Approaches and Reforms in Undergraduate Education for Integration of Major and General Education: A Comparative Study among Teaching, Teaching—Research, and Research Universities in China

Abstract

With the major education model as the dominant model, general education is squeezed in quality and quantity, and implementing the concept of general education is challenging. There are several problems in undergraduate education with “strong majors and weak general education” that need to be addressed in order to integrate major education with general education. Therefore, we selected three levels of universities: nine first-class research universities, seven key provincial teaching–research universities, and seven teaching universities from China. One-way ANOVA, principal component analysis (PCA), and cluster analysis were used to analyze the differences in three kinds of universities based on the total undergrad credits and “big category” majors. One-way ANOVA results showed that “total undergrad credits” and “big category” majors are significantly different between research universities, teaching–research universities, and teaching universities, but there are no significant differences in minor course credits, general course credits, disciplinary and major basic course credits, and elective course credits. Based on cluster analysis, the first cluster G1 showed that all the research universities had similarities in the total undergrad credits, minor course credits, general course credits, disciplinary and major basic course credits, elective course credits, and “big category” majors. PCA results confirmed that research universities are significantly separated from teaching universities and teaching–research universities at the PC1 axis, which has a higher number of “big category” majors. There are three key issues with strong majors and weak general education: (1) the difficulties in popularizing the progressive minor training model; (2) the low percentage of elective courses, general elective courses, and individualized courses; and (3) major transfer system restrictions. Based on their own student characteristics and school resources, teaching universities, research universities, and teaching–research universities are encouraged to enhance the cultivation of students’ compound knowledge and skills at the three levels of micro-major, double degree (minor degree), and minor-major (double majors or second majors), respectively. The universities should adhere to the diversified combination of general and major education, the integration-oriented undergraduate education, the reform concept of reducing burden and improving quality, appropriately increase students’ freedom of choice in undergraduate instructional management for an effective combination of “general education and major education”, and then bring the undergraduate education to a characteristic and high level.

1. Introduction

China’s higher education system was primarily created in the 1950s and 1960s in imitation of the former USSR’s higher educational system [1]. China’s higher education did not undergo significant reforms or modifications until the late 1990s. With the development of China’s higher education, academics, policymakers, and the general public have been more interested in the distribution of higher education opportunities and resources [2]. To meet the demands of rapid economic and social growth, China began to significantly expand its higher education system. With a gross enrollment rate of 51.6% in 2019, China entered the next stage of popularization [3]. Nowadays, China has the largest higher education system worldwide in terms of student enrollment [4]. According to Wu Shulian, Chinese institutes are classified into research universities, teaching–research universities, and teaching universities [5]. The universities in China take on the majority of the responsibility of educating the huge enrollment [6].Teaching universities have the highest percentage (86.3%) of bachelor’s degree programs compared to other universities. As the rank of universities goes higher, the percentage of bachelor’s degree programs becomes lower [7]. Compared with the global trend, the advantages of Chinese university graduates’ basic abilities are reflected in language, leadership, and subject knowledge, while their weaknesses are reflected in skills, creativity, and negotiation. Obviously, university education must give equal attention to the basic knowledge and “soft skills” of college students [8].

The major-based educational system in Chinese universities has continued to profoundly affect higher education practices; it is anchored in the mindset of administrators, teachers, guardians, and learners [9]. “Major” is a notion with significant local characteristics that serves as the foundation of China’s university education system [10]. Major systems are notably controlled and conservative. A major is an organizational unit with strong and substantial implications that not only reflects a set of courses based on the divisions of fields and professions. A university’s numerous majors not only have reasonably defined limits in terms of academic subjects and knowledge domains, but they are also organized into strong organizations through significant budget allocation. The government has constructed a leading major management structure, and students, professors, and instructional facilities are assigned depending on majors. The organization and administration of universities are directly determined by “majors” [10]. Undergraduate major education in our country is actually compatible with the nature of postgraduate education, so it has a strong substitution and inhibition effect on the differentiated development of postgraduate education. Postgraduate education has the potential to accelerate the gradient upgrade of human capital [11]. In the past, the “historical dislocation” caused by the underdevelopment of postgraduate education should have been changed, resulting in undergraduate education directly replacing postgraduate education to cultivate “specialized talents”. From the perspective of the entire university education level, China’s university education presents the characteristics of “repeatedly deepening specialization”.

General education, as a concept and curriculum in China’s major education system, has always been marginalized, lacking cultural traditions, resources, ownership, and institutional support [12]. The general education in the universities of China has many issues such as a complex model, a disordered structure, and poor quality in the course content and structure, the randomness of the general education curriculum system, the limited credits of general elective courses, and the uneven depth [9,10]. The integration of general and major education is weak in both form and content. Due to the prior selection of majors and the large proportion of major course credits, it squeezes the space of general course credits and makes general education weaker, which does not play the role of shaping personalities or cultivating rationality and thinking [13].

The talent training model is shaped for a narrow major field from the beginning of the undergraduate degree. With the increase in academic qualifications, the talent training model becomes more and more narrow. The 13th Five-Year Plan for the Development of National Education had proposed to “explore the talent training mode combining general education with major education”. The Industrial Internet, Industry 4.0, and Made in China 2025 have become cross-border production and manufacturing systems, and the requirements for talents must also be cross-border [14]. The combination of major and general education is a “new form” of the pursuit or reform of undergraduate education. There are three main reasons for the combination of major and general education, i.e., the lack of “soft skills” in the talent training model, the trend of cross-border connections, and the rapid development of postgraduate education. Therefore, there is an urgent need to clarify and find the existing problems in undergraduate education development and shift from “strong majors and weak general education” to an effective “combination of major and general education”. The queries we endeavored to address were:

How significant is the integration of major and general education development at different levels of undergraduate universities in terms of majors, courses, and management?

What problems exist in the “strong majors and weak general education” system?

How can major and general education be effectively integrated?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection of Universities and Collection of Data

This study selected three levels of universities, namely, 9 first-class research universities, 7 key provincial teaching–research universities in Zhejiang, and 7 teaching universities (Figure 1). The most campuses are found at Zhejiang University (8 campuses), followed by Peking University (6 campuses), Hangzhou Dianzi University (5 campuses), Zhejiang Normal University, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Tongji University, Fudan University, and Shaoxing University (4 campuses), and other universities have less than 4 (Figure 2 and Table S1). We collected documents related to undergraduate talent training, such as undergraduate talent training programs, undergraduate teaching quality reports, minor–major management regulations, and student handbooks, that are open to the public on the official websites of 23 universities. This study assumes that there are differences in the combination of major and general education at three levels of universities and analyzes the differences in the talent training mode of the major and general education combination at different levels from six aspects: total undergrad credits, minor course credits, general course credits, major course credits, elective course credits, and “big category” majors.

Chinese universities use a “credit system” in their curriculum. To achieve the credit requirement for graduation, students must enroll in and finish a number of courses, each of which is worth multiple credits (mostly, 1–6 credits) [15]. In our study, 23 selected universities had an average of 164 credits needed to complete graduation over a period of four years. All courses are provided on a semester basis. To obtain one credit, students must attend 16 class hours (45 or 50 min each) for lecture courses and 32 for lab courses [15]. In Europe, for example, the ECTS grading scale is used, which is described in the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System framework: 1 credit is a 25–30 h workload [16], and most undergraduate degrees require students to complete 180 credits over the course of a 3-year period [17]. So, the credits of two countries’ programs can be roughly exchanged in this way: One credit in China equals 1.72 credits in Europe.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

We used one-way ANOVA to analyze the difference between three or more groups. We perform the homogeneity test first. A one-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the significant difference between the three levels of universities in terms of “total undergrad credits”, “minor course credits”, “general course credits”, “disciplinary and major basic course credits”, “elective course credits” and “big category” majors. Then, we performed a post hoc comparison method of variance heterogeneity to check the variance among research universities, teaching universities, and teaching–research universities on the basis of total undergrad credits.

To find out the significant difference between the various types of undergraduate course credits and “big category” majors, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to analyze the difference between 3 different types of universities, i.e., research universities, teaching–research universities, and teaching universities. We used the universities as an explanatory variable and undergraduate course credits and “big category” majors as the response variables. The contribution of both undergraduate course credits and “big category” was displayed in cluster analysis using Heatmap (3) in R software 3.6.3. All graphical data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA), R software 3.6.3, and PAST 3.20 [18].

3. Results

3.1. One-Way Analysis of Variance for Various Types of Undergraduate Course Credits

As for the test variables, the total undergrad credits are significant (p < 0.05), which indicates that the variance of the sample is not homogenous and violates the assumption of variance homogeneity. The variance differences of the four groups of samples, i.e., “minor course credits” (p = 0.161), “general course credits” (p = 0.053), “disciplinary and major basic course credits” (p = 0.942), “elective course credits” (p = 0.409), and “big category” majors (p = 0.644) are not significant (

Table 1. The homogeneity of variance test for “undergrad courses credits” and “big category” majors in three levels of universities.

Dependent Variable		Levine Statistics	df-1	df-2	p
Total undergrad credits	based on average	7.120	2	20	0.005
	median based	3.713	2	20	0.043
Minor course credits	based on average	2.010	2	19	0.161
	median based	1.477	2	19	0.253
General course credits	based on average	3.412	2	20	0.053
	median based	0.996	2	20	0.387
Disciplinary and major basic course credits	based on average	0.060	2	18	0.942
	median based	0.046	2	18	0.955
Elective course credits	based on average	0.936	2	20	0.409
	median based	0.590	2	20	0.564
“Big category” majors	based on average	0.453	2	16	0.644
	median based	0.542	2	16	0.592

), which indicates that the assumption of variance homogeneity is not violated.

The following summary in

Table 2. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for different undergraduate courses and “big category” majors in three levels of universities.

Dependent Variable		(Sum)2	df	(Mean)2	F	p
Total undergrad credits	Between groups	584.963	2	292.482	4.868	0.019
	Within the group	1201.550	20	60.078
	Total	1786.513	21
Minor course credits	Between groups	257.224	2	128.612	1.959	0.169
	Within the group	1247.651	19	65.666
	Total	1504.875	21
General course credits	Between groups	76.490	2	38.245	0.451	0.643
	Within the group	1695.008	20	84.750
	Total	1771.498	22
Disciplinary and major basic course credits	Between groups	366.921	2	183.460	1.562	0.237
	Within the group	2114.317	18	117.462
	Total	2481.238	20
Elective course credits	Between groups	244.639	2	122.320	0.412	0.668
	Within the group	5941.777	20	297.089
	Total	6186.417	22
Big category majors	Between groups	8446.344	2	4223.172	14.719	0.000
	Within the group	4590.603	16	286.913
	Total	13,036.947	18

of the variance analysis can be seen: “minor course credits” (p = 0.169), “general course credits” (p = 0.643), “disciplinary and major basic course credits” (p = 0.237), and elective course credits (p = 0.668) did not reach a significant level, whilethe total undergrad credits and “big category” majors are significantly (p < 0.05) differed in the three levels of universities (Table 2).

In the variance homogeneity test, the variance of the dependent variable sample of total “undergrad credits” does not meet the assumption of variance homogeneity.

Table 3. Multiple comparisons of dependent variables of “undergrad credits”.

Post-Hoc Comparison	(I) School Level	(J) School Level	Average Difference (IJ)	SE	p	95% Confidence Interval
						Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Tam Haney T2	Research Universities	Teaching–Research Universities	−8.23	3.82	0.16	−19.24	2.79
		Teaching University	−11.68	4.21	0.048 *	−23.29	−0.08
	Teaching–Research Universities	Research Universities	8.23	3.82	0.16	−2.79	19.24
		Teaching Universities	−3.46	2.43	0.46	−10.52	3.60
	Teaching Universities	Research Universities	11.68	4.21	0.048 *	0.08	23.29
		Teaching–Research Universities	3.46	2.43	0.46	−3.60	10.52
Dunnett T3	Research Universities	Teaching–Research Universities	−8.23	3.82	0.15	−19.12	2.67
		Teaching Universities	−11.68	4.21	0.046 *	−23.20	−0.17
	Teaching–Research Universities	Research Universities	8.23	3.82	0.15	−2.67	19.12
		Teaching Universities	−3.46	2.43	0.44	−10.43	3.51
	Teaching Universities	Research Universities	11.68	4.21	0.046 *	0.17	23.20
		Teaching–Research Universities	3.46	2.43	0.44	−3.51	10.43

* The significance level for differences in means is <0.05.

is a post hoc comparison of two variance heterogeneity methods. In terms of the total undergrad credits, the test results of these two methods (Tamhane’s T2 and Dennett’s T3 test) shows that there is a significant difference between teaching universities and research universities (p < 0.05), and teaching universities have significantly higher number of total undergrad credits than research universities.

Finally, the differences in the mean values among research universities, teaching–research universities, and teaching universities in terms of the dependent variable of “big category” majors are all significant, and the former is significantly higher than the latter (

Table 4. Multiple comparisons of the dependent variable “big category” majors.

(I) School Level	(J) School Level	Average Difference (IJ)	SE	p	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Research Universities	Teaching–Research Universities	36.016 *	8.536	0.003	13.00	59.03
	Teaching Universities	52.111 *	11.292	0.001	21.67	82.55
Teaching–Research Universities	Research Universities	−36.016 *	8.536	0.003	−59.03	−13.00
	Teaching Universities	16.095	11.689	0.408	−15.42	47.61
Teaching Universities	Research Universities	−52.111 *	11.292	0.001	−82.55	−21.67
	Teaching–Research Universities	−16.095	11.689	0.408	−47.61	15.42

* The significance level for differences in means is <0.05.

). According to statistics, more than 50% of the majors in eight research universities, four teaching and research universities, and one teaching university in this study have implemented “big category” major reform (Figure 3). Engineering universities have made significant efforts in “big category” major reform. The “big category” major ratios of Tongji University are 87%, Southeast University is 88%, and Zhejiang University of Technology is 85%. Teaching universities have the fewest major training reforms, and some universities still recruit students according to majors.

3.2. Cluster Analysis and Principal Component Analysis of the Undergraduate Course Credits and “Big Category” Majors

Based on undergraduate course credits and “big category” majors, research universities are separated from teaching universities and teaching–research universities. Cluster analysis revealed two groups, G1 and G2 (Figure 4). The first cluster G1 showed that all the research universities (PKU, Fudan, Tongji, ECNU, ZJU, TSU, SEU, HUST, and WHU) had similarities in the total undergrad credits, minor course credits, general course credits, disciplinary and major basic course credits, elective course credits, and “big category” majors. The second cluster G2 showed that all the teaching universities and teaching–research universities had more similarities in the total undergrad credits, minor course credits, general course credits, major course credits, elective course credits, and “big category” majors.

Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to analyze the difference between the various types of undergraduate course credits and “big category” majors in 3 different types of universities (Figure 5). PCA showed that the first two axes have 100% variation, and “PC1-axis” has 74.2% and “PC2-axis” has 25.7% variation, respectively (Figure 5a). The significance of PCA scores was confirmed by a one-way ANOVA, which showed that research universities are significantly separated from teaching universities and teaching–research universities at the PC1-axis. As shown in Figure 5b, the variables UC (r = 0.43), GCC (r = 0.44), EC (r = 0.46), MC (r = 0.30), and DBMC (r = 0.47) are positively correlated with the PC1-axis, while the variables NM (r = −0.47) are negatively correlated with the PC1-axis (Figure 5b). As shown in Figure 5a,b, “big category” majors (NM) showed a stronger correlation with research universities, which means that research universities had a higher number of “big category” majors.

4. Discussion

4.1. Overall Overview of the Credits and Their Proportions of Various Types of Undergraduate Courses in Different Universities of China

We analyzed the data of four-year undergraduate courses in 23 selected universities (i.e., total undergrad credits, public and general elective courses, general elective courses, and elective courses). The total undergrad credits showed that the four-year study burden of Chinese undergraduate students is much heavier. The total undergrad credits of 19 universities exceed 160, accounting for 82.6% of all universities (

Table 5. Credits and ratios of undergraduate courses in 23 universities.

	Universities Name	Codes	Undergrad Credits	Public Courses + General Elective Courses		General Elective Courses		Elective Course Proportion
				Credits	Proportion	Credits	Proportion
Research University	Peking University	PKU	143	47	32.90%	12	8%	51.16%
	Wuhan University	WHU	144	50	35%	12	8%	27.09%
	East China Normal University	ECNU	148.5	46.5	31.30%	12	8%	20.41%
	Fudan University	FUDAN	155	46.4	29.90%	8–12	5–8%	30%
	Tongji University	TONGJI	161.9	42	26%	8	5%	19.38%
	Southeast University	SEU	164.6	64.89	39%	10	6%	20.32%
	Tsinghua University	TSU	164.6	46	28%	13	8%	31.47%
	Huazhong University of Science and Technology	HUST	166	43.5	26%	10	6%	19.58%
	Zhejiang University	ZJU	174.3	66.3	38%	10.5	6%	27%
Teaching–research Universities	Zhejiang Normal University	ZJNU	162.6	44.8	27.60%	4	2%	17.40%
	Zhejiang Gongshang University	ZJSU	162.9	47.3	29%	12	7%	27.80%
	China Jiliang University	CJLU	165.3	63.4	38.40%	2–14	1–8%	44.60%
	Ningbo University	NBU	166	42	25.30%	6	3.60%	25%
	Zhejiang Sci-Tech University	ZSTU	167	68	41%	14	8%	30%
	Hangzhou Dianzi University	HDU	168	65.7	39.10%	10	6%	44.30%
	Zhejiang University of Technology	ZJUT	171.7	43	25%	10	6%	19.20%
Teaching Universities	Zhejiang International Studies University	ZISU	160	43.4	27.10%	8	5%	49%
	Ningbo University of Technology	NBUT	167.33	63.1	38%	8	5%	43.50%
	Shaoxing University	USX	169.1	56.8	33.60%	12	7%	18.11%
	Huzhou University	HUZU	170.2	56.4	33.10%	4–6	2–4%	32.50%
	Zhejiang University of Science and Technology	ZUST	171	53	31%	8	5%	14.60%
	Quzhou College	QZC	171.1	50.3	29.40%	10	6%	20.06%
	Taizhou University	TU	179	58	32.40%	10	6%	25.10%

). The proportion of credits for general courses (public courses + general elective courses) in the total undergrad credits is distributed between 25% and 40%. Public courses are known as state-defined courses, which make up the majority of non-major courses. General elective course credits are scarce and dispersed. The proportion of elective course credits in the total undergrad credits at each university is relatively low. The proportion of elective course credits of 16 universities does not exceed 30%, accounting for 70% of all universities (Table 5). Elective courses (EC) are primarily skill courses, cross-disciplinary courses, and special courses that teach students how to function in society [19]. Among research universities, only Peking University has more than 50% of the elective course credits, while other research universities do not exceed 30% (Table 5). Overall, the credit ratio of elective courses is lower in research universities as compared to teaching–research universities and teaching universities. The percentage of elective course credits in some teaching–research universities and teaching universities exceeds 40% of the total credits (Table 5). Research universities should have more freedom for course selection than other universities, which is the premise of personalized talent and innovative training.

4.1.1. Curriculum System of General Education in China

The curriculum system of general education in China is arbitrary, the credits of general elective courses are limited (Table 5), and the depth is uneven. The general education in China’s universities has some issues, such as “complex content, chaotic structure, poor quality, and low status” in the course content and structure [20]. Most universities divide public compulsory courses such as ideological and political, college foreign language, physical education, computer, and military courses into general courses, and some universities set separate public and general courses. Public compulsory courses are the secondary subjects of China, the West, and Malaysia [19]. As a result, the emphasis on rational spirit, thought training, value judgment, and reasoning is lacking in public compulsory courses. The proportion of general elective courses, as the real carrier of general education, accounts for no more than 8% of total undergrad credits (Table 5). Students must take two or three general elective courses from each module, akin to a “jigsaw” method [10]. General elective courses within each module are disorganized in structure and lack internal coherence. Such a modular design is devoid of meaningful knowledge integration and interdisciplinary linkage [10]. The depth of general courses varies at different levels in different universities. The general courses of research universities have the characteristics of high depth and basic principles. For example, the general courses at Peking University are “Principles of Economics”, “Social Game Theory”, “Introduction to Theoretical Physics”, and “Principles of Aesthetics”. Peking University emphasizes the “combination of general and major education” and believes that if the general courses do not have the major courses as the foundation, it is impossible to achieve the required depth. Moreover, some courses in the core general courses should be major courses for a particular major. In both teaching–research universities and teaching universities, some general elective courses have the characteristics of practicality and entertainment. Many professional teachers tend to reduce the academic depth of general courses and prefer to teach popular science and pragmatism. Using the novelty and interest of the content to resolve the monotony of the teaching only increases the stimulation of the teaching content, but the essence of “cramming” has not changed [21].

4.1.2. Individualized Courses in the Developing Period

The credits of individualized courses occupy a relatively small proportion of the total undergraduate credits in the Chinese curriculum system. They leave flexible space for students to freely develop their interests, promote diversification and individualized development. Individualized courses have two requirements: first, to give students the freedom to choose courses arbitrarily and independently, and to broaden the scope of individualized elective courses from within the department to the entire university; and second, to encourage interdisciplinary and inter-professional elective individualized courses. Individualized courses are also known as self-development courses and optional elective courses in different universities and generally include interdisciplinary courses. In order to prevent students from seeking comfort in the process of course selection, some schools have set up both individualized courses and interdisciplinary courses, such as Zhejiang University, Wuhan University, Southeast University, and Ningbo University. The rigid and limited requirements of the school’s personalized credits have greatly affected the students’ choice of individualized subjects [22]. For instance, 12 universities in this study, mainly research universities and teaching–research universities, have set up the individualized (optional or self-developed) or interdisciplinary courses (

Table 6. Independent/individualized/optional/interdisciplinary course credits in 12 selected universities.

Universities Name	Independent/Individualized/Optional/ Interdisciplinary Course Credits	Average Credit
Tsinghua University	Self-development courses 2–28	Self-Development Course 12
Peking University	Independent Elective Courses 1–28	Independent Elective Course 17
Zhejiang University	Individualized courses 6–10.5, Inter-professional course 3	Individualized Study Course 7
Wuhan University	Optional electives 10, ≥4 for interdepartmental courses	-
Southeast University	Individualized Courses 6–8, Interdisciplinary Courses 4–6	-
Tongji University	Personality Lessons 2–12	Personality Lesson 4
Fudan University	Interdisciplinary Development 35	-
Ningbo University	Optional electives 4, Major cross-composite course 12	-
Zhejiang University of Technology	Inter-professional Individualized Elective 2	-
Hangzhou Dianzi University	Intersection and Personality Development Credits 0–16	Intersection and Personality Development 4
Zhejiang Normal University	Personalized Lessons 2–6	Personalized Course 4
Zhejiang Gongshang University	Personalized Lessons 6	-

). The average credits of independent development courses at Peking University and Tsinghua University exceed 10 credits, and most of the individualized course credits at other universities are within 10 credits (Table 6). According to our findings, 11 universities have not established individualized courses for undergraduate students. In order to achieve the objective of individualized undergraduate talent development, universities must enhance the role of the instructional system and peer effect in the selection of an individualized curriculum design for undergrad students [22]. They should also enhance the combination of individualized courses with the second classroom and “help-lead system” to enhance the educational impact of these courses.

The reform of the individualized courses refers to the adjustment of the individualized curriculum design. In this respect, the curriculum system of individualized courses at Fudan University has been relatively effective. For example, the credits of interdisciplinary courses at Fudan University are much higher than those at other universities: Fudan University provides 35 credits (Table 6) of three paths based on general and major education such as professional advancement, interdisciplinary development, and innovation and entrepreneurship, opening up a greater space for students’ personalized development.

4.2. Progressive Minor Training Models in Chinese Universities

Although undergraduate universities in China have set up minor forms of different calibers, they have built progressive minor training models, which are intended to meet the needs of students at different levels. There are three minor training models depending on the level of certification awarded.

4.2.1. Micro-Major, Minor-Major and Minor Degree Training Model

The “course model” refers to the achievement of the prescribed conditions by studying various micro-majors in the major–minor system and issuing various course achievement certificates. A micro-major is a smaller major form than a minor major. It is a group of courses established around a specific theme, and the credit requirements are lower than those of a minor-major, ranging from 10 to 25 credits (Table S2). In a “course model”, various course grade certificates are awarded to identify a student’s minor level.

The “minor-major model” refers to the issuance of a professional certificate after completing the prescribed conditions by taking a minor major (second major or double major) in the major–minor system. In the “minor-major model,” various professional certificates, such as minors, second majors, and double-major certificates, indicate the level of a student’s minor. The credits of minor-majors are higher than those of micro-majors, and the minor credits at the 20 universities are mainly distributed between 20 and 40 credits. Among them, there are 14 universities with 20–30 credits, accounting for 70%, and 6 universities with 30–40 credits. The second major or double major (minor major) are different in terms of the titles used by different universities, but the essence is the same. They both add more major courses on the basis of the minor courses, and since the credit requirements are higher than those of the micro-major and minor-major courses, they finally get the double major certificate. The credits range from 40 to 60, and the study time usually begins in the sophomore year, with major basic courses and major courses as the main focus, supplemented by major elective courses. In this study, four universities set up second majors and double majors, respectively (Table S3). Zhejiang Normal University (ZJNU) has a total of 56 second majors, but the credits for the second major are higher than at other schools. The university has three second majors (chemistry, biotechnology (pharmaceutical), and science education) with more than 100 credits in the curriculum. The curriculum includes subject platform courses, major core courses and some major elective courses, basic practice, and professional practice.

“Degree model” refers to the issuance of a double degree or minor degree certificate by taking relevant courses in the major–minor system and meeting the prescribed conditions. In “degree model”, a degree earned is an indicator of a student’s minor. A minor degree requires more credits than a minor, and some schools also require participation in practice, a graduation thesis, or design. A dual degree is essentially the same as a minor, but the credits are slightly higher than the minor. The six universities in this study set up a minor degree with a credit distribution of 30–55, and seven universities set up a double degree (Table S4) with credits ranging from 38–76. Peking University has strict requirements on the study time of double majors. Students must take double majors beginning in their second or third year of high school. They cannot apply for two majors with similar disciplines as double majors. After the completion of the major, the minor degree program is terminated at the same time, whether or not they graduated from Peking University. However, other universities generally extend the study time of the minor degree or double degree to the maximum study period.

4.2.2. Implementation of Minor Learning Methods in Undergraduate Education

China’s undergraduate minor systems are considering the differences in students’ learning levels and abilities and are building an advanced minor talent training system. When comparing the proportion of students pursuing minor or dual degrees with full-time undergraduates, we found that research universities are more prevalent than other universities (Table S5). In this study, students studying minor courses at Zhonghua University of Science and Technology accounted for the highest proportion of full-time undergraduates, at 3.18%, and students at Peking University taking double degrees accounted for the highest proportion of full-time undergraduates, reaching 20.03%. The sum of the proportion of students taking minor or double degrees at Peking University is far ahead, reaching 20.58%, while the proportion of students at the other five universities is less than 4%. In the 2020–2021 academic year, Peking University had 3297 double-degree students, accounting for 90% of the actual number of undergraduate graduates in 2021 (3645 people), much higher than the 10% of East China Normal University’s undergraduate graduates who obtained minor degrees each year. In Chinese universities with heavy learning, elite university students, especially at top research universities, have the ability to take minors and double majors, but the scale of minors in general universities is still small. The statistics showed that the proportion of students taking minors and double degrees in universities is relatively small as a whole, and the learning method of minors needs to be popularized. The main reasons that hinder students from choosing a minor study method are the high pressure of double-major study, the poor quality of minor courses, the inflexibility of class time and duration of study, the unsatisfactory course setting method, and the fear of low social recognition of the minor [23]. The minor and the major study are not related to each other, and there are some problems of disconnection; the timing of the major and the minor is conflicting, the minor courses are short in class, the content is too full, and the requirements of the teaching content are low [24].

4.3. Major Transfer Policy Based on Strong Major and Weak General Education Management System

The major transferring of undergraduates in Chinese universities started in September 2002 at Fudan University [25]. Transferring majors is an opportunity provided by universities for students to explore and identify interests that are appropriate to their interests, abilities, and personalities. Although the undergraduate transfer program advocates “no threshold for transferring out” and “conditions for transferring in”, the actual number of students transferring majors is small, and the success rate does not reach 100%.

The 13 universities in this study released the annual number of students who transferred majors (

Table 7. The number and proportion of the students who transfer majors in a certain academic year in 13 selected universities.

Name of Universities	Time: School Year	Number of Students Who Transfer Major	% of Full-Time Undergrad Students
Huazhong University of Science and Technology	2020–2021	571	1.94%
Beijing University	2020–2021	203	1.23%
East China Normal University	2020–2021	356	2.41%
Hangzhou Dianzi University	2020–2021	604	3.96%
Zhejiang Gongshang University	2020–2021	552	3.42%
Zhejiang Normal University	2020–2021	432	2.28%
China Jiliang University	2019–2020	306	2.04%
Ningbo University	2020–2021	169	0.91%
Zhejiang Sci-Tech University	2020–2021	508	2.77%
Zhejiang University of Science and Technology	2020–2021	632	3.74%
Quzhou College	2019–2020	82	1.30%
Ningbo University of Technology	2020–2021	177	1.24%
Zhejiang International Studies University	2017–2018	50	0.65%

). Statistics found that the proportion of students who successfully transferred majors among the 13 universities accounted for less than 4% of the undergraduate students (Table 7). In some universities, students are not as motivated to transfer majors as expected. Zhejiang University of Science and Technology provided the number of students (2212) who can transfer the major, accounting for 13.12% of all undergraduate students, and 760 applicants actually applied for major transfer, accounting for 4.51% of regular undergraduate full-time students. The success rate of students transferring majors is less than 100%. In the 2020–2021 academic year, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology applied for 760 major transfer applications, 632 of which were successfully transferred, for an 83.16% success rate. Hangzhou Dianzi University had 1495 applicants for transferring majors, and a total of 709 people have been successfully transferred, for a success rate of 47%. In Zhejiang Normal University, a total of 1170 applicants applied for major transfer, and 432 were successfully transferred, for a success rate of 37%. Of the 186 students from Ningbo University who applied to transfer majors, 169 applicants were successful, for a success rate of 91%. In the 2019–2020 academic year of China Jiliang University, 491 applicants applied for transfer majors, and 306 students were successfully transferred, for a success rate of 62.32%. Through the independent transfer of major, students can be shifted from passive to active learning, increase their passion for learning, and support the reform of educational management in higher education [25].

However, there are many difficulties for undergraduate students to transfer majors, i.e., the small number of undergraduate students, the low success rate, and the low enthusiasm due to the restrictions of their access conditions to transfer the major. The course grade points and rankings of original majors in the assessment method occupy a high proportion of the assessment of transferring majors, and some universities even set students with the top grade point rankings to have the privilege of transferring majors. Furthermore, the limited number of opportunities to transfer majors (most institutions provide one), the limit on the number of voluntary applications, grade restrictions, and the move to downgrade for transferring majors have all created barriers for students to transfer majors. If transferring majors is not a feasible option, several experts advised students to choose another method of studying the major in the major admission system. It particularly refers to the learning approach in which students consider alternative majors while studying the basic major, and on the basis of not violating the basic major’s learning standards, they can select the intended other major courses [26].

The difficulty in transferring majors stems from a strong major and a weak general education management system. The difficulty in transferring majors lies in the fact that it cannot get rid of the fixed pattern of major education management and the path dependence of interest solidification formed under the planned economy in the past [27]. Although the removal of the restriction on transferring majors has significantly increased the proportion of students applying to transfer majors, the competitive pressure on students to transfer majors has not decreased. The undergraduate major transfer policy only removes the transfer out requirement, not the transfer requirement for faculties. However, there is still a paradox that students who have no interest in a major can get excellent results in their first major and have more advantages if they transfer [28]. The undergraduate major transfer policy, with its weak general education and strong major education, does not provide students with more opportunities to transfer their major, which is detrimental to the development of their personality and interests as well as the acquisition of interdisciplinary knowledge.

4.4. Exploring the Paths for Major and General Education Integration

4.4.1. Different Aspects of Undergraduate Education Integration in China

As compared to subject-based education, integrative education fosters the development of broad “intellectual programs” that encourage students to use their knowledge and skills in a novel way [29]. Nowadays, integrative education is a new trend in the reform of undergraduate education in American research universities. Therefore, undergraduate education in China requires an integrated education of interdisciplinary knowledge and skills and needs to be integrated on the basis of three aspects:

(a)

Integration into an effective combination of major education and general education:

First of all, we pay attention to the general nature of major education, refine the content of general thinking training, and value education in major education. Disciplinary and major basic courses should construct a curriculum system according to the academic relationship and development trend of different disciplines or majors, follow the educational concept of general education, strengthen the connection with major education, and truly reflect the nature of the connection.

Secondly, general education should run through the undergraduate education process, but it is emphasized that general education is not equivalent to “pan-professionalism” and “professional nihilism”, and it is necessary to connect and improve major education, but also to be independent of major education. General education is not only a curriculum but also a life-long philosophy, attitude, and learning style. It should expand general education course options to allow students to fulfill their general education needs and interests in each major area, and set up comprehensive general courses at different levels and across multiple academic fields around the theme to ensure the integrity and relevance of students’ knowledge systems. In addition, the interdisciplinary academy life and learning environment that all students face should be integrated, avoiding the elite tendency of the academy life, and realizing the integration of structured and unstructured education through the reorganization of the accommodation space and the creation of the accommodation culture.

(b)

Major integration based on multiple disciplines:

Undergraduate majors in China are mainly single-disciplinary, and the construction of real interdisciplinary majors and individual majors is still in the exploratory stage. To implement the combined major–minor systems, we can combine the minor courses into major degrees and set up integrated dual majors, which can increase the connection between the major and minor systems, maintain the enthusiasm of students to learn the minor courses, and reduce the turnover rate. Most of the majors or directions in Western universities are problem-oriented, so most majors are interdisciplinary [30]. Dual- and three-discipline major courses account for a greater proportion of Oxford University’s 50 undergraduate majors than single-discipline major courses, reflecting the modern knowledge development trend of differentiation and integration as well as the results of the interdisciplinary formation of a large number of marginal disciplines [31].

(c)

Curriculum integration based on real problems:

The reform of the curriculum structure of China’s undergraduate courses is mainly to appropriately increase the number of disciplinary and major basic courses, general courses, inter-disciplinary courses, and individualized courses. However, its course content and structure remain focused on a single subject, with a strict logic system and a pre- and post-study relationship, and are separated from the practice of complex problems. Curriculum integration is at the core of undergraduate integrated education in American research universities nowadays, and its forms in undergraduate curriculum integration include interdisciplinary courses, research project courses, spiral courses, and capstone courses [32]. The common characteristics of these course integration forms are setting real-world problem situations, focusing on teamwork, using research-based learning methods, and integrating multidisciplinary methods and perspectives.

4.4.2. Reforms in the Undergraduate Education for Improving Quality and Rationalizing the Course Structure

There are high credit requirements for degree completion in China. As can be seen from the above, there is a significant difference regarding the average value of total “undergrad credits” among teaching universities, teaching–research universities, and teaching universities. In this study, the upper limit of the average credits for the total number of courses taken by Chinese universities in each semester is about 33 credits, and the lower limit of the average credits is 15 credits. To compare with American universities, they require no less than 12 credits and no more than 18 credits per semester, which is lower than Chinese universities. According to Lu and Weng [33], American universities adopt a two-semester or three-semester system; the former is 30–32 credits per academic year, and the latter is 45–48 credits per academic year.

Chinese undergraduates are caught in heavy study pressure and discipline-style busyness and have cultivated the characters of diligence, perseverance, and patience, but they have not been able to cultivate wisdom, great love, calmness, or the ability to create meaning. The heavy curriculum occupies and binds students’ hearts to death, leaving no “gap” for students to feel and grow on their own. Aristotle believed that “man’s nature seeks not only to be competent for work but also to enjoy leisure … even if both are necessary, leisure is more worthy of choice and is the purpose of work” [34].

If the undergraduate courses are comprehensive and large, it will affect the students’ in-depth learning. The curriculum system should be more concise, the credits should be rationally controlled, the content should focus on the mutual coordination of depth and breadth, and the goal should focus on ability training. Some researchers compared the “deep learning of major courses” and its impact mechanism among the undergraduates of first-class universities in China and the United States and proposed that China’s major education should reshape the learning quality concept of major courses, enhance the learning participation of major courses, and improve the difficulty of learning requirements of major courses [35].

High-quality course curricula may convey information by emphasizing the development of competencies and transferrable skills; they also support teaching methods such as heuristics, inquiry, discussion, and interactive learning to foster students’ higher-order thinking. It is necessary to open more thoughtful, intelligent, and ability-based courses with profound backgrounds rather than simple general, recreational, and skill-based courses [36].

4.4.3. Different Aspects of Effective Combination of General and Major Education

The relationship between general and major education varies based on different levels and positioning of universities and the different disciplines and majors [37]. Within the universities, majors with a higher admission rate should focus on major basic education. Majors with a specific occupational nature should open comprehensive general courses at the level of maintaining specialization to broaden the professional dimension. Majors such as humanities and social sciences have a strong emphasis on developing general skills and connecting major education through general education. Both research universities and teaching–research universities should increase the capacity of “big category” majors to strengthen the ability to aggregate the advantages of unpopular majors. Teaching universities should select the school’s advantageous and characteristic majors for “big category” training.

Teaching–research universities can start major selection at the end of the first or second semester, while research universities can start major selection at the beginning of the first or second year. The higher the level of the university, the longer the major selection period must be delayed.

According to their own student characteristics and school resources, research universities, teaching–research universities, and teaching universities are encouraged to strengthen the cultivation of students’ compound knowledge and skills at the three levels of double degrees (minor degrees), minor-majors (double majors or second majors), and micro-majors, respectively.

4.4.4. Increase Students’ Freedom of Choice in Undergraduate Instructional Management

Compared with general education, China’s major education training program is more “stable” and “mandatory”. The proportion of major compulsory courses with strictly regulated content and order among all major credit requirements is much higher than that of first-class universities in the United States [38]. The space for free choice of courses for undergrads in China is still small. In this study, elective course credits accounted for no more than 30% of the total undergrad credits at 2/3 of the participating universities. Although China’s undergraduate education has increased the right to choose freely in terms of majors, courses, processes, and teachers, however, many conditions remained. The form of free choice in the system has become more and more perfect, but in practice it is “prohibitive”. In the name of freedom of choice, students are subjected to increasingly demanding selections. As Bloom pointed out, the “free” education of people’s right to make their own choices is now expanded, but in fact it does not realize the true “freedom” of the mind [39].

The student-centered undergraduate education philosophy requires that learners should be given moderate freedom to learn the development plan and take responsibility independently, satisfy students’ intellectual interests and aspirations, and develop their own individuality. However, universities cannot completely indulge the freedom of students. Complete freedom will lead to disorder and shallowness, and the price of free choice will entail certain responsibilities. The consumption logic of free choice can easily lead to “hard training” and “hard work” being avoided [40]. Positive freedom can only be obtained through hard training and discipline, and it can achieve the Confucian state of having its place, making the best of one’s nature, and establishing oneself as one. It is necessary to release appropriate freedom in many aspects, such as further reducing the credits of compulsory courses and increasing the proportion of elective courses; setting up more types of courses, especially inter-professional, individualized, research-based courses, etc. The major transfer system is based on interests, achievements, abilities, and qualities. We must refine the rough and unified teaching management to meet the learning needs of different students in order to implement a flexible credit system.

Learning freedom is an essential component of academic freedom since it represents the rehabilitation of learners’ subjectivity in the learning process [41]. University students should be given more freedom to transfer majors, take courses, attend lectures, engage in discussion and research, and develop their knowledge. The corresponding strategies include: (1) Standardizing the teaching management of changing majors and the freedom to transfer majors within the school shall be appropriately expanded on the premise of fairness, justice, and reasonableness using methods such as secondary assessment on campus, competitive selection, and survival of the fittest; (2) Increasing the proportion of elective courses, fully realize course selection freedom, and gradually achieving an equal division of compulsory and elective courses; (3) Reforming teaching methods, giving students the freedom to discuss and question, and adopting heuristic, problem-based, discussion-based, practical, and other vivid teaching methods; (4) Reforming management methods and expanding the freedom to listen to lectures. Students may apply not to engage in the course lectures or listen to a portion of the course content, but they must participate in the course evaluation in order to actively cultivate their knowledge.

5. Conclusions

As the dominant major education model in China, general education is squeezed and weakened in quantity and quality, and the concept of general education is difficult to implement in practice. In our study, we discussed three major problems of strong majors and weak general education: (1) the higher number of total undergrad credits and the small proportion of elective courses, general elective courses, and individualized courses; (2) the difficulty of popularizing the progressive minor training model; and (3) the restrictions in the major transfer system. To resolve these problems, the universities must reform the undergraduate education to reduce credit burden and improve quality of the diversified combination of general and major education, appropriately increase students’ freedom of choice for selection of majors and courses for an effective combination of “general and major education”, and then bring the undergraduate education to a characteristic and high level.

In our study, teaching universities are inferior to teaching–research universities and research universities in terms of the concentrations of “big category” majors, the study of disciplinary and major basic courses, the depth of general education courses, and the organization of coordinating general education and major education. Looking at the situation investigated in three kinds of universities, management can focus on strengthening the construction of general education and major curricula, and gradually move from the micro to the macro view. This is an effective method for realizing the objectives of general education.

There are three ways to promote the integration of general education and major education: (1) to reform general education, universities should set up general courses and cooperate with major education. For instance, general courses such as humanities and social sciences have a strong emphasis on developing general skills and connecting major education through general education; (2) to reform major education, universities should absorb the concept of general education, broaden the caliber of major education, and pay attention to the cultivation of students’ comprehensive qualities; (3) to achieve mutual progress, general education and major education should be reformed at the same time so that both can absorb the mutual advantages of educational concepts, and form a dynamic harmony. Furthermore, universities should explore the inclusion of highly integrated major courses into the general curriculum system, develop education and teaching activities with both general and major education, implement the requirements of general education into the implementation plan of major curriculum teaching, and establish an education and teaching system in which general and major education support each other.