes to material equipment: many Chinese universities are very well equipped thanks to recent major investments in material. However, these differences are also important between universities within China as well as between universities within Europe. It is therefore very difficult to generalise as to the differences between Europe and China. Information about the latest technological and theoretical developments is in general accessible worldwide unless it is confidential.
The main issues when it comes to relevance of education and training systems does not seem to stem from the up-to-date character of the knowledge that students are expected to learn but from the learning process. The learning process is as important in competence development as the learning content. Students assimilate information in relation to other information and through a process of social interaction. The classroom environment and a model whereby the teacher delivers knowledge that the learner is expected to assimilate (in a context which is unrelated to the actual topic) are artificial and disconnected from what happens in society or in an enterprise. In ‘real life’ (and working life) problems are embedded in a context which is often ill-defined and open to more than one solution. To be relevant, education and training should therefore stimulate situations that are closer to real life than the traditional classroom environment and the traditional teacher-student one-way transmission. This principle is progressively becoming embedded in education and training in Europe. In fact it is at the core of education (sub-) systems in certain European countries, for example in the dual system of vocational education and training in countries like Germany and Austria. It has become increasingly influential the way teaching is done in higher education. Here again there are differences across fields of study: engineering or medical studies, for example, are traditionally much more practice related than the humanities in Europe.
Actions to Improve Responsiveness
The responsiveness of education to labor market needs can be tackled at several levels: the system level, the institutional level and the level specific programs and practice. Europe’s universities have more autonomy than China’s in defining the content of programs and modalities of learning. Therefore, responsiveness is primarily in the hands of the institutions. In China, by contrast, institutional autonomy in teaching and learning is quite varied. The top universities allow much greater freedom to their teachers in groups or as individuals in make innovations and reforms to the contents and methods of their teaching, but for the majority of China’s higher education institutions, standardised textbooks are still widely “recommended” for use everywhere from the institutional to the national levels. The positive aspect of this situation is that the central government has made a large investment to organise top-level scholars and experts to create state of the art textbooks in all major subjects and keep them updated to ensure their continued relevance to international standards. On the other hand, at the institutional or local level, the individual teacher’s initiatives are not being encouraged. Overall, though, despite continued central planning and control, the trend in Chinese higher education is to grant more autonomy to the institutions and teachers in teaching and learning.
At the system level, in both Europe and China, the system can require higher education institutions to put in place measures to ensure responsiveness to labor market needs as part of accountability measures. In European higher education, it has become common for the state to require universities to reflect on the profile of graduates from each education program they provide and on employment opportunities for students after graduation. This requirement is part of the accreditation process for internal and external quality assurance. While safeguarding the universities’ autonomy, this requirement underlines the responsibility of the universities to ensure that their students have the knowledge, skills and competences after they complete their studies to have access to real opportunities in the labor market.
The need for communication and exchange between the system level and the institutional level is being increasingly recognised in Europe. It has resulted in the establishment of national and regional networks and platforms. These networks and platforms involve a variety of representatioves from public authorities through education institutions and social partners to employer representatives but also non-governmental organisations. These networks support the dissemination of good practice and contribute to the development of ownership and bottom-up initiatives.
At the institutional level, the reality varies greatly from one university to another and one country to another. The paragraphs below, therefore, describe measures that have been taken in European and Chinese universities to ensure that they are delivering the knowledge, skills and competence that enable a person to actively meet labor market needs.
It is becoming more and more common for universities to exchange with employers to monitor their needs and to develop programs that reflect the demand for competences in the labor market. This is directly related to the system level requirements mentioned above. These exchanges have been traditionally strong in the areas where the link between the field of study and a particular profession is strong (engineering, medicine, etc.), but these exchanges now are becoming more generalised. Especially at the master’s degree level, this situation has led to the development of programs that move away from traditional mono-disciplinary and discipline-based education towards more multi-disciplinary and professional or sector oriented degrees. In Europe, this increased specialisation of masters’ degrees was facilitated by reforms related to the Bologna process. It has also become a means for universities to develop ‘niche-markets’ in areas where previously no specific qualifications existed. This development goes hand in hand with the increasing professionalization of occupations that marks a mature labor market. Since many people now have ‘generalist’ degrees, a ‘specialist’ degree can bring more value added and easily make a difference.
In China a lot of innovation in higher education has been stimulated by the international cooperation of higher education institutions. The development of joint-degrees and joint-ventures among European and Chinese universities is seen as part of a broad based initiative to improve the responsiveness of higher education. Cooperation with employers is now beginning and many multinationals operating in China are generally open to cooperation with universities (preferably in a quid pro quo situation). Compared to the huge demand, however, such internships initiatives are still woefully inadequate. Many of the Chinese and international employers interviewed pointed out to the intensity of competition for experienced competent personnel in the labour market. Increasingly, many large-scale Chinese enterprises also provide scholarships, joint research projects or competitive extracurricular entrepreneurial activities with universities.
At the practice level, giving students the opportunity to exercise what they have learnt and to develop their competences further through internships is accepted as a requirement. Some systems have developed and others are being developed for higher education approaches that alternate work-based and university-based learning. Practical experience is increasingly seen as part of the education program in higher education not just as a ‘summer-job’ or a ‘student-job’. In China, employers do not yet seem to support and fully appreciate the concept of traineeships linked to learning objectives. They continue to view internships as an opportunity to bring in ‘cheap’ support staff. Internships in general are difficult to find in China, let alone those that suit both the needs of the employer, the students and the higher education institutions. In China there is lacking still an integrated and open platform for the students to make well-informed choices from a good selection of internships. While in practice most graduates do an internship while they study, the quality and the duration of the experience often differ greatly. The lack of articulation between the program and the internship is relatively frequent. In some cases the traineeship is simply an ‘add-on’ and not organically related to the program.
In higher education, next to the system level and institutions level actions, the impact of international benchmarking on higher education systems cannot be neglected. The fact that responsiveness of education and training to labour market needs is not at all represented in the benchmarking criteria (strongly focused on research) is not supporting the policy efforts in this area. Higher education institutions in Europe as well as in China are shaping their practices to move up the ladder of rankings but the extent to which this is benefiting the learners in their employment prospects is unclear and questionable.
Laying the Foundations for Competence Development in General Education
In Europe, general education systems are undergoing profound reforms and the ideas of competence-based teaching and learning and of situated learning are progressively being introduced. Curricula reforms are moving away from traditional subject-based approaches to competence based approaches that provide benchmarks also for cross-curricular competences, such as creativity, entrepreneurship or learning to learn. New pedagogies are explored and tested and more empowering and individualised learning approaches are put forward based on latest research on the nature of learning. Some EU countries are very advanced in reforming their general education systems in line with this new theoretical framework and efforts are moving forward across the whole of Europe.
Changing the practice of thousands of schools and millions of teachers is not a task that can be done over-night, but the strength and success of the European approach to the reform of general education can be attributed to a combination of factors: theoretical and empirical research about learning processes and outcomes, policy vision and strategies, and engagement and commitment of practitioners. This applies to general education as well as to vocational and higher education. Education policy that is not grounded in evidence and coupled with practical solutions is met with suspicion by teachers, school directors and those who prepare teachers and directors. Bottom-up innovation which is not grounded in a rational and comprehensive policy meets with institutional obstacles when it comes to such factors as governance or funding. Sharing knowledge horizontally through networks of different groups (policy makers, researchers or practitioners) and vertically through platforms where the different groups meet, communicate and confront each other appear to be efficient ways to move forward ideas and innovations. Over the past decade, important education and training reforms have been launched in Europe and are progressively being translated into practice.
In China, the scale of the required change is even greater due to the country’s sheer size. In 2009, China had 201.5 million students and 11.5 million full-time teachers in its public primary and secondary educational institutions. It also seems that the current practice in general education is further away from the competence-based learning approach. The reforms of general education towards more problem-based learning is on-going, but the extent to which general education contributes to the development of such desired personal attributes better teamwork, communication, management and innovation skills has been frequently questioned by the interviewees for this study.
For the China’s government and people, the task of operating the world’s largest general education system across a land comparable in land area to the whole of Europe is formidable and challenging. Any reform of such a complex system has to be planned from a long-term perspective. The implementation of a new curriculum that brings in a number of innovations is expected to bring with it many changes to the general education system. The implementation of the new curriculum has met numerous difficulties, including inadequacies in teacher quality, resources, and reform of the paper-based national entrance examination to university which itself is not yet competence-based. Nevertheless, a national consensus has been reached that this curriculum reform, like Chinese education reforms in general, has to become an evolving process within the framework of far-sighted master plan. According to the Chinese saying, it is a process that “has no ending but only a beginning.”
Conclusion and Recommendations
This study explored the similarities and differences in the profiles of college students and graduates in Europe and China compared to their employers’ potential expectations and needs. The study also examined the strategies and measures that education systems, institutions and employers are putting in place to bring into alignment the relationship between education and the world of work. In this study, relevance and responsiveness were considered as two crucial aspects of the quality of education and training delivered. The study concludes with the following findings and recommendations.
“An Ideal Graduate”
We developed an image of the ideal higher education graduate through the interviews conducted in this study. The ‘ideal graduate’ profile is generally the same for Europe and China. The ‘ideal graduate’ has these qualities: 1) strong knowledge base in his or her professional area; 2) solid skill foundation, especially in terms of literacy, numeracy, and IT competence; 3) capacity to apply the knowledge and skills to concrete situations and problems that arise in the work environment; 4) competence to work with others and to efficiently communicate ideas; 5) the ability to leader or follow the leadership of others according to the situation; 6) autonomy in making decisions in accordance with his/her responsibilities; 7) international experience, combined with the mastery of at least one foreign language; 8) the ability to recognise new opportunities and to develop new offer of products or services; 9) the willingness to invest in himself/herself through further learning.
While the ‘ideal-type’ higher education graduate seems to be increasingly shared between Europe and China and most likely worldwide, it remains unclear whether employment structures and labor markets actually offer sufficient opportunities for people who possess these qualities. The European labor markets are mature: people with higher education qualifications are relatively well represented across all age cohorts of the labor force and the demand for labor has stagnated. Having a good combination of knowledge, skills and competence has become a ‘must’ in order to make a difference compared to other graduates in the recruitment process. This labor market competitiveness among graduates applies to most jobs where higher education qualifications are expected. European employers, therefore, expect ‘talent’ to be adapted as a baseline to specific sectors and countries. In contrast, the demand for large numbers of higher education graduates continues to grow.
Moreover, within this huge general demand in China, varied requirements and expectations have developed for different types of graduates as the higher education system has increasingly tiered and diversified. However, there seems to be a certain discrepancy between employers’ expectations in terms of profile. One new development in China is that higher education graduates’ expectations for wages and the nature of their positions are not in line with the reality of the tasks and responsibilities which they are being offered. Nevertheless, the interviews show that the personal attributes mentioned above are highly valued by multinational companies in China who have difficulties in finding people who match these characteristics. Those who fit the profile appear to be in an attractive position to take advantage of a broad range of opportunities.
Policy Recommendations
This joint study was commissioned by the European Commission and China’s Ministry of Education to develop recommendations that could improve education and training policies and promote mutual cooperation, especially in higher education. Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarise respectively the policy recommendations for China, the EU and the China-EU joint effort.
Footnotes
Appendix: Sampling for Interviews
All interviews in Europe and China were semi-structured to give the researcher flexibility to probe with follow-up questions during the interviews. The researchers in China and Europe employed the same four sets of interview protocols.
All interviewees were fully informed by the researchers about the purpose and design of the research and its main interview questions. The interviewees all gave full consent for their participation in the research. All interviewees were offered the opportunity to remain anonymous. All the information generated by the interview concerning the interviewee was treated in accordance with interviewees prescribed level of confidentially.
In China, 84% of face to face interviews were conducted in Beijing. The majority of them lasted approximately one hour, while a small number of them lasted up to two hours when interviewees welcomed longer and deeper discussions. Most face-to-face interviews were recorded with an audio device, and the transcripts of these interviews were later provided to the interviewees for feedback. Twelve interviews (16%) were conducted by email and phone as the interviewees were in Europe (8) and Shanghai (4).
In Europe, two thirds of the interviews were carried out face to face and one third by phone. The majority of interviews with HR and education and training staff lasted 60 minutes. Most interviews with students and employees lasted 30-45 minutes. With two exceptions, all interviews were recorded after acquiring the interviewee’s prior consent. Two interviews were based on hand written notes. The vast majority of interviews were carried out in the language of the country where the interviews took place. In a few cases, non-native English speakers were interviewed in English.
The majority of the interviewees were selected by snowball sampling. The beginning pool of interviewees helped the researchers recruit additional interviewees from among their acquaintances who fit the study selection criteria. Accordingly, the sample group built up like a rolling snowball until it reached the targeted sample size. The snowball effect began with the initial four groups of interviewees (students, teachers, employees and employers). These initial interviewees were distinctive from one another according to the matrix of interviewee categories, so that the next group of interviewees they recommended could bring in further diversity. The interviewees in the snowball chain were asked to recommend potential interviewees not only for their own category but for other categories.
Since the European Union has 27 member states, we had to limit the number of countries where interviews would be conducted. We conducted interviews in countries where the intensity of exchange with China was greatest—in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark. Consequently, the interview sample is biased towards western and northern Europe. The education system comparisons between the EU and China, therefore, are schewed toward western and northern Europe. The analysis has taken this into consideration. It has been partly supplemented with data from desk research. Like the Chinese team, the European team employed non-probability sampling to select potential interviewees.
The researchers used a quota method to select interviewees to ensure comparable diversity in both China and Europe. In total 162 interviews were carried out. As shown in Table 4, the final sample was slightly different from the sample originally envisaged. We interviewed more students than envisaged, but it proved difficult to contact as many employers’ representatives as expected. On the other hand, several students interviewed had previous work experience. The number of education and training staff interviewed was also lower than envisaged.