[MUSIC] As in previous modules, it's now time to look at some case studies. To see the extent to which the framework that I've established previous within this presentation actually holds water. Right. So in 1998 in July when Jian Zemin makes his speech two months after he makes his speech, in the 100th anniversary of Peking University which I said I attended that speech. Hong Kong's billionaire Li Ka-shing established the Changjiang scholars program and he creates 500 chairs at top universities in key fields Within three to five years. And by 2006, 97 schools, so clearly he went beyond his numbers, but by 2006, 97 schools has received chairs, 799 chairs. For Distinguished Professors, and these are people who returned full time, and 308 Chair Professors, who returned only part time, and 14 Changjiang Exceptional Scholar Awards. Now among the Distinguished Professors, 29% had come directly from overseas or had come back in previous three years, but it also mean that a significant number of them, so that means 71% of them actually were already in China when they got their award. Now as I mentioned before, this is a lot of money. This 985 plan involved a lot of money. And we can see, Peking University gets $220 million for five years. Tsinghua, maybe the best university or that versus Peking University also one of the top two universities in China gets $300 million. Actually this is in and we converted it to US dollars at that exchange rate so that those in the audience would have a basic understanding of the scale, the amount of money that we're actually talking about here. Nanjing University gets 200 million, Fudan gets 200 million. These are, again, among the top universities in China. Now why do academics return? I had done several surveys and had also collected other surveys, and that it showed that a reason, one reason that people return was because their social status improved, and salaries for some people were also very important. Sometimes people were able to swap a position in a mediocre university overseas For what the Chinese referred to as a good platform in China. Because these people would become administrators, associate deans, or deans and that was a good job for them better than the status as a Associate Professor in some average school overseas. Now, preferential policies, these special privileges were also included. Good housing, rapid promotion, schools for their children. And one of the questions that is often raised, when people came back in the early days very often they would be subject to derision. People would say, you came back because you failed. If you really succeeded you would have never come back to China. You would have stayed overseas. So when we did a survey of people who returned from Canada to China, we included some options. And the third major reason that people chose for returning from Canada was what we call the inability to integrate into Canadian society. And to that extent, that really reinforces the idea that maybe these people didn't succeed so well overseas and that part of what brought them back was some degree of failure. And I remember ten years ago I had a good friend here at UST and there were some other people in Hong Kong who failed to get tenure in these universities here in Hong Kong and they went back to become deans in schools in Beijing. Finally, some just want to get involved in the policy process. Some want to do research, want to get involved, want to be able to give advice to the Chinese leaders. And they may think that it's easier to do that if they're back in China. Now the people who've went back, did they have transnational human capitol? Did they have something that made them more valuable than the people who didn't go overseas? So if we look at our table for 2002, right? It does say the survey was done in spring 2001, the data were collected and organized in 2002. And you can see that among a list of things that the returnees. We're doing much better then a local comparative group. Who had not gone overseas. National level research projects. Publishing international journals. Holding posts in national academic societies. Even things. Supervising PhD students, setting up international collaboration projects. So clearly they were doing better and they also got better rewards. They felt that their housing was better, they felt that they got promoted quickly or very quickly in the last five years. And they also felt that they were able to use their skills in an effective way. Now here again, this is a group. This is from 1997 survey and what we had here, we differentiated between long. We only had returnees, but we differentiated between what I called longterm sojourners, so people who had stayed overseas for a long time, as compared to people who had stayed for a shorter time, which basically was under three years. So these people could not have PhDs, and 75% of these people actually had received an overseas PhD. So they were more satisfied with their housing; they believed they got more research money. They believed they promoted faster and, here, they believed that their housing was better than colleagues who had not gone overseas. And looking again at the 2002 survey, we can see that, I guess I would call this some degree of bias against the returnees. Because the locals think that the leader of the unit where these returnees have come back are warmly welcoming returnees. The returnees themselves don't feel that they've been that warmly welcomed. So the locals have some degree of jealousy. The returnees think that the leader doesn't care. Very few locals would believe that the leader of their unit would not care about having people come back from overseas. It's that the state over-emphasized returnees, locals believe that to be true as compared to returnees. And that the returnees contribute much or somewhat more to the unit. The returnees feel confident about that. The locals feel less confidant about that. Now, let's talk a little bit about some of the strategy and these go back to 202, 203. To try and create a better environment for returnees. And Peking University was one of the leaders in this effort that tried to introduce Western criteria for promotion and tenure. And these requirements included publishing overseas, being able to teach in a foreign language often in English. These are criteria that the returnees could meet. But locally trained PhDs found it much more difficult to publish overseas, as we saw from the previous table. And therefore this generated a sharp battle between the returnees and the local PhDs. And in fact, the humanities faculty, many of whom, most of whom, would not been overseas, they felt they would suffer badly under this program. And they fought the program, and eventually defeated it. And forced the president of the party secretary of Peking University himself, a returned PhD to give up the program.
