Why Quitting Double-degree Programs: Students’ Perceptions in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around the world, colleges have been providing opportunities for students to participate in double-degree programs. In the past 30 years, double-degree education at tertiary level has been developing fast in China. While many studies focused on its positive effects, little attention was paid to its shortcomings. Through a focus group interview of five undergraduates from a Chinese university, this study revealed some underlying deficiencies of China’s double-degree education. The interview comprehensively uncovered participants’ motives, expectations, difficulties and reasons for quitting with regard to their double-degree programs. Colleges’ failure to live up to expectations (i.e., quality of courses, teachers, job prospects) and students’ lack of external support were found to be the main causes that led students to cease their studies. School policies and personal reasons also contributed to their decisions. This research provides advice for future curriculum planning and management of double-degree education from the perspectives of students, teachers and universities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it