蔡元培把西方现代大学思想和制度引入北京大学的办学实践之中，从而真正赋予该校“现代大学”意义。其中，在大学管理制度上，蔡元培“激活”了评议会。评议会由各科（系）选出一定比例的教授为评议员所组成，被赋予学校的最高决策机关的性质，教授由此通过评议会进行北京大学共同治理。本文通过北大档案、当时的报刊、当事人的日记和回忆录等第一手史料的梳理，剖析评议会在北京大学治理中的作用。 评议会的构想源于蔡元培在清末留徳期间所学习的大学理念，在担任教育总长期间，蔡元培制定了《大学令》，确立了评议会的合法性基础。评议会制度受限于当时的政治环境一直没有很好的实施。蔡元培任北大校长，他通过评议会对北大进行了一系列的改革，使之焕然一新。此时大学决策权力在校长与学长。五四运动爆发后，在北京政府的压迫下，蔡元培离校，学长与教师群体产生了激烈的论争，最终结果是工科、法科学长被驱逐，代表教授权力的评议会掌握了决策权力。蔡元培归来后与评议会共同制定新的大学章程，赋予了评议会财政、人事、立法等诸多权力。 北大评议会在改革与实践中形成了一整套的规范化的运行方式。这一套运行方式包括了期会、提案等参与方式、评议员的选举方式和决策方式等一整套体系。评议会分为常会、特别会议和联席会议，评议会的参与方式与其会议类型有很大关系，会议的参与人员也有很大不同。评议会的参与核心是评议员，评议员的组成很大程度上决定了评议会决策的科学与否，其中学术声望、学缘关系、行政职权、学科属性等因素在评议员选举中起到了决定性的作用。评议会的决策方式是合议制，即通过提案、论辩、修订、投票等程序决定议案的通过与否；集体共识、决策效率优先，成文法与习惯法并用的三原则贯穿了其决策程序。 评议会的出现代表了一种专门化的教育管理制度的转型，即让懂教育的人去管理大学，因此评议会是教授治校与教育独立的基石。在大学内部，评议会最主要的作用便是改革大学的学术与行政体系，它的出现有效地制衡校长的权力，在特殊情况下，评议会还需要代行校长职权。但是北大评议会仍要面临一些无法解决的难题，如评议员之间的派系斗争问题，这样的问题还造成了部分教授权力垄断的局面。评议会外部也有些困难无法解决，如额外承担了董事会的职能却无法代替董事会，以及无法处理学生自治无序的状态等问题。 综上可见，政治环境压力、蔡元培的治校方针以及教授群体的积极参与是评议会改革的动力，这种动力促使评议会形成一套法制化和专门化的运行机制，并使北大的发展在逆境之中仍“弦歌不辍”。尽管北大评议会有诸多缺陷，但不可否定其历史地位。北大评议会是中国现代大学治理体系转型的一个重要标志，它开启了民国时期的大学治理的专门化之路，它的实践经验也为其它大学所借鉴。

The Peking University Council in the Republic of China has always been a concern and a model for the academic community. Such research not only supplements the existing research deficiencies in the academic circle, but more importantly, it provides reference for the current university governance and the construction of power institutions. Based on the above reasons, this study examines the historical facts of the reform and practice of Peking University's parliament through the combing of historical materials such as Peking University archives, newspapers, journals, and memoirs, so as to explore the more detailed historical picture of Peking University governance. Changes in university councils often stem from the interaction of university governance concepts with stakeholder engagement. The practice of modern university governance has a tortuous process in China. From the perspective of philosophy, Cai Yuanpei's concept of university governance has experienced a transition from traditional deliberative democracy to Western university autonomy. From the perspective of governance practice, the educational independent trend of thought is gradually accepted by the education sector under the influence of the turbulent political situation. The “professor governance” has become the basic paradigm of university governance, and the council has been established among many national universities. The reform and practice of the Peking University Council was closely related to the changes in the institutional environment at that time. In the early years of the Republic of China, the relevant regulations in the "University Order" stipulated the basic powers of the university council, and then Hu Renyuan took the lead in setting up a council system at Peking University. After Cai Yuanpei took the school, he carried out a series of reform measures through the council. Judging from the functions of the council, the Peking University Council has experienced the evolution of the powers of the legislature to decision-making and legislation. The powers of the council have been continuously expanded, and the real powers of personnel, finance, and legislation have been mastered. The reform and practice of the Peking University Council also prompted the council to form a set of standardized operations, including a system of judges' elections, meeting time, proposals, and decision-making. Among them, the mode of election and decision-making of the judges is the core of its governance. It is not difficult to see from the composition of the judges that academic prestige, academic relationship, administrative power, and subject attributes play an important role in it. The decision-making method of the council is a collegial system, that is, the adoption of proposals, arguments, amendments, and voting measures to decide whether the bill is passed or not. The three principles of collective consensus, statute law and customary law, and effective attention distribution run through its decision-making procedures and standards. The three principles also have successive hierarchical relationships. As a university governance institution, the Peking University Council has the most prominent role in the reform of the university's academic and administrative system, the power of the principal, and the power of the principal in special circumstances. However, the Peking University Council still faces some unresolved difficulties. For example, the professor’s political position is about the decision-making of the council, and it is unable to solve the lack of funds. There is also a power monopoly that crowds out ordinary teachers.