本研究主要在探討八○年代至今我國高等教育財政改革計畫，所面臨的挑戰與因應措施。 本研究首先對高等教育政策的轉變加以分析，發現在政策上已由：（一）「菁英教育」走向「大眾化教育」；（二）「政府管理」走向「政府監督」；（三）「政府管制」走向「市場機制」；（四）「各校為政」走向「整合策略」。其次，分析高等教育改革背景，亦即所面臨的問題與挑戰，計有：（一）公立大學與政府的關係有待釐清與調整；（二）財政困窘、教育經費受到排擠；（三）財政結構偏頗，影響財務正常運作；（四）學費未能適時反應成本，增加教育財政負荷；（五）大學教育經費成長遲緩，學生單位成本逐年下降；（六）經費運用績效不彰，財務管理缺乏效率。再次，本文認為高等教育財政改革可能面臨的一些迷思，包括：（一）政府管制與市場競逐的迷思；（二）重公輕私與公私並重的迷思；（三）財務自主與教育理念的迷思；（四）放寬學費管制與教育機會均等的迷思；（五）校內資源整合與校際資源整合的迷思。最後，提出八○年代至今高等教育財政改革策略，計有七項：（一）修訂大學法，配合高等教育財政改革；（二）以需求為導向，改變經費分配機制；（三）實施預算新制，協助公立大學財務自主；（四）放寬學雜費收費標準，採取彈性收費；（五）放寬學生就學貸款，以利清寒學生就學；（六）增加私立大學校院獎助金額，達政府預算一定之比例；（七）協助大學整合，以利資源有效運用。根據本文所陳各點，提出三點結論：（一）高等教育財政改革雖已略具成效，但若干缺失有待改進；（二）高等教育財政改革應由政府與大學協力共謀，以加速改革時效；（三）大學財務結構未臻完善，經營績效有待提高。

　　　　　This study primarily probes into the challenges and adjustments in Taiwan's higher education financial reforms sine the 1980s. It first analyzes the transition of the higher education policy, discovering that it has changed from (1)"elite education" to "general education," (2)"government has administration" to "government supervision", (3)"government control" to "market mechanism," and (4)"self-government" to "integration strategy." It then examines the background to the reforms in higher education, which refers to the following challenges and adjustments:(1)modification and rectification of the relations between the government and public universities; (2)shortage of educational funds because of the government's financial difficulties; (3)improper financial operations caused by unbalanced financial structures; (4)increase in load of educational finance due to failure to cover in good timing the costs through tuition; (5)show growth in educational funds of universities and the gradual annual decrease in student unit costs; and (6)inefficiency in finance management and in application of funds. Furthermore, the study holds that these competition; (2)self-determination in finance and educational ideas; (3)attachment of more importance to public education on an equal footing; (4)relaxation of tuition control and equal opportunities in education; and (5)intra-school and inter-school integration in resources. Finally, it points out sever tactics used in the reforms since the 1980s to date: (1)revising the University Law in coordination with the financial reforms of higher education, (2)changing the fund-allocation mechanism to be oriented toward needs, (3)assisting public universities in financial self-determination by carrying out new budgetary practices, (4)relaxing collection criteria for tuition and fees by being flexible in collection procedures, (5)relaxing applications for student loans to pave the way for enrollment of students coming from poor families, (6)increasing scholarships for private universities to a certain level of the government budget, and (7)helping integrate universities in order to utilize resources effectively. The study concludes with these suggestions: (1)although achievements have been made in the financial reforms of higher education, there is still room for improvement; (2)the government and universities should work in tandem to accelerate the reforms; and (3)the financial structures of universities need to be reorganized so as to enhance performance.