Thoughts on the university admissions process

A friend of mine, Rajan Rishyakaran, has written a good blog post critiquing the Malaysian university admissions process. While I don't know enough about local universities to comment on many things he raises, there are a couple of points which I think are worth emphasising: the difference between policy in theory and policy in reality, and the importance of decentralising some decisions.

There are many illustrations of the difference between something in theory and something in practice, but Rajan's example of coursework is as good as any. In principle, adding coursework to the evaluation process for university admissions would be a good thing.

After all, a major problem with our education system is that it focuses a lot on examinations which only assess students at one point in time, and often encourage rote memorisation instead of actual learning. If you fall sick during exam period, it can dramatically change your life's course, because you might not get into the university you otherwise could, or not pursue the degree you otherwise would attain. And because the format and style of exams is so predictable, all you need to do is practice with enough exam papers from previous years to be prepared -- you don't necessarily need to understand anything on the exam (I have found that understanding too much can actually be detrimental to your marks in some Malaysian exams).

If we emphasised coursework more, then one-off incidents which might negatively impact your exam performance would matter less: you have a substantial amount of time to do your coursework. Because the key element of your coursework is usually a report on something you have researched, you actually learn something useful: you learn how to write academically, and you learn some basic research or factfinding skills.

That's the theory; the practical reality is something else altogether. When I was in school, nobody took coursework seriously. Or rather, they took it the same way they took an exam: they figured out the best way to game the system, and they did it. Everyone would Google their topic, and instead of writing up a report about it, they would plagarise the most relevant websites. If they were too lazy to do this, they would plagiarise from one another very openly -- there was no stigma to copying or cheating off someone else's work.

It's not that they were lazy; it's that they knew this was the most efficient way to get things done. Teachers don't really care if the material is obviously plagiarised -- to them the coursework system is often a burdensome imposition on them because they have to read through dozens, if not hundreds of reports. Students know this, so they intentionally put a lot of work into making their reports more burdensome on teachers. One teacher's son told me that he intentionally put lots of irrelevant diagrams and photos in his coursework because this would discourage the teacher from looking too hard at his work -- she would see he had obviously worked hard on the report, and give him high marks.

The problem with coursework is that it is an arbitrary, artificial system of evaluation imposed by the central government with little thought as to what the schools and teachers can do, and little thought for what universities want to see. As Rajan notes, our university admissions process is extremely centralised -- everything is boiled down to a couple of numbers, which are then fed into the government's system. The government then tells you what university you will attend, and what degree you will pursue.

Likewise, with coursework, the government tells schools how to grade students' work, and it tells universities how these grades must translate into admissions decisions. There is no room for a teacher to assess students in his or her own way, to try something different. Neither is there room for a university to assess students in a different way, such as through tailored interviews or personal statements.

Obviously, there are pitfalls to granting educators more autonomy. But I don't think there is any question that at the moment we err far too heavily on the side of ridiculous centralisation. The government has attempted to standardise the education system to an extreme, and the result is something easily gamed by the pretence of ability, instead of actual demonstrable results. The government needs to grant universities more leeway in making their admissions decisions, and at the same time experiment with giving schools more freedom in coming up with alternative methods of assessment.

'Cosmestic' changes to the UUCA criticized

We've been anticipating the proposed changes to the UUCA for some time now. Both Tony and I have blogged about this in the past - here, here and here - and we both agree that the UUCA is too restrictive and needs to be reformed. But according to this latest Mkini report, the proposed changes to the UUCA are purely 'cosmetic'.

I haven't read the proposed bill which details the changes in the UUCA but according to the Malaysiakini report reproduced below, it still bars students in public universities from joining political parties and allows the VCs and the Minister for Higher Education way too much latitude in deciding which organizations students were banned from joining.

Firstly, I think this kind of ban borders on being unconstitutional. What ever happened to freedom of association? Secondly, with this kind of suppression of political activities among university students, is it surprising that we have about 5 million unregistered voters in the country, a majority of whom are below 35 years of age?

Students slam 'cosmetic' changes to UUCA
Tarani Palani and Rahmah Ghazali | Jul 18, 08 1:21pm
Student leaders have described the proposed amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act (UCCA), the law which regulates their participation in political activities, as “cosmetic”.

"We do not agree with the amendments, and as we have suspected, the suggested amendments do not solve the difficulties faced by students (in political activities),” said Faridzul Nasarudin, a researcher for University Students’ Movement to Abolish UUCA (GMMA).

“The amendments are superficial and politically cosmetic."

He said the proposed changes to section 15 and 16 of the bill, which are made by the Higher Education Ministry, did not amount to much.

"The language used does not give students any concrete freedom. We can see that the decisive power still very much lies in the hands of the university administration and the minister."

Under the existing Act, students in Malaysian universities are not allowed to participate in any organisation that is political in nature.

Section 15(1) in the amended bill stipulates that students must still abstain from political activities, despite the provision allowing them to participate in “general organisations”. Even in this, the final say is with the higher education minister and university administrators.

According the amended section, university students “may become members of any society and organisation in or outside Malaysia”. But it bans student participation in “political parties, any unlawful organisation, and any organisation which the minister has specified in writing to vice-chancellors as unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or the university”.

Faridzul lamented that the proposed changes continue to restrict student activitism.

“Although some of the amendments open the door for greater student freedom, the limitations set are against human rights.”

Student leaders make suggestions

GMMA representatives yesterday handed a ‘suggestion paper’ on the organisation’s views regarding the amendments to Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah in Parliament.

Co-coordinator Ridzuan Mohammad stressed that students are capable of critical thinking and have followed the law by submitting their suggestions and not taking to the streets to voice their dissatisfaction.

"We have not acted rashly. We have the capability to think intellectually and thus we are submitting this suggestion paper. At least, we have not organised demonstrations."

raja petra court case 060508 nurul izzahNurul Izzah (right) backed the students and argued that the proposed amendments fail to reflect the demands and aspirations of students.

Meanwhile, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng, when asked, stated “the amendments still have a lot of restrictions, with an ambiguous section 15."

Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan - a law graduate of the International Islamic University - added that the much-awaited amendments are “disappointing as it still restricts student involvement in politics”.

However both parliamentarians conceded that there are improvements in the proposed amendments.

According to Lim, those who breach the UCCA will now face a ‘disciplinary action committee’ instead of being charged in court.

Fong said that previously anyone found guilty would be subjected to immediate suspension but now the decision lies with the discretion of the vice-chancellor.

GMMA has also presented its suggestion paper to Backbenchers Club (BBC) chairperson Tiong King Sing on Tuesday.

According to Ridzuan, the backbenchers chief said he was not in favour of abolishing the UCCA but was willing to support amending or removal of certain sections opposed by students.

The ministry has tabled the amended bill on Wednesday night.

However, the higher education deputy minister requested debate on the bill be put off to the next sitting of parliament in August.

Parliament ended its current session yesterday.

BTN brainwashing

I'm not surprised by the brainwashing that goes on in BTN (BiroTataNegara) sessions in public universities. I would like to attend one just for the experience. In the meantime, check this blog post by someone who did attend one such session. I'll reproduce it below and let our readers react as they see fit. Someone should record one of these sessions and see what the public reaction is like once its posted on youtube.


(NOTE: This is an email i received from a reader exposing the latest brain washing tricks deployed by UMNO's apparatus called Biro Tatanegara(BTN). Mind you BTN is 100% funded by tax payer's money)

Biro Tatanegara. Does it ring a bell? Government propaganda or honest student development programme? For those who aren't aware of it, Biro Tatanegara or BTN for short is under the Jabatan Perdana Menteri and it has several modules which all public university students have to attend in the name of "Student Development". On the 6th of July 2008 in UiTM Shah Alam, there were three separate talks being held under BTN with the first one being titled "Pendidikan", second one titled "Ancaman Keselamatan Negara" and the third one titled, "Patriotisma". Smell anything funny yet? No? Read on. You won't even have to smell it after you are done reading this. It'll be stuffed down your throat.

I would like to only focus on the first speaker, Dr. Idris bin Md. Noor. He was supposed to talk about education as that was the title of his speech, but the content was far different. He first went on with the usual introductions but in less than a few minutes, he suddenly touched on the forum on the discussion of social contract in Malaysia that the BAR council organized. He criticized it with all his heart, saying no one should discuss about it as it is unquestionable. Fair enough, I thought at first. Freedom of speech right? But what if he suddenly accuses the "Malay" speaker in the forum, which I'm guessing is Farish A. Noor, as a traitor to the Malay race as a whole? And while he was browsing through his files on the laptop which was projected on the big screen, it was no surprise for me that I saw files entitled "Ketuanan Melayu". He also then went on about the Malay's obsession with magic and ghosts, he said that it is all wrong beliefs through the perspective of Islam because if they really could use magic and other dark arts for fighting, then they should kill Karpal Singh with it.

There are so many quotable sentences, if only I could remember it all. He even said, "Kalau ular dengan India depan mata, ketuk India dulu." He then started to become more impassioned in his speech towards the end, like someone campaigning for a political seat yet failed, and resorted to a multi-purpose hall with bumiputra students. He said so many atrocious things that I will list them down in point form.

-Explained how the Malays aren't racist but others are racist towards us.
-Bangsa Malaysia does not exist, neither does Malaysian Chinese and Indians, only in the strict Malay, Chinese and Indians. (Interestingly, behind a booklet provided to us, one of the objectives of the programme is to produce a -"Bangsa Malaysia". Obviously, he was ignorant).
-Bahasa Malaysia does not exist, it is Bahasa Melayu.
-Nothing wrong with waving the Keris.
-Bumiputra hanya 55% di Malaysia, give birth more people!
-The University and Colleges Act was partly made to ensure a Malay Vice-Chancellor in Universities which should be the way.
-Blogs are "berdosa" or sinful.
-Christians will not like Muslims.

But that isn't even the best part. The best part is, he showed a short film on the
dangers of Zionism and the illegal occupation of Palestine which was probably the only part of the speech I agreed with and I thought to myself this could be the only fact of the speech but surprise, surprise, at the end of the film, there was a montage of so-called Zionist supporters with the pictures of Anwar Ibrahim, Tian Chua, Teresa Kok, Hishamuddin Rais and Ezam Md. Nor. Then a question popped up in my head. Is Ezam still a Zionist supporter since he is in UMNO now? Does that mean the government has a Zionist supporter as well as the opposition? And expectedly, the speaker was being more anti-semitic than anti-zionist. He even explained how the Pakatan Rakyat ruled states are all going down the drain and he says, "this is what you get if you vote for the opposition!" He criticized Anwar Ibrahim and his colleagues so much along with Pakatan Rakyat while being completely oblivious towards Barisan Nasional's mistakes. As if they have perfect policies.

This was supposed to be a speech touching on education and look how it ended up. It did not even smell anything of education. It was a speech that was not meant for national unity at all. How could it be when you spread hate? I could only sit and ponder quietly while all this was happening. But the speech was not the saddest part. The saddest part was that the majority of students in the hall were cheering him on. I will type out part of the lyrics that were supplied to us, entitled, "Warisan".

Anak Kecil main api
Terbakar hatinya yang sepi
Air mata darah bercampur keringat
Bumi dipijak milik orang

Nenek moyang kaya raya
Tergadai seluruh harta benda
Akibat engketa sesamalah kita
Cinta lenyap di arus zaman ini

Indahnya bumi kita ini
Warisan berkurun lamanya
Hasil mengalir ke tangan yang lain
Pribumi merintih sendiri

Melayukan gagah di nusantara.


Who were those words referring to? Foreign powers or non-malays?

Perfect welcome to the new intake of University Students. Please spread this to others. People need to know.

I know you should.

written by A Worried Student,
06.07.2008

Only Malaysian students should be subsidized

I agree with the Khaled Nordin, the new Minister of Higher Education, that only Malaysians studying at our public universities should be subsidized in terms of school fees and not foreigners. He said this in conjunction with a remark that the school fees of foreigners at our public universities will be reviewed.

Let me say why I think only Malaysian students should be subsidized and not foreigners. The subsidies come from Malaysian taxpayers and hence should be used only for the sons and daughters of Malaysian students. I don't see why foreign students, whose parents have not contributed anything into the system should benefit from these subsidies.

A related argument is the fact that Malaysian students who are educated in our public universities will be able to 'give back' to the country in the form of taxes paid as well as providing a more skilled work force. It is less likely that foreign students in Malaysia will remain in Malaysia and do the same.

Foreign universities in the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, have made it part of their business model to charge more for overseas students partly because of the profit motive, partly because govt subsidies are being reduced and partly because of the principles I discussed above. In the US, state universities charge students who are out of state more also based on some of these principles.

Is it ironic that I advocate for this position at the same time as I'm receiving a scholarship from my US university? Not at all. Duke is a private university and is funded by a combination of fees and endowments, none of which comes from the state or from taxes. If there was a private university in Malaysia who wanted to be as generous to foreigners as they are to Malaysians, I would have no problems with that.

I just have a little bone to pick with the minister. He said that fees in public universities cannot be too high because that would dissuade foreign students from coming. I think he should make it a point to improve the standards of our public universities so that higher fees can be justified and won't dissuade foreigners from coming to our public universities.

The Elephant in the Room

A long column in Malaysiakini on education reforms by a Malaysian Professor who is currently teaching in Qatar. I agree with many of his points such as the need to appoint a proper search committee for the VCs of our public universities and the need to bring back English into the public universities. But the elephant in the room in terms of educational reform, especially in our public universities are left out. I'm speaking of the policies of racial preference, particularly in the recruitment and retention of academics. I'll talk more about this in a subsequent post. In the meantime, the column is reproduced below.

Please subscribe to Malaysiakini if you haven't done so already!

Our education system: Time for radical change
Mohamed Zain | Apr 3, 08 1:31pm

It is quite obvious now that Malaysia is heading towards a two-party system. This is certainly good for the country. There will more checks and balances. The winning and ruling party cannot do things according to their whims and fancies without worrying about the possibility of losing the next election.

Thus, as the country is heading towards a political maturity some drastic changes in our education systems are called for and perhaps are becoming inevitable. It does not matter which of the two eventual political parties rules the country. But the changes that I would like to suggest here are for the benefit of the country.

It is imperative that in this era of globalization and the fact that we want to make Malaysia more competitive as well as to make it a regional educational hub for attracting foreign students, we need to improve the quality of our education so that it is comparable if not better than the best in Southeast Asia.

Let me start first with our school systems. The outputs of the schools are the inputs of the universities. Thus, if we want to produce good products the raw materials must be of good quality as well. Every citizen of the country must have access to education. Hence, it must be made mandatory that every child attends school at least up to the lower secondary level. Thus, the school
education in this country must be free for all. And it must be fee all the way up to the high school level.

Next, we need to have good and qualified teachers for our schools. Thus, most if not all the teachers, must have a bachelor’s degree in education. Those without a degree majoring in education need to also have a teaching credential such as the one-year diploma in education offered by some of the local universities.

Lately, we have heard a lot about the need for the country to have a meritocracy system. This can only happen if we have a level playing field for all our school children. Thus, if we are really serious about implementing such a system facilities of the rural schools must be comparable to those of the urban ones.

All schools – whether urban or rural-based - need to have, among others, good Internet access, instructional aides, library, sport, and other facilities.

While there is a need for us to have a common national language so that all our citizens can communicate with each other in our multi-ethnic country, it makes a lot of sense that our children are multi-lingual as well. The current situations that most Malays can speak Bahasa Malaysia and perhaps English, but most on-Malays can speak at least two and perhaps three or more languages.

Hence, this imbalance needs to be addressed. Malay students should be encouraged to learn Chinese or another local language as well. Once our students have the choice to choose their additional language (especially their mother-tongue) in addition to the national language in the national schools, then the need to have he separate Chinese and Tamil schools (vernacular schools) in the country will disappear.

The presence of these vernacular schools in the country goes against he spirit of national integration. Of course, the offering of other languages for our students must be based on demand and it must be cost effective. More third language teachers must also be trained.

Bringing back English

Later, I will talk about the need to reintroduce English as the medium of instructions in universities. Thus, to prepare for this, the teaching of the English Language in schools need to be upgraded so that when the students enter universities, they will not be handicapped. Hence, more English language teachers need to be trained in the country.

Last, but certainly not the least, we need to introduce a semester system in all ur schools. This system needs to be standardized and synchronized with those of the developed world. In other words, our schools should have fall, spring and summer semesters where most students will go to school during the fall and spring semesters and they will take a vacation during the summer semester.

During the summer the older children, particularly those in cities and towns can start learning to earn money by taking up part-time or short-term employments in such places as fast-food restaurants or shops in the shopping malls. Of course, the system needs to be synchronized with the university system as well, so that on graduation, they will not be idle too long while waiting to enter universities.

I will now talk about the required reforms for our universities.

Universities are excellent places for our country to train its citizens and future leaders in its efforts to fulfill the needs for skilled and knowledgeable human resources. University students are excellent change agents for the country. Thus, first and foremost we need to amend the Universities and Colleges ct of 1971 (UCA). The clauses that prohibit or restrict the independence of cademics and students must be removed.

There is also an urgent need for us to abolish the mandatory requirement for the employees to sign the ridiculous and silly “Akujanji”. University employees, particularly the academics, should not be made to obey the instructions of the overnment or political masters’ blindly. Instead, intellectual discourse should be encouraged because it can be a good source of creativity and innovation for the country.

Top and senior management are crucial to the success of any organizations. In the past, the appointments of university vice-chancellor and his/her deputies re made or at least required the approval of the minister.

This practice has not to stop because most appointments were based on the candidates’ political affiliations or inclinations rather on merits. Appointments of someone to these posts should be made based on the suitability and the capabilities of the candidates for the jobs. They should be made by a search committee instead.

Revise salaries

In a big company or a corporation the appointment of the chief executive officer is made by the board of directors. Therefore, the appointment of the vice-chancellor or the president of a university should be made by the board of regents or a similar body. Of
course, some of the members of the committee can be appointed by the minister.

Similarly, the appointment of deans can also be made via a search committee. Vacant positions for deans or even departmental chairs could also be advertised and relevant media such as newspapers or websites like the Chronicle of Higher Education to invite more capable candidates.

The salaries of academics should be revised. The current salaries for academics, articularly the starting salary for an assistant professor (someone with a PhD) s pathetically low and very unattractive and need to be increased to a level that is comparable to those in Singapore.

The salary scales of academics should also be different from those of other government servants. After all, the nature of their jobs and the required cademic qualifications are different. The current practice where the salaries or academics are decided by the Public Service Department officers always favour the civil servants, particularly the so-called PTD (administrative and diplomatic services) officers and not the academics.

Attractive salaries will not only attract the best candidates but it will also attract more top graduates to be interested in becoming academics by opting to become tutors after their first degree and to pursue their graduate degree leading to a PhD in their field. Otherwise, as the saying goes, “if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.”

Government should also set aside funds to enable our best graduates from universities who are interested in becoming tutors to get enough stipends and scholarships to carry out their graduate research at the research universities in the country. This will help the country save money by not having to send them to foreign universities.

Nevertheless, top graduates should also be sent to study abroad but they should only be limited to those who manage to secure laces in the top universities of the world or in those areas of expertise that are lacking in the country.

If we look at the list of academics in all our universities, we cannot help but otice that a substantial percentage if not the majority of them are holders of only a master’s degree instead of a PhD. This deficiency needs to be urgently ddressed. Once the salary scheme is revised appropriately, this problem can be overcome gradually as more top students will be interested in pursuing research which culminates in a PhD degree.

We should be aware that before anyone, especially a prospective foreign student, begins to apply for a place in a university, s/he will first visit the niversity’s website and among the first information they will seek is the list of academic staff of the prospective department where s/he plans to study.

Thus, well qualified teaching staff will attract more students. Hence, this should bode well towards making Malaysia an education hub for the region by attracting more foreign students from all over to enroll in our universities, particularly the private ones.

The academic ranking of positions in universities should also be standardized across all the universities in the country. It should be based on academic qualifications and experiences in teaching, research, and community work.

A person with a master’s degree should only be given a position of a lecturer. Those with a PhD should start as an assistant professor. As s/he gains more experience and produces more outputs in those three areas of work s/he can gradually climb the academic ladder to associate professor and eventually to the rank of a full professor.

The English language is now regarded as the international language. Just look at he availability of television networks across the world which broadcast free rograms in English via the satellites in their efforts to reach international udiences.

The major and common ones from among the countries whose native language is not English includes Al-Jazeera International (Qatar), DW TV Germany), Euronews (European Union), France 24, Russia Today, CCTV9 (China), and Arirang TV (Korea).

Thus, there is no doubt that our citizens now need to be proficient in English. And the best way to do just that is to revert the teaching of our students in our universities, especially in important fields of specializations such as business, economics, sciences, and engineering to English. After all, most of the text books in these fields are in English.

Here, I am assuming that our school children who graduated from high schools are lready proficient in our national language, in addition to one or two more of ther languages. We cannot compromise on this for the sake on peace and harmony n our country.

Malaysia needs to improve its competitiveness level in order to face the challenge of globalization and to remain relevant in this world. In this globalize world our citizens need to participate meaningfully in whatever international activities, be it business, economic, social, political, legal, or governmental. Thus, they must be proficient in English. Period.

Many universities in the Middle East and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain) countries have already switched heir medium of instructions, especially for programs in business, economics, sciences, and engineering, from Arabic to English. It is not too late for us to do the same.

Exchange of academics

The current practice in the country of allowing private universities to offer academic programs in English while not allowing the government ones to do so is ot only discriminatory but it is also disadvantageous to those who graduate rom the government universities since they will be less conversant in English nd thus making them more difficult to find jobs in the industry where English is very much in use.

These graduates will depend more on the government for jobs. The current situation where there are many unemployed undergraduates is probably the result of this practice.

Last, but again certainly not the least, there is a need to for the country to introduce the semester system into our universities. Just as I proposed for our chool system above, our universities need to adopt a semester system as practiced by the universities in other countries. Most universities in other, particularly developed countries have a tri-semester system comprising Fall September-January), Spring (February-June), and Summer (June-August).

By having a standardized and synchronized system with other countries it will facilitate exchange of academics between our universities with their foreign counterparts. It will also enable foreign students to enter our universities ithout having to wait too long after they graduated from their high schools. This will again help promote making Malaysia as the education hub.

During the summer holiday, summer classes can be offered to those students who want to graduate faster and the academics who are willing to teach classes during that time can earn extra income. Those students who do not take summer classes can take part-time or short-term employments in the town and cities, just like the case for older school students mentioned above, giving them an
opportunity to earn and save some money before returning to their school.

Those are some suggestions which I would like to propose to the government in order make Malaysia a better and a more competitive country.

DR MOHAMED ZAIN, PhD is Professor of Technology and Strategic Management in the College of Business and Economics of Qatar University, Doha. He can be reached at mzain@qu.edu.qa or mzmohamed@yahoo.com.

Changing Cardiff

Saw this excellent interview with Prof Sir Brian Smith, former VC of Cardiff University, in the education section of the Star last Sunday (Dec 16, 2007). One of our readers caught this interview as well. I'll reproduce it in full (for posterity, when the link expires) and then add some of my thoughts at the end.

By TAN SHIOW CHIN

educate@thestar.com.my

Prof Sir Brian Smith shares his strategies for restoring Cardiff University’s reputation as a research university.

FOR someone who does not like administration, it is ironic that Cardiff University (Cardiff) international ambassador and former vice-chancellor Prof Sir Brian Smith ended up heavily involved in research management.

He was first landed with it back when he was a Physical Chemistry lecturer at Oxford University.

“Every time people asked me to do an administrative job, I'd say: 'No, no, I'm doing my research'.

“So, in the end, they just said everybody has to do his, or her, bit.”

And that was how he was appointed to the university’s General Board – the body responsible for academic planning and development as well as finance and appointments.

“Then, to my surprise, I was elected chairman of the board, and that was how my administrative career started,” he shared, during a recent interview at the British Council.

Prof Smith headed the board for two years, from 1985 to 1987.

Later, he served as Master of St Catherine's College.

He was also the founding director of Isis Innovation, Oxford's intellectual property arm.

The experience gained from holding these two positions stood him in good stead when he was appointed vice-chancellor of Cardiff in 2001.

PROF SMITH: My theories worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.


Strong leadership

At that time, Cardiff was a university in trouble. Due to government cutbacks in the late 1980s, the university had reached a stage when it was essentially bankrupt and on the verge of closing.

It eventually had to merge with the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, previously a polytechnic, and obtain a government loan to pull it through that rough patch.

“My predecessor, Sir Aubrey Dickinson, had five years to get the finances and the merger sorted out – a very difficult and technical job,” shared Prof Smith.

Once its financial standing was stabilised, then came the question of how to improve the university's research capabilities.

Said Prof Smith: “Cardiff offered a fantastic opportunity.

“Here was a university that had been through very difficult times; it was the perfect opportunity to try out my theories.

“And they worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.”

The main problem faced by the university at that time was that it had not yet re-established itself as a research university.

According to Prof Smith, there are a number of factors involved in the move to regain a university's research strength.

“A very big factor is research staff.

“Because British universities have a great deal of autonomy and flexibility, we were able to go out and recruit.”

And that was how Prof Sir Martin Evans, one of this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine recipients, came to join the university.

“He came to a department that was not strong but actually managed to increase its number of publications in top journals 11-fold,” said Prof Smith.

Prof Evans, he added, was a stimulating presence as he could motivate not only the new people but also those people who had been there all the while.

“Although a lot of the publications were from new staff, half came from people who were already there.

“They became much more active and proactive under him.

“It is very much a leadership issue, I think. Star scientists and academics can transform the culture around them,” explained Prof Smith.

Shared vision

Asked how he managed to attract top people like Prof Evans to join him at Cardiff, Prof Smith said he believed what counted was not just a lucrative contract but the whole package.

“I don't think it's entirely about money. I feel that Prof Evans was equally attracted by the opportunity to unify the entire biology department and direct its vision,” he observed.

To encourage productivity, Prof Smith switched the promotion system from a quota-based system (where the total number of professorial positions in a faculty were pre-determined) to a performance-based one.

He even offered an attractive retirement package to faculty members who were not producing much research.

However, in order for universities to be able to do that, Prof Smith said they need autonomy.

“The university has to be free to offer different contracts (to academics and scientists).

“And within the university, a lot of power needs to be devolved to the young people.

“It's all about having decisions taken at the lowest level practicable.

“That’s a major change,” he said.

Another important move Prof Smith instituted was to eliminate as much of the bureaucracy and structures as possible in the university.

Faculties were removed and the research and academic units dealt directly with the central administration.

“I can't describe how much paperwork that saved,” said Prof Smith, adding that the rules and regulations were also much simplified by that move.

He added that it was absolutely important that all the people in the university have a “very clear and single-minded vision”.

“Everybody (in the university) must know what the aim and mission is.

“They must also feel, in their own different ways, able to contribute to that,” he said.

Changes must also be instituted quickly, he added.

“I had about two years to make substantial changes before our first research assessment exercise (RAE).

“I think if you take a long time instituting change, things lose their momentum.

“You have to make changes when people feel the need for change.”

Due in large part to these strategies, Cardiff has risen from a ranking of 241 in the THES-QS World University Rankings in 2005 to 99 this year.

Prof Smith, however, also pointed out that saying something and doing it are quite different.

Citing autonomy as an example, he said: “Governments are very reluctant to give too much power to universities.

“University managers are also reluctant to surrender power in turn.

“The desire to hold on to power is something we have to struggle with both inside and outside universities.”

Some of the no-brainers in regards to how they apply to the Malaysian context. While it is a no-brainer to change to a performance based scheme which gives incentives for researchers to publish, giving autonomy to universities to 'reward' good researchers is easier said than done in the Malaysian context. Since all university lecturers and professors are civil servants, they are on a centrally fixed pay scale. There is less room to negotiate for pay increases or higher salaries, especially to attract outstanding talent to come to our public universities. UM, for example, cannot offer higher pay to attract outstanding talent from let's say NUS.

Similarly, it makes sense, financially at least, to reduce the levels of bureaucracy but this might run into the problem of individual departments wanting to maintain their own autonomy as well as their administrative staff. Hence, university autonomy for Prof Smith also comes with individual university centralization, from a bureaucratic standpoint at least.

Finally, he talks about how a university needs autonomy from other sources of powers including the government. Again, I think that long term, a university cannot be too closely tied to the government (because of government interference) but in the case of Malaysia, it looks like, at least in the short to medium term, the government, through the MOHE is driving changes in our public universities. While this might be a short term measure (without which our public universities might continue to languish in mediocrity), it is not a long term solution. Ultimately, our public universities need to be weaned off government interference and also government support.

I was a little disappointed that he didn't talk about funding since Cardiff is one of the universities which benefit financially from obtaining more and more foreign students (including Malaysian students), an option which is not immediately open to our public universities.

The changes proposed here are no brainers - performance, incentives, leadership and autonomy - most, if not all, of which are currently needed in large doses in our public universities.

Incentives to stay at home

These couple of reports, here and here, in the Star on the same subject caught up interest. The basic gist of the new proposal by Tok Pa is this - he wants to 'entice' a third of all top SPM scorers (by which he means straight A1s scorers) to study locally, perhaps in a 3 + 1 program where three years are spent in a local university and 1 year is spent abroad.

I think that the flaws of this proposal can be seen almost immediately. First of all, what possible kinds of 'enticements' can one offer a top SPM scorer to study in a local institution when this scholar can potentially study in the best universities outside Malaysia? Cambridge vs UM or Harvard vs UM, hmmm, which school do you think these scholars will choose? Will there be monetary incentives offered to these scholars so that they won't go abroad? Actually, this makes financial sense on the part of the MOHE. Why not offer to pay these scholars 2000RM a month for 4 years (for a total of 96,000RM) versus having to spend almost half a million RM to send a scholar to the US or the UK, many of whom don't return to Malaysia to serve out their 'bond'. If this is the case, why not make ALL JPA scholars stay back in Malaysia? Why only 'entice' a third of them to stay back? In any case, imagine if you were in the position of a student who has gotten into Cambridge or Harvard. Would this student want to take the short term financial incentive and forgo his or her chance to study in one of these prestigious institutions? If I were to advise them, I'd tell them that you can always earn back the 100,000RM (or whatever financial incentives the MOHE is offering) later in life. It's a chance of a lifetime to go abroad to study, especially if you manage to get into a good foreign university.

Secondly, what sort of university do you think these top scorers can go to in a 3 + 1 program where their final year is spent abroad? It's not likely that Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard or most of the top universities in the UK or the US will likely offer up places for Malaysians to go to for only a year. It is much more likely that these 3 + 1 destinations will be the universities which currently have twinning programs with Malaysian colleges. These might be decent schools but probably not the top schools in the US or the UK.

Yes, I know that the US have this junior year abroad program which is basically a 3 + 1 program (with the 1 in the third year) where many juniors in US universities study in universities abroad for a year. But can the MOHE negotiate this kind of deal with the top UK or US universities? (or tops unis in other countries for that matter) As far as I know, none of the top US universities offer this kind of option for students in other universities. And as far as I know, Cambridge and Oxford doesn't offer this kind of option to US university students (unless you're a Rhodes scholar which is applicable only for Oxford).

Thirdly, what sort of criteria will be used to select the one third of scholars who are 'enticed' or perhaps 'forced' to stay back to study in a local institution? I'm afraid that with this kind of 'quota', those who get to go abroad might be those who are more 'connected', politically or socially.

Imagine that you're a top SPM scorer who's been awarded a JPA scholarship and then later told that you're getting into UM or UKM or USM as your 'reward'. How would you feel about this? Especially if you know that 2/3rds of your fellow JPA scholars are going abroad to study, many of them at prestigious foreign universities?

Fourthly, if JPA scholars are sent abroad with the intention of getting more exposure, how much of help will 1 year in a foreign institution be? I think the benefits are likely to be minimal.

If Tok Pa wants to increase the standard of students going into the local universities, he should start with the 'second tier' students, those who are not the top SPM scorers but who are offer government scholarships of different types to go abroad to study. Why not 'entice' these students to stay back in a local uni? Aren't the top scorers more 'deserving' of going abroad (as well as standing a better chance of getting into a really good universities) than these 'second tier' (or perhaps even third tier) SPM scorers? These second tier scorers might presumably be better than the average student currently going into the local unis and hence, still help to increase the overall quality of students going into the local unis.

NUS in Singapore was managed to build up a reputation for being one of the best universities in Asia despite having many of the top scorers in Singapore heading to unis overseas. Of course, other factors are also at play in NUS such as better management, better pay for professors, more institutional incentives for research, better hiring practices etc... but it shows that not having your best students is not necessarily an obstacle towards creating a quality university.

As an aside, I think Tony's earlier proposals of offering scholarships to students at a later date and only after they've obtained entry into one of the top foreign universities makes sense. It would reduce the number of JPA scholars that we fund and would guarantee that we're funding scholars who only get into the best universities. Those who don't manage to get into these universities can be conveniently absorbed by our local unis, thereby 'solving' one of Tok Pa's major problems - attracting good students into our local unis. (Of course, some of these potential JPA scholars might still try to fund themselves to go overseas but that can't really be prevented)

On a longer term note, unless we have a much better enforcement and human resource management policy, I'm in favor of slowly but surely cutting down the number of JPA scholarships available at the undergrad level since a large proportion of JPA scholars don't return to serve out their bonds by working for any part of the Malaysian government. (If those of you who thought that the RM1.25 million spent on Dr. Azly was 'extravagant' and 'wasteful', think of the BILLIONS that are and have been spent on JPA scholars who don't serve a single day of their supposed 'bond').

In the meantime, I feel sorry for the first batch of JPA scholars who are denied the opportunity to go abroad to study while they watch 2/3rds of their cohort leave for prestigious universities abroad.

UUM dress code: response from a reader

I got this response from our of our readers in response to Tony's post on the UUM dress code. While his reply is not strictly education related, I thought that his remarks about the Outward Bound School (OBS) deserved to be heard given that many of young people attend OBS. (I was one of those and I found that the OBS camp was a good place to mix around with other kids from all races and backgrounds)

Dear Kian Ming,

I read you most recent blog on the UUM dress code issue. I cannot agree more with the fact that the Talibanisation of the nation is coming through fast and furious.

Your blog reminded me of a recent first hand experience I had with dress code. I was signed up for an outdoor course in our very own Outward Bound School (OBS) in Lumut about 2 months ago. One day we were told by the Malay instructor that we were to show up in our "wet wear" for a kayaking event. So what in the world would you think " wet wear" is?

I trooped out in a a swimming trunk with a T shirt over. Wet wear enough right? Apparently not. I was rebuked and rudely told off by the instructor. "Mana seluar kamu? Pergi tukar sekarang juga!"

When I asked him what was the reason why what I was wearing wasn't considered wet wear (obviously this person hasn't seen the Olympics swimming event" on TV, probably too engrossed with the jungle in OBS). He again told me off "Jangan cakap banyak, kamu tukar saja, kalau tidak, kamu jangan pergi".

On any normal day, had it happened in Singapore or anywhere outside Malaysia, I would have lodged a police report or gone to the press with my sorry. But sadly I knew then that it was a futile effort, least not in my beloved Malaysia. Like I said, I knew there and then that the Talibanisation of Malaysia is now almost complete. There's no point fighting a lost cause. Malaysia must surely be an Islamic state. Secular? Sure, if only in our dreams.

Ironically I was looking at some old pictures that OBS had displayed. Circa 1970s. The participants then went for their kayaking event decked in only swimming trunks, exposing their brown tan bodies for all to see. No complaints then, even though I believe by then Islam was already in Malaysia for more than 500 years.

Academics against Akujanji

A Malaysiakini report yesterday highlighted the campaign by academics in Malaysia against the Akujanji pledge. Not only does it call for Akujanji to be abolished with immediate effect but it also calls for Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr. Mutiara Muhamed and other academics who have been dismissed because of their opposition to Akujanji to be reinstated. This campaign is being headed by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim Teck Ghee.

Tony has blogged passionately about this issue here, here, here and here.

I've been a little more agnostic about 'Akujanji' believing that it is possible aka NUS to create a public university where academic freedom is not exactly free flowing but I think that Tony is probably right in saying that Akujanji needs to be revoked as part of a larger, comprehensive move to create more dynamic and open minded universities in Malaysia.

I would certainly prefer to work in a university, especially in my field, where Akujanji does not exist and I would think most other academics would as well. I certainly support the petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim though I don't see how Ong Kian Ming, a PhD candidate at Duke University, would add value to the cause. (Dr. Lim sent me the petition but I forgot to reply to him. Apologies, Dr. Lim)

The actual petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim reads as follows:

Petition for Revocation of University Akujanji

We, the undersigned - former university staff members, present university staff members (who cannot include their names here for fear of victimization by the authorities) and civil society organizations - call on the Government to revoke the imposition of the Akujanji pledge with immediate effect.

This requirement of loyalty to the Government – found only in a few repressive university systems in the world – has stifled academic freedom in our country to an unprecedented extent. It has also inculcated a culture of fear, passivity and uncritical thinking in the campuses which is antithetical to the development of our universities and to the quality of teaching and scholarship.

Government leaders, including the Prime Minister, have called on the universities to take up the challenge of upgrading their standards and producing quality teaching and research that will help the nation meet the goals of 2020, including the goals of a matured, liberal, scientific and progressive society. The Aku Janji stands as a major obstacle in the way of our universities rising to this challenge.

In this regard we also call on the Government to reinstate Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr.Mutiara Mohamad and other academicians who have been dismissed as a result of their opposition to the Akujanji. Similarly, others who have suffered in their career development due to the Akujanji should have their cases reviewed and should be provided with justice and redress. These are our academic prisoners of conscience who have been unjustly victimized and whose continued exclusion is a black mark against academia and our democratic system and values.

Our concern is not the first voiced on this issue - academic staff associations and numerous other concerned individuals and organizations have during the past three years spoken out and asked for the abolition of the pledge which is also against the fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression. We hope with this petition that we will be the last to take up this issue.

We feel that this is an urgent matter not simply of academic interest and concern but of national importance too and call on the Government to respond in a fair and enlightened manner and to place the interests of the universities and nation ahead of partisan political ones. The revocation of the pledge is a vital step in ensuring that fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression are not further eroded and that our academicians can play their rightful role in helping our nation advance.


I just want to make three observations in regards to the signatories of this petition

Firstly, most of the signatories are social scientists (especially political scientists) or academics from the humanities. I recognize many of the names on the list (and indeed, know some of them) who are social scientists including - Dr. Collin Abraham, Dr. Azmi Sharom, Dr. Sharon Bong, Dr. Cheah Boon Kheng, Dr. Stephen Chee, Dr. Farish Noor, Dr. Terence Gomez, Dr. Khoo Boo Teik, Dr. Khoo Kay Jin, Dr. Patricia Martinez, Dr. Maznah Mohamad, Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, Dr. Francis Loh, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr. Ramasamy, Dr. Johan Saravanamuttu, Dr. Shirley Lim, Dr. Syed Husin Ali, Dr. Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat and Dr. Diana Wong.

If the momentum from 'within' to abolish Akujanji is to continue, there needs to be more support for its abolishment across the academic fields including the engineering and science faculties. If not, the impression that this movement is only support by trouble making social scientists and those from the humanities will only be reinforced.

Secondly, as noted by the Malaysiakini report, out of the 40 academics who signed on to this petition, 29 are retired. Obviously, one needs to ask why there are not more signatories among active academics. Is it out of fear that reprisals might be carried out against them similar to those carried out against Dr. Azly Rahman and Dr. Mutiara Muhamed? This is not out of the question. To overcome this fear, there must be a concerted gathering of support among active academics so if a large enough number of them do sign this petition, it is not possible to carry out reprisals against all of them. In other words, achieve some sort of 'critical mass'.

Easier said than done but perhaps one can start by asking academics from the engineering and science faculties whether Akujanji has hurt them in any way (recruitment, funding, research proposals) or why they might feel that Akujanji might be needed (or no need for it to be abolished). From here, one can hopefully move forward to achieve the 'critical mass' necessary for such a movement to be taken seriously.

Thirdly, even among those signatories who are not retired (the 11 brave souls), I know of only 2 who are relatively young in regards to their academic careers. (Apologies for Azmi and Terence) The two are Dr. Sharon Bong and Wong Chin Huat, who are both teaching at Monash Sunway now, a private university. This of course calls into question the level of support for such a movement against Akujanji among the younger academics in our public universities. I'm quite sure that the 'pressure' which can be exerted on them would be higher compared to the more established i.e. older academics.

Of course I could be making too much out of this. Perhaps the petition didn't circulate to the younger academics because Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali didn't know enough of them (the same argument can be made in regards to the lack of outreach to the scientists and engineers). The level of support against Akujanji could be as great if not more so among the younger, perhaps more idealistic, academics in our public universities.

I do hope that Akujanji can be abolished as part of a comprehensive move to change the mindset and structure of our public universities. But like all things in Malaysia, change for the better tends to happen slowly and incrementally, if at all. I wish Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali all the best in this endeavor.

Malaysian public universities to expand overseas?

Saw this interesting bit in the Star today. It was reported The Minister for Higher Education, Tok Pah, said that several public universities had been invited to set up branch campuses overseas but declined to name them. Hmmm, interesting. Thus far, only Malaysian private university have expanded its wings overseas namely LimKokWing and INTI college. What could be the rationale for Malaysian public universities to expand abroad? Which countries would they be expanding into? What impact would it have on the 'local branches' here in Malaysia? We'll be watching this issue very closely.

Walk-In Interviews for PhD Holders

Hey guys, as highlighted in my post on my own blog, much apologies for having been neglecting my blogging responsibilites for the past few weeks. The new "career" is certainly dragging me all over the place and leaves me very little time to plonk myself for long periods of time in front of the computer to churn out something meaningful (and I'd hate posting something quickly just for the sake of posting). There's lots of stuff to blog about, and I'll try to catch up with them in the coming weeks. Hopefully this post will kickstart the action on this blog again! ;)

First, I thought I'd highlight a peculiar advertisement made by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) recently to attract more PhD holders into our public institutions of higher learning (IPTAs).

The good news is, the Ministry appears to be taking steps to increase the number of PhD holders amongst our university teaching community. But the curious thing is the approach which the Ministry has taken to meet its objectives - that is, via open walk-in interviews! You can read the statement issued by Pn Rubaayah Osman, a public relations officer of the Ministry here.

Temuduga pengambilan tenaga akademik secara berpusat bagi calon-calon yang memiliki Ijazah Doktor Falsafah (PhD) akan diadakan pada 26-28hb Mei 2007 mulai jam 9.00 pagi hingga 4.00 petang di Aras 2, Stesen Sentral, Kuala Lumpur.

This method of recruitment of PhD holders raises several questions.

1. It appears that these PhD holders are treated a little like factory workers who are asked to turn up at a specific location and just wait for his or her turn to be called. If there are a lot of people, then one would just have to wait a couple of hours longer.
   
   Given the above, do we expect quality PhD candidates from top universities globally to be interested in turning up for these interviews and be treated as such?
   
   And by default, through adverse selection, would such interview proceedings lead to weaker candidates who are not able to otherwise secure academic appointments in other leading colleges making an appearance?
   
   
2. And secondly, it also raises the key question as to why the Ministry has to take the role of the recruiter, instead of the respective faculties within the universities themselves?
   
   Does the Ministry has the necessary wide-ranging expertise to interview candidates of all specialisation on the spot? How could intelligent discussions be held if the relevant experts are not present to discuss the relevant subjects?
   
   Worse, if the civil service administrators are playing the role of recruiters, would they even sufficiently understand university demands of lecturers and researchers?
   
   And if these potential candidates are just required to turn up to submit their documents, instead of a thorough interview, wouldn't it have been better to request that they submit their applications either online or by post first so that the right expertise can be arrange to conduct the interviews. Otherwise, for many of these candidates who may well be outstation, would have to travel long distances just for a meaningless interview exercise.
   
   
3. Finally, should the role of recruitment to left to the relevant universities to decide? Is there no more autonomy in our universities to decide on their own recruitment?
   
   Would these new recruits, once posted to the universities, be subjected to "marginalisation" from the existing lecturers?

Hence in a lot of ways, the above exercise, just doesn't make much sense. Which of course leads to plenty of conjectures and speculations. And here is my 2-cent worth of conjectures:

1. Firstly, the University recruiters are reluctant to recruit qualified PhD candidates as lecturers in their universities. The reluctance is understandable in that the decline in the quality of our local universities over the past 2 decades have resulted in many unqualified and poor quality academics occupying positions of "power" within the university administration. As the patronage culture within the universities become ingrained, appointment of top quality academics, most of which are PhD holders become scarce for such appointments would be detrimental to their own positions.
   
   Hence, the Ministry while recognises the need for more PhD holders to be academics in our IPTAs, things are not moving on the ground. MOHE which lacks the political will to force reforms within the universities, then decides to take the less painful route of recruiting these PhD holders directly for placement in the universities.
   
   
2. Secondly, it was also very very interesting to note that the statement released by MOHE specifically mentioned that:
   
   Bagi calon calon... yang mempunyai pengalaman kerja di sektor kerajaan atau industri amat dialu-alukan terutamanya di kalangan bukan bumiputra.
   
   I am very encouraged by the action taken by MOHE for it is certainly extremely rare for Government recruitment advertisements encouraging applicants from non-bumiputras, instead of otherwise. It is a clear recognition that there is a drastic shortage of non-bumiputras in our public institutions of higher learning.
   
   However, when this is reflected with the earlier point, it lends credence to the fact that not only are the incumbent university authorities not recruiting sufficient PhD holders, they are also biaised against the recruitment of non-bumiputras, making it necessary for the unprecendented move by MOHE to step into the recruitment process to "remedy" the shortcomings.

That then leaves the question (which I don't have a definite answer for) of whether, such centralised recruitment exercise to overcome the shortcomings of the current recruitment processes is the best possible mechanism.

Will the new recruitment process bring unexpected and other detrimental side effects? Or will it even attract the quality PhD holders which it seeks to do?

Overseas recruitment

It's a small start but at least it's a start. Tok Pa, Minister of Higher Education, "said as a result of his ministry’s headhunting mission in Britain last month, 24 promising candidates have been identified, including 14 medical specialists".

From the same Star report:

Mustapa said the Government has agreed to provide higher salaries for lecturers with PhDs to attract the best brains to public universities.

It is understood that new lecturers with PhD qualifications will be placed on the Grade 51 scale (which pays about RM5,000 monthly with allowances) instead of the current Grade 45.

Hopefully, this headhunting trip will actually lead to these 24 individuals returning to Malaysia. We would probably like to know a more detailed background of the 24 candidates (qualifications, field, race, etc...) but for now, the fact that the MOHE is taking a pro-active approach towards recruitment is certainly a positive thing.

I've not heard of this organization before but in the same report,

Malaysian Academics Movement (Move) chairman Dr Wan Manan Wan Muda welcomed the move but added that more needs to be done.

“It will not improve matters if the promotion and award system in universities is not improved.

“You can headhunt for the best brains, but they will not stay if they have to work under heads who are not qualified.”

I'll try to look them up to see what they are doing to make the promotion system in our public universities more transparent.

Cultural societies allowed in public universities

Some good news. Certain cultural societies esp. to do with language (and sometimes religion) have regularly complained about resistance on the part of the authorities in public universities in allowing them to be set up or allowing them freedom to conduct their activities in public universities. This latest Star report indicates that restrictions against these cultural societies being set up in our public universities will be a thing of the past.

Some positive and progressive sounding remarks:

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) deputy vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Mohd Wahid Samsudin said the move by the Higher Education Ministry would “promote diversity through integration.”

“It is important that we involve all races in different activities like the Chinese Lantern Festival and Ponggal so that we can be educated on each other’s culture,” he said.

Universiti Malaya (UM) deputy vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Mohd Amin Jalaludin concurred that cultural societies were a good way to bring the races together.

“This will be a healthy move as it will make us truly Malaysian,” he said.

Let's hope that there won't be any clampdown on the part of the authorities if and when certain 'incidents' regarding 'sensitive' issues arise.