Despite many differences, both China and Taiwan have given
priority to a variety of education reforms since 1949. With a U.S. model and
aid, the Taiwanese educational system has largely achieved the 15 percent
enrollment threshold identified by Hayhoe as required to support economic
expansion. In China, major reforms of the 1970s and 1980s leave China, at 10
percent of that target, short of the threshold. Comparing both nations, this
paper adds significant data to Hayhoe's four indicators of quality: (1) role
of private institutions (2) gender equality; (3) scientific focus; and (4)
prevalence of short-cycle versus 4-year institutions. A fifth indicator, the
.role of government, is included. In both nations, private schools contribute
to stratification and inequalities in higher education. Women confront
substantial obstacles in both, though with fewer students and educators in
higher education, women seem worse off in China. Both nations focus heavily
on science, with Taiwan largely successful, and China risks "technocracy" by
neglecting the humanities and social sciences. In Taiwan, short-cycle schools
largely promoted equality and industrialization and are now in decline, while
in China, short-cycle schools no longer promote greater equality even as they
proliferate. Centralization in both implies ideological controls and
pressures in education. Although female enrollment is roughly equal, China
risks losing gains in equality from the Mao era. In China, reintroduction of
standardized entrance exams and the end of guaranteed employment promote
nepotism and a decline in rural schools and women's participation.