Curriculum development, implementation, and revision are dictated by the philosophy and goals of a physical education program, the development level of the targeted student body, and the social and cultural constraints at large (Jewett, Bain, & Ennis, 1995). The purpose of study is to compare the differences and similarities in physical education curriculum of undergraduate and reveal the advantages and disadvantages between U.S and China in order to improve the quality of both programs. Generally, the professional preparation for physical education curriculum of undergraduate in U. S and China mainly concentrate on three areas of study: general education (GE), professional foundation and content study (PFCS), and professional education (PE). For this study ten universities in America and ten universities in China were investigated by the website, email questionnaire, and interview. The return rate (n=10) in email questionnaire is 80% and 100% in America and China. The result indicated that both countries were apparently different in undergraduate curriculum design. The GE courses covered 36 4% in America and 26 ± 2% in China. The PFCS are 24 ± 4% and 41 ± 1%, respectively. The PE courses include two parts, professional theory and sport skills, which cover 43 ± 5 % in America and 31 ± 2% in China. According to those data the both countries had demonstrated greatly differing curriculum practices. In GE, the rate of curriculum in America is more than 10% higher than in China. Obviously, China had omitted most of basic education courses included in high school, such as basic biology, math, chemistry, physics, etc. As to PFCS, the curriculum in China contributes more study (almost higher 15%) than in America. In PE curriculum, America provides more time for theory study rather than skills. In contrast, China employs more time to learn sport skills rather than professional theory. On the other hand, America provides many more selective courses and gives more latitudes for students to develop career goals and personal interest than China. Particularly, the curriculum is very divers among universities in U.S., but the curriculum is almost uniform in China. According to the research, I suggest that China should adjust and reform the current curriculum, with more emphasis on more theory study, reduce the rate of PFCS courses, and offer more selective courses for students. America may want to consider reducing general education courses and increase the emphasis on the proportion of PFCS courses.Keyword(s): curriculum development, international issues, professional preparation