Harvard, where I teach computer science, used to consistently lead the Leiden Ranking, which rates the research output of universities around the world. Recently, though, Harvard fell to a dismal third, while eight of the top 10 universities came from China. Harvard remains at the top of two other rankings, the Nature Index and the University Ranking by Academic Performance, but the upper tiers of those rankings are also increasingly crowded with Chinese universities. (Notably, one ranking that still looks favorably on American universities is Chinese.)

我在哈佛大学教授计算机科学，该校曾稳居莱顿大学排名这一全球高校科研产出评价体系的榜首。然而最近，哈佛惨跌至第三名，而十强中竟有八所来自中国的大学。哈佛在自然指数及大学学术表现排名中依然领跑，但顶尖席位日益被中国高校占据。（值得注意的是，一份仍然对美国高校青睐有加的排名竟出自中国。）

It’s tempting to conclude, as one observer recently told The Times, that there’s “a big shift coming, a bit of a new world order in global dominance of higher education and research.”

正如一位观察人士最近对《纽约时报》所言，人们很容易得出这样一个结论：“一场巨变即将到来，高等教育与科研主导权的全球新格局即将形成。”

I disagree. It’s true that Chinese universities have made remarkable strides, and some of them host superb centers of research and education. However, they aren’t nearly as dominant as those rankings suggest. To borrow a phrase from Mao Zedong, many Chinese universities are paper tigers: They churn out papers at a ferocious pace, but the quality of these publications is too often in question. American universities will remain the front-runners in the race that truly matters — attracting the most brilliant minds — unless our government continues to withdraw the support needed to produce world-leading research.

恕我不能苟同。诚然，中国高校突飞猛进，部分学府已构建起卓越的科研与教育中心。但其真实水平远未达到排行榜所呈现的压倒性优势。借用毛泽东的一个说法，许多中国高校都是“纸老虎”：它们以惊人速度产出论文，但其质量往往令人质疑。在真正关键的赛道——汇聚顶尖人才的竞争中，美国大学仍将领跑，除非我们的政府继续撤回对世界级科研所需的支持。

The gap between the rankings and reality can be explained by Goodhart’s law, which says that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. It’s like trying to cure a fever by icing the thermometer: You’ve cooled the instrument, but the patient is still burning up. China has made success in global university rankings a national policy goal, in the process creating incentives that prioritize the appearance of excellence over the health of the research environment.

排名与现实的割裂可以用古德哈特定律来解释：当一个指标成为目标，它就不再是一个好的指标。这就像试图通过给温度计冰敷来治愈发烧：仪器冷却了，但病人仍在高烧。中国已将提升全球大学排名擢升为国策，从而创造出一种激励机制——更重视看起来卓越，而非科研环境的健康。

For a long time, it was common for Chinese universities to award cash payments for publications as a way to boost the share of papers their researchers placed in international journals; the more prestigious the journal, the higher the payout. According to one analysis, publishing a single paper in Nature or Science fetched more than $43,000 on average in 2016, with one university doling out a $165,000 bonus. Obviously, scholars in America and elsewhere also have incentives to publish, especially as they work to gain tenure. But even modest cash rewards can invite rushed, shoddy or outright fraudulent research, which is why this practice is frowned upon here.

长期以来，中国一些高校通过向研究人员发放奖金来鼓励发表论文，以提高在国际期刊上的论文数量；期刊越权威，奖金越高。据一项分析显示，2016年在《自然》或《科学》上发表一篇论文的平均奖金超过4.3万美元，某校更曾豪掷16.5万美元的奖励。欧美学者固然亦有发论文的压力，尤其是在争取终身教职的过程中。但即便是数额不大的奖金，也可能诱发急就章、劣质品乃至公然造假，因此这种做法在美国备受诟病。

In 2020, the Chinese government issued new guidance that banned monetary rewards for publications and sought to promote quality over quantity. However, the excessive pressure to publish is still present, as are its consequences for academic integrity. A Chinese researcher quoted in a 2024 study argued that an “inhumane” — harsh and unrealistic — demand for research productivity essentially made academic misconduct a necessity. This climate paved the way for paper mills — large-scale operations that sell authorship of fabricated or plagiarized papers — with some so brazen that they hawk their services by reportedly handing out business cards in the hallways of Chinese hospitals.

中国政府在2020年发布新规，论文不得与奖金挂钩，并强调质量优先于数量。然而，过度的发论文压力依然存在，学术诚信隐患犹存。2024年一项研究援引某中国科研人员的话称，“不人道”——即严苛且不切实际——的科研绩效苛求，使学术不端成为一种必然。这种环境催生出“论文工厂”——出售代写代发、伪造剽窃稿件的大规模黑产链，据说其中一些甚至胆大到在中国医院走廊里派发名片，招揽生意。

Retractions are another indicator of systemic issues with research integrity. One assessment found that the rate of published papers later withdrawn for fraud or major flaws is over seven times as high in China as in the United States and that China’s retraction rate is three times the global average.

论文撤稿量是衡量科研诚信系统性问题的另一个指标。一项评估发现，中国论文因造假或重大缺陷而被撤回的比例是美国的七倍多，且其撤稿率是全球平均水平的三倍。

The problem isn’t just how universities react to rankings; it’s how the rankings themselves are built. It’s possible to achieve almost any desired outcome depending on the criteria. A global university ranking from Times Higher Education employs over a dozen criteria; interestingly, this British organization has arrived at the same conclusion every year for the past decade: Oxford reigns supreme.

问题不仅在于大学如何应对排名，更在于排名体系本身的设计。只要调整指标权重，几乎任何预设结果都能实现。《泰晤士高等教育》发布的一项全球大学排名采用了十多个指标；有趣的是，这家英国机构在过去十年里每年都得出同一个结论：牛津大学稳居王座。

A more substantive way to evaluate universities is to ask, “Who’s hiring whose Ph.D. graduates as professors?” After all, appointing a faculty member is a long-term investment, one that amounts to a vote of confidence in the research program that trained that scholar. Going by this measure, American academia still has a considerable edge over China.

评价一所大学更具实质意义的方法是问：“谁在聘用谁培养的博士生担任教授？”毕竟，教职任命是一项长期投资，这相当于对培养该学者的科研项目投下了信任票。若以此标准衡量，美国学术界相较于中国仍拥有相当大的优势。

Take, for example, my field. The Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences at Tsinghua University is arguably China’s most elite computer science program. By my count, at least 26 out of 33 professors there received their Ph.D.s from American universities. At another prestigious program, Peking University’s Center on Frontiers of Computing Studies, at least eight of about 14 professors hold American Ph.D.s. By contrast, it’s rare to come across a professor in a top-tier computer science program in the United States with a Ph.D. from a Chinese university.

以我的领域为例。清华大学交叉信息研究院可以说是中国最顶尖的计算机科学项目。据我统计，那里的33名教授中，至少有26人在美国大学获得博士学位。在另一所名校北京大学的前沿计算研究中心，约14名教授中至少有八人持有美国博士学位。相比之下，在美国顶尖的计算机科学项目中，很难见到拥有中国大学博士学位的教授。

None of this is to say that America’s academic strength can’t be challenged — or undercut. Recent actions taken by the federal government have begun to weaken our longstanding advantage in recruiting the world’s best and brightest. Changes to immigration policy quite likely contributed to a 19 percent drop in international students arriving in the United States at the start of the fall semester last year. The current restriction on travel from Iran is especially damaging, as the country is a consistent source of extraordinary talent in science and engineering. An array of cuts to universities’ federal funding has also taken a toll. Harvard, in particular, exemplifies that even the most formidable ivory tower can’t withstand a protracted siege: In the past year, the university has largely frozen faculty hiring and has slashed admissions to science Ph.D. programs.

这并不是说美国的学术实力不会受到挑战或削弱。联邦政府近期的举措已经开始动摇我们在吸引全球顶尖人才方面的长期优势。移民政策的变化很可能导致了去年秋季学期初抵美的国际学生人数下降了19%。目前针对伊朗的旅行限制尤其具有破坏性，因为该国一直是科学与工程领域卓越人才的稳定来源。此外，联邦政府对大学经费的一系列削减也产生了负面影响。哈佛大学就是一个典型的例子，证明了即使是最坚固的象牙塔，也经受不起旷日持久的围困：在过去的一年里，哈佛已基本冻结了教职招聘，并大幅缩减理工科博士招生规模。

Ultimately, the greatest threat to the global standing of American universities comes from Washington, not Beijing. What’s at stake is not the position of our universities in some hollow ranking, but the enduring excellence of institutions that have long driven innovation and prosperity in this country.

归根结底，对美国大学全球地位构成最大威胁的不是北京，而是华盛顿。真正攸关的并非我们在某个空洞排名中的位置，而是那些长期推动美国创新与繁荣的高等学府能否持续保持卓越。