This is an opportunity for universities to re-think academic structures. In many respects the division of the university into distinct and separate disciplinary groups ignores the fact that we live in a multi-dimensional world where a significant portion of innovations are derived from people outside of a discipline. We also live in an increasingly inter-connected world. These realities demand a more inter-disciplinary approach.

Transforming China's universities will also require the re-engineering process. An example is China's plan to develop a separate vocationally-oriented entrance exam, in other words a two-track gaokao. Unfortunately, today's universities in every country have become overly bureaucratic and increasingly hierarchical. Too many universities have been quick to copy business processes such as performance appraisal and have imposed a layer of "administrivia" that has bloated administration staff numbers and distracted academics from undertaking their traditional core work of teaching, research and community service. Tertiary institutions should have greater freedom to devise innovative curricula that respond to the needs of its stakeholders.

Student learning has also changed and will continue to change. The dominance of the traditional lecture no longer makes it a world where knowledge is readily available to everyone. Today's generation of students is also more comfortable with operating in an environment of collaboration and intensive engagement. The professor is less a "sage on the stage" and more of a "guide on the side,", a facilitator, co-learner and coach/mentor to students.

Students today also want relevance. Employers need graduates who can immediately add value. The role of experiential-based learning and internships is greater than ever. Greater attention needs to be given to developing "soft skills"-- collaboration, communication, creativity, entrepreneurship, cultural sensitivity, emotional intelligence, project management, etc.

China needs to have the courage to break away from what has become in the West an obsession about rankings. Especially since most writers on the subject have serious doubts about the reliability of such rankings. Many question the methodology used in the production of rankings and comment on the misuse of league tables. Such rankings tend to distort resource allocation by forcing institutions to focus excessively on those areas impacted by rankings. Rankings combined with heavy-handed and overly prescriptive accrediting bodies and bureaucracies also tend to incentivize tertiary institutions to be much the same, resulting in the Harvard/Oxford "wanna be" phenomenon.

Given China's imperative to develop the internal regions of the country, special attention should be focused on how tertiary institutions can work more closely with their regions and play a prominent role in transforming regions and cities into great places to live, learn and work.

Finally, in today's interconnected world, tertiary institutions should put more emphasis on the role and importance of creating networks. These include networks within the university itself and networks with employers, the community and other stakeholders. Building a network means attracting more international students, faculty and foreign experts to China. Most encouraging in this regard is that China now ranks third behind the U.S. and U.K. in its number of international students, having recently passed Australia, Germany and France. China's tertiary institutions should also look to ways they can enhance China's soft power by playing a lead role in enhancing networks across Asia and globally.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/eugeneclark.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.