北京的中央民族大學（民大），在中國獨有的12所「民族學院體系」學校中，扮演極重要的角色。民大表現出來的「學校性格」是「民族（的）學院」(for Nationalities)，而不是「民族學（的）院」(of Ethnology)。然而，民大在「民族（的）學院」的狀況裡，卻也發揮了「民族學（的）院」的功能。本文依循民大的教學體系，檢驗全校的課程，如何調和「民族特殊性」和「民族學學科特性」的雙重色彩。 首先，描述民大的教學體系：(1)分成五個部門。(2)從專科到博士後研究，教學層級相當完整。(3)實行「學時制」及「學期制」，其中理工類專業比文史類專業的學時還重。 其次，分析全校22個教學系部室的民族課程，歸納入三種類型：核心系部室、相關系部室、不相關係部室。其中「民族語授課專業」，明顯分為兩大類：「民族類」及「非民族類」，學校對這兩大類課程學生的要求，也有差異。此外，民語班或民語專業的不易開設，對於民族教師的定，也帶來相當的影響。 再者，分別透過民族系、歷史系、經濟系三個系的模式，探展本科、相關係如何在研究部發展民族課程如何努力改革、民族課程如何在相關系發展本科、相關系如何在研究部發展民族課程。三種模式的運作均呈現出「學科」與「民族」在結合過程中的不同試煉。歷史系及經濟系兩個個案，分別在學士班及碩士班發展出「民族化」的特色。 最後，從民大的師資陣容、研究所領域的民族學科研究、教研著作成果獲獎的比例與屬性，檢視民大的整體學術地位。 中國的民族教育順應「多民族國家」國情而受到相當的重視，民族學院體制更是獨具特色，並以中央民族大學為實驗基礎去發展。從民大內部、擴展到民族教育整體，再延伸到民族事務，逐層探討，可以顯示民大的多重特性及其擔負的重任。民族學院體制的性質，基於少數民族人口的基本條件考量，當然傾向「民族（的）學院」；然而，若從少數民族與漢族文化溝通層面來思考，把「民族學（的）院」的路去發展，亦能展現特色。

Among 12 “colleges for nationalities” in China, the Central University for nationalities (Beijing) plays remarkably important role. It is a university “for Nationalities”, not “of Ethnology”. However, it also functions properly as a university “of Ethnology.” The present study discusses how the cur-ricula of this university harmonize “particularity of nationalities” and “academic character of ethnology” by examining its teaching system. First, the teaching system of this university is described as follows: (1) It is separated into five parts. (2) It has complete training of different levels form vocational training to postdoctoral program. (3) It practices the “class hour” and “semester” systems. Next, the ethnological curricula of 22 departments (sections) in this university are categorized into three types: the core sections, the related sections, and the unrelated sections. The programs of ethnic languages are classified into “nationalities” and “non-nationalities”, each of which is given different requirements. Besides, the difficulty in providing the programs or classes of ethnic languages considerably affects the orientations of ethnic languages teachers. Moreover, with a careful look at the department of ethnology, the Department of History, and the Department of Economics, the following questions are individually discussed: How have the core sections been reforming the ethnological curricula? How have ethnological curricula been developed in the related sections? How have the unrelated sections developed ethnological curricula in their graduate programs. The combination of “disciplines” and “nationalities” has brought challenges to these departments. Finally, the academic position of the university is examined as a whole through such aspects as the staff quality, the ethnological studies in research institutes, as well as proportions and properties of awarded research work. In conclusion, with its “multi-ethnic county” background, China’s ethnic education is highly recognized. The system of “colleges for nationalities” is more of a unique style, and the Central University for nationalities play its experimental role. The multiple characters and heavy responsibility of this university are shown by probing into its inside situation and the extensive issues of ethnic education, and extremely ethnic affairs. The property of “colleges for nationalities” is certainly inclined “colleges for Nationalities” by the basic condition of population of nationalities. However, if we deliberate it from the angle of cultural communication, a distinguishing feature will be opened out by the way of “colleges of Ethnology”.