Wisdom in University

An article by Steven Schwartz about wisdom in higher education. I "reproduced" from Times Higher Education.

---- Not by skills alone ----

In their haste to prepare students for a career, universities have lost sight of the true meaning of education, argues Steven Schwartz

"I don't think it would have all got me quite so down if just once in a while - just once in a while - there was at least some polite little perfunctory implication that knowledge should lead to wisdom, and that if it doesn't, it's just a disgusting waste of time! But there never is! You never even hear any hints dropped on a campus that wisdom is supposed to be the goal of knowledge. You hardly ever even hear the word 'wisdom' mentioned!"

- J.D. Salinger, Franny and Zooey

Let's face it, wisdom has an image problem. As far as the popular media are concerned, it is the province of ghost whisperers, extraterrestrials - think Mr Spock, the Vulcan - and wizened kung fu sages ("The body is the arrow, the spirit is the bow, Grasshopper").

Wise people are not only portrayed as old, alien and weird but also bookish, risk averse and unemotional. No wonder their pearls of wisdom are routinely ignored by the impetuous young. Young people thirst for new experiences; it's in their nature to take chances and follow their hearts. Wisdom just gets in the way. "Fools rush in, where wise men never go," sang Elvis. "But wise men never fall in love, so how are they to know?"

You might think that universities would hold a different view; after all, they are in the wisdom business. Well, you might think this but you would be wrong. Every type of knowledge - massage therapy, homeopathy and circus-performing - is represented on campus, but the word "wisdom", as Salinger has Franny say, is rarely mentioned.

It was not always like this. Wisdom, at least in its religious version, was central to the medieval university, and its importance persisted right down to John Henry Newman's day. But wisdom is no longer on the curriculum; it has been replaced with skills. Today's universities are mainly concerned with preparing students for a career. Newman called such practical learning "a deal of trash", but surely he was wrong. There is nothing wrong with vocational training; a fulfilling career is an important part of a good life.

Much of my academic work over the years has been devoted to career preparation. I was once a dean of medicine and there are few courses more vocational than that. Our students were all bright but they were narrowly focused on their career goals. They resented time spent on subjects not directly related to diagnosing or treating patients. It's easy to see why. Studying philosophy does not make it any easier to remove a prostate gland and reading Galen sheds little light on how to recognise pneumonia. As far as our students were concerned, time spent on any subject not related to a doctor's daily work was time wasted.

It's easy to empathise with them, for medical education is long, arduous and expensive. Why add to its length and cost with apparently irrelevant subjects? If students want to study history, literature and philosophy, they can take them up when they retire and have time for such frivolity. This makes some sense from the students' vantage point, but it demeans our purpose as universities. Yes, we must prepare graduates for what they will do, but we also have a duty to help them at least to think about what kind of people they want to be.

Indeed, these two educational goals are inseparably linked. No one would try to argue that a deep knowledge of philosophy makes surgeons better at removing a prostate. But it might deepen their empathy and improve their understanding of what constitutes a good quality of life, both of which could help them to decide whether a prostate should be removed in the first place.

It's not just doctors who could benefit from a broader education. Studying drama would not have prevented financiers devising the complicated financial derivatives that plunged the world into crisis, but if they had been familiar with Faust they might have thought twice about the consequences of their actions.

Being able to quote Shelley will not help politicians get elected (certainly not in Australia) but studyingOzymandias might make them more humble and thoughtful about their accomplishments.

As I write these words, I can imagine the raised eyebrows of my academic colleagues. A generation of graduates familiar with the great works of history, philosophy and literature is a wonderful vision but reading widely does not guarantee wisdom. They are correct. Reading, by itself, will not make anyone wise. Experience is also required. As Odysseus learns on his journey back to Ithaca, some important lessons can only be learned the hard way, through experience. Nothing has changed. Young people start out with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and with experience they eventually come to appreciate the Delphic prescription "nothing to excess".

There is a problem, however. Experience alone cannot guarantee wisdom any more than reading can. The lessons of life are only available to those who are ready to learn them. If wisdom is the goal, then students must "walk 10,000 miles, read 10,000 books" said the 17th-century Chinese philosopher Gu Yanwu. In other words, becoming wise requires not just having adventures but a cultured mind that is open, ready and able to absorb the lessons that experience teaches. Louis Pasteur famously said "Chance favours the prepared mind", and our job as university academics is to take his words seriously.

To prepare students to learn from experience, we need to go beyond vocational training. Life, death, love, beauty, courage, loyalty - all of these are omitted from our modern vocational curricula, and yet when the time comes to sum up our lives, they are the only things that ever really matter. On Ash Wednesday, the priest admonishes the faithful to "Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return". A salutary reminder of what we all have waiting for us. In the meantime, like the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, we spend our years trying to find some meaning in our lives.

It is easy to fall into the pit of nihilism, to consider life "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". But before we let our students reach this conclusion, we should at least try to provide them with the intellectual foundation they need to make such a judgement. In the few years they are with us, we should be concerned not only with teaching students the state of the various arts, we should be equally concerned with the state of their hearts.

In Choruses from The Rock, T.S. Eliot asks: "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" If you think these are just the melancholy musings of a poet who spent too many hours at his desk, out there in the "real world" they're saying the same thing, albeit in different ways.

In just one example, the World Social Science Report 2010, published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, observed that today's global challenges are increasingly interrelated, spread fast from one part of the world to another, and so bring into question traditional university disciplinary boundaries.

These "profound and menacing developments" need to be understood "in a plurality of contexts", which surely includes what we learn from the great works of the past. Specific and narrow skills are simply not enough to enable us to understand and solve the problems we face.

It is not easy for universities to go against the utilitarian flow but it is our duty to try. As the author Flannery O'Connor wrote in a letter to a friend, "You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you". It's time we once again started hearing the word "wisdom" on campus.

Postscript: Steven Schwartz is vice-chancellor of Macquarie University, Sydney.

Qualification Inflation

A short article by John Wilkins about qualification inflation. I "reproduced" from Times Higher Education.

---- Qualification Inflation: Time for a Reality Check ----

Since the inception of higher education, professions such as law and medicine have been part of the university curriculum. The rest of what were then called "trades" - now known as "economic activities" - were not. Subjects that were theoretical or needed research were the focus of higher education. Even as the field of education itself became profession-alised in the latter half of the 19th century, a doctorate was a rare degree that showed you could not only teach a subject but advance it.

But after the Second World War, governments increasingly began to see universities as manufacturers of skilled players in the economy. The implications have been profound.

Before the war and for a while after, it was not uncommon for someone to begin working at 14 and enter a profession through on-the-job training, by way of an apprenticeship. This applied to nurses, journalists, accountants and managerial staff, although they would often gain certificates along the way.

My grandfather is a good example. He began by earning a marine engineer's certificate as a teenager and ended up as the chief firefighter of the city of Melbourne in the 1930s. No one would hold such a position today with less than a bachelor's degree, and those struggling to rise through the professional ranks need at least a master's. No doubt it is only a matter of time before a doctorate is required just to be a nurse manager or, as they used to be called, a ward sister.

Does anyone else see the problem here? If somebody needs a bachelor's degree just to enter the workforce, this typically means that they have had 12 years of pre-university schooling and at least three years at university. If they then need specialist graduate diplomas or a master's, this can add another two years, or maybe three. When these "qualified" graduates enter the workforce at the age of 24 or so, they still need to be trained to do the work.

This is because universities teach, well, academically. University education is focused on writing essays, passing exams and doing practical exercises in conditions that graduates rarely find in industry. So the age at which the individual starts to be productive is now around 26 or 27. If doctorates then become a requirement, this will go up to 30-32. All the while, there is a constant dearth of skilled workers.

Something is very wrong. We have added over 10 years of education before people can become producers in our society.

At the same time, governments are ending or sharply reducing the "traditional" intellectual pursuits in universities because these do not contribute to economic output. No matter how often academics object to the industrialisation of education, they are ignored by governments and their bureaucracies on both sides of the political fence. Languages, history, classics, philosophy - anything that lacks a dollar value - will be reduced to a tiny rump or eliminated as inefficient.

It is time to confront the sausage-making university model that has become the shared property of educational administrators and politicians around the world. "Qualification inflation" is how governments avoid having to do anything about underemployment, and it generates a massive bureaucracy that has its own interests in perpetuating the system.

My proposal is this: we should return universities to a research focus and eliminate professional degrees, moving education for the professions back to what used to be called technical institutes. Otherwise, we should recognise that universities have been terminally corrupted from their initial purpose and set up pure research institutes, which alone would have the ability to award doctorates. I would even go so far as to say that medical education should be run independently in separate medical schools, and the same goes for law.

A society that cannot do research or intellectual work is a society in decline. At the same time, a society that hides its underemployed is a society that is not being productive anyway. Employers now use university qualifications as markers of competence, but this is expensive and misleading. We need to "deskill" universities.

John S. Wilkins is a philosopher and historian of science. He is an associate at the University of Sydney and visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales. He blogs atEvolving Thoughts.net.

University Fees

"Tuition fees"

"6k or 9k"

"Only rich kids will go to university"

"Elitist education"

"Social mobility"

These are some of the common phrases in the recent debate about increasing the tuition fees for universities in the UK. I am in a privilege position, not only that all these changes will not affect me as an international and final-year student, this is also one of the rare opportunity for me to observe and follow the debate without having to take a stance.

In following all these debates, the main argument seems to be, "By allowing universities to increase the tuition fees from 6k to 9k, this will effectively stop or discourage students, especially those from lower and middle income groups, from going to university". In other words, it was perceived that with the increase in tuition fees the number of students entering university will decrease, especially those from lower and middle income groups. But, it is also important to point out that students will be given a loan if they got a place in university and will only repay the loan after they started working and earning a certain level of income. The gist of the argument is therefore, "with the increased tuition fees, students will have a larger debt to repay in the future and hence this will discourage those students from lower or middle income group from even thinking of going to university".

This left me wondering, "Is this really the case?"

Personally, I do not think so. My rationale is that during the period that university education in the UK was free (or zero fees), the participation rate was significantly lower than the period when there was a 3k tuition fees. Is fees really the problem that is discouraging students from going to university? Let us not forget that the UK higher education system has traditionally been an elitist form of education, even during the period of zero fees. It was after the introduction of fees that the higher education sector in the UK went through the period of massification.

Therefore, I do not think that the fees or even debts are the factor that hinder or discourage students from aspiring to go to university, and perhaps the debate might have been "barking on the wrong tree".

A Personal Reflection of the UK Student Protests

There had been a student protest in Oxford two weeks ago, followed by another massive national-level student protest in London. These protests were initiated after the release of the Browne Review, as well as the subsequent proposal to cut funding for higher education and increment of tuition fees for local students. As an international student, I did not see a need to be passionate about these development, but as someone who works in the area of higher education, this is one issue that I kept an eye on. As such, I did not participate in these protests, but I was physically present at the Oxford protest to observe from far and followed the news on the London protest.

I have several points to make after reflecting over these protests.

1) Could protest bring change? I agree that such massive protest had made clear the opinion of students on this matter. However, was the message only about students' dissatisfaction? What could be a better solution? Sadly, I only felt that these protests were just an opportunity for the majority of students to vent their anger in public. This was clearly reflected in the violence incidents during the protests, especially the London protest. Isn't critical and open engagement by students and their leaders with university administrators, politicians, Member of Parliaments and other stakeholders, a more mature and constructive avenue to discuss the matter?

2) Another point that I could not understand, "Why target the building that housed the Conservative Party?" While I understand this party along with the LibDems, is the government of the day, but isn't the Browne Review established by the previous government, which was the Labour Party? I wonder if the Labour was still in power today, would they have taken the recommendation of the Review and made the same decision? From an objective viewpoint, I see this development as a matter driven by economic imperatives rather than political ideology, but certainly, the students at the protest thought otherwise.

3) As I mentioned, these developments in higher education have been driven by economic imperatives. It is public knowledge that the UK economy is in a bad shape. Massive cuts have been expected, even before the general election in May. Did the students who participated in the protest thought about the economic consequences of their action? The obvious and short-term cost may be small. However, such massive protest that turned violence, will undoubtedly have a long-term economic consequences. For example, it is a fact that international students have been a major revenue to the higher education sector in the UK, as international students at the moment are paying 3-4 times more than local students. Following on to such violence protest, which had made it into the headlines of international news, I wonder, how many parents who are going to pay for their children's tertiary education, will want to send their kids to UK? I certainly would have hope my children will learn to be more mature and constructive in the university, rather than screaming and shouting and being violence on the streets. The tarnished image of higher education in the UK, may just be one of the long-term economic consequences, that may take years to recover.

4) One of the points advocated by the students at the protest was inequality of access due to the increment of fees. However, for a brief moment, I wish to suggest that we step into the shoes of the police personnel in front of the Millbank building that afternoon in London, who was nearly killed by the fire extinguisher threw down by the students from the roof. Imagine what would have happened to his or her children if the police was hit. Will access be more equal to the children of these police personnel if they were killed in the course of their duties by such irresponsible actions?

I admit the points I made were rather pessimistic about protest, especially the violence incidents, but I am certainly neutral about peaceful protest. I believe everyone has the rights to do so, although I was brought up in a rather repressive culture. However, while we respect the rights of individuals, I also believe that those who wishes to advocate their rights, should also bear in mind the rights of others in the society.

-----

The following is strictly a personal matter.

There was a "brainless" protestor in Oxford, carrying a placard to the protest with an upside down Malaysian flag hanging on the pole. If you do not know that this is a country's flag, then I don't even think he should be standing there as a university student. It would be much more beneficial for him to spend the 3-4 hours studying geography or general knowledge. If he indeed knew that this is the flag of another country, which has nothing to do with the protest, then I think he should be ashamed of himself that he can't even be respectful for such a simple thing. Don't try to run when you can even walk, don't fight for the future of the universities and students when you don't even have the basic civic etiquette to respect.

SPM History and Public Examinations

History is going to become a must-pass subject in SPM. I chose to use the term must-pass instead of compulsory, because history is already compulsory where every student have to sit for the history paper. A must-pass subject, on the other hand, means that a student cannot fail the subject, which otherwise, he or she will be deemed to have fail the entire SPM examination. At the moment, only BM (Bahasa Melayu or Bahasa Malaysia - I'm not sure) is a must-pass subject.

This decision by the Ministry of Education, has been inconsistent and to a large extent, strange. Just recently, the MOE has announced that UPSR and PMR examinations will soon be abolished and the reason behind this abolishment was that the Malaysian educational system has been overly examination-oriented. Therefore, instead of having public examinations like UPSR and PMR, students in Primary Year 6 and Secondary Year 3 will be assessed by their school teachers. Although I agree that Malaysians, in general, are obsessed with scoring A's in public examinations, I do not agree for public examinations to be substituted by informal assessments to be conducted by school teachers. To me, this change is just too extreme and drastic, and Malaysians in general and teachers and educationalists in specific, are just not ready for this.

Let's return to the topic of SPM History. The de-tour into the topic of public examinations is necessary, because I want to point out an inconsistency in our educational policy decisions. While the idea behind the abolishments of UPSR and PMR was to reduce the emphasis on examinations, on the contrary, the decision to turn History into a must-pass subject in SPM is not only emphasising the importance of History but also the importance of SPM and public examinations.

In my personal opinion, the Malaysian educational system should continue to have UPSR, PMR and SPM. However, some changes are needed to make the examinations more relevant to the students as a useful evaluation for their learning and education. For example, while UPSR is the primary school-leaving examination, the focus of evaluation should be on the basic aspects such as languages and mathematics. As PMR results are generally used to stream students for upper secondary, this examination therefore should focus on evaluating and helping students to identify the latent skills needed for future education in the science, commerce or arts stream.

SPM, as the school-leaving certificate, should provide students with the flexibility to choose any 10 or 12 subjects. In addition, there shouldn't be any must-pass conditions, simply because the SPM examination as a whole is the certification that this student has completed formal schooling and SPM is by no means, a certification of expertise in any particular subjects. If the government strongly feels that BM or History are essential and important, perhaps, the must-pass condition of these subjects could be imposed upon entry into public universities or the civil service, but certainly, this should not be the reason to deny a student of a school-leaving certification.

In this issue about public examinations, we should think more universally. A student might be brilliant in mathematics and science, but fail History and/or BM. He or she will be without a SPM certificate, and therefore not only that he or she will not be able to enter tertiary education, the chances of finding a decent job are extremely slim. Perhaps he or she might just end up as a factory operator, labourer or cleaner, all because of a subject called BM or History. What a sad ending to education!

Mandarin and Tamil compulsory in Malaysian schools?

I cannot believe what I read and hear from the Deputy Prime Minister cum Education Minister about making Mandarin and Tamil compulsory in schools. Such a proposal would mean every Malaysian student would have to learn four languages: Malay, English, Mandarin and Tamil.

Personally, I strongly feel the idea is pointless and downright ridiculous. Malaysia, it seems, is aspiring to be a nation of linguists!

First, what is the educational value of Malaysian students learning four languages? Is there any educational research that supports the argument that learning more languages will enhance the intellectual capacity of students? Perhaps, there is other research that rebuts such a proposition. I'm sure the saying, "jack of all trades, master of none", best describe the idea that learning more languages may become a barrier to mastering one language. Anyone who is familiar with the current Malaysian education system will certainly agree that language proficiency among university graduates, particularly in the English language, is far from satisfactory. Even the "cream of the crop" of the education system, have been frequently and openly criticised for not being able to master the English language - as a second or third language. What else to expect when all the students have to learn four languages?

Second, in talking about the proposal, the Education Minister gave some indications that this initiative may have been driven by the idea to unite the country further or instil a sense of patriotism. If unity or patriotism is the driving force behind this proposal, then perhaps it is time to evaluate the role of the National Language - the Malay Language. Isn't the national language supposed to be the uniting language for all Malaysians regardless of ethnicity? Do we really need to teach our children four languages to help them become true Malaysians?

Third, as also mentioned by the Deputy PM, the proposal to teach four languages could also been driven by the need for Malaysians of different ethnicity to better understand each other. Personally, I would agree that if we want to understand each other better, then learning languages may help. However, is ethnicity the greatest barrier to unity in Malaysia? I do not believe so, and would argue that, in fact, religion is the a stronger factor segregating Malaysians, as evidenced by the recent tensions in the country. Therefore, if religion is the real problem that keeps Malaysians from uniting, perhaps, we do not need to teach our children four languages, but instead, introduce "Religious Education" in our schools. My idea of "religious education" is not about a particular religion, but an objective teaching about all the religions in our society or around the world. As such, students are able to learn about each other's religion and thus have a better understanding about religions as well as a greater tolerance towards one another.

I have argued that it makes no educational, nationalistic or cultural sense to teach four languages in Malaysian schools. To have such a proposal studied and considered by the government is worrying, as our future generations are not white mice for educational experiments. I sincerely hope educational ideas in Malaysia will be well-thought through and properly researched, before being formulated into policies.

------------------------------------
Extracted from The Star Online. I have copied the original article here, as the subsequent report has been re-written with a major shift of direction. (URL: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/6/13/nation/20100613162904&sec=nation)

Published: Sunday June 13, 2010 MYT 4:24:00 PM
Updated: Sunday June 13, 2010 MYT 5:58:14 PM

Govt to study proposal to make Mandarin and Tamil compulsory in schools (Updated)

By TEH ENG HOCK

KUALA LUMPUR: The Education Ministry will study a proposal to make Mandarin and Tamil compulsory in schools.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddn Yassin said the policy for teaching people own’s language was already in existence in the Education Ministry but it was not fully implemented.

In his opening speech at the Federal Territory PPP convention at the Putra World Trade Centre here, he said it would be good for all races to know more than two languages to help foster racial unity and expand knowledge.

"The people, regardless if they are of Indian or Chinese ancestry, or other ethnic groups, can learn more than two languages.

"The national language and English are important, but other languages such as Mandarin and Tamil should also be learnt," he said.

Muhyiddin said by understanding the languages, Malaysians could appreciate the way of life, values and cultures of the country's various races better.

He added that the people could also garner more knowledge by mastering more languages.

Earlier, PPP president Datuk M. Kayveas had proposed to Muhyiddin to make Mandarin and Tamil compulsory subjects in schools.

"It is long overdue. We should make mother-tongue subjects examination subjects," Kayveas said.

10th Malaysia Plan: Higher Education

The 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) was tabled in Parliament today. From reading the report in The Star, two aspects of higher education was mentioned. First, research and development (R&D), and second, the employability of university graduates as well as university's autonomy.

In terms of the R&D, first and foremost, a word of congratulation to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) becoming a research university. While increasing the number of research university could arguably enhance the R&D activity in the country, it is equally important for the mid-term and end-of-term reviews of 10MP to critically evaluate the R&D performance of these five public universities. This is to ensure that not only the number of research universities increased, but the quality of R&D as a whole will also improve.

The second aspect of higher education mentioned in 10MP is disappointing. The Star reported:

"To improve the competence of graduates, their employability will be one of the KPIs of universities. Financial allocation to universities will depend on the achievement of their KPI targets. In addition, the Government will grant gradual autonomy to the universities to improve their performance."

I have to admit that I have not read the actual 10MP report. However, if The Star reports accurately, the above statement illustrates a gloomy future for Malaysian universities. This will perhaps be a "first", whereby the university will have to be openly held accountable for the employability of their graduates. This sounds to me like the Chinese saying, "you married a wife with a promise of getting a son".

Such a statement reflects a highly distorted understanding about education and university. First, the business of university is about education, and certainly not about vocational or job training. Second, it is also be a known fact that public universities in Malaysia have limited authority and autonomy to select students for admission at the undergraduate level, with the exception of USM being the APEX university. While universities have to accept whatever given to them at the admission process, it would be rather unfair to impose such a condition pertaining the quality of the graduates, after merely educating them for a relatively short period of three to four years. As a whole, this statement seems to me more like an attempt to shift the responsibility, from the government to universities, in solving the apparently insolvable problem of graduates unemployment in Malaysia.

At the end of the same quote reported in The Star, the point about university autonomy was mentioned. This statement, on the one hand, is much welcome as this is an open acknowledgement by the government that granting autonomy to universities will improve their performance. However, on the other hand, there has been no further indication whatsoever about how and when this autonomy will be granted, and equally important, what it meant by "gradual". It could perhaps remain a rhetorical statement about university autonomy in Malaysia.

The Dragon Boat Tragedy

I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the students and teacher killed in the dragon boat tragedy in Penang.

I remembered back in 2007 while I was in Singapore, there was a similar tragedy that happened to the Singaporean Dragon Boat Team competing in Cambodia. Again, five young rowers were killed in that incident. However, following that incident, there was a Safety Inquiry Panel to look into the incident by the Singaporean authority.

Perhaps these two incidents will provide us many valuable lessons about safety in water sports. Such lessons are much more important for schools and youth organisations like the Boys' Brigade which occasionally conducts water sports activity. My greatest worry is that unnecessary hinderance and bureaucratic measures will be taken to stop our young people to participate in these events. Instead, I hope that those who conducts these activities will keep ourselves abreast with the latest safety measures and hold firm to the principle that do not compromise safety.

In both occasions, it has been reported that the rowers were not wearing life jacket. Apparently, it's quite usual for dragon boat rowers not to wear them as life jacket is bulky and obstructing. I guess, safety should not be substituted for any other consideration, when it comes to safety in an open sea. Another student in the Penang incident, who missed that morning's tragedy, is also said not to know how to swim. I wonder, how many of those on the boat did not know how to swim and actually wore the life jacket? There should be no compromise in this respect and no exception.

According to the Singaporean Safety Inquiry Panel following the incident with the Singaporean team, there has been a lack of safety measures in terms of drills for contingencies. In other words, people who participate in water sports such as dragon boat, are not expose to safety measures such as capsize drill. I recalled, this has been the most important part in the course I took about canoeing. We were taught how to capsize and react accordingly in such circumstances. Perhaps such stimulation exercise should also be extended to dragon boat and other water sports.

I guess, by not compromising the safety and providing preventive "education", could be the step forward for schools and youth organisations in dealing with the future extra-curricular activities, especially in water sports. I sincerely hope that this tragedy will not turn into a political issue, as politicians seem to be coming forward to comment and "show" their concern, or rather as an excuse to add more bureaucratic and hindrance measures to discourage the participation of our young people in such healthy activities, but rather, served as a precious lesson for all by reminding ourselves about the importance of safety and preventive education.

Looking back: 2009

"Better late than never". We are now a fortnight into the new year. Perhaps as the new year excitement evaporates, it would be more appropriate to review some of the events in 2009 that had played a part to the development of the Malaysian education system.

To me, 2009 had been a year of mixed-signs without any sense of directionality in the development of Malaysian education system. There were changes and policies implemented without "educational" consideration. Malaysians debated and argued about various educational issues from many aspects and viewpoints, yet strangely but true, we do not consider the educational part of the story. I will attempt to illustrate my point using the events that had taken place in 2009.

First, the issue about national schools and vernacular schools, serves as a perfect example to illustrate why "education is not about education". The debate was much more concerned about racial identity and politics, but nothing substantive about students' learning and their educational development in school. Just to illustrate an example. In the midst of this debate, a prominent academician commented that the Chinese-educated students were "copy-cats". I have to admit, this comment is harsh and insensitive, but at the same time, I would also argue that, this comment, to a certain extent, is valid and true from a learning perspective. This is due to the fact that the learning principles and styles between the different types of school in Malaysia differ remarkably. On the one hand, the learning style in Chinese schools is more devoted to memorisation, as the basic skills to learn Chinese characters. On the other hand, students in national schools are not taught to memorise extensively. In a nutshell, we have schools in the system that have significantly different learning styles and principles. However, such educational elements did not feature in this debate, but instead, became a racial and political subject. This is exactly why “education is not about education”.

Second, the issue about teaching of science and mathematics in English. Again, the entire debate was concerned about racial and cultural identity as well as politics. Although students’ ability to learn science and mathematics seemed to be the prime concern in this matter, however, there was an absent of prove from educational research to argue the case for either the effectiveness of using English or the respective mother tongue to learn science and mathematics. Instead, politicians and policy-makers, in arguing the case to revert the policy, cited statistics indicating the low level of English proficiency among teachers. In other words, teachers were blamed for the failure of the policy, but the most important question remain unsolved, “what should the best medium for students to learn science and mathematics?”.

Third, there was also a considerable amount of debate about the SPM examination. Personally, the decision to limit the number of subjects a student is allow to sit for in the examination, was a sensible decision. This limitation, has in a way, reduce the emphasis of examination and scoring A’s in our education system. However, from the education perspective, there remain rooms for more positive development. The ideal case of examination should provide students with more freedom to choose what they want to learn and pick their subject accordingly. Despite the limitation to only 10+2 subjects, the SPM examination remains rigid in terms of the flexibility to mix-and-match subjects and the unchanged requirement that students will have to sit for six compulsory subjects.

Fourth, which is closely related to the third, was the issue about JPA (Public Service) Scholarship. This scholarship has attracted vast amount of debate, which overflowed into debate about ethnic-distribution and equality in awarding of the scholarship under the quota system. However, the debate failed to question some of the fundamental issues associated with the scholarship. The JPA scholarship is for university education. However, the criteria used to award the scholarship was based upon the SPM results, which is the O-levels result that only serve as the qualification into pre-university. Therefore, there was this paradox of awarding a university scholarship, based on examination that has no bearing whatsoever to the students’ performance in university. Furthermore, in the debate, it was also not clear as to whether the JPA scholarship is a need-based financial aid or it is a scholarship fro the brightest student in the country. Strangely but true, despite the confusion in these fundamental questions, Malaysians were contended to continue debating about the provision of the scholarship.

In the higher education part of the education system, there was one significant event in 2009, where for the first time in many years, a public university was allowed to autonomously select their students. In other words, students applied directly for admission into this public university. This was clearly a shift away from the centrally-controlled admission mechanism for public universities in the country. Personally, I guess this is a way forward, which ultimately, allows all public universities to openly compete among themselves for the best and brightest students. Only with such competition, public universities will have the incentive to provide quality education for the students. In a way, such direct application also allows for greater transparency in the selection and admission process to public universities

The second issue about university that took place in 2009 was the introduction of the Postgraduate Scholarships under the Economic Stimulus Package. The government offered postgraduate scholarship, as a way to tackle graduate unemployment, which presumably had gotten worse with the current economic situation. The concern to this initiative from the educational viewpoint was, while the policy aimed to tackle an economic problem, on the other hand, it is creating another educational problem in the form of credential inflation. While during the time when the economy was still performing, graduate unemployment was already a concern. Therefore, it was a concern that with this provision of the Postgraduate Scholarship, the education systems will be producing more specialised graduates with higher qualification. As such, it would be extremely hard to envisioned how the economy in this near future is going to absorb such a high number of graduates with Masters and Doctorate qualification, when in reality, these graduates might in the first place have difficulties securing an entry-level position in the graduate job market. In essence, this scholarship has hasten the Diploma Disease in the Malaysian education system.

In my humble opinion, 2009 had been a year where development had taken place without a sense of directionality. Through understanding these critical events that had played a part to shape the educational landscape of the country, I would argue that most of the changes and policies were implemented without much "educational" consideration, and more importantly, our education system as a whole had not progressed in 2009 in order to provide a better education for all Malaysians.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Methodism and Education

Methodism has played an important part in the development of education, particularly through the role of setting up schools and providing universal education. From the very beginning, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, has emphasised the importance of education and this was reflected when the matter of education was raised personally by John Wesley at the first Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion in 1744.

Today, especially in Malaysia's education landscape, the Methodist church continues to have a role in the development of education through the Methodist schools and colleges. However, have we ever take a moment to ponder and reflect precisely what has been the influential doctrine and guiding principles of John Wesley's approach and understanding about education?

There may have been many different influences to Wesley's idea of education, but arguably, the most significant influence was his own mother. In the book by F.C. Pritchard (1949), there was a letter written by Susanna Wesley at her son's request when he consulted his mother about the "educational practice" of his upbringing, in which I seek to share the interesting bits of it:

-Extracted from Pritchard (1949, pp. 20-26)

July 24, 1732

Dear Son,

According to your desire, I have collected the principal rules I observed in educating my family; which I now send you as they occurred to my mind, and you may (if you think they can be of use to any) dispose of them in what order you please.

The children were always put into a regular method of living, in such things as they were capable of, from their birth: as in dressing, undressing, changing their linen etc. The first quarter commonly passes in sleep. After that they were, if possible, laid into their cradles awake, and rocked to sleep; and so they were kept rocking till it was time for them to awake. This was done to bring them a regular course of sleeping...

When turned a year old (and some before), they were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly; by which means they escaped abundance of correction they might otherwise have had...

As soon as they were grown pretty strong, they were confined to three meals a day... [and] never suffered to choose their meat, but always made eat such things as were provided for the family... Drinking or eating between meals was never allowed...

At six, as soon as family prayers were over, they had their supper; at seven the maid washed them.... and got them all to bed by eight; at which time she left them in their rooms awake - for there was no such thing allowed of it our house as sitting by a child till it fell asleep.

In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their will, and bring them to an obedient temper. To inform the understanding is a work of time, and must with children proceed by slow degrees as they are able to bear it; but subjecting the will is a thing that must be done at once, and the sooner the better. For, by neglecting timely correction, they will contract a stubbornness and obstinacy which is hardly ever after conquered; and never, without using such severity as would be as painful to me as to the child. In the esteem of the world they pass for kind and indulgent whom I call cruel parents, who permit their children to get habits which they know must be afterwards broken... I insist upon conquering the will of children betimes, because this is the only strong and rational foundation of a religious education...

The children of this family were taught, as soon as they could speak, the Lord's Prayer... They were very early made to distinguish the Sabbath from other days... They were as soon taught to be still at family prayers, and to ask a blessing immediately after...

There were several by-laws observed among us.

1) It has been observed that cowardice and fear of punishment often led children into lying, till they get a custom of it, which they cannot leave. To prevent this, a law was made, that whoever was charged with a fault, of which they were guilty, if they would ingenuously confess it, and promise to amend, should not be beaten. This rule prevented a great deal of lying, and would have done more, if one in the family would have observed it. But he could not be prevailed on, and therefore was often imposed on by false colours and equivocations; which none would have used, had they been kindly dealt with. And some, in spite of all, would always speak truth plainly.

2) That no sinful action... should ever pass unpunished.

3) That no child should ever be chid or beat twice for the same fault; and that, if they amended, they should never be upbraided with it afterwards.

4) That every signal act of obedience.... should be always commended, and frequently rewarded.

5) That if ever any child performed an act of obedience or with intention to please, though the performance was not well; the intention should be kindly accepted and the child with sweetness directed how to do better for the future.

6) That propriety be inviolably preserved, and none suffered to invade the property of another in the smallest matter...

7) That promises be strictly observed...

8) That no girl be taught to work till she can read very well...

We might not entirely agree with the methods used by the Wesley family, as some of them might not be practical to our current situation. Nonetheless, it is clear that, from the account of John Wesley's mother, the most crucial principle that needs to be indoctrinated into the child is discipline. This is arguably the pre-requisite to education, and is clearly one of the driving principles to Wesley's idea of education.

Shouldn't go to university?

There was a recent article in the Times newspaper that argues why people shouldn't go to university. In response to the article, a friend shared the following:

"Recently my friend who is mechanical engineer at aircond factory at Bangi earning 3k decided to resign and open a supermarket back at his hometown, i am thinking, hmm... maybe he should work in supermarket after SPM instead..." (by Tim L.)

Briefly, the story was about a mechanical engineer who was earning an average monthly wage of a university graduate, decided to quit the job in the city and returned to his hometown to start a supermarket. My friend who shared the story, then, argues that it might be better for the "engineer" to venture into the supermarket business immediately after secondary school, instead of going to university.

To many of us, this story seems to be rather familiar. Many university graduates, especially in Malaysia, do not venture into the careers that are expected of them. More often during such discussion, issues such as graduate unemployment, graduate employability as well as the standard of our tertiary education will subsequently be raised.

However, this article attempts to look at this story from a slightly different perspective. While reading the story for the first time, a question immediately came to my mind.

"If this person is "destined" to venture into a supermarket business, how would university education makes a difference to his career?"

I guess, if we are to evaluate this question in relations to the story, our answer will likely to be guided by how we understand university education.

If we take the cost-benefit approach, certainly, the cost will exceed the benefit. The cost will not only include the tuition fees to pursue a degree, but also includes the opportunity costs, i.e. earnings that were foregone while studying and, the possible "experiences" and "opportunities" of working in the supermarket earlier; yet, the "tangible" benefits remain relatively unchanged.

If we assume university education as a form of credential that only leads into the related careers, expectedly, we are likely to argue that university education in such situation is unnecessary.

However, if we return to the basic idea of university education, which is a form of intellectual training and development, then confidently, we can argue that university education will indeed makes a different to the person as a whole.

University education is not only the certificate that one receives at the end of the course or the number of A's that one scores in exams, but rather, it is "the education and training" to become an intellectual person, which can be defined as a person who uses his/her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a professional capacity or for personal reasons. In the book titled "Knowledge and Decisions", intellectual was also used to mean an individual whose profession solely involves the dissemination and/or production of ideas, as opposed to producing products or services. Briefly, university education could be regarded as a form of training to produce intellectuals, which are then expected to translate their intellectuality into all aspects of life.

It is clear that only through understanding the role of university education, as a form of intellectual training, we could convincingly argue that it remains worthwhile to pursue university education regardless of the career aspiration. This also explains why courses, such as philosophy, classics, literature, languages, history and theology, are relevant and remain as an essential part of the university, despite their practicalities and applicabilities are being challenged.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

University Ranking

Welcome back to the exciting month of university ranking again. Every year during this period, higher education institutions around the world capture headlines like never before. There will be joy for some institutions, setbacks for others and, worse still, these news and rankings might even cause some academics to lose their jobs. What does this means for the higher education sector?

Without doubt, university ranking has become an important component of the higher education sector. Initially, these rankings were supposed to provide a comparative benchmark among higher education institutions as a way to ensured that quality is upheld. However, with all the publicity associated to these university rankings, it has become a rat-race among institutions to compete among one another for a better standing. Today, institutions have to compete not only with institutions within the same country, but the competition has expanded both regionally and internationally. One wonders whether this is truly a competition over quality or merely competition for its own sake.

In the different rankings, institutions are evaluated with a different set of criteria. Some place more importance on peer-evaluation, research funding, publication, international reputation, while others include other criteria such as staff-student ratio or graduate employment. Although most of these rankings measure different criteria, however, when it comes to reporting the findings to the public, all these differences are masked behind statistical weightages and indices which reflect the "quality" of the institutions. In other words, the public is made to believe that University A is better than University B, simply because A is ranked higher than B. However, many fail to ask, "What makes A rank higher than B?"

This leads us to ask two more questions:

"What are the important criteria to measure quality in higher education?"

"Who should decide the components to be evaluated?"

Generally, a university has two major responsibilities: teaching and research. Does this means that quality of higher education institutions should be based solely on these responsibilities. This may not be the case. For example in the World University Ranking (THE-QS), the ranking is based on the following criteria: academic peer review (40%), staff-student ratio (20%), research excellence (20%), international faculty (10%), international students (10%) and employer review (10%). Is this the "correct" ratio to indicate quality?

On top of that, who actually determines that this is the "correct" ratio to measure quality? Are all the institutions being evaluated agreeable to the "ratio"? Furthermore, is this the appropriate ratio to measure higher education institutions around the world? Certainly, we cannot expect universities in US and UK to be evaluated on exactly the same criteria as universities in the developing countries.

Evaluating further the components in the tabulation of these ranking, there are several "questionable" indicators that could challenge the reliability and validity of these rankings. For example in THE-QS ranking, the research excellence criterion (20%) is based on citations, which measures how many times an academic's published work is cited. We ought to take into consideration that in the academia, published work is a form of academic debate. Therefore, there might be a possibility that when someone's work is cited, it does not necessarily indicate that the work is excellent. On the contrary, some shabby and questionable research could also be cited (in a bad and negative way) and challenged. Sad but true, both excellence and terrible research will be measured equally in tabulating the ranking.

On the aspect of teaching quality, the proxy measurement used is the staff-student ratio. In other words, the ideal ratio will be such that a university has a large faculty base and small student population. Such a measure, will expectedly favour the research-driven universities. Although theoretically, a low staff-student ratio is ideal, nevertheless, educational research about class size have not been able to proof the theory right. So in other words, having a low ratio does not necessary guarantee teaching quality. On the contrary, there has been many instances where teaching quality in research-driven universities is being questioned, whereby academics consider teaching as secondary or even as an unnecessary burden.

Although the issue of university ranking has become a publicity gimmick that captures the public's attention towards higher education, nonetheless, this once-a-year limelight provides a perfect opportunity for higher education institutions around the world to take a moment and ponder about the important question of quality. Academia should not compete for the sake of competition, but should rather, be committed to compete for the sake of upholding the true quality of higher education.

Is this Academic Bribery?

One unique feature of the continuous assessment regime in higher education is to evaluate students not solely through their performance in the final exam, but also through other evaluation indicators throughout the course. Typically, the final exam will comprises of 30-70 percent of the final grade, while the remaining percentage are awarded to the students in the form of continuous assessment.

The common evaluation methods used as continuous assessment are certain percentages of the final grade to be allocated for the mid-term exams, tutorial exercises and assignments. However, in most cases, students' attendance will also be given a small percentage, such as 5 or 10 percent. In Malaysian universities, such practice of awarding a certain percentage for students' attendance is very common.

This is where the controversy begins. Is awarding students solely for their attendance a form of academic bribery?

The argument that supports for such allocation argues that students need to be incentivise to attend lectures and tutorials. Furthermore, it was also argued that with such incentive, students will come to lectures and tutorials more prepared and, lecturers are assured of an audience.

On the other hand, critics argue that by awarding students solely for their attendance is a form of bribery that helps student to score higher marks, without any contribution to the intellectual development of the students. (For more arguments, read report).

Is this a form of academic bribery? A point worth pondering.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Plagiarism

Malaysian academics were once again in the news for the wrong reason. Two lecturers were caught plagiarising materials from the Internet to produce a guide book. The punishments for their action include a stern warning that would be included in their service records and they have to return any royalty received for the book. So far, only a politician, who was formerly a professor, has called for the lecturers to be sacked, citing that "plagiarism is the most serious crime in a university".

What exactly is plagiarism? It is defined as a practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. More specifically, plagiarism within academia is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud. No doubt, plagiarism is a serious crime, but what is surprising with this incident was the lack of response from fellow academicians in the country and the public in general.

Is the lack of response due to the fact that such act is common?

From my own experience studying in a Malaysian public university, plagiarism or "partial-plagiarism" is quite a common phenomena. I remembered a core course in my second-year, where the lecturer, a very senior academic and held influential position in the department, "suggests" that all students in the course to purchase the course textbook, which was in Malay. The price of the book was RM10, but was "photocopied" and bind into a book form. Upon reading the book, readers will realise that all diagrams and figures in the book was "copy-and-paste", as the diagrams are worded in English, while the description and the texts are in Malay. Out of curiosity, a fellow coursemate began to search all textbooks and found the original version. When compared, it was obvious that every sentence of the Malay textbook was "literarily" translated and the diagrams and figures were "copy-and-paste" directly from the English version. The "author" to the Malay textbook is the lecturer and no acknowledgement whatsoever could be found that indicate that the Malay textbook was translated or cited from the English textbook.

Is that not plagiarism? Sadly, this is just one of the many incidents that I came across.

On the other hand, as an undergraduate student, I have to admit that we were not given any training to avoid plagiarism, or simply informed what is it all about. There was only one module that taught us how to cite references and perfectly list the references in the bibliography. However, the essence of citation and how to avoid plagiarism remains much a mystery.

How I came to know about plagiarism? I was privilege to have a lecturer, who failed one of my assignments, but later, explained what went wrong and taught me the essence of plagiarism and what it meant by citation and references. If not for the "education" of this lecturer, I might have graduated with a university degree without any hint of what plagiarism is all about.

Clearly, as a way to tackle plagiarism, proper education needs to be given to the students, teaching them what exactly is plagiarism and how to avoid it. On the other hand, strict and stern action is needed to punish those who knows, but yet, plagiarise. After all, plagiarism is a "criminal" act in the academia, very much alike stealing as a criminal act in the society.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

The Making of "Diploma Disease"

The economy is in recession. As part of the stimulus package, tuition fees and research grants were offered to postgraduate students to pursue a PhD or Master's programme locally. Clearly, a strong push factor for graduates to pursue a postgraduate degree, at virtually zero monetary cost. The only cost is probably the opportunity cost of not working in the labour market.

On the other hand, among the many key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess and evaluate academic staffs in public universities, one of the KPI is the number of postgraduate students supervised. Such a KPI provides the necessary incentive for academic staffs to accept as many as possible postgraduate students. For the graduates, this is an indirect pull factor.

Along with the problem of graduate unemployment, these are perfect ingredients for the making of "Diploma Disease". Such phenomenon happens when the number of holders for a qualification increases, and thus, reduces the value of the qualification as an indicator of one's academic ability. As a result, there will be an increasing demand for higher levels of qualification.

We might need to ask that with these developments, will it happen that one day, Bachelor degrees are worthless in Malaysia, and the necessary university qualification is the Ph.D. We certainly hope the answer is no, but this is highly and likely.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

Grade Inflation

The UK A-levels examination results were released today; the best results in 60 years. 97.5 percent passed the examination while 26.7 percent were awarded an A grade.

For many candidates, indeed, it is a day of joy for the hard work they have put in to achieve this result. However, as a consequence of this grade inflation, many of them will eventually realise that the admission for university will be much more difficult. As a matter of fact, element of luck will play a greater role than their results, as university admissions will have difficulty distinguishing between the top students.

In response to the grade inflation, the Head of Exam Board has indicated that the Board is considering to include the student's percentage pass marks along with the grades, as a way to differentiate between the top students. Furthermore, there has also been suggestion to review the syllabus and make the examination more difficult.

In reflection to Malaysia, the SPM examination has also inflated greatly in terms of grading. I recalled that back in 1999 before the implementation of the "open paper", three of my schoolmates scored 10 A's with one of them scoring 10 A1's, made it to the front page of the national newspaper. Since implementing the "open paper" system in 2001, 10 A's is considered mediocre and students are striving for more than 20 A's in SPM examination.

The new Minister of Education recently announced introducing a "cap" to only 10 subjects for SPM. Indeed, a sensible initiative to reduce the inflating pressure on grade. However disappointingly, no further initiatives being considered.

In my frank view, besides limiting the number of subjects, there is also a need to:

1) review the syllabus for all the subjects;

2) consider the possibility of reducing the compulsory subjects; and more importantly

3) review the teaching and evaluation of subjects under the SPM examination.

These initiatives are much more important. Placing a "cap" will only reduce the inflationary pressure on the grades, but has no significant effect to enhance the value of examination as an evaluative tool in education.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate

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

Childcare Services

Is childcare services related to pre-school education? It seems more than a coincidence that a few days ago, the Minister of Education talked about pre-school and, now, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is talking about childcare services.

Although both issues seem unrelated, but in reality, both politicians are commenting on the exact same issue. Simply, the connection lies in private pre-school centres are also childcare services. They are 2-in-1. It is a trend, especially in urban areas, that these childcare centres also provide pre-school education.

Therefore, on the one hand, the Minister of Education suggested absorbing pre-school into the national education, citing the improvement of English as the reason to do so; on the other hand, the Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community is commenting about the different by-laws and regulation under different local authorities to administer and monitor childcare centres.

This is one sector of education that has a large proportion of private initiatives. In addition, pre-school education also involves at least three Federal ministries and other local authorities. So far, politicians in the two major ministries have proposed some changes and highlighted some problems. It seems to me, the Federal government is "eyeing" to "adopt" pre-school education fully into their jurisdiction.

However, the rationale and objective behind such a policy remain to be seen.

This post is also available in The Malaysian Education Debate