本文選題：普通高校 + 教育成本��； 參考：《長沙理工大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)，我國每十萬人中具有大學(xué)文化程度的為8930人，一些經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)達(dá)地區(qū)甚至達(dá)到了每4人中就有一個(gè)大學(xué)生。我國的高等教育實(shí)現(xiàn)了由“精英教育”到“大眾教育”的轉(zhuǎn)變，大眾化的高等教育給中國帶來了教育成本、培養(yǎng)質(zhì)量和畢業(yè)生就業(yè)率三大問題。對(duì)于高等教育來說,質(zhì)量應(yīng)該是首位的，沒有質(zhì)量的大眾化是虛假的大眾化，以犧牲質(zhì)量為代價(jià)來擴(kuò)大高等教育的規(guī)模是得不償失、本末倒置的。可以說，質(zhì)量就是高等教育的生命線，只有保證了質(zhì)量，守住了生命線才能談發(fā)展、談未來。然而，要保證質(zhì)量意味著要投入更多的人力、物力和財(cái)力。坊間對(duì)于高等教育成本不斷遞增、負(fù)債率高、運(yùn)營效率低下等“成本病”的議論和批評(píng)不絕于耳。教育成本和教學(xué)質(zhì)量是肯定相關(guān)的，但是兩者的相關(guān)性究竟有多大？是不是投入越多成本越高質(zhì)量就越好？成本投入現(xiàn)狀如何？怎樣改進(jìn)成本投入和保障質(zhì)量？對(duì)這些問題的研究就是本文寫作的目的也是本文要解決的問題。 基于我國不同高校的撥款政策不同，其成本和質(zhì)量也會(huì)有差距，所以研究選取湖南地區(qū)三所不同高校進(jìn)行成本和質(zhì)量數(shù)據(jù)的采集和分析，以期能夠以三所高校為樣本代表不同類型高校的情況。研究中的成本采用高校當(dāng)年的財(cái)務(wù)成本也就是實(shí)際成本，質(zhì)量用辦學(xué)資源和教學(xué)水平相關(guān)指標(biāo)定量分析。 研究的數(shù)據(jù)分析采用SPSS統(tǒng)計(jì)軟件的Perason相關(guān)分析，，分析結(jié)果顯示：高校生均成本與教學(xué)質(zhì)量之間并非直線相關(guān)，而是呈現(xiàn)一種非線性的正相關(guān)，生均人員經(jīng)費(fèi)和生均公用經(jīng)費(fèi)與教學(xué)質(zhì)量是中度正相關(guān)的，生均基建支出表現(xiàn)出先正相關(guān)后負(fù)相關(guān)；并且省屬高校教育成本的遞增對(duì)教學(xué)質(zhì)量的促進(jìn)作用比教育部直屬高校更加顯著。這說明提高生均人員經(jīng)費(fèi)和生均公用經(jīng)費(fèi)支出最能促進(jìn)教學(xué)質(zhì)量的提高，而基建支出對(duì)教學(xué)質(zhì)量提高的乘數(shù)效應(yīng)是遞減的。其次，研究還發(fā)現(xiàn)，教育部直屬高校的生均經(jīng)費(fèi)要遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于省屬高校，但兩者在基本辦學(xué)條件上卻差距不大，這說明高等教育經(jīng)費(fèi)的投入存在不均衡、結(jié)構(gòu)不合理、質(zhì)量低、效率低等問題。 當(dāng)務(wù)之急，就是要解決高等院校成本不斷增加而質(zhì)量卻未提高甚至下降這一問題。本文在第六章中詳細(xì)論述了成本控制和教學(xué)質(zhì)量保障的對(duì)策。其目的是，保證成本的合理增長同時(shí)促進(jìn)教學(xué)質(zhì)量的提高。
[Abstract]:According to statistics, there are 8930 people with university education in every 100, 000 people in our country, and even one university student in every 4 people in some economically developed areas. The higher education of our country has realized the transformation from "elite education" to "mass education". The popular higher education has brought three problems to China: education cost, training quality and graduate employment rate. For higher education, the quality should be the first, the popularization without quality is a false popularization, to sacrifice quality to expand the scale of higher education is not worth the loss, putting the cart before the horse. It can be said that quality is the lifeline of higher education. However, ensuring quality means investing more manpower, material and financial resources. There are many comments and criticisms about the "cost sickness" of higher education, such as increasing higher education cost, high debt ratio and low operating efficiency. The cost of education and the quality of teaching are positively related, but how much is the correlation between the two? Is the higher the cost, the better the quality? What is the status of cost input? How to improve cost input and guarantee quality? The study of these problems is not only the purpose of this paper, but also the problem to be solved in this paper. Based on the different allocation policies of different universities in China, there will be differences in cost and quality, so the study selects three different colleges and universities in Hunan to collect and analyze the cost and quality data. In order to be able to take three universities as a sample to represent the situation of different types of universities. The cost in the study is analyzed quantitatively by using the financial cost of the current year, that is, the actual cost, the quality of the school resources and the relevant indicators of the teaching level. The data of the study are analyzed by Perason correlation analysis of SPSS statistical software. The results show that the average cost of college students and teaching quality are not linear correlation, but show a nonlinear positive correlation. There is a moderate positive correlation between the average staff expenditure and the public expenditure of students and the teaching quality, and the average capital construction expenditure shows a positive correlation first and then a negative correlation. Moreover, the increasing cost of education in provincial colleges and universities plays a more important role in promoting teaching quality than that in colleges directly under the Ministry of Education. This shows that the improvement of teaching quality can be most promoted by increasing the expenditure of staff per student and public expenditure of students, while the multiplier effect of capital construction expenditure on the improvement of teaching quality is decreasing. Secondly, the study also found that the average student expenditure of colleges directly under the Ministry of Education is much higher than that of provincial colleges and universities, but there is not much difference between the two in the basic conditions of running a school, which indicates that the investment of funds for higher education is not balanced, the structure is unreasonable, and the quality is low. Problems such as inefficiency. The urgent task is to solve the problem that the cost of higher education is increasing and the quality is not improving or even decreasing. In the sixth chapter, the author discusses the countermeasures of cost control and teaching quality guarantee in detail. The aim is to ensure the reasonable increase of cost and promote the improvement of teaching quality.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：長沙理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：G647.5;G642.0

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周宏;張蕾;;教育成本視角下的高校管理[J];成都大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年05期

2 劉新榮;;高等教育成本計(jì)量與管理[J];財(cái)會(huì)月刊;2006年09期

3 王紅;影響高等教育成本不確定性因素分析[J];大連大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

4 盧雙坡;;我國大眾化階段高等教育質(zhì)量評(píng)析[J];中國電子教育;2008年03期

5 姚靜;;中國財(cái)政支出增長的實(shí)證分析——基于瓦格納法則的研究[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇;2009年15期

6 代蕊華,華東師大教育科學(xué)學(xué)院;談高校辦學(xué)成本的遞增性[J];吉林教育科學(xué);2001年03期

7 杜敏;蔣冬雙;;高校教育成本結(jié)構(gòu)影響因素的實(shí)證研究[J];現(xiàn)代教育科學(xué);2011年07期

8 周夢;符嫻;;我國普通高等教育成本增長趨勢及經(jīng)費(fèi)來源[J];大學(xué)教育科學(xué);2008年01期

9 楚紅麗;論教育成本在資源有效利用中的作用[J];教育與經(jīng)濟(jì);2001年04期

10 蔣萊,虞乃而;我國高校資源使用效率的現(xiàn)狀、原因與對(duì)策[J];教育與經(jīng)濟(jì);2003年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王淑慧;多元化教學(xué)評(píng)價(jià)的研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2011年

2 馬萬民;高等教育服務(wù)質(zhì)量管理的理論與應(yīng)用研究[D];南京理工大學(xué);2004年

3 張煒;高校人才培養(yǎng)的質(zhì)量成本研究[D];華中科技大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 范曄;高校教育成本核算及評(píng)價(jià)體系研究[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

2 張敏;普通高校教育成本增長的影響因素與對(duì)策研究[D];山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1939474