A Comparative Study On The Preferential Policies For Higher Education Of Minority Nationalities In China And The United States

China and the United States are both comprised of a multi-ethnic population. Although the ethnic composition, the development of ethnic minorities and the respective attitudes toward ethnic minorities in history are very different, the two countries have both done a lot of work in the formulation of ethnic minority policies on higher education. Such policies undoubtedly provide a guarantee of the right to education for ethnic minorities, but they have also caused some controversy. This study tries to compare the similarities and differences of minority admissions policies in higher education between China and the United States from both vertically and horizontally based on such background.This paper is divided into six sections.Part Ⅰ:Introduction.Part Ⅱ:Historical background of the development of ethnic minority education policies in China and in the United States, after the establishment of the Republic of China and the civil rights movement in the United States respectively. China’s ethnic preferential policies are a part of the education policies, therefore from the changes of education policies, we can see the ethnic education policies are also constantly adjusting and improving; US national education policies have also been modified and improved through multiple times of administrative decrees and court decisions.Part Ⅲ:The enforcement of higher education ethnic minority admissions policies. Specifically, China’s higher education ethnic minority admission policies include "Minority High Level Talents Program", ethnic classes in college and preparatory classes, Xinjiang class, Tibet class, "Min Kao Min" and "Min Kao Han" [drop points and add points policy admission], financial investment and other aspects; the higher education ethnic group admission policies in the United States include special enrollment plan, financial assistance and legal protection. For college entrance examination, in China, provinces and regions have developed various specific preferential rules in accordance with the actual situation and are making adjustments every year. In recent years, the United States repealed the "affirmative action programs" in certain states, but states like Texas, California and Florida have also introduced their own "affirmative action programs" substitute in some preferential policies to guarantee the right to education of minorities and vulnerable groups.Part Ⅳ:The controversy of current situation on ethnic minority admission between China and the United States. The preferential policies have undoubtedly provided better chance for ethnic groups to enter college. But as people are concentrating more and more on the fairness in education, many begin to question that such benefits might be unfair, as well as how to solve the problems during the policy enforcement.Part V:Similarities and differences between Education Preferential Policies in China and the "Affirmative Action" in the United States. Similarities are, special care at the time of admission, re-education and financial support after enrollment; the differences are China’s policies are based on special care while the United States’offer is based on compensation; In China, the government promotes the development of the official policy while in the United States it is constantly driven by social events; the targeted beneficiaries are also different.Part VI:Achievements and recommendations made by the admissions policies for Minority Higher Education in China. From a multi-dimensional comparison of the two countries, we can see that China’s higher education admission policies for ethnic minorities are systematic, standardized in development, content, implementation and adjustments. Based on the experience from the United States, we can improve ourselves on three aspects, namely increase of supervision during the policy enforcement process, development of reasonable admission system and development of "National Education Law."...