Graduate Employability

An interview with Mark Disney about Malaysian graduates employability.



Video courtesy of PopTeeVee.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Economics Today

I'm just sharing some thoughts about economics and the current economic crisis, subsequent to reading Joan Robinson's essay entitled "Economics Today", written in 1969.

Joan Robinson argued that economics is a branch of theology, where differences were not based on logic but rather on political judgment and moral values, arguments are judged by conclusions and not consistency, terms are used without definitions and propositions containing merely incantations. The author, in providing a historical account of the development of economics, noted that the reason economics was able to flourish without any substantive content was that there was no need for economics before the Great Depression of 1930s. It was noted that Keynes' theory were considered a new era in economics because at that point, economic theory began to look at real life problems that requires new solutions. However, there again, that era do not last long. Keynes' General Theory was built upon short-period understanding but was then projected for long period application, hence, driving economics back into the theological fantasy.

Robinson when on to illustrates how economics evolved back to be a branch of theology by using mathematics as the tools, without solving the fundamental weakness surrounding various definitions in the economic theory, particularly emphasising the problem of the meaning of "capital". (just to cut the long story short)

Although the essay was written in 1969, I'm just wondering how much economics had evolved since then, and more crucially in which direction.

Is the incapability of economics to predict this current economic crisis an indication of the discipline being in the present state of affairs as what Robinson defined a "branch of theology"?

Relating to education, is economics education providing the right skills for economists that are useful to the modern era of knowledge-based economy? If yes, then what exact skills are we talking about.

Again, two questions that worth to ponder about economics and education.

Brain Gain vs "Brain Tapping"

Brain Drain is a common phenomenon where the precious resource of human capital flows from a developing to a developed economy. Brain Gain is the opposite phenomenon where the human capital return to the source economy.

After reading a statement about Brain Gain project in Malaysia to attract the country's academics from overseas to return, I could not help but thought of another term called "Brain Tapping" that might benefit the developing countries and the "resource" more than the actual "brain gain".

Malaysian universities, especially the public institutions, had been urged to recruit world-class academics to boost the ranking and reputation. Millions had been spent to invite world-renounced "superstar academics" on a visiting status. UM and UKM had already embarked on such projects and received tremendous criticisms about it. Although the ranking did increase, but the crucial question is how did the academia in Malaysia benefit from it.

Now, the Minister has urged the public higher education institutions to recruit Malaysian academics abroad that might have been retrenched due to the economic recession. I actually wonder how many Malaysian academics might had been affected.

On a practical note, if the country is serious to improve the quality of research and university, the utmost move is to recognise the "brain" that has drained out. The country can benefit not only from gaining them back to serve, nevertheless, in such a globalised and high-technological age, tapping on these brains can be more cost effective and yield greater benefit.

Instead of attracting one or two to return with huge monetary attraction, it would be more economical to establish network with as many as possible Malaysian academics outside the country. In many universities, particular those in the United States, academics are only paid 9 months a year by the university and are suppose to source the remaining three months of their salary via research funding. Therefore, if the country is sincere in wanting to tap on these Malaysian "brains", the most practical way is to provide funding opportunities for these "brains" to collaborate with the local "brains" in long-term research or at least provide joint-supervision for research students in Malaysia.

This is much more economical as the cost is much lower and at the same time, allow these "brains" abroad to continue serving Malaysia and enhance their career development overseas. Adding to the economical benefit, option such as this is also more attractive for academics to adjust and understand about the working/research culture in Malaysia before seriously thinking of moving back. After all, the fear of not being to adapt to the working/research culture in local universities is one of the most important factor for them to embark on the such a journey home. Such decision is certainly much more than a career decision.

Lastly, perhaps rethinking of "brain tapping" might be a more practical initiative on a short and medium-term to tap upon the Malaysian brains abroad and at the same time, providing the necessary avenue for Malaysian universities to benefit from such transnational exposure.

Brain Drain

"Brain Drain" has been one of the issues debated where development is concern. To my understanding, it is the situation whereby talents in developing countries are attracted to migrate and work in developed countries. This migration of talent is therefore known as "brain drain" (I might be wrong with this definition).

How do we measure "brain drain"?
I did a search on the articles regarding this topic and surprisingly, almost all of it was written with plenty of assumptions and uses mathematical models to predict the effect. I could not find any solid quantitative data showing "brain drain" and therefore it remains a question about the seriousness of this problem.

Is this "brain drain"?
To my understanding, "brain drain" is a flow of trained talents migrating from developing to developed countries. What if the potential talents have been attracted to these developed countries before receiving the full training? (i.e. brilliant students given scholarship to study in developed countries) Does it still consider "brain drain"?

Just putting down my thoughts regarding this issue. It seems to me that this is another difficult areas that quantitative information is unavailable. I guess developing countries might not be able to identify the amount of "brain drain". In a hypothetical situation, a person would not inform his/her country when he/she intends to move overseas. Therefore I was just wondering how do the country actually know the actual amount of "brain drain".

Economics! Oh Economics!

Economics, as a discipline, became 'scientific' over the quarter-century, but I put the word in inverted commas and I deliberately pronounce it pejoratively here. As it is practised in the 1980s, economics is a 'science' without ultimate purpose or meaning. It has allowed itself to become captive of the technical tools that it employs without keeping track of just what it is the tools are used for. In a very real sense, the economists of the 1980s are illiterate in basic principles of their own discipline...Their motivation is not normative; they seem to be ideological eunuchs. Their interest lies in the purely intellectual properties of the models with which they work, and they seem to get their kicks from the discovery of proofs of propositions relevant only for their own fantasy lands" (1986 Nobel laureate in Economics, James M. Buchanon)

This statement explains the frustration that I have towards economics. The sharp and frank criticism from a Nobel laureate certainly gives comfort because now I know I am not the only person who is frustrated with economics.

I love the subject but I just can't accept that every single notion can be quantified and every economics student are expected to know mathematics as detailed and in-depth as a mathematics graduate. To me, economics today had lost the human touch, whereby initially the subject existed with the noble idea to understand the scarcity within our society. Looking at top-notch economics journals today, I can confidently said that economics students, without advanced knowledge of mathematics, could not understand these so-called 'economics articles'. It is no more art of scarcity but rather some exclusive art of sub-standard mathematics.

Therefore, I sincerely thank my professor in Development Economics for bringing up this quotation for discussion. I cannot agree more with James Buchanon.

What is Economics?

I have began to ask myself this question since I started to pursue a Master degree in economics. The economics that I am dealing with at the moment seems to be stranger to me. Everything is about theory and mathematics!

Where is the economics that I used to learn and enjoy?

Where is the human touch?

This reminded me of what Prof Tey used to tell me, "Don't bother so much about theory, it's the application and how you analyst things that is more important." His advice from an applied statistician viewpoint really puzzled me two years ago. Now I begin to understand what he meant.

After two semester pursuing the Master course, I learnt to appreciate the beauty of other subjects - public policy, development studies, political science, international studies and sociology - but strangely not economics. I enjoy attending classes and seminars of non-economics subject but struggling to even find the motivation to complete economics tutorial. This don't seems right!

Well, I guess, no matter how I felt, I have to struggle on, at least until I finish this graduate programme. I am actually counting my blessings because this is not a 5-year PhD program but only a 3-semester Master course. At least, I still have the opportunity to venture into other field of studies, which I believe the simple economics understanding will certainly be a great help in the future. I enjoyed my undergraduate studies in economics but I can't seems to say so for my current endeavour.

Farewell Milton Friedman

On November 16, 2006, the world bid farewell to one of its most prominent economic scholar and Nobel laureate, Milton Friedman - the grandmaster of free-market economic theory.

To me, this name had been mentioned so frequently for the past one month. During my EC5102 Macroeconomics Theory module a fortnight ago, I was refreshed again with his "Permanent Income Hypothesis". Then last week, I attended the Nobel Exhibition in NUS and the Nobel Economic Memorial Prize talk by A/P Tilak. Milton Friedman was again mentioned!

So when I got the news, I was in the EC5102 macroeconomics tutorial and my first thought was...well, if I could prove the hypothesis wrong, I would never able to tell Mr Friedman personally. What a funny thought!

However, without doubt, he remains one of most distinguished economist in the history of mankind.

"There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government!"

- extracted from Milton Friedman's Master Thesis-
(coutresy of Azad Bali)

Graduate Unemployment

Background

Before we begin proceed to more substantive discussion on the topic, it is good to ponder on the following data on unemployment rate:

Table 1: Unemployment Rate by Age Group (%)

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
All Ages	3.1	3.6	3.5	3.6	3.5
Age 20 – 24	6.7	7.7	8.2	8.8	9.9

Source: Malaysian Institute of Economic Research

Table 2: Unemployment Rate by Educational Level (%)

Year	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Primary	1.9	2.1	2.0	2.0	2.1
Secondary	3.7	4.4	4.1	4.3	4.0
Tertiary	3.3	3.4	3.8	3.9	4.0

Source: Malaysian Institute of Economic Research

The unemployment rate in Malaysia since 2000 has been consistent at the range between 3% and 3.6% (Table 1). This range indeed is not alarming and can be consider normal as the unemployment could be due to transition between jobs or temporary unemployment.
However, the unemployment rate for the age group of 20 to 24 has been increasing significantly. The rate was 6.7% in 2000 rose to 9.9% in 2004. This figure could be viewed positively or negatively. The positive argument could be that the young people are staying away from the labour market because students in tertiary education are increasing. However, the argument could be misleading as the average age of an undergraduate to venture into the labour market is 22 years old. Therefore the increased unemployment rate could be interpreted as graduate unemployment problem.
The second figure reinforced the seriousness of graduate unemployment in Malaysia. The unemployment rate of those with tertiary education is increasing steadily from 3.3% in 2000 to 4.0% in 2004 (Table 2). This increase does not seem to correlate with the economy cycle, unlike the unemployment rate of the secondary level.
Mismatch?
After looking at the statistics and figures, let us revisit some of the arguments concerning the problem of “Graduate Unemployment”. There is much debate on the problem of mismatch between what was taught in universities and what was expected from the job market. On a personal note, I viewed this statement rather negatively. A simple comparison of the course structure taught in the local universities and foreign universities are almost similar. The only difference was the usage of the language. If the course taught in local universities are considered mismatch, then the logic explanation is that the foreign graduates will face the same difficulties in getting a job.
System Downed
I would rather look the argument from another point of view. As a local graduate, I have to admit that the lack of emphasis on the English Language has truly dampened the opportunities of local graduates in competing in a global job market. In addition to that, the quality of the local universities is declining. When the Times Ranking for Higher Education was announced in 2005, the whole focus of the debate was on the declination in University of Malaya’s (UM) ranking. However, I would rather think that the problem lies in the entire tertiary education sector of Malaysia rather than the declination of UM’s ranking. Please forgive me for some element of biasness as a UM graduate, UM still ranked number one in Malaysia. Why was there not much “hoo-ha” as where are the other 16 public universities in Malaysia? There are not even listed as the top-200 universities in the world.
Academic Quality
Furthermore, as the highest ranked university in Malaysia, UM has scored “zero” in the citation category in the similar survey conducted in 2004. What does this have to indicate? Are UM’s professors not producing enough publication? Once again back to the problem of English Language. After the introduction of Malay Language as the medium of instruction in tertiary education, sad to said, majority of the lecturers cannot write and speak English with confidence, especially those trained locally. How could we expect them to produce quality work in English and compete among the intellectuals in the global world?
If the lecturers could not even communicate effectively in English, how could English be used in lectures? I could remember there was an article in one of the local newspaper reported that the students are prepared to use English as the medium of instruction but the lecturers simply could not teach in English. This reflects the quality of the academicians. However, I have to acknowledge there are still many lecturers and professors in local public universities that could speak and write excellent English. However the black sheep seems to outshine the good ones.
English Language
Furthermore, I strongly feel that neglecting the English Language has severely affected the development and quality of tertiary education. One could hardly find references and journals in Malay Language, particularly in sciences and social sciences. Even if the materials are available, they are either locally written or translated. This has limited the capacity for knowledge development of the academia. (Please note that I am not against the Malay Language. I truly acknowledge and respect that Malay Language is the national language of Malaysia).
However, all the undergraduates in Malaysia (prior to 2005) received their secondary and pre-U education in Malay Language. Majority of the undergraduates are unable to understand and communicate effectively in English. Writing skills was even worse. Malaysia introduced an English exam, the Malaysia University English Test (MUET), as a subject in the pre-U (STPM) examination. Initially MUET is supposed to be a requirement to enter into public universities and students must obtain at least Band Three as criteria for graduation. However, the rule was lifted after the large numbers of undergraduates could not graduate because of the English factor. This action was simply sweeping the problem under the carpet. Universities are doing a disservice to the society and the country by allowing these graduates with poor command of English to flood into the labour market. If that is how we solve the problem of graduates with poor command of English; then let us not complaint about our graduates not being marketable.
Bookworm vs Academic Allergic
Besides examining the policy and the overall view of the problem, another focus should be on the undergraduates. Examining the culture in public universities, one would realise two contrasting scenario. There are lots of students whose only focus for the entire three to four years in university is STUDY. They never took part in student activities or sports; but only set their goals in scoring all A’s in exam. I called them the bookworms.
On the contrary, there are also lots of students whose focus is in everything except studies. There are hyper-active in student activities, student politics, sports, arts and even road demonstration; but never seems to achieve even satisfactory level in their academic performance. They might take ages to complete a degree and in certain cases they might even switch to a totally new course in their final year. Their focus seems to be everything, except being a student. No one, except themselves, seems to understand what they are doing in the universities! I would labelled them as ‘academic allergic students’
If the universities do not rectify this imbalance, then we could perhaps forsake and forget about training all-round graduates. The university education should aim to equip graduates with the ability to acquire knowledge rather than spoon-feeding them directly. Like the proverb, “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” Universities play an important role in providing the training and abilities in pursuing knowledge. In the meantime, universities also provide a platform or stepping stone for graduates to move ahead in the labour market. Through all the student activities, sports, arts and cultural interaction, students gain experience and insight of the challenging world outside the universities.
Conclusion
By looking at the scenarios, problems, obstacles and challenges, it was not surprising that country is facing problem with graduate unemployment. Merely putting the blame on the universities does not seem to be the solution for the problem. Rather I believe the problem was spiralled from the education system. We might be producing quite a huge numbers of top scorers in the secondary examinations but are they truly knowledgeable or merely A’s producing machine. If majority of them are A’s producing machine, then these top scorers will eventually be our graduates in a few years. The problem does not only lie in the tertiary education but the entire education system, which needs to be revamp and review in order to solve the problem of graduate unemployment in the long-run.