高考招生制度作为我国高等学校选拔人才的重要途径和方式，涉及千家万户，维系着千百万人的前途和命运。由于涉及的范围广、人数多，直接关系到每个家庭以及个人的切身利益，因此，不仅学术界、理论界对此作了大量的研究，政府、教育行政部门也在不断地探索完善高考招生制度的途径和方法，以致包括家庭、学校以及教师在内的整个社会都对高考招生制度的改革给予极大的关注。我国的高考招生制度走过了一条在探索中不断前进的道路，这期间经历了建国初期的过渡阶段（1949~1951）、统一高考制度的建立（1952~1965）、废除统考阶段（1958；1966~1976）、高考的恢复与重建（1977~1984）、高考改革的实验阶段（1985~1997）、高考改革的深入阶段（1998~现在）等六大阶段。但是从1977年我国恢复高考招生制度30年的历程来看，高考招生制度可谓是一把双刃剑，一方面在计划经济时代，它为高等学校选拔人才、为社会培养精英力量起着重要的选拔、分流和筛选的作用；但另一方面，随着社会的转型，价值观的多元化以及利益格局的变化和冲突，尤其是素质教育理念的赫然鹊起，使高考招生制度在实然与应然、理想与现实之间处于两难境地：高考“指挥棒”的导向在一定意义上阻碍了基础教育由应试教育向素质教育的转轨；统一高考招生制度使得录取分数线相差悬殊而凸现出制度上的不公平；以及高考与政治、经济的关系使得不同层次的大学办学自主权难以落实。尽管我国高考招生制度几经变革，但全国统一的招生考试制度一直保留至今。只是在全国统一考试制度的大背景下，对考试的次数、时间、命题的方式、程序和手段上进行了变革。这样一方面保证着高考规则的公平，另一方面也保证着的高考制度的多样性和自主性的充分实现。这种以省为单位的命题和录取制度的形成，克服了传统的“大一统”的高考招生制度，但如何建立更科学的、客观的、公平的高考招生制度，防止地方保护主义行为，防止腐败的问题，又是我们必须给予关注的新问题。 高考招生计划的标准也由1984年前的注重精英培养、效率优先的高考招生制度的价值理念逐渐转变为以诚信、公平、科学为基本价值理念的高考招生制度，充分表达了高考招生制度的“以人为本”、“关注民生”的价值基础。从客观上看，以分数为录取标准较能体现“分数面前人人平等”，尤其在中国重人情、关系、面子的中国传统文化环境中，高考分数作为主要录取依据，可防止用权力、金钱或关系等不正当的竞争手段，保证竞争的公平性，但这样单一的录取标准，无法满足不同学校对不同生源的要求，也很难考察不同的学生特质和不同的学生潜质，不利于素质教育的推进和学生的全面发展。关于高考招生问题，学者们从社会学、政治学、经济学不同视角进行过研究，前人的研究为本研究提供了前期的积累和有益的借鉴。本研究期望在前人研究成果的基础上，进一步从制度分析的视角，围绕我国高考招生制度的两难处境和改革策略这一核心问题，尝试从我国高考招生制度的发展历程出发，总结出其实质特点、存在的问题，基于发展性教育评价理论和教育公平理论，以及现实依据和政策依据，并结合国外高考招生制度的相关经验，为我国今后高考招生制度的改革与创新提供了一些新的思路和设想：明确高考改革的教育理念，落实三个“有助于”原则；扩大高校自主招生权，真正实施统一考试与自主选拔相结合的高考招生制度；深入探讨高考内容改革，丰富考试评价体系；强化考试方式改革，使高考改革进入机制化运作轨道。高考不仅仅是普通高等学校选拔新生的一种手段，更是劳动力市场人才分流的重要途径，高考已成为国家举办的全国性的在群众中最权威、最盛大的考试“选拔赛”。因此，高考已不单纯是教育本身的问题，对高考制度的改革不得不顾及社会政治的影响，考虑高考制度的维护社会公平、坚持社会公正、稳定社会秩序的价值理念。

As an important way of talents selection in colleges and universities, the College Entrance Examination (CEE) system is closely associated with numerous households as well as the prospects and destinies of millions of students. Given its wide coverage and large participancy, it is of direct relationship to the vital interests of every family and the individuals. Hence, it has not only received substantial research in the academic and theoretical circles. Moreover, the government and education administrations have been continually exploring the ways for its improvement, and its reform even sparks widespread concerns of the whole society, including families, universities and teachers. The national CEE system has undergone continuous progress while simultaneously exploring. It has evolved through six phases: the transitional phase in early P.R.China (1949~1951), the establishment of a unified CEE system (1952~1965), the abolition of the unified examination (1958；1966~1976), the restoration and redevelopment of CEE (1977~1984), the experimental phase of CEE reform (1985~1997), and the in-depth phase of CEE reform（1998~present）.However, the 30 years after the restoration of CEE in 1977 demonstrates the double-edgedness of this system. On one hand, during the period of planned economy, it played a significant role of selecting, split-flowing and screening in recruiting talents for the universities and producing elites for our society. On the other, along with the transformation of society arise pluralized value systems and the changing, conflicting interests structures; furthermore, the concept of quality education comes to the fore. All of these place CEE in a dilemma between the ideal and the reality. The guidance of the CEE “baton,” to some extent, hindrances the transformation of basic education from examination-oriented education to quality education; the unified system leads to disparate admission score levels, which exposes its inherent injustice. Besides, the intimate relationship between CEE and the politics and economy makes it difficult to implement various levels of autonomy of the universities.Despite several transformations of the admission system in China, the national unified CEE system has been preserved till today. Yet against its national unified backdrop, the reforms have been launched with respect to the number and time of examinations, the mode, procedure and method of test design. Those reforms guarantee the fairness of CEE rules, and the full implementation of the diversification and autonomy of the admission system as well. Indeed, the system of test design and admission at the provincial level overcomes the drawbacks of the traditional unified system. Nonetheless, we must never overlook new problems on the establishment of a more scientific, objective and fair admission system that prevents local protectionism as well as corruption. The admission criteria have been changed from a CEE system that prioritizes elite education and efficiency first to the one that bases on the value of honesty, equity, and science; the latter system fully manifests its value basis of “people oriented” and “paying attention to people’s livelihood.” Objectively speaking, using a standardized test score as the primary admission criterion is a good embodiment of the principle "every one is equal before the score." This score criterion is of particular importance especially in the traditional Chinese cultural environment characteristic of interpersonal relationship, network and face saving, in that it can guard against any use of unjust means such as power, money or relationship, as to guarantee the fairness of the competition. However, such a single criterion is unable to meet the requirements of different universities on various students, and it is difficult to evaluate students’ diversified characteristics and potentials. Thus it is detrimental to the advance of quality education and the overall development of the students. Many scholars have conducted research on the CEE admission system from the perspectives of sociology, political science and economics, and their research forms a sound basis and provides helpful references for my research. I carry out a further research on the dilemma of the CEE system and the central issue of reform strategies from the perspective of system analysis. The research attempts to depart from the development of CEE system, and identify its essential characteristics and the existing problems. Drawing from the theories of development education assessment and education equity, and referring to the reality and policy combined with the related experience of the college admission system of other countries, I propose some new ideas concerning the future reform and innovation of the CEE system, including: clarify the education philosophy of the CEE reform, and put into practice “three conducives” principles; enlarge the admission autonomy of the universities, and truly realize the integration of a unified test and independent selections; further explore the reform of the CEE content, and diversify the evaluation system; intensify the reform of test modes and guide the reform into the track of systematic operation. CEE is not only a means of selecting new students for colleges and universities, but also one of the most important ways of split-flow in the labor market. It has become a nationwide government-organizing “trial,” which is the most authoritative and the grandest among the public. Therefore, CEE is not simply an issue of education; its reform has to take into serious consideration the social and political influence, and its value of maintaining social equity, social justice and social stability.