I was very intrigued to read this Mkini report on the CCM's (Council of Churches Malaysia) push to want to revive missionary schools in Malaysia. Being a product of a missionary school, La Salle PJ, I am naturally sympathetic to this plan.
Missionary schools were generally recognized as schools where one could receive a good education because the disciplinary standards were high, the teachers were generally motivated and could teach well, the standard of English was relatively high and the 'brothers' and 'sisters' (priests and nuns) created an environment that was highly conducive to learning. Most of us are familiar with some of these schools - La Salle, St. Xavier, Anglo-Chinese, Bukit Bintang, the many Convent schools - and many of us continue to be supportive alumni members.
It is widely acknowledge that the standards of education in many of these missionary schools have gone down the tubes and have lost the distinctiveness which made them highly conducive environments for learning. They were slowly but surely 'nationalized' when the brothers and sisters who were running these schools reached retirement age and were 'replaced' by headmasters and teachers from the civil service . Many of these replacements did not have a clue in regards to the 'culture' in these missionary schools. Hence they did not have a clue as to how to perpetuate this 'culture' of learning. The older, more experienced teachers slowly began to retire in these missionary schools and they were replaced by inexperienced teachers who were trained mostly in the teacher training colleges. The 'busing' in of more and more outside students, many of them from asrama schools, also contributed to the rapid loss of the 'character' of these missionary schools.
With this in mind, what can organizations like the CCM and Catholic 'organizations' like the Jesuit priests who started the La Salle schools do to restore the quality of education in our national schools?
I think they have to leverage their strengths in a few key areas, namely:
1) The ability of these organizations to use their know how based on their previous experience of running these schools. This includes the ability to restore a sense of discipline among students as well as respect for teachers and the culture of learning and in the recruitment of new teachers and retaining old ones.
2) The ability of these organizations to harness the collective energies of the alumnus. While many of these old alumni still contribute to these schools financially or if their kids are in these schools, through the PTAs, but they could definitely play a larger role for example in being on a board of trustees which has some say in how these schools are being run. Also, one can argue that many more alumni members would want to step up and contribute if they see that there was a concentrated effort to restore the character of these missionary schools.
3) The ability of these organizations to show that missionary schools can be run in a way which is professional and in a way which values education without being overtly religious. I went to La Salle PJ primary and secondary from Standard 1 to Form 3 and in no way did I feel as if Catholicism was being 'promoted' at least not overtly. I did go for Cathechism classes in primary school but that was something optional.
But to do some of these things, the Ministry of Education has to sign off. While the likelihood of this happening is very small, for the sake of argument, let's look at a few areas in which there needs to be greater flexibility in regards to how these schools will be run if its missionary 'character' is to be restored. Let's assume that the CCM together with some Catholic organizations gets the MOE to allow them a greater say in how these former missionary schools are run. What are some of the considerations that need to be taken into account?
1)Who is to give the proper input?
- Many of the Jesuit priests, nuns and the early founders of these schools have either passed away or retired. While their experience can be used / consulted, long term and regular input needs to be given by a different group of people. I suggest that some sort of board of trustees comprising distinguished alumni, parents of current students and possibly reputable MOE appointees (just to make them feel more comfortable) should be given some amount of power in regards to running these schools.
2) What kind of jurisdiction is needed?
- I think that these missionary schools should be given some flexibility in the hiring of teachers (outside of the MOE system perhaps), some flexibility in the curriculum, charging extra fees to pay for better teachers and facilities (means tested so as not to exclude poor students) as well as some control over who gets into these schools (some sort of admission criteria). The intended outcome is that a school which is multi-racial, comprising mostly of local, above average students, with good teachers and interesting curriculum (beyond the mandated syllabus) and an environment of learning and discipline.
Of course, all this is just talk given that the MOE is not likely to want to cede control over these schools. But it's good to put a few things on the table for discussion sake, in case any space opens up in how the government thinks of organizing education policy.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Doubling number of foreign students - a good thing?
The push to increase the number of foreign students in Malaysia is continuing, according to Tok Pa, as recently reported in the Star. This is not something new as I've blogged about this here and here. I've expressed my doubts on whether our public and private universities have the capacity to absorb foreign students at the postgrad level. Tony probably has similar doubts on the capacity of our private universities and colleges to absorb these questions at the undergraduate level. Let me share some more thoughts about this issue.
In the Star report, it was reported that 'Malaysia aims to double to 100,000 the number of foreign students at local institutions of higher learning by 2010, Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed said.'
He also said that 'Government would embark on a two-prong approach to realise the target, which he described as a “significant increase” to achieve the goal to turn the country into a centre of education excellence.'
The two-prong approach is presumably the approach of attracting foreign students both at the undergraduate as well as the postgraduate level.
Generally speaking, I'm in favor of expanding the education sector, especially the private sector, in Malaysia as an alternative source of employment and growth given that our manufacturing base is declining. Why 'especially the private sector'? It costs less for the government, it doesn't take up valuable spaces in the public universities, there's arguably more capacity or spaces in private universities and colleges. While Tony's concerns in regards to the education standards in many of these private colleges and universities are definitely legitimate, I think that competition among the private universities will slowly raise the educational standards in the top-tier private universities such as Nottingham, Monash at Sunway and perhaps HELP and SEDAYA just to name a few more prominent private colleges. As foreign students become more discerning and more information becomes available, they will be able to sift out the more 'legit' private universities versus the more 'dubious' ones.
I'm less supportive of increasing the number of foreign students in public universities firstly because as mentioned above, they take up valuable spaces which should be reserved largely for Malaysian students, especially if they are also heavily subsidized by the Malaysian government. I'm not so averse to having more post-grads at the public universities, especially if they are NOT subsidized by the Malaysian government, because the demand for postgrad studies among Malaysians is lower and because of the possible value added among these foreign post-grads to higher education in Malaysian (potential future lecturers and researchers) as well as to the larger economy (potential knowledge workers).
So some future points to ponder:
- Where will the increase in foreign students in Malaysia occur? (Private undergrad, private postgrad, public undergrad, public postgrad)
- Where are these foreign students coming from? (It's better to have a wide distribution of students from different countries and regions rather than having them come predominantly from one region)
- How are the public and private universities responding to these increases? Do they have the capacity to do so?
- How will the interests of Malaysian students, especially at the undergrad level in public universities, be safeguarded?
- What can and will be done to ensure that foreign students are not 'cheated' by private universities in terms of overpromising and underdelivering? (the same level of protection should be afforded to Malaysian students as well of course)
- Are there certain fields at the postgrad levels (such as science and engineering) which are being targeted, especially in public universities?
My ideal policy outcomes would be something like:
- Increasing standards in private universities by forcing them to compete for foreign students, both at the postgrad and undergrad levels
- Ability to attract quality postgrad students from different countries / regions to public universities
- Steady growth for the education sector as a whole in Malaysia
- Ample 'protections' for both local and foreign students
In the meantime, we'll be tracking this issue very closely.
In the Star report, it was reported that 'Malaysia aims to double to 100,000 the number of foreign students at local institutions of higher learning by 2010, Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed said.'
He also said that 'Government would embark on a two-prong approach to realise the target, which he described as a “significant increase” to achieve the goal to turn the country into a centre of education excellence.'
The two-prong approach is presumably the approach of attracting foreign students both at the undergraduate as well as the postgraduate level.
Generally speaking, I'm in favor of expanding the education sector, especially the private sector, in Malaysia as an alternative source of employment and growth given that our manufacturing base is declining. Why 'especially the private sector'? It costs less for the government, it doesn't take up valuable spaces in the public universities, there's arguably more capacity or spaces in private universities and colleges. While Tony's concerns in regards to the education standards in many of these private colleges and universities are definitely legitimate, I think that competition among the private universities will slowly raise the educational standards in the top-tier private universities such as Nottingham, Monash at Sunway and perhaps HELP and SEDAYA just to name a few more prominent private colleges. As foreign students become more discerning and more information becomes available, they will be able to sift out the more 'legit' private universities versus the more 'dubious' ones.
I'm less supportive of increasing the number of foreign students in public universities firstly because as mentioned above, they take up valuable spaces which should be reserved largely for Malaysian students, especially if they are also heavily subsidized by the Malaysian government. I'm not so averse to having more post-grads at the public universities, especially if they are NOT subsidized by the Malaysian government, because the demand for postgrad studies among Malaysians is lower and because of the possible value added among these foreign post-grads to higher education in Malaysian (potential future lecturers and researchers) as well as to the larger economy (potential knowledge workers).
So some future points to ponder:
- Where will the increase in foreign students in Malaysia occur? (Private undergrad, private postgrad, public undergrad, public postgrad)
- Where are these foreign students coming from? (It's better to have a wide distribution of students from different countries and regions rather than having them come predominantly from one region)
- How are the public and private universities responding to these increases? Do they have the capacity to do so?
- How will the interests of Malaysian students, especially at the undergrad level in public universities, be safeguarded?
- What can and will be done to ensure that foreign students are not 'cheated' by private universities in terms of overpromising and underdelivering? (the same level of protection should be afforded to Malaysian students as well of course)
- Are there certain fields at the postgrad levels (such as science and engineering) which are being targeted, especially in public universities?
My ideal policy outcomes would be something like:
- Increasing standards in private universities by forcing them to compete for foreign students, both at the postgrad and undergrad levels
- Ability to attract quality postgrad students from different countries / regions to public universities
- Steady growth for the education sector as a whole in Malaysia
- Ample 'protections' for both local and foreign students
In the meantime, we'll be tracking this issue very closely.
Contacting us
For those of you who don't know our email addresses (it's in our respective profiles), you can email us at tonypua@yahoo.com for Tony, obviously, and im_ok_man@yahoo.com for me, Kian Ming. I'll be coming back to KL for about a month in May so maybe we'll have another get-together like the one we had last year? If not, if you want to meet up with me individually to talk about doing a PhD in the US or other related education issues, please email me with your details and hopefully, we'll be able to meet up in May. Indeed, one of our readers whom I met at last year's get together just emailed me to let me know that he got into a Duke Phd program and will be joining me at Duke later in fall.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Why Jiao Zong rejects ranking of Smart Schools
I was slightly irritated when I read in the Star yesterday that "Jiao Zong (United Chinese School Teachers Association of Malaysia) chairman Ong Chiow Chuen was quoted in the Sin Chew Daily as saying that the move would have a negative effect." This 'move' is in reference to the decision by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to implement a 5 star rating system for smart schools. I am fully supportive of moves by the MOE to release more information to the public at large which I think will create more transparency and accountability on the part of the school administrators as well as the Ministry. But why did Jiao Zong's chairman reject this ranking system?
First of all, I'm not even sure if there are any Chinese medium schools in the smart school project. A cursory examination of the list of smart schools show that these are all secondary schools and none of them could be considered, as far as I can tell, 'Chinese' national secondary schools in the sense that Catholic High in PJ is a 'Chinese' national secondary school i.e. most of the students are Chinese students from SRJK(C) primary schools and who take Chinese as a PMR as well as an SPM subject. So, I'm a little bit puzzled as to why Ong would object to the ranking of smart schools.
Secondly, his logic of rejecting the ranking of smart schools fails me. He said: "It would give the public a clear picture on how good or bad a school was and this would prompt parents to use all means to ensure that their children were placed in schools that are highly rated."
Given the fact that smart schools already receive greater funding and attention from the Ministry, wouldn't the demand to go to these schools already be sufficiently high? Also, aren't there current procedures which allocate students based on where they live which precludes the sudden streaming in of a large number of outside students who want to enroll in the best smart schools? Furthermore, aren't there other good schools out there which are not designated as smart schools?
As I'm from PJ, I'll use some PJ examples. I can't imagine that all parents would suddenly want to send their girls to Sri Aman since it is a smart school and it would probably do quite well in the ranking system given the demographic profile of the students who go there as well as their middle class and well educated parents. This is because there are other good schools in PJ such as Assunta and Catholic High.
I have to admit that I haven't read the full Oriental Daily interview with Ong. (If anyone knows of the link, please post it here and I'll read the full interview) So I might be guilty of not fairly judging his statements.
But this I will say and I say this based on a more general impression of Dong Jiao Zhong (Dong Zhong and Jiao Zhong) as organizations - that they are not keen on education reform and that they are not keen on being transparent internally and the basis of this attitude is that these organizations are governed and run by aging men who are conservative by nature. Anything that smacks of change is an affront to the way they like things to be - which is to preserve the status quo and not to have change.
While Dong Jiao Zhong has done a great deal in regards to protecting and raising awareness of the plight of Chinese schools in Malaysia, it has done less well in reforming the state of Chinese education in Malaysia. I will just point to two specific examples. They have failed to address the poor standard of English that is being taught and learned in Chinese primary schools as well as Chinese independent schools. So much so that they could not provide alternative proposals when the Ministry of Education decided to implement the teaching of Science and Math in English across all primary schools including Chinese primary schools. The second example is one which Tony has blogged about before - which is the issue of corruption among headmasters in Chinese schools.
The rejection of ranking schools is symptomatic of the conservative streak within Dong Jiao Zhong, I argue. If this leads to a ranking of Chinese primary schools, for example, it will reveal the myth that all Chinese primary schools are equally good at teaching Science and Math, for example, and perhaps reveal the poor standard of English among students in these schools as well as some of their teachers.
While having school rankings is not a panacea for the state of education in Malaysia, I regard it as a positive and progressive step. The fact that the chairman of Jiao Zhong has rejected this move further cements my impression that Dong Jiao Zhong is reluctant to reform itself and to take progressive steps to improve the state of education among Chinese primary schools as well as independent Chinese secondary schools.
First of all, I'm not even sure if there are any Chinese medium schools in the smart school project. A cursory examination of the list of smart schools show that these are all secondary schools and none of them could be considered, as far as I can tell, 'Chinese' national secondary schools in the sense that Catholic High in PJ is a 'Chinese' national secondary school i.e. most of the students are Chinese students from SRJK(C) primary schools and who take Chinese as a PMR as well as an SPM subject. So, I'm a little bit puzzled as to why Ong would object to the ranking of smart schools.
Secondly, his logic of rejecting the ranking of smart schools fails me. He said: "It would give the public a clear picture on how good or bad a school was and this would prompt parents to use all means to ensure that their children were placed in schools that are highly rated."
Given the fact that smart schools already receive greater funding and attention from the Ministry, wouldn't the demand to go to these schools already be sufficiently high? Also, aren't there current procedures which allocate students based on where they live which precludes the sudden streaming in of a large number of outside students who want to enroll in the best smart schools? Furthermore, aren't there other good schools out there which are not designated as smart schools?
As I'm from PJ, I'll use some PJ examples. I can't imagine that all parents would suddenly want to send their girls to Sri Aman since it is a smart school and it would probably do quite well in the ranking system given the demographic profile of the students who go there as well as their middle class and well educated parents. This is because there are other good schools in PJ such as Assunta and Catholic High.
I have to admit that I haven't read the full Oriental Daily interview with Ong. (If anyone knows of the link, please post it here and I'll read the full interview) So I might be guilty of not fairly judging his statements.
But this I will say and I say this based on a more general impression of Dong Jiao Zhong (Dong Zhong and Jiao Zhong) as organizations - that they are not keen on education reform and that they are not keen on being transparent internally and the basis of this attitude is that these organizations are governed and run by aging men who are conservative by nature. Anything that smacks of change is an affront to the way they like things to be - which is to preserve the status quo and not to have change.
While Dong Jiao Zhong has done a great deal in regards to protecting and raising awareness of the plight of Chinese schools in Malaysia, it has done less well in reforming the state of Chinese education in Malaysia. I will just point to two specific examples. They have failed to address the poor standard of English that is being taught and learned in Chinese primary schools as well as Chinese independent schools. So much so that they could not provide alternative proposals when the Ministry of Education decided to implement the teaching of Science and Math in English across all primary schools including Chinese primary schools. The second example is one which Tony has blogged about before - which is the issue of corruption among headmasters in Chinese schools.
The rejection of ranking schools is symptomatic of the conservative streak within Dong Jiao Zhong, I argue. If this leads to a ranking of Chinese primary schools, for example, it will reveal the myth that all Chinese primary schools are equally good at teaching Science and Math, for example, and perhaps reveal the poor standard of English among students in these schools as well as some of their teachers.
While having school rankings is not a panacea for the state of education in Malaysia, I regard it as a positive and progressive step. The fact that the chairman of Jiao Zhong has rejected this move further cements my impression that Dong Jiao Zhong is reluctant to reform itself and to take progressive steps to improve the state of education among Chinese primary schools as well as independent Chinese secondary schools.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Masters in Economics (Part 1)
This post was inspired by a comment left by Elanor Tan in regards to whether one should pursue a Masters in Economics locally in Malaysia or go abroad. I thought it would be a good learning experience for me to look at the local offerings in regards to Masters in Economics courses and compare them to similar programs in the UK and the US, something which I'm a little more familiar with.
Assuming that one did his or her undergraduate degree in economics (like the person who left the comment in Elanor's blog) in a local university in Malaysia, the first question that his person should ask is - why exactly do I want to pursue a Masters in Economics? This question is important because it dictates where one should go to pursue one's Masters, whether it is a local program or an overseas program.
For example, if this person is interested in researching a particular aspect of the Malaysian economy (but doesn't want to spend 3 to 5 years on a PhD), it would make more sense for him or her to enroll in a Masters program in a local university. Most, it not all, Masters programs in Economics in UK and US universities are very theoretical and quantitative. Even at the undergraduate level in most UK and US universities, Economics students are required to take numerous quantitative courses -in mathematics (calculus, matrices etc...) as well as statistics (regression, distribution, etc...). I'm guessing that the undergraduate requirements in most Economics programs in Malaysian universities are not as rigorous. A brief glance at the UM faculty of economics and administration website shows that it is possible to take quantitative courses at the undergraduate level but it is unclear if these quantitative courses are required courses. So if one doesn't like math or stats, I would highly discourage you to go to the UK or the US to do a Masters in Economics.
While it is possible to pursue a rigorous quantitative route at the local level, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, there is also the option of obtaining a Masters by dissertation (instead of coursework) at the local level. I'm not familiar with such an option being possible in most US or UK universities, unless it is not a pure Masters in Economics e.g. Masters in Public Administration or a Masters in International Development. So, if you're interested in investigating, for example, the impact of Malaysia's industrialization policy on economic development, I think you would be better served by doing a Masters in a local university, under a knowledgable supervisor, with easy access to local resources.
What if this person wants to do a Masters as the first step towards a PhD in Economics? Some of what I've said above still applies. If you're not quantitatively inclined and if you want to do something which is Malaysia specific, you're better off enrolling in a local program. The downside, however, of enrolling is a local program is that your PhD will be less 'marketable' because, if you've not done sufficient course and if your PhD research design in one that is limited in scope, you'll find that you'll be able to teach only in Malaysian universities. If this is fine with you, then again, by all means, enroll in a local program.
If this person really likes Economics as a subject (and not just one particular aspect of the Malaysian economy) and is not averse to quantitative methods (math and stats), then I'd advise this person to try to enroll in a US or UK university. Most US universities, however, are less inclined to enroll a person seeking only to do a Masters degree program in Economics preferring PhD students instead. Thus, there are not many top-ranked US schools which offer this choice. Some, however, do offer a one or two year Masters in related fields such as a Masters in International Studies (Yale). Nuffied College in Oxford offers a 2 year quantitatively driven Masters program in Economics and both Cambridge and LSE offers a one-year Masters program in Economics which covers the basic theoretical ground in Economics (Micro, Macro, Stats) for further graduate work.
So it this person is intersted in Economics but only wants to do it at the Masters level, then apply to a UK university. If this person wants to do a Masters as a step towards a PhD degree, then apply to a US university.
Finally, what is this person just wants to get a Masters in a field which would advance his or her career? Then, I would suggest that you consider taking an MBA instead of a Masters in Economics. An MBA is a much more widely recognized degree and it covers a much broader area than a Masters in Economics. Of course, the next question would be - a local MBA or an overseas one? This is perhaps a subject for another post, but my general recommendation is that if you don't have too many restrictions (family, financial), apply to go to an MBA school overseas, preferably in the US (although LBS in London and INSEAD in Fontainebleu, France are also good options in Europe).
To recap, enroll in a local Masters program in Economics if:
(1) You are not quantitatively driven
(2) You want to research a particular aspect of the Malaysian economy
(3) You have other personal considerations - time, financial, family
enroll in a Masters program in Economics in the UK if:
(1) You don't mind quantitative methods
(2) You like Economics but you're not sure if you want to do a PhD in Economics
(3) You want to finish this Masters in one year
(4) You don't have other personal restrictions
enroll in a Phd program in Economics in the US if:
(1) You like quantitative methods
(2) You are quite sure you want to pursue a PhD in Economics
(3) Your area of interest in economics is not necessarily restricted just to Malaysia.
enroll in a MBA program if:
(1) You are seeking a Masters degree in general for career advancement and are not particular interested in Economics but just want to get an advanced degree.
These are generalizations and does not apply to all situations or to all people. Take it with a pinch of salt. As to which local university one should try to enroll in, that is the subject of another post.
P.S. For those who might not know, I did my BSc in Economics at the LSE and my MPhil in Economics in Cambridge. I'm currently doing my PhD in political science at Duke University. One of these days, I'll share in more detail my positive and negative experiences associated with my education in the UK as well as the US.
Assuming that one did his or her undergraduate degree in economics (like the person who left the comment in Elanor's blog) in a local university in Malaysia, the first question that his person should ask is - why exactly do I want to pursue a Masters in Economics? This question is important because it dictates where one should go to pursue one's Masters, whether it is a local program or an overseas program.
For example, if this person is interested in researching a particular aspect of the Malaysian economy (but doesn't want to spend 3 to 5 years on a PhD), it would make more sense for him or her to enroll in a Masters program in a local university. Most, it not all, Masters programs in Economics in UK and US universities are very theoretical and quantitative. Even at the undergraduate level in most UK and US universities, Economics students are required to take numerous quantitative courses -in mathematics (calculus, matrices etc...) as well as statistics (regression, distribution, etc...). I'm guessing that the undergraduate requirements in most Economics programs in Malaysian universities are not as rigorous. A brief glance at the UM faculty of economics and administration website shows that it is possible to take quantitative courses at the undergraduate level but it is unclear if these quantitative courses are required courses. So if one doesn't like math or stats, I would highly discourage you to go to the UK or the US to do a Masters in Economics.
While it is possible to pursue a rigorous quantitative route at the local level, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, there is also the option of obtaining a Masters by dissertation (instead of coursework) at the local level. I'm not familiar with such an option being possible in most US or UK universities, unless it is not a pure Masters in Economics e.g. Masters in Public Administration or a Masters in International Development. So, if you're interested in investigating, for example, the impact of Malaysia's industrialization policy on economic development, I think you would be better served by doing a Masters in a local university, under a knowledgable supervisor, with easy access to local resources.
What if this person wants to do a Masters as the first step towards a PhD in Economics? Some of what I've said above still applies. If you're not quantitatively inclined and if you want to do something which is Malaysia specific, you're better off enrolling in a local program. The downside, however, of enrolling is a local program is that your PhD will be less 'marketable' because, if you've not done sufficient course and if your PhD research design in one that is limited in scope, you'll find that you'll be able to teach only in Malaysian universities. If this is fine with you, then again, by all means, enroll in a local program.
If this person really likes Economics as a subject (and not just one particular aspect of the Malaysian economy) and is not averse to quantitative methods (math and stats), then I'd advise this person to try to enroll in a US or UK university. Most US universities, however, are less inclined to enroll a person seeking only to do a Masters degree program in Economics preferring PhD students instead. Thus, there are not many top-ranked US schools which offer this choice. Some, however, do offer a one or two year Masters in related fields such as a Masters in International Studies (Yale). Nuffied College in Oxford offers a 2 year quantitatively driven Masters program in Economics and both Cambridge and LSE offers a one-year Masters program in Economics which covers the basic theoretical ground in Economics (Micro, Macro, Stats) for further graduate work.
So it this person is intersted in Economics but only wants to do it at the Masters level, then apply to a UK university. If this person wants to do a Masters as a step towards a PhD degree, then apply to a US university.
Finally, what is this person just wants to get a Masters in a field which would advance his or her career? Then, I would suggest that you consider taking an MBA instead of a Masters in Economics. An MBA is a much more widely recognized degree and it covers a much broader area than a Masters in Economics. Of course, the next question would be - a local MBA or an overseas one? This is perhaps a subject for another post, but my general recommendation is that if you don't have too many restrictions (family, financial), apply to go to an MBA school overseas, preferably in the US (although LBS in London and INSEAD in Fontainebleu, France are also good options in Europe).
To recap, enroll in a local Masters program in Economics if:
(1) You are not quantitatively driven
(2) You want to research a particular aspect of the Malaysian economy
(3) You have other personal considerations - time, financial, family
enroll in a Masters program in Economics in the UK if:
(1) You don't mind quantitative methods
(2) You like Economics but you're not sure if you want to do a PhD in Economics
(3) You want to finish this Masters in one year
(4) You don't have other personal restrictions
enroll in a Phd program in Economics in the US if:
(1) You like quantitative methods
(2) You are quite sure you want to pursue a PhD in Economics
(3) Your area of interest in economics is not necessarily restricted just to Malaysia.
enroll in a MBA program if:
(1) You are seeking a Masters degree in general for career advancement and are not particular interested in Economics but just want to get an advanced degree.
These are generalizations and does not apply to all situations or to all people. Take it with a pinch of salt. As to which local university one should try to enroll in, that is the subject of another post.
P.S. For those who might not know, I did my BSc in Economics at the LSE and my MPhil in Economics in Cambridge. I'm currently doing my PhD in political science at Duke University. One of these days, I'll share in more detail my positive and negative experiences associated with my education in the UK as well as the US.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Cost-Benefit of Overseas Education
Many parents today save up a lot of money for their children to pursue an overseas education. More than a few would have asked, is it all worth it? Well, someone actually did a fairly detailed cost-benefit analysis on the issue using a simple financial model (with assumptions of course). Check out Ahmad Ismail's analysis on the issue here.
Basically, the conclusion appears to be that "there is nearly no economic benefit to sending children abroad as opposed to sending them to local universities". Unfortunately, I haven't the time this 2 days to do a rigourous study of overseas education and its cost and benefits, I'll give my 2-sen on my personal views with regards to the issue.
The most significant global phenomenon of tertiary education for the past decade or so, has been the "democratisation" of degree-level education. That is sort of a polite way of saying "everybody also can get a degree from somewhere or other". We have argued that the focus on the quantity of universities and university graduates has reduced the quality of degree level education in Malaysia. However, it is not a phenomenon unique to Malaysia.
To varying degrees (pardon the pun ;)), it is the same for Australia, United Kingdom and the United States. The global result is hence the overall decline in the average quality of degree graduates. For example, a student who would possibly have qualified only for a diploma in the past, would have no problems securing a degree certification today.
Viewed from the above context (which is different from the approach taken by Ahmad), the argument that an overseas education may not be economically more beneficial than a local university holds a certain level of merit. My experience in recruitment has certainly taught me that local graduates are not uniformly weaker than foreign ones, as often generalised (and I would say, generalised wrongly). There are graduates from foreign universities who I would not hire, even if I'm offered a 3-month free trial, just as I wouldn't some local graduates.
At the same time, there are many local graduates who I would happily hire, and rate equal or better than most "overseas" graduates. Hence, in this regard, my personal experience 'sort of' adds justification to Ahmad's hypothesis.
However, I believe that there are exceptions. The exceptions are when these overseas graduates originates from the top universities overseas. Whether justified or otherwise, the market rates graduates from say, Yale or Cambridge much higher than those from the average (for lack of a better descriptive term), universities. I must admit that I have personally benefited from such treatment having graduated from Oxford. Whether its fair, justifiable or otherwise, my chosen alma mater eased my entry into on of the top global consulting companies and indirectly helped my start up business due to better chances of seeking appointments with key client managers. Even today, in politics, I'm being viewed a little differently, whether I like it or not.
Hence, in all likelihood (it's still a long time yet) for my own daughter, I'll happily (by hook or by crook) send her overseas if she gains entry into some of the top schools in the world, knowing that she will benefit directly or indirectly from such an education. However, if she's say, an average student, local universities or possibly the insitutions down south, may be the preferred choices.
There is however, a caveat to the above argument. The choice between a local public university as opposed to an overseas university also presupposes that the former is an applicable option, particularly for non-bumiputeras. If access to local public universities isn't a reliable option due to uncertainty of entry requirements as well as course allocation, then the students have no choice but to secure their tertiary education either at local private unversities like Multimedia University or via twinned programmes with local private colleges or directly to overseas institutions.
Basically, the conclusion appears to be that "there is nearly no economic benefit to sending children abroad as opposed to sending them to local universities". Unfortunately, I haven't the time this 2 days to do a rigourous study of overseas education and its cost and benefits, I'll give my 2-sen on my personal views with regards to the issue.
The most significant global phenomenon of tertiary education for the past decade or so, has been the "democratisation" of degree-level education. That is sort of a polite way of saying "everybody also can get a degree from somewhere or other". We have argued that the focus on the quantity of universities and university graduates has reduced the quality of degree level education in Malaysia. However, it is not a phenomenon unique to Malaysia.
To varying degrees (pardon the pun ;)), it is the same for Australia, United Kingdom and the United States. The global result is hence the overall decline in the average quality of degree graduates. For example, a student who would possibly have qualified only for a diploma in the past, would have no problems securing a degree certification today.
Viewed from the above context (which is different from the approach taken by Ahmad), the argument that an overseas education may not be economically more beneficial than a local university holds a certain level of merit. My experience in recruitment has certainly taught me that local graduates are not uniformly weaker than foreign ones, as often generalised (and I would say, generalised wrongly). There are graduates from foreign universities who I would not hire, even if I'm offered a 3-month free trial, just as I wouldn't some local graduates.
At the same time, there are many local graduates who I would happily hire, and rate equal or better than most "overseas" graduates. Hence, in this regard, my personal experience 'sort of' adds justification to Ahmad's hypothesis.
However, I believe that there are exceptions. The exceptions are when these overseas graduates originates from the top universities overseas. Whether justified or otherwise, the market rates graduates from say, Yale or Cambridge much higher than those from the average (for lack of a better descriptive term), universities. I must admit that I have personally benefited from such treatment having graduated from Oxford. Whether its fair, justifiable or otherwise, my chosen alma mater eased my entry into on of the top global consulting companies and indirectly helped my start up business due to better chances of seeking appointments with key client managers. Even today, in politics, I'm being viewed a little differently, whether I like it or not.
Hence, in all likelihood (it's still a long time yet) for my own daughter, I'll happily (by hook or by crook) send her overseas if she gains entry into some of the top schools in the world, knowing that she will benefit directly or indirectly from such an education. However, if she's say, an average student, local universities or possibly the insitutions down south, may be the preferred choices.
There is however, a caveat to the above argument. The choice between a local public university as opposed to an overseas university also presupposes that the former is an applicable option, particularly for non-bumiputeras. If access to local public universities isn't a reliable option due to uncertainty of entry requirements as well as course allocation, then the students have no choice but to secure their tertiary education either at local private unversities like Multimedia University or via twinned programmes with local private colleges or directly to overseas institutions.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Hokie Tragedy
Yesterday, a gunman, in two separate incidents, open fired and killed at least 32 people and then took his own life on the campus of Virginia Tech, in the worst mass shooting tragedy in US history. Virginia Tech is located in Blacksburg, Virginia, about a 3 hour drive from where I am at Durham, North Carolina. Our condolences, thoughts and prayers are with the families, students and friends of Virgnia Tech. (Hokie is the name of their sports team / mascot) At Screenshots, we are told that all the Malaysians at Virginia Tech are safe.
Observations from Cambridge for UM
A well written letter posted in Malaysiakini that is worth reading.
Observations from Cambridge for UM
Sekar Shanmugam
Apr 13, 07 1:59pm
On Oct 12 last year, I had the privilege to attend a seminar on leadership delivered by the vice- chancellor of the University of Cambridge at the university’s business school.
After all, the recent uproar in Malaysia about the further drop in rankings of my alma mater - the University of Malaya - in the 2006 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) rankings, I thought I could gather some insights on the running of one of the oldest universities in the world and to share lessons with those responsible in formulating policies for higher education back home.
As the vice-chancellor was introduced to the stage, I quickly glanced through her credentials in the programme leaflet and must say that I was truly impressed even before she started to speak.
Professor Alison Richard was installed as the 344th vice-chancellor of Cambridge on Oct 1, 2003 and incidentally is the first woman to hold the position full-time. An anthropologist with a first degree from Cambridge and a doctorate from the University of London, Richard joined the faculty of Yale University in 1972.
Her academic leadership at Yale culminated in her appointment as Provost of Yale in April 1994. The provost is the chief academic and administrative officer of the university after the president, and as provost, Richard oversaw major strengthening of Yale's financial position and significant growth in academic programmes.
Richard started her talk by dismissing the notion that challenges associated with running a university are distinct from the challenges of running a business. I was surprised by this remark as I assumed that the university - steeped in tradition - would frown upon drawing parallels with the ‘dark’ side that being the ‘non-academic and profit-oriented’ establishment of the business world.
To drive home her point, she elaborated on two areas where the challenges are similar albeit a little unique. These, in fact, are valuable lessons.
Lesson 1 - The measurement of success
While measurements of revenue, profit and shareholder value are typical ‘success’ benchmarks for businesses, appropriate measurements for universities are saddled with ambiguity. She went on to mention that league tables are to be taken with a pinch of salt – and this, mind you, comes from the vice-chancellor of a university that was ranked second in the 2006 THES survey.
There was not even a tinge of self-proclamation of success. Instead, she humbly pointed out that these league tables are merely looking at the present and the past, and give little indication of the future.
The more pertinent measurement of a university, she feels, is how it contributes to the country’s economy. To this, Richard made reference to a report by an independent research firm, the Library House. The research encompassed the university’s technology cluster (that now numbers 900 innovation-based companies) concluded that if Cambridge did not exist, the impact on the UK economy will be a whopping £57.5 billion (net present value) with over 154,000 jobs needing to be replaced.
Lesson 2 - Recruiting the best
The challenge in the area of recruitment is not so much as attracting the brightest talent (the Cambridge name does a sufficient job of that) but in hiring the best candidates. In the university’s context, best means brightest and being able to do both cutting edge research and to impart knowledge to others – that is, to teach at undergraduate or graduate level.
She acknowledges that there will be the occasional missteps but as long as the university has the resources and commitment to hire the best, a strong sense of purpose among the leadership team to make Cambridge great and to have the honesty to examine failures, excellence will be maintained.
As I strode out of the lecture hall towards the refreshment table, I could definitely resonate with most of what she said. After being at a renowned global IT company for the greater part of my career and exposed to how global organisations run their businesses, it dawned on me that the lecture could have just about been by a CEO of a global corporation. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised that it was delivered by an academic.
I definitely sensed that she is all fired up and optimistic of Cambridge achieving its future goals. In fact, she did declare that she will step down to let someone else carry the torch if the flame within her dies down.
It was indeed an eye-opener coming from the ‘CEO’ of an 800-year-old university who has recognised that the survival of the university in the new global platform is not to rest on its past achievements and traditions but to move forward with vigour to maintain Cambridge’s stature as one of the greatest learning institutions of the world.
Observations from Cambridge for UM
Sekar Shanmugam
Apr 13, 07 1:59pm
On Oct 12 last year, I had the privilege to attend a seminar on leadership delivered by the vice- chancellor of the University of Cambridge at the university’s business school.
After all, the recent uproar in Malaysia about the further drop in rankings of my alma mater - the University of Malaya - in the 2006 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) rankings, I thought I could gather some insights on the running of one of the oldest universities in the world and to share lessons with those responsible in formulating policies for higher education back home.
As the vice-chancellor was introduced to the stage, I quickly glanced through her credentials in the programme leaflet and must say that I was truly impressed even before she started to speak.
Professor Alison Richard was installed as the 344th vice-chancellor of Cambridge on Oct 1, 2003 and incidentally is the first woman to hold the position full-time. An anthropologist with a first degree from Cambridge and a doctorate from the University of London, Richard joined the faculty of Yale University in 1972.
Her academic leadership at Yale culminated in her appointment as Provost of Yale in April 1994. The provost is the chief academic and administrative officer of the university after the president, and as provost, Richard oversaw major strengthening of Yale's financial position and significant growth in academic programmes.
Richard started her talk by dismissing the notion that challenges associated with running a university are distinct from the challenges of running a business. I was surprised by this remark as I assumed that the university - steeped in tradition - would frown upon drawing parallels with the ‘dark’ side that being the ‘non-academic and profit-oriented’ establishment of the business world.
To drive home her point, she elaborated on two areas where the challenges are similar albeit a little unique. These, in fact, are valuable lessons.
Lesson 1 - The measurement of success
While measurements of revenue, profit and shareholder value are typical ‘success’ benchmarks for businesses, appropriate measurements for universities are saddled with ambiguity. She went on to mention that league tables are to be taken with a pinch of salt – and this, mind you, comes from the vice-chancellor of a university that was ranked second in the 2006 THES survey.
There was not even a tinge of self-proclamation of success. Instead, she humbly pointed out that these league tables are merely looking at the present and the past, and give little indication of the future.
The more pertinent measurement of a university, she feels, is how it contributes to the country’s economy. To this, Richard made reference to a report by an independent research firm, the Library House. The research encompassed the university’s technology cluster (that now numbers 900 innovation-based companies) concluded that if Cambridge did not exist, the impact on the UK economy will be a whopping £57.5 billion (net present value) with over 154,000 jobs needing to be replaced.
Lesson 2 - Recruiting the best
The challenge in the area of recruitment is not so much as attracting the brightest talent (the Cambridge name does a sufficient job of that) but in hiring the best candidates. In the university’s context, best means brightest and being able to do both cutting edge research and to impart knowledge to others – that is, to teach at undergraduate or graduate level.
She acknowledges that there will be the occasional missteps but as long as the university has the resources and commitment to hire the best, a strong sense of purpose among the leadership team to make Cambridge great and to have the honesty to examine failures, excellence will be maintained.
As I strode out of the lecture hall towards the refreshment table, I could definitely resonate with most of what she said. After being at a renowned global IT company for the greater part of my career and exposed to how global organisations run their businesses, it dawned on me that the lecture could have just about been by a CEO of a global corporation. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised that it was delivered by an academic.
I definitely sensed that she is all fired up and optimistic of Cambridge achieving its future goals. In fact, she did declare that she will step down to let someone else carry the torch if the flame within her dies down.
It was indeed an eye-opener coming from the ‘CEO’ of an 800-year-old university who has recognised that the survival of the university in the new global platform is not to rest on its past achievements and traditions but to move forward with vigour to maintain Cambridge’s stature as one of the greatest learning institutions of the world.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Porn @ Lim Kit Siang's Blog?
Update: A reader has informed me that he has had no problems accessing Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog from the USM network. Hence, the University has either removed the classification, or I could have received a hoax. If it is the latter, then I must apologise to the university for having publicised this matter.
Well, that's apparently how Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog has been classified in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), as shown in the screen capture above ;)
Apparently, the web administrator of Pusat Pengetahuan, Komputer dan Telekomunikasi (PPKT) have decided that Sdr Lim's blog should not be accessed by USM students. Hence not only are university students not allowed to participate in political activities under the UUCA, but even viewing it online is now prohibited.
Several students have made complaints to the university authorities, and we'll see if the policy gets reversed (or has been reversed, as I've gotten this 3 days back) ;)
Well, that's apparently how Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog has been classified in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), as shown in the screen capture above ;)
Apparently, the web administrator of Pusat Pengetahuan, Komputer dan Telekomunikasi (PPKT) have decided that Sdr Lim's blog should not be accessed by USM students. Hence not only are university students not allowed to participate in political activities under the UUCA, but even viewing it online is now prohibited.
Several students have made complaints to the university authorities, and we'll see if the policy gets reversed (or has been reversed, as I've gotten this 3 days back) ;)
Friday, April 13, 2007
LAN accredited courses
Read this story in the Star today in regards to registering for courses which are accredited by LAN (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara) or the National Accreditation Board. I quickly checked the LAN website, and was pleasantly surprised to find that they have a list of accredited courses by institution online. You can find it here and here.
I'm still a little unsure as to what happens if someone takes a 'provisionally' / accredited / approved course and finds out at the end of his or her 3 years of taking this course that this course didn't make it to the fully accredited list.
I was also surprised to find a lot of PHEIs (Private Higher Educational Institutions) which I've never heard before appearing on this list. (Maybe an issue for a future post)
But at least we can access this information online to check if a particular course in a particular institutions is accredited or not, which is what most students would do in this day and age.
I'm still a little unsure as to what happens if someone takes a 'provisionally' / accredited / approved course and finds out at the end of his or her 3 years of taking this course that this course didn't make it to the fully accredited list.
I was also surprised to find a lot of PHEIs (Private Higher Educational Institutions) which I've never heard before appearing on this list. (Maybe an issue for a future post)
But at least we can access this information online to check if a particular course in a particular institutions is accredited or not, which is what most students would do in this day and age.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
SMK Canossa Convent, Melaka
The Truth, The Way and The Light
by Karen Lee Huey Shyan
Standing just merely five meters away from the sea, SMK Canossa Convent, metaphorically, has served as guiding light, as a beacon of hope, for the many lost ‘ships’ in their voyage through life be it spiritually, academically or socially.
I had schoolmates who were Portuguese, Chinese educated Chinese, English educated Chinese (they were from Chinese Medium Primary Schools and Primary Convent Schools respectively), Malays, Hindu Indians, Christian Indians, Baba Nyonyas etc. You named it; we were truly a melting pot. And through this melting pot, we learnt the lessons of racial tolerance to the extent that each festive season was the highlight of our otherwise ordinary school life. We would organize cycling expeditions through the kampungs and paddy fields as we visited our schoolmates and enjoyed the delicious delicacies prepared by different races.
It was also this ‘muhibbah’ spirit, which spurred us on as we made it a point to have festive concerts in our school hall come every festive season.
While we did not have many students with strings of ‘A’s, what we lacked academically, we made it up by excelling in sports and extra-curricular activities. Our school’s volley team was one of the best in Malacca. Coached by the ever popular and charismatic Mr. Lee, though the going was tough, the team players played their guts out at every match and tournament. Not forgetting the huge turnout by the cheerleading students from all age group, we had so much fun supporting our favourite team.
I remembered we were champions in the Malacca English Drama Competition for three years in a row. All thanks to teachers like Mrs. Joan Chong, Mrs. Koh, Mrs. Doris Tan and many others who poured their hearts and souls making diamonds from rough stones like us. Many of us students also sacrificed our time forgoing all other engagements and spending days getting all the lines ready and preparing our props and costumes. I wonder how is the situation like now in my alma mater?
I was in the science stream and my, my classmates and I were really an outspoken lot. We made our presence felt in school by being vocal about a lot of things. We were quite a notorious lot and no one wanted to be our form teacher, fearing that we were too much to handle probably. Which was all the more why we respected Mrs. Seow because she gave us the benefit of the doubt. She didn’t see us as a bunch of misfits but rather like a bunch of youngsters enjoying the emancipation of women to the maximum.
Mrs. Seow, may you rest in peace.
But to me, the person I revered the most was and still is my former Principal, Sister Esther Thomazios. I was really touched by her undying effort and her utmost commitment in bringing out the best in us. She displayed such uncanny ability in making something out of nothing, making Canossa Convent one of the best-kept and organized schools in Malacca.
Two years ago, Canossa Convent celebrated its 100 anniversary of the arrival of the Canossian Sisters in Malaysia. We had a huge gathering amongst the ex students of the school. We also invited the Canossian Sisters from all over Malaysia (Kluang, Malacca, Monfort Boys Town etc) and Singapore to grace the event.
No words can described the feeling of being able to meet our former teachers again and catching up with old classmates and friends, looking at how some of us prosperous horizontally (pun intended) with growing families and sadly, some who had left us to be with God. I was moved to tears when I saw many of the Canossian Sisters I knew like Sister Dorothy, Sister Geraldine and Sister Esther and how they have made a lifetime commitment to the betterment of the unprivileged.
Canossa Convent is located right in the heart of Portuguese Settlement. Unlike now where many dwellers of the settlement are much more affluent, twenty years ago, the main source of income for most of the Portuguese families came from the sea, as most of them were fishermen. Many families could hardly earn enough to sustain a living. Low literacy rate and high dropout rate were common among their children. Not to mention, there were many social problems in the community like alcohol and drug addiction, gangsterism, marital problem etc.
The Canossian Sisters from Canossa Convent were there at a time when the community needed them most. They have been like the light at the end of the tunnel, a beacon of hope when all were in despair. Mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers alike respected the Canossian Sisters. Masses were conducted weekly at the school hall for the community. Fund raising projects were organized to keep the poor fed and clothed. Extra tuition classes were held for the weaker students. Counseling sessions were conducted to improve relationship and more importantly, all were welcomed with open arms by the Sisters. Regardless of race, religion and status, the Canossian Sisters have shown that what God has provided for us, we need to give it back to the community.
Via, Veritas, Vita. The Truth, The Way and The Light. Canossa Convent’s motto. My school’s motto. I finally realize what it meant.
Karen Lee is currently a full time homemaker and a part time teacher. In the midst of her busy schedule, she feels compelled to write about social and environmental issues that touch her heart. She can be contacted at karenleehs(at)yahoo.com
by Karen Lee Huey Shyan
Canossa Convent urgently needs funds to reinforce the foundation of the school hall and library block, which are in danger of collapsing. The beams and pillars are significantly exposed, and action has to be taken fast before any untoward incidents happen. A fund raising dinner will held on the 28th April 2007 in Malacca.I remembered vividly how I used to describe to my colleagues and university mates that my secondary school was like a lighthouse by the edge of the sea. The freezing cold morning air and the lapping of the waves were the sounds that greeted me every time I stepped into the school compound. Located on the highest floor of the school building, my classroom overlooked the sprawling houses in Portuguese Settlement and had a really magnificent view of the Straits of Malacca.
For details, please contact Siok Hoon (012 – 6218909) or siokhoon_chin(at)yahoo.com. Donations can be made to ‘SMK Canossa Convent (Funds Account)’ and sent to:
SMK Canossa Convent, Perkampungan Portugis, Ujong Pasir, 75050 Melaka.
Standing just merely five meters away from the sea, SMK Canossa Convent, metaphorically, has served as guiding light, as a beacon of hope, for the many lost ‘ships’ in their voyage through life be it spiritually, academically or socially.
I had schoolmates who were Portuguese, Chinese educated Chinese, English educated Chinese (they were from Chinese Medium Primary Schools and Primary Convent Schools respectively), Malays, Hindu Indians, Christian Indians, Baba Nyonyas etc. You named it; we were truly a melting pot. And through this melting pot, we learnt the lessons of racial tolerance to the extent that each festive season was the highlight of our otherwise ordinary school life. We would organize cycling expeditions through the kampungs and paddy fields as we visited our schoolmates and enjoyed the delicious delicacies prepared by different races.
It was also this ‘muhibbah’ spirit, which spurred us on as we made it a point to have festive concerts in our school hall come every festive season.
While we did not have many students with strings of ‘A’s, what we lacked academically, we made it up by excelling in sports and extra-curricular activities. Our school’s volley team was one of the best in Malacca. Coached by the ever popular and charismatic Mr. Lee, though the going was tough, the team players played their guts out at every match and tournament. Not forgetting the huge turnout by the cheerleading students from all age group, we had so much fun supporting our favourite team.
I remembered we were champions in the Malacca English Drama Competition for three years in a row. All thanks to teachers like Mrs. Joan Chong, Mrs. Koh, Mrs. Doris Tan and many others who poured their hearts and souls making diamonds from rough stones like us. Many of us students also sacrificed our time forgoing all other engagements and spending days getting all the lines ready and preparing our props and costumes. I wonder how is the situation like now in my alma mater?
I was in the science stream and my, my classmates and I were really an outspoken lot. We made our presence felt in school by being vocal about a lot of things. We were quite a notorious lot and no one wanted to be our form teacher, fearing that we were too much to handle probably. Which was all the more why we respected Mrs. Seow because she gave us the benefit of the doubt. She didn’t see us as a bunch of misfits but rather like a bunch of youngsters enjoying the emancipation of women to the maximum.
Mrs. Seow, may you rest in peace.
But to me, the person I revered the most was and still is my former Principal, Sister Esther Thomazios. I was really touched by her undying effort and her utmost commitment in bringing out the best in us. She displayed such uncanny ability in making something out of nothing, making Canossa Convent one of the best-kept and organized schools in Malacca.
Two years ago, Canossa Convent celebrated its 100 anniversary of the arrival of the Canossian Sisters in Malaysia. We had a huge gathering amongst the ex students of the school. We also invited the Canossian Sisters from all over Malaysia (Kluang, Malacca, Monfort Boys Town etc) and Singapore to grace the event.
No words can described the feeling of being able to meet our former teachers again and catching up with old classmates and friends, looking at how some of us prosperous horizontally (pun intended) with growing families and sadly, some who had left us to be with God. I was moved to tears when I saw many of the Canossian Sisters I knew like Sister Dorothy, Sister Geraldine and Sister Esther and how they have made a lifetime commitment to the betterment of the unprivileged.
Canossa Convent is located right in the heart of Portuguese Settlement. Unlike now where many dwellers of the settlement are much more affluent, twenty years ago, the main source of income for most of the Portuguese families came from the sea, as most of them were fishermen. Many families could hardly earn enough to sustain a living. Low literacy rate and high dropout rate were common among their children. Not to mention, there were many social problems in the community like alcohol and drug addiction, gangsterism, marital problem etc.
The Canossian Sisters from Canossa Convent were there at a time when the community needed them most. They have been like the light at the end of the tunnel, a beacon of hope when all were in despair. Mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers alike respected the Canossian Sisters. Masses were conducted weekly at the school hall for the community. Fund raising projects were organized to keep the poor fed and clothed. Extra tuition classes were held for the weaker students. Counseling sessions were conducted to improve relationship and more importantly, all were welcomed with open arms by the Sisters. Regardless of race, religion and status, the Canossian Sisters have shown that what God has provided for us, we need to give it back to the community.
Via, Veritas, Vita. The Truth, The Way and The Light. Canossa Convent’s motto. My school’s motto. I finally realize what it meant.
Karen Lee is currently a full time homemaker and a part time teacher. In the midst of her busy schedule, she feels compelled to write about social and environmental issues that touch her heart. She can be contacted at karenleehs(at)yahoo.com
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Cluster schools - good or bad idea?
I generally like the idea of giving schools more autonomy and local 'stakeholders' to have a greater say in the running of a school. I think it provides more freedom for farsighted and innovative principals in cooperation with local businesses, parents and students to venture beyond the narrow field of 'education'. The idea of having cluster schools, as outlined in the National Education Blueprint, builds on this platform, where schools will be "given autonomy in five key areas - human resources, school funds, student intake, teaching and learning, and examinations and evaluation". This issue was covered in last Sunday's education pullout in the Star.
The problem with such ideas is that, as usual, the implementation process leaves much to be desired. According to the Star report, "Since the announcement of the schools, principals have been waiting for the Education Ministry to give full details on the degree of autonomy or the funds they will get." Bureaucratic ineffectiveness on the part of the Minister of Education, surprise, surprise. Remember the announcement sometime last year that the Minister of Higher Education was going to release 'rankings' of private colleges? We are still waiting, as are some of the principals who are hoping that their schools will be selected as one of the cluster schools.
Some possible reasons behind the bureaucratic delay:
1) The sensitive issue of choosing which schools. The ministry, I'm guessing, is attempting its usual balancing act of not choosing only schools from predominantly urban areas in certain states but want to 'spread' out these schools. My feeling is that it is precisely urban schools (or those in semi-urban areas) which can benefit most from having this greater autonomy since there are a greater number of 'stakeholders' who can contribute and benefit from the process. It is much more important to ensure that the basic necessities - sufficiently qualified teachers, electricy and school supplies - are provided to rural schools before they can even think of 'making the leap' to being a cluster school.
In any case, doesn't the very definition of 'cluster' imply that there should be groups of these schools in the same vicinity? Presumably so that they can have different areas of specialisation, for example?
This is not to say that most of these cluster schools should only be in PJ, KL, Ipoh or Penang. I'm sure that schools in Kota Baru, like the one headed by Aidah Mohd Salleh of SK Zainab 2, can benefit from being a cluster school. In this particular case, the headmistress wants the school to specialize in archery.
2) The issue of funding. While it is implied that cluster schools will be given more money by the Ministry to run some of their 'specialized' programs, it seems that not all the funding will come from the Ministry. The principals together with other stakeholders will have to find creative ways of coming up with sufficient funds to cover the total running costs of having these programs.
I don't have too much of a problem with this since if it is the students in these schools who will benefit from having these specialized programs, the stakeholders such as the principal and parents should take the iniative to raise more funds e.g. working with local businesses or MNCs.
It has also been suggested that the Ministry set up a central fund from which individual cluster schools can apply to for the specific purpose of running / starting certain programs.
In general, I think that this can be a good idea, albeit limited to being applied to a small number of schools, at least initially. The problem is, like with most things in Malaysia, is the bureaucratic process which screws up the original intention of having such a program in the first place.
On a related note, anyone knows what's the status of the 'SMART' schools?
The problem with such ideas is that, as usual, the implementation process leaves much to be desired. According to the Star report, "Since the announcement of the schools, principals have been waiting for the Education Ministry to give full details on the degree of autonomy or the funds they will get." Bureaucratic ineffectiveness on the part of the Minister of Education, surprise, surprise. Remember the announcement sometime last year that the Minister of Higher Education was going to release 'rankings' of private colleges? We are still waiting, as are some of the principals who are hoping that their schools will be selected as one of the cluster schools.
Some possible reasons behind the bureaucratic delay:
1) The sensitive issue of choosing which schools. The ministry, I'm guessing, is attempting its usual balancing act of not choosing only schools from predominantly urban areas in certain states but want to 'spread' out these schools. My feeling is that it is precisely urban schools (or those in semi-urban areas) which can benefit most from having this greater autonomy since there are a greater number of 'stakeholders' who can contribute and benefit from the process. It is much more important to ensure that the basic necessities - sufficiently qualified teachers, electricy and school supplies - are provided to rural schools before they can even think of 'making the leap' to being a cluster school.
In any case, doesn't the very definition of 'cluster' imply that there should be groups of these schools in the same vicinity? Presumably so that they can have different areas of specialisation, for example?
This is not to say that most of these cluster schools should only be in PJ, KL, Ipoh or Penang. I'm sure that schools in Kota Baru, like the one headed by Aidah Mohd Salleh of SK Zainab 2, can benefit from being a cluster school. In this particular case, the headmistress wants the school to specialize in archery.
2) The issue of funding. While it is implied that cluster schools will be given more money by the Ministry to run some of their 'specialized' programs, it seems that not all the funding will come from the Ministry. The principals together with other stakeholders will have to find creative ways of coming up with sufficient funds to cover the total running costs of having these programs.
I don't have too much of a problem with this since if it is the students in these schools who will benefit from having these specialized programs, the stakeholders such as the principal and parents should take the iniative to raise more funds e.g. working with local businesses or MNCs.
It has also been suggested that the Ministry set up a central fund from which individual cluster schools can apply to for the specific purpose of running / starting certain programs.
In general, I think that this can be a good idea, albeit limited to being applied to a small number of schools, at least initially. The problem is, like with most things in Malaysia, is the bureaucratic process which screws up the original intention of having such a program in the first place.
On a related note, anyone knows what's the status of the 'SMART' schools?
Virtual Integration
Yes, the Ministry of Education means it literally. As part of the Racial Integration Programme (RIMUP) for school children, there is now plans to create an online "game" to promote "virtual" integration. When I read the report, frontpaged on the Sun today, I nearly fell off my chair (ok, that one is not meant to be taken literally).
As it is, RIMUP (which was blogged here much earlier) has a relatively small budget of RM25.8 million to operate with for the year. However, it has been disclosed by the Ministry of Education that almost one-third of the funds, RM8.35 million is being used to develop the programme and "set up internet and servers and software in schools for the e-integration programme".
(Tony faints.)
Apparently this software is a "virtual game with 10 different components, using cartoon characters like Izat, Chong and Raj with a storyline that has elements of national unity. Student from all other schools can be lined through the game virtually, without actually meeting up."
(Tony faints again.)
Are our officials, elected or otherwise, so absolutely out of their minds? We already complain that students have insufficent interaction with each other. Now the Ministry is trying to enforce this lack of interaction by providing them with a ficticious and virtual "lala-land" where they are probably fed an overdose of perfect ethnic relations.
It doesn't take a child psychologist to be able to tell you that integration is built through physical interaction and other real world experiences. A child's emotional growth depends on the varied responses given by different parties under similar circumstances. Interaction and communication necessitates actual speech (face to face, just in case some other joker decides that adding webcams will solve the problem) and live discussions. It entails laughter and tears, and not some woolly feel-good cartoons!
How in the world are we suppose to build integration playing computer games? It's just as bad as the current Moral paper in SPM whereby one has to literally memorise word for word the 81 nilai murni. Are we losing track of the objectives of the programme? Or is this just another small leakage in the system?
Sigh. As highlighted earlier in posts about the National Education Blueprint, it's really not the objectives which are the issue with the typical government plans. It's all down to its implementation, and obviously the implementors (or the lack of them) behind the programme.
As it is, RIMUP (which was blogged here much earlier) has a relatively small budget of RM25.8 million to operate with for the year. However, it has been disclosed by the Ministry of Education that almost one-third of the funds, RM8.35 million is being used to develop the programme and "set up internet and servers and software in schools for the e-integration programme".
(Tony faints.)
Apparently this software is a "virtual game with 10 different components, using cartoon characters like Izat, Chong and Raj with a storyline that has elements of national unity. Student from all other schools can be lined through the game virtually, without actually meeting up."
(Tony faints again.)
Are our officials, elected or otherwise, so absolutely out of their minds? We already complain that students have insufficent interaction with each other. Now the Ministry is trying to enforce this lack of interaction by providing them with a ficticious and virtual "lala-land" where they are probably fed an overdose of perfect ethnic relations.
It doesn't take a child psychologist to be able to tell you that integration is built through physical interaction and other real world experiences. A child's emotional growth depends on the varied responses given by different parties under similar circumstances. Interaction and communication necessitates actual speech (face to face, just in case some other joker decides that adding webcams will solve the problem) and live discussions. It entails laughter and tears, and not some woolly feel-good cartoons!
How in the world are we suppose to build integration playing computer games? It's just as bad as the current Moral paper in SPM whereby one has to literally memorise word for word the 81 nilai murni. Are we losing track of the objectives of the programme? Or is this just another small leakage in the system?
Sigh. As highlighted earlier in posts about the National Education Blueprint, it's really not the objectives which are the issue with the typical government plans. It's all down to its implementation, and obviously the implementors (or the lack of them) behind the programme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)