Chinese doctoral education has shifted from a Soviet to an American model, according to a working paper that demonstrates the growth and improvement of Ph.D. education in the country.

The paper, “From the Former Soviet Patterns Towards the U.S. Model? Changes in Chinese Doctoral Education,” finds that although there is still evidence of the impact of Soviet ideas, Ph.D. study has become increasingly influenced by the U.S. since the mid-1990s.

Futao Huang, professor at the Research Institute for Higher Education at Hiroshima University and international co-investigator for the University College London Institute of Education’s Center for Global Higher Education, who conducted the research, found that doctoral education and training is now based on course work and a structured curriculum, accompanied by a comprehensive exam and the submission of a doctoral dissertation, in a similar way to the U.S. system.

In addition, while engineering, science and medicine are still considered to be “priorities” for Ph.D.s, social science subjects such as management, law and economics have begun to occupy a larger share of the doctoral education sector in China.

Meanwhile, doctoral education and training in China has relied more on individual universities and less on research institutes, owing to the rapid expansion of research universities since the late 1990s, which suggests that “the impact of the former Soviet academic system on China has declined.”

Formerly, there was a clear division of labor between the two parts of the sector in a similar way to the old Soviet model, with universities producing professional and vocational graduates and research institutes undertaking research activities, according to the study.

The research highlights the reforms made, at both the national and institutional levels, to the old Chinese higher education system modeled on the Soviet Union’s.

These changes include the building of large comprehensive research universities through merging specialized institutions, the implementation of national policy and strategies of creating several world-class universities, and the “massification” of Chinese higher education, particularly since 1998.

These changes have led to the growth and improvement of doctoral education in China, according to Huang. Between 1995 and 2014, the number of new entrants at the Ph.D. level increased more than sixfold and the number of graduates increased more than tenfold.

The paper also highlights several challenges, largely due to the rapid growth of doctoral education, increased marketization or deregulation of government control, and the lack of quality assurance mechanisms.

Although there has been growth in the number of inbound international students studying in doctoral programs in Chinese universities, they constitute a “tiny proportion” when compared with Australia, Britain, Japan and the United States. The proportion of international academics in doctoral programs is also low.

Academic corruption is also an issue at the doctoral level, Huang continued, claiming that “many universities spend a lot of money on public relations or use their networking to influence reviewers who evaluate their application to provide doctoral programs.”

There are also examples of government leaders and businesspeople seeking doctoral degrees despite the fact that they cannot fulfill the minimum requirements for graduation from a doctoral program, he said.