Solidarity with Dr. Terence Gomez

"Solidarity with Dr. Terence Gomez"

Venue: Kelana Seafood Centre, Lot 1122, SS7, Jalan Perbandaran, Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya

Date: Monday, 13 June 2005
Time: 8.30 p.m.

Tickets are priced at RM40 per person or RM400 per table.
There are limited tables specially reserved for students atRM20 each, on a first-come first-served basis.

Tickets: Carmen/Ms Lim/Ms Yong at 03-79578022 / 79578127

The dinner has the following purposes:

• To express Malaysians' support, sympathy and solidarity with Dr. Terence Gomez;
  
  
• For distinguished Malaysian personalities, both academics and non-academics, to express their views on the Terence Gomez debacle and the continuing higher education crisis in Malaysia;
  
  
• To articulate and mobilize national aspirations for democratization and liberalization of higher education policies to create "towering Malaysian personalities"; and
  
  
• A public platform for Dr. Terence Gomez on his thoughts on being the latest victim of the prolonged higher education crisis in the country. Distinguished Malaysian personalities, both academics and non-academics, will be invited together with Dr.Terence Gomez as guest speakers at the dinner.

For those who are still unaware with regards to the crisis regarding Dr Terence Gomez, an academic from University Malaya, here's a quick recap from someof the articles which has been published in the last 1-2 weeks:

From the Sun on 30th May 2005:

ASSOCIATE Professor Dr Edmund Terence Gomez is not the first or only respected Malaysian scholar who has chosen to resign from a local university in order to further his or her academic career in an internationalorganisation.

Gomez had applied for a two-year secondment from Universiti Malaya (UM)after being appointed manager for a research project at the United NationsResearch Institute for Social Development in Geneva. His application was rejected. The reasons were not made known to him untilthe matter was highlighted in the press.

In an official statement last week, UM said it could not release Gomez because he was needed at the university.

"Higher education in crisis 2" by Jeff Ooi on Screenshots:

"Terence Gomez is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill lecturer," said the PKAUM [UM Academic Staff Association ] in the press statement. "From the numerous letters from academics from all over the world, it is evident that his academic work is recognised internationally."

"Every effort should be made by the Universiy of Malaya's management to retain him at the university," PKAUM added.

Letter from Dr Gomez on his wife's leave application to UM:

This application for leave, as my wife had explained in her letter, was so that the and our three children would be able to join me in Geneva. On Tuesday (May 24), my wife received a written response from her head which stated: ‘I must emphasise to you that I will not support your application for unpaid leave. We will expect you to resume your duties in Semester 2, 2005/2006.’

Letter from Ong Kian Ming on crisis impact on UM international reputation:

The recent appalling treatment of Associate Professor Edmund Terence Gomezby the University of Malaya (UM) has repercussions far beyond the parochial imagination of the university's administrators.

...this episode only cements the view of foreign academics regardingthe precipitous decline in the standards of academia in public universitiesin Malaysia.

Perhaps an even bigger loss to the country and its public universities is not the talent that it is getting rid off or the foreign talent that itwould not be able to recruit, but the fact that many Malaysians who are doing their PhDs abroad would be further dissuaded from coming back to teach and contribute to the Malaysian academia.

"Create Harvard of the East" column by Azly Rahman at Malaysiakini.com:

There is more to Malaysian higher education than the definition offered bythe minister of higher education.

If only the minister had understood that education is not about creatingideologically-driven universities but academies of studies with aphilosophical foundation and able to pursue in-depth inquiries fashionedafter great medieval universities.

"Requiem for scholarship and excellence" column by Sim Kwang Yang at Malaysiakini.com:

The country has lost yet another talented and principled scholar. MU, that institution of higher learning that once enjoyed an exalted position among similar institutions in Southeast Asia in the early years of our independence, has taken another dip on its path of slow but certain
decline. The brain hemorrhage of the nation continues unabated.

In my wildest dream, I would envision hoards of angry university students -numbering perhaps
in the tens of thousands - descending upon the MU campusto protest the blatant humiliation of our prominent academics at the hands of faceless bureaucrats and arrogant politicians. But alas, this is Malaysia!

Can we have faith that our current government administration eat a little humble pie, and right the very wrongs? I'm keeping my fingers crossed. There's been so much more written on the Dr Terence Gomez issue already, such that it's probably not worth much more for me to comment. I'll pay my RM40 contribution and see you guys at the dinner.

Times Good University Guide 2006

Just a quick note to mention that the Times Good University Guide for 2006 is out. The top 100 universities are ranked here in a PDF document.

A cursory glance at the rankings document basically returns fairly similar ranking results for the various universities when compared to the Guardian 2005 University Ranking Guide. For a quick commentary on the Guardian university Guide and where our Malaysian private colleges twinning partners stand, read my post on "World Class Universities?"

I'd be providing a more detailed update on whether the Times guide made any significant differences to our private college twinning university rankings as compared to the Guardian guide.

However, I'd also like the readers to take note that these guides exactly what they claim to be, "guides". No one disputes that they are likely to contain elements of discrepancy as well as probably a tolerable degree of inaccuracy. However, they do provide a decent guide as to where a university stands - is it Top 10? Is it mid-table average? Or is it near the bottom of the heap. One of the anonymous comment for my earlier post, asked:

It's good that you decide to review the university ranking but frankly speaking, how important is the ranking when you are looking for a potential employee? Whether students graduates from top universitis or not, their work experience and attitude and etc would be making a bigger difference.

There's a fair bit of diverse opinions on the above questions. Some of my fellow entrepreneurs would disgree with my opinions. However, I've found my "formula" for recruitment to have served me very well, which acts as the basis for my opinion:

1. The university a potential employee attends is very important to me in my recruitment process. And just as important are his academic grades. Just as important are the other "intangibles" such as work attitude, willingness to learn (and learn fast) as well as "street-smartness". But the university and the candidate's grades will serve as the determining factor on whether I should shorlist him/her for an interview.
   
   
2. Experience is what I'll "classify" as useful in a candidate's resume. However, my general philosophy is that all things equal (e.g., attitude, hardwork etc.), I have a preference for a candidate with good academic results from a good university over someone with weaker results from a not-so-great university, even if the latter has greater experience. I believe that while in the short term, the fresher candidate will be less productive, he or she will have a better potential and is likely to outperform the more experienced candidate within a reasonably short period of time.

"Second upper, and unemployed"

The Lost Sheep from Kuala Lumpur wrote a letter to the Star on the 29th June 2005 to share his observations about being unemployed. He shares his frustration about his university education and his employment difficulties despite having achieved a 2nd class upper honours degree. He has also made certain criticisms and recommendations with regards to how the education system should be improved. One of the key argument threads throughout his letter is the apparent emphasis on "theory" in our education system from primary to university:

The primary and secondary school syllabi emphasise theory and not character development. Students engage in rote learning and memorisation of unimportant facts which have little relevance to the real world.

The government should consider course structures with only one year of theoretical learning in university and two years of industrial training. Even if you study in a university for 30 years, you would still have insufficient knowledge if you do not have industry-based training.

The Lost Sheep is clearly not alone in his opinion with regards to our Malaysian education system. I've read plenty of articles and reports by students, some academicians, politician and education bureaucrats with similar opinions. In fact, I personally think that the number of people as well as stakeholders who are getting more convinced with regards to the above arguments is getting a little too pervasive for comfort.

I agree with the Lost Sheep that over emphasis on rote learning and memorisation will not produce the necessary all-rounded individuals. The concern is when the relevant authorities become "taken" by some of the remedies offered by the various "experts", which are well-meaning in their intent, but flawed in their rationale and application. Some of the typical remedies are mentioned in the same letter from the Lost Sheep:

Perhaps the government should adopt a more flexible and less exam-oriented school system which emphasises creativity.

... the one-year programme in university should not include irrelevant subjects like Bahasa Malaysia, English, English for Communication, Tamadun Islam etc as these should have been taught in secondary school, not at tertiary level.

The various arguments for or against, as well as the benefits or disadvantages of any proposed solutions are probably sufficient to complete several volumes of books. Hence, I'll just list below certain key arguments and considerations to be taken into account when attempting to reform our education system:

1. "Rote learning" and "memorisation" are practically "bad words" in discussions with regards to education policies today. I've actually not heard or read a single article in recent times espousing its benefits, no matter how small. It must however be corrected that "memorisation" and to a certain extent "rote learning" are actually critical in a person's growth and education. It is when we stop "memorising" and "remembering" that we will stop growing in terms of our knowledge and very often skills. Our language skills begins first with vocabulary (a function of memory) and subsequently with communication (analysis and critical thinking). Without first "memorising" various scientific facts, we will not be able to understand as well as advance new scientific discoveries and apply these knowledge. Without "memorising", one can never become a doctor, and without further "memorising" to a certain extent, he or she will never qualify to be a "specialist". Hence it must be emphasied that memory plays a very critical component in education and our individual growth. And to strengthen memory, "rote learning" will be necessary to varying extents. I will venture to suggest that the reason many of the students "complain" about "memorising" are often due to "mental laziness" by using the memorisation of unimportant facts which have little relevance to the real world" as a convenient excuse.
   
   
2. While I clearly disagree to the extent which "memorisation" has been demonised, I do agree that there needs to be more opportunities to develop "creativity" or what I prefer to term as "critical thinking and analytical skills". Memorisation of facts and the ability to think and analyse critically the relevant facts must go hand in hand. However, the key mechanism to impart critical thinking and analytical skills will not be through any textbooks or by reducing examinations. It will really be through better trained, and better qualified teachers. Instead many (note: not all) teachers today are satisfied in going through the motions of "reading texts" instead of focusing on helping students apply thinking skills to the facts in textbooks.
   
   
3. Examinations (in one form or another) are a very critical component of our education system, and rightly so. Many educationists (and for obvious reasons, students) argue against the merits of examinations, such as placing unnecessary stress on the students, stifling creativity etc. To me, if there's anything that will help a student face the "real world" after he graduates, it's his or her ability to cope with the pressures of examination. Overall, by "softening" our education system through reduced or simpler examinations will only lead to weaker graduates from our education system. A very simple and widely accepted example - one of the key reasons why the quality of English among the graduates today are much weaker than the cohorts of yesteryears is the substantial reduction in rigour as well as difficulty level in the English syllabus from primary to tertiary education in Malaysia. The key rationale behind the reduction in rigour (e.g., emphasis on grammar = rote learning?) was to encourage easier learning paths and lighter pressures to "hopefully" produce better quality English (as a 2nd language) speakers.
   
   
4. Subjects such as History are often treated with disdain and irrelevance, particularly by the students who view the "facts" and knowledge picked up from the subject are "useless". I actually intend to put up a separate post specifically dealing with the merits of these subjects later. However, in brief, my contention is that these subjects are critical in helping students enhance their critical thinking and analytical skills. The weakness in our education system with regards to these subjects is the angle from which these subjects are taught and examined, as well as the ability of the teachers to teach these subjects from an analytical perspective. To illustrate, History should be a subject about "Why's" instead of "What's". The examination questions should be asking "Why did Japan launch an invasion on Southeast Asia? Was the invasion inevitable?" instead of "When did Japan invade Malaysia and how many bicycles did they use?" Both answers will still require elements of memorising (remembering facts), but the former will actually require the student to think and apply the relevant facts.
   
   
5. The university is NOT meant to teach us everything we need to know for a graduates employment. Hence, I strongly believe that all the calls by various parties to incorporate lengthy industrial training periods as well as special skills training are misguided. The university is instead meant to further enhance the students' critical thinking and analytical skills while providing a certain level of knowledge foundation for his or her future employment. Hence the "theory" is extremely important, as it helps with critical thinking and analytical skills. And while "theory" is not 100% practical, particularly in real world employment scenarios, it serves as a foundation for the graduate to pick up new "real world" knowledge in his or her new employment.

There are of course many other areas for improvement in our education system. However, this post seeks to highlight some of the concerns I have with regards to the constant calls to revise our education system to be less academically rigorous and performance driven. These calls often lead to impractical and misguided "reforms" which if implemented leads to a further deterioration of our education system standards. A simple example was when the Lost Sheep concluded from his argument that to encourage creativity, the solution was to get rid of subjects such as Bahasa Malaysia and English for Communications in universities. I'd hazard a guess that these were the subjects which the Lost Sheep was struggling with, and may actually well be one of the reasons he is in his current predicament.

I sympathise with the Lost Sheep and hope that he will be gainfully employed the soonest possible. However, it is also important for him to reflect that many of what he has espoused today, for e.g., "developing communication and interpersonal skills" are exactly those he ignored during college - "I studied for hours, did not lepak, socialise or waste time and even isolated myself from classmates for fear they would be a "bad influence" on me. " Some of his complaints such as lecturers focusing "on the final product rather than the process" are not actually weaknesses in the education syllabus but with the quality of teachers and lecturers.

It is also important for him to realise that a "second upper" degree is no guarantee of employment today. As clearly highlighted in my post on "World Class Universities?", many degrees today are of poor or no value if the are not from the more reputable universities. The Lost Sheep has freely admitted that "I passed because, like most of my classmates, I copied dissertations by previous students." which actually don't speak well for both his college as well as himself. I've interviewed over 600 candidates to date, and I had to regretfully conclude that even 1st class honours candidates from certain colleges or universities (both local and overseas) go straight to the "Reject" folder.

An Interesting Hypothesis

A post by Peter on his blog Competitive Malaysia on 31st May piqued my interest. His entry on the "By Product of Quota System" raised an interesting hypothesis (which he regarded as an "open secret" - though I must admit, I've never before viewed it that way).

This is a known secret among employer. Under quota system, non-bumi must excel in academic in order to gain admitting to local public university. Those who able to gain enter into local public university are top student among non-bumi... Those non-bumi who study in private institution are consider average and below average student.

Whereas top bumi student were sent to government residential school (sekolah berasrama penuh) during their secondary and would sent to overseas university after that. Those bumi student admitted to local public university are consider average or below average student.

So, the convincing evidence to the above is from a cursory empirical observation that:

They [local university Chinese graduates] are very in demand by employer [MNCs]...

whereas

... for employer, they would prefer to hire an overseas bumi graduate than a bumi graduated from a local public university.

I think there is fairly strong merit to the above observation and it deserves some attention from the authorities when making analysis of the performance differential between the bumi and non-bumi academic performance in the local universities. To a certain extent, it would have played a certain part in the persistent concern by our political masters on why the bumis tend to perform significantly poorer than the non-bumis in the local universities. Hence, it may make the apparent disparity in performance less than what it actually is. However, at the same time, if the hypothesis is true, then there is some structural issues in our higher education system which may have certain longer term negative impact on our Malaysian students - which isn't healthy for our national development and integration:

1. Due to the above distortion, the non-bumi students in the local universities will develop an unhealthy perception among the non-bumi students (largely Chinese) that the Bumi students are largely of poor quality. As it is, I often interviewed local non-bumi graduates who are racially biased in their opinions of the bumi academic standards i.e., Bumi = poor performance. Perceptions based on the above will result in unjustified racial bias which will be entrenched in the psyche of our young Malaysians (particularly the non-bumis) during their university years.
   
   
2. Due to the fact that a substantial portion of the top performing bumi students are provided with scholarships to study overseas, the weaker bumi students are "left behind". As a result, the top performing non-bumi students will be placed in the same cohort as the weaker bumi students. As experience in all countries that do not take into consideration racial factors shows - students of largely similar intelligence and emotive quotient will tend to "bunch" together. The natural impact of the above hypothesis will be that the non-bumis will interact pretty much largely within the non-bumi community and vice versa for the bumi students, making it even more difficult to achieve our national integration goals.

However, as the hypothesis is largely "untested", I'd hesistate to impute the exact significance of the various resulting outcomes, although I'm certain that the hypothesis definitely played a role (just not sure how much). There are several factors that comes to mind which may reduce the hypothesis' significance:

1. There are also a significant number of "top" non-bumi secondary students who pursue their education via the local private colleges as well as at top overseas universities. Hence not all top non-bumi students are located at the local universities
   
   
2. At the same time, not all top bumi secondary students will have the opportunity to study overseas, particularly in the post Asian financial crisis years, where even our Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam scholarships are reduced significantly. So there are still some pretty good bumi students studying at the local universities.

From my personal experience, I've recently hired 5 bumi graduates for application developer and analyst positions, of which only 2 are from local universities (UM) and the remainder overseas. On the other hand, the number of non-bumi graduates which I've hired are largely from local universities (~80%). I'm fairly strict with my recruitment criteria, particularly (although not only) in academic performance - so I'd like to think that I've been recruiting some of the cream in the market. It's not however, large enough a statistical sampling to act as conclusive evidence for the above hypothesis. So, make of it what you will.

A very frightened Malaysian abroad

In the latest blog from Jeff Ooi at Screenshots, an email from "a very frightened Malaysian knowledge worker", who is an Oxford and Harvard alumnus currently drawing US$22,000 monthly salary working overseas was highlighted. He longs to return home but hesitates and lingers on abroad.

The email (must read!) which was described as his "sad tale – of a young Malaysian full of hope and patriotic enthusiasm, which is slowly but surely trickling away." It's a touching tale, but I certainly wouldn't classify his case as a "sad tale" though - many would willingly swap their own "sad tales" for his any time! :)

In his email, he has emphasised his patriotism to country by often rejecting overtures from the Singaporean government through its scholarships as well as well-paying job positions through its private and public sectors.

I have been asked many times by Singaporean government agencies to join them on very lucrative terms, but I have always refused due to my inherent patriotism.

He reminiscences about the "good old days" of the Malaysian education system where he received his primary and secondary education from the national-type schools.

My parents insisted that I should be exposed to a multi-racial education in a national school. In my time, my urban national school (a missionary school) was a truly happy place – where the Malays, Chinese and Indian students were roughly equal in proportion. We played and laughed with each other...

However, in recent years (months), news from home while he has been working in the United States have been unfortunately, "distressing". He has read many happenings which were very negative in its portrayal of the Malaysian education system. His long long list of disgruntlement, has included:

I read about the annual fiasco involving non-bumiputera top scorers who are denied entry to critical courses at local universities ...

I read about UMNO Youth attacking the so-called meritocracy system because there are less than 60% of Malay students in law and pharmacy...

I read about the Higher Education Minister promising that non-bumiputera Malaysians will never ever step foot into UiTM. [Tony P: This, I think, is actually a good thing! Definitely not one of the better local universities :)]

I read that at our local universities, not a single Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor is non-Malay.

I read that in the government, not a single Secretary-General of any ministry is non-Malay. The same goes for all government agencies like the police, armed forces, etc.

I read about my beloved national schools becoming more and more Islamic by the day, enforced by overzealous principals.

All the above, and those which I have not quoted are very valid issues. However, some of these issues are not new issues. In fact, some of these issues are the same issues facing the Malaysian education system some 25 years ago, while both of us were in primary and secondary schools.

Hence my case and challenge to the "frightened" Malaysian abroad:

1. The concept of "patriotism" does not include "bailing out" when things in the home country are not as rosy as it could be. I can understand the many people who have migrated and obtain other citizenship in the interest of their economic well-being as well as their "future" generation, and I completely respect their decisions. However, if you are "patriotic" as you claim to be, then come home and help make Malaysia a better place for all of us, including your future generations.
   
   
2. From the long list of disgruntlement - there's plenty to be unhappy about and there's plenty of work to do to make things better. However, I don't think there's plenty to be "frightened" about. Both my wife and myself graduated from the same university are happily married and settled in Kuala Lumpur with a new 5-month old baby. Are we frustrated with the Malaysian system? Sure, we are sometimes. (Even Singaporeans are with their own government) But are we frightened for ourselves, for our kid? No way! (Or we could well be Singapore citizens by now! :))
   
   
3. Make no mistake, "frightened" has done extremely well for himself and I'm proud that a Malaysian has achieved so much in such a short span of time. He makes a month pays for 25 (40%) of my staff salaries - its no mean feat even if he's paid out of the United States.
   
   
4. Which brings me to my next point - "frightened" has done extremely well, and as he has admitted:
   
   

   Till this day, I am absolutely certain that it was the kindness of all my Malay teachers which made me a true Malaysian...
   
   I really want to return home. I have been told by government-linked corporations and private companies in Malaysia that at best, I would still have to take a 70% pay cut if I return to Malaysia to work. I am prepared and willing to accept that. My country has done a lot for me, so I should not complain about money.

   As a true Malaysian, who have received much and benefited from the kindness of our society, "frightened" should come home and play a part to ensure that our future generations could receive the same opportunities and kindness which you have experienced. The fact that you have in a simple email listed so eloquently the problems and issues faced by the Malaysian education and administration system, makes the need for "frightened" to return all the more imperative.

So, in short, I can only say to my fellow alumnus - Don't be frightened, come home. You will not be as rich as you could be if you were to remain in the United States, but your pay at home will still rate among the top 5% in Malaysia (despite the "pay-cut") and you will still enjoy many of life's little luxuries. By returning, you can play an active part in helping make Malaysia a much better place for our future descendants - making you a "true blue Malaysian" repaying the kindness you have experienced. I can only add that while one person may not move the world, every other person working together towards the same objectives will help make the goals more achievable.

Higher Education In Crisis?

Whoa... I'm away overseas for a business trip for just over a week, and suddenly the number of visits increased dramatically :) As I've just found out, it's all due to Jeff Ooi highlighting my blog on "World Class Universities?" on his blog Screenshots. A quick thank you to Jeff :)

Jeff is currently running a series of blog articles on "Higher Education in Crisis", partly in conjunction with the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Lim Kit Siang's first Roundtable Series with the same theme. The blog covers various articles, opinions and letters from various stakeholders in our education system. Read especially the blog on "World Class Unversities: What characteristics must they have?", a commentary on Prof Sharom Ahmad's definition.

I will be making my personal comments on some of the issues discussed in due time :)

"Skills" Training for Undergrads?

On the 14 April 2005, it was reported by the Star the timetables of courses in universities will be streamlined with those in vocational institutes to allow undergraduates to be enrolled for skills training at the same time.

Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn said the move would make graduates more marketable and help resolve the high unemployment rate among them. “I have talked with Higher Education Minister Datuk Dr Shafie Salleh and we have agreed that we should put this suggestion to work,” he said at his office here yesterday.

I think that our authorities are unfortunately, either not facing up to the reality or are not thinking straight with regards to the issues relating to the "unemployability" of our fresh graduates. To determine if the above measure is going to be useful in making our graduates more "marketable", we have to evaluate the real reasons why these graduates are no so marketable. The reasons given by various employers, and publish in various newspaper sources have been made fairly clearly - the weaknesses of some of these graduates varies from:

• the lack of English language competencies,
• poor interactive skills,
• poor choice of degree courses,
• poor quality degree courses or
• more blatantly, just too many students who barely passed their degree examinations.

From my personal point of view, as well as through the experience of interviewing many of these fresh graduates, the reasons why some of the candidates are not "marketable" are in the order of importance:

• poor academic results (I'm referring to those who barely eeked out a degree)
• poor academic rigour in certain local universities (so you can imagine how bad is poor results in weak university)
• poor attitude (have a look at my blog on "Grads need to be serious"
• poor English, interaction and communication skills

It doesn't matter so much the exact priorities of the above - or whether the "general" opinion of employers or that of mine is more accurate - the key question is how does "skills training" actually alleviate that above concerns?

"Skills training" in a polytechnic is not going to improve the graduate's academic result and capabilities and it would not affect the quality of teaching in the relevant university. Neither will the "skills training" help with attitude issues nor will it improve the candidate's English competence. As far as I can tell, the good students with better attitudes will continue to do well for the skills training while the weaker students will be equally poor with the same training. The authorities need to realise that providing skills training is significantly different from making the graduates skilled.

The authorities also need to realise that if some of these graduates need to undergo "skills training" in order to make them more marketable, maybe the key reason why they are not marketable in the first place could be that they shouldn't be in a university but in a polytechnic? In our rush to make our population more educated and flood our markets with "degree" holders, have we:

1. recruited too many students to our universities by over-expanding enrolment when many of these students don't merit a university placement? Will these students have been better served to enrol into skills based courses in polytechnics, which will provide them with better perspectives of what they can achieve as well as better "marketability" in the relevant sectors of our industry
   
   
2. set up too many new universities and converted too many polytechnics into universities? Were we too eager to be proud of "how many" universities are there in Malaysia as opposed to whether we can deliver the necessary quality education? Could the rapid pace of university expansion be equally matched by an increase in academic lecturers and staff without sacrificing quality for quantity? This appears unlikely to be the case.

In addition, it is my believe that a university education is not about "skills training". While "skills training" may be useful, its more important for the universities to be inculcating in our brightest minds critical thinking and strong analytical skills (irrespective of subject matter). When I hire a fresh computer science graduate, I do not expect him or her to be immediately competent in all programming language skills. I look instead for strong understanding of how programming languages work (the concepts are fairly standard, it just the language is a tad different), excellent logical thinking as well as the ability to quickly pick up new "skills" (e.g., new programming languages) as part of his work.

Many of our government authorities as well as our educationists are getting too proud to admit as well as face up to the key issues why some of our degree graduates are not marketable. Poor degree courses, weak "universities" which passes students easily as well as minimum enrolment standards are the KEY reasons for our graduate unemployment. The sooner we face up to these reasons and work towards a solution to these problems, the sooner we will resolve our graduates "marketability" issues. The more time we waste on piecemeal actions, tweaking on minor or possibly irrelevant issues, the worse the non-marketability issue will get (with more of these unmarketable graduates coming into the market on a yearly basis).

Quality Teachers

In the Star today, our education minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein has announced that in a bid to "enhance the quality of teachers in the country", "all teacher training colleges may soon be elevated to teacher education institutes (IPGs)".

Instead of providing a teacher training course at diploma level, IPGs would offer degree programmes to meet the target of having only graduate teachers in secondary schools and 50% graduate teachers in primary schools by 2010.

It is laudable that the Mininstry of Education (MOE) have identified the quality of teachers being one of the key factors in producing quality students and graduates from our education system. Some of the common remarks (although I've yet to see a detailed study) made with regards to teachers today are not very flattering. They have included being "very poor in English language", "disinterested in teaching" as well as being of poor quality because "the newer recruits are that of graduates who were not able to seek employment elsewhere".

However, MOE should note that a superficial change and rise in status of training colleges to IPGs, and awards of degree programs instead of diplomas will not solve the problems we face today. It is a similar problem faced by many "universities" today. Over the last 5-8 years, many polytechnics have been converted to universities in the country in a bid to improve the "quality of education" and increase the number of degree graduates. What the conversion has managed to do is to successfully increase the number of degree graduates but without being able to significantly improve the quality of education - hence you are getting diploma graduates masked as degree holders. Given that scenario, it's not surprising that the number of degree holders who are jobless have increased significantly. What I'd really be interested in, will be to find out which institutions have our jobless degree holders graduated from (if someone can provide me with these statistics, that'll be great!)

Given the above, it's to a certain extent comforting to hear our Education Minister outlined:

... four strategies to elevate the teaching profession – enhancing the selection of teacher trainees, improving the teaching environment, restoring regard for teachers in society and promoting pride in teachers.

“There have already been some positive developments, such as the new promotional opportunities for excellent principals and teachers to the Special Grade C (Jusa C) category."

Of the strategies outlined, I would regard "enhancing the selection of teacher trainees" as being the most important. For if the quality of recruits are high, these new teachers will perform credibly even in adverse circumstances for the other 3 factors mentioned. As highlighted by one of the comments on an earlier posting, there are many teachers who were of great quality and have produced brilliant students in the past, even though the facilities and environment are probably no where near what's available today. I'm a firm believer that if the new recruits to the teaching colleges are of poor quality (for e.g., diploma or degree graduates who can't find work in the private or even public sector), then the maxim of "rubbish in, rubbish out" will apply.

Hence, one of the key reforms that are required by our education system (and as highlighted briefly on my posting on model schools) is the wage structure for teachers in Malaysia. I am certain that not even the Malaysian MOE will doubt the quality of education in Singapore, and the number 1 lesson we should pick from them (if nothing else) is to remunerate our teachers near to private sector levels. Our quality fresh graduates are paid between RM1,600 to RM2,200 in the private sector today. The new teachers with at least a good second class upper degree (say, CGPA > 3.0), should be paid at least RM1,500, if not more at RM1,800. All the other factors such as " to improve the lot of teachers, the ministry has commissioned a review of teachers’ workload" are not significantly useful. To me, even if a new graduate has the potential to be a great teacher, and has strong interest in being a teacher, it seems obvious to me that 9 out of 10 such cases will opt for a private sector position paying RM2,000 as opposed to a teaching profession today paying in the region of RM1,200 (with insignificant increments as well!). I would strongly argue for the case of lifting more of our diesel and petrol subsidies, if these subsidies are then diverted to pay our teachers. I am certain some RM6.7 billion of funds is more than sufficient to attract quality teachers to the profession, and this investment will be priceless to our future.

The Minister has also stated that:

“I have noticed that only teachers who take pride in their profession will strive to produce champions."

I agree with the above statement by the Minister. And consistent with my argument above, attracting the higher quality graduates to be teachers will likely create a pool of teachers who will take more "pride" in their profession. Poorer quality recruits will understandably have less pride in their work (there's a reason why they are "poorer"). The Minister has added:

“It is my hope that our education system will continue to be blessed with such teachers"

Yes, we all hope so too. :)

World Class Universities?

One of the major peeves I have is when I see many private colleges advertising their twinning programmes as "world-class" and are partnered with the "top" universities in the various countries overseas, particularly in the United Kingdom (UK), the United States and Australia.

I get further upset when students with great potential i.e., some of the top students in SPM and STPM are "seduced" to enrol in some of the above courses which results a poorer education, making them less qualified for the employment market as they do not fulfil their best possible potential. These students who have paid so much more taking these twinning courses would have learnt more, and be better qualified for the job market if they had enrolled in some of the better local universities in Malaysia.

The Guardian, a leading newspaper publication in the UK has in April released their University ranking guide. I saw it as an opportune moment to research the universities which our local private colleges collaborate with for their twinning programs and verify if they are indeed the "leading" or "top" or "prestigious" universities in the UK, which they are marketed to be. Please note the following assumptions, when reviewing the "results" of my simple study.

1. While it can be argued that universities rankings are never going to be "accurate" in any study, it's fair to say that it does provide some indications to the quality of the institute. For example, there may not really be any difference between a university ranked 21st and 25th, but there's likely to be a significant gap between the universities placed as 30th vs 55th vs 80th vs 110th.
   
   
2. This study only involves the UK universities as the Guardian have only just made the latest rankings available. However, I believe that the results from this simple study is likely to be fairly uniform across the colleges in the United States and Australia.
   
   
3. In this study, I'd also focus significantly more on the Computer Science (and related) studies as it's one of the most popular course which candidates apply for today, as well as the fact that I have dealt extensively with graduates from the above courses.
   
   
4. There are a total of 122 universities ranked in the Guardian study in total, of which 111 universities offer Computer Science degree courses)
   
   
5. For the purposes of reviewing local private colleges offering degree courses, I've focused on some of the more popular choices such as APIIT, Inti College, Kolej Damansara Utama (KDU), HELP Institute, Kolej Bandar Utama (KBU) and Nilai College. They are used as examples and they are not specifically targeted for criticism. In general, it is my believe from my experience that most of the other private colleges suffer similar shortfalls.
   
   
6. I've focused my comments a bit more on the more popular UK universities with the "leading" local private colleges. These universities are more popular through the fact that most of the graduates resumes I've received from foreign universities are from these.

1. Staffordshire University (Ranked 79/122 Overall; 79/111 for Computer Science)

Staffordshire University is the degree from which the large majority of APIIT information technology students graduate with. For APIIT which proclaims that APIIT students are "recognised for entry into leading universities in the UK" on the website, the ranking does leave much to be desired.


2. Coventry University (Ranked 70/122 Overall; 103/111 for Computer Science)


Coventry Unversity is a popular choice among degree students studying in Inti College. Twinning courses with Coventry is also available in APIIT as well as KDU. Inti College has advertised on their website that their students can select from an "impressive list of prestigious universities and enroll in the UK Degree Transfer Programmes".

Apart from a series of programmes that have been carefully and thoughtfully designed in collaboration with top-notch universities in the UK and Australia, INTI provides an exceptional environment to promote propitious Computing and IT learning.

Being ranked 70th out of 122 universities in UK is relative poor, but ranking 103 out of 111 universities offering computer science courses (i.e., bottom 10%) cannot in any way be regarded even near mediocre. Students need to be made aware that by choosing to obtain your computer science degrees from Coventry University (and unfortunately, many do - I've received many resumes of such), you are enrolling to one of the poorest Computer Science universities in the UK.


3. University of Northumbria at Newcastle (Ranked 87/122 Overall; 83/111 for Computer Science; 60/67 for Electrical Engineering; 60/118 for Business)

This university is the UK university partner of Kolej Damansara Utama (KDU) - so you'd find that most UK-based degrees courses offered by KDU will lead to a degree from Northumbria. This includes Computer Science, Engineering and Business degrees. Once again, the rankings tell of how misleading the advertisements and information provided by these colleges can be:

That is why our Department of Information and Multimedia Technologies is recognised and renowned for setting high standards of excellence in education. Your UK qualification will give you worldwide recognition and equip you with the necessary skills sets to meet the challenges of this competitive market. That is why our graduates are highly sought after and earmarked for employment before graduation.

With industry recognition, work relevant programmes, experienced professional lecturers, continuous upgrading of facilities, you are at the right place - you will be joining a leading engineering department with a track record of having produced one of the highest number of 3+0 graduates in the country. [KDU-Northumbria University(3+0) B.Eng(Hons) in Electrical & Electronic Engineering]

How can a local college be advertising that they have one of the "leading" engineering department when their partner university is ranked among the worst in the UK (60th of 67 universities)? Northumbria IT degrees are also offered at Binary College and Stamford College.


4. University of East London (UEL) (Ranked 52/122 Overall; 51/111 for Computer Science; 100/118 for Business Studies; 46/76 for Economics)

UEL is the main UK twinning partner university for HELP "University" College. The courses which HELP twins with UEL include degrees in Business Administration, Accounting & Finance and Business Information Systems. As a university, UEL is ranked just about in the middle tier of universities in the UK as well as for Computer Science courses. However, UEL is clearly poorer in its Business as well as Economics faculties. Fortunately, HELP does not exaggerate UEL's reputation too much on its web site (below), although it did "highlight" that "HELP has an array of programs affiliated with educational institutions of excellence in the United Kingdom..."

... a rapidly developing university with 102 years of excellence in teaching and research, offering the 3+0 programme in Bachelor of Science (Honours) Business Information Systems. On top of that, the Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Multimedia Studies and Bachelor of Science (Honours) in E-Commerce are also available in 2+1 arrangement with UEL.

5. University of Greenwich (Ranked 101/122 Overall; 61/111 for Computer Science)

HELP did however, advertised one of its other degree twinning partner, Unversity of Greenwich as one of the "renown university" partners. One would hardly regard the rankings provided above as "renown" in any way. University of Greenwich programmes are also offered in Nilai College and Inti College.


6. University of Sunderland (Ranked 79/122 Overall; 66/111 for Computer Science)

The University of Sunderland is the main degree twinning partner of Binary College - whom they described as "world-class qualifications well recognised both in the industry as well as overseas universities". [You really wonder which world these colleges are talking about when they call these universities "world-class"] University of Sunderland degrees are also available through Inti College.


7. Oxford Brookes University (Ranked 51/122 Overall; 41/111 for Computer Science; 45/118 for Business Studies)

Of the various UK twinning universities, I would have to regard Oxford Brookes as one of the better ones, although its rankings are still no better than average. Oxford Brookes is the main degree twinning partner of Nilai College with its courses also available as alternative options in Inti College, KDU, Sunway College, and APIIT.


8. Nottingham Trent University (NTU) (Ranked 82/122 Overall; 43/111 for Computer Science; 75/118 for Business Studies)

NTU is the degree twinning partner of choice for Kolej Bandar Utama (KBU). NTU is described on KBU website as follows:

NTU occupies a creditable position in the UK university league table and is highly rated in many aspects such as in research. It has been praised for its excellent teaching quality and the employability of its graduates.

I'd leave it to the readers to form their own conclusion as to whether a degree with NTU for the respective courses will be worthwhile pursuing.


9. De Montfort University (DMU) (Ranked 83/122 Overall; 95/111 for Computer Science)

DMU has becoming increasing popular destination for a twinning degree in Malaysia through the local private college FTMS. Obtaining one's degree through FTMS is understandably a popular choice for the simple reason that one "saves" 2 years on STPM/'A' Levels or 1 year foundation courses. I've seen many top SPM students (i.e., 7As or more) sign up for courses at FTMS, and often graduating with 1st class honours. However, having hired 1-2 of them at one time, I quickly realised that despite the excellent secondary education and a supposed 1st class honours degree, the graduates clearly do not meet the necessary depth in skills and knowledge (in my case, Computer Science degrees) to perform anywhere near say, the good local graduates. And now, after 'discovering' DMU's ranking, I'm now not at all surprised. These top students would unfortunately have done better for themselves - intellectually, academically and career prospects-wise, by enrolling in the top 5-6 local universities (i.e., do STPM, A-Levels or Foundation studies). The 1 year saved isn't any good at all in the longer term.


10. Sheffield Hallam Univesrsity (SHU) (Ranked 92/122 Overall; 102/111 for Computer Science; 105/118 for Business Studies; 54/63 for Mech Engineering)

In the past, Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TARC) students "obtain" their degrees through an association with Campbell University in the United States. However, in recent years, more and more students are graduating with degrees offered by SHU. These degrees include IT, Business Studies as well as Engineering degrees. According to the SHU/TARC website, there are now approximately 3000 SHU graduates in Malaysia, with some 700 new graduates every year. TARC is historically one of the colleges of choice among the local Chinese school students in Malaysia. With a rapidly growing student in-take through the establishment of many branch campuses throughout the country and partnerships with universities such as SHU (no disrespect, but SHU is consistently ranked bottom 15 for its Computer Science, Business Studies and Engineering courses in the UK!), are we providing the quality education required by our students, especially those with top results (many whom do enrol into TARC)?


11. Other Twinning Universities

The other popular universities in the UK which offer twinning type degrees for Malaysian students through the various private colleges are as follows:

• University of Central England (Ranked 50/122 Overall; 80/111 for Computer Science)
• Lancaster University (Ranked 57/122 Overall; 50/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Hertfordshire (Ranked 66/122 Overall; 57/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Plymouth (Ranked 75/122 Overall; 58/111 for Computer Science)
• Liverpool John Moores University (Ranked 77/122 Overall; 68/111 for Computer Science)
• University of the West of England, Bristol (Ranked 84/122 Overall; 93/118 for Business Studies)
• Middlesex University (Ranked 86/122 Overall; 82/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Portsmouth (Ranked 94/122 Overall; 105/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Luton (Ranked 95/122 Overall; 88/111 for Computer Science; 56/101 for Psychology)
• University of Glamorgan (Ranked 106/122 Overall; 72/111 for Computer Science)
• Leeds Metropolitan University (Ranked 110/122 Overall; 96/111 for Computer Science)
• Lincoln University (Ranked 114/122 Overall; 108/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Central Lancashire (Ranked 115/122 Overall; 93/111 for Computer Science)

None of the above can really be regarded as prestigious, "world-class" or excellent by any standards. However, some of the above are clearly the poorest universities in UK in terms of academic quality. None of the above universities where the typical Malaysian graduates are likely to obtain their degrees from are ranked in the top 50 universities in the UK. On the other hand, of the 23 universities listed above, 17 are ranked in the bottom 50 universities in the UK!


12. Promising Universities through Local Private Colleges?

While the above universities are clearly the most popular choices taken by the Malaysian students in the UK via the "twinning" route, there are some universities listed in the web site and marketing materials of the local colleges as their collaborative partners. These universities are of significantly better standards and they include:

• London School of Economics (Ranked 5/122 Overall; 2/76 for Economics)
• University of Manchester (Ranked 15/122 Overall; 23/76 for Economics)
• University of Birmingham (Ranked 28/122 Overall; 32/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Glasgow (Ranked 31/122 Overall; 9/111 for Computer Science)
• University of Leeds (Ranked 41/122 Overall; 15/111 for Computer Science)

However, it is totally unclear, through the web sites and marketing materials how these colleges provide the degrees from the above universities. In all likelihood, the above degrees are not awarded through the typical twinning programmes (whereby the local colleges have a large degree of autonomy with regards to entry and qualification levels), but are degree programmes in which the students will have to qualify separately for based on examinations such as 'A' Levels. It also probably accounts for the fact that there are fewer Malaysian students with degrees from the above universities than the earlier list.

However, there is one notable exception, that the Diploma in Economics at HELP is awarded by London School of Economics (LSE). LSE is ranked top 5 in the UK overall as well as for its Economics courses. This Diploma, while insufficient to secure a "lucrative" career immediately, does provide the students with the right qualification towards a separate degree with the top UK institutions. Note that to obtain these degrees from the top universities, the degree programme is NOT conducted by HELP. HELP does however, have a separate degree program in Economics (and related subjects), but it is accredited as an external degree from University of London. While the lead university in this external programme is LSE, students should note that it is not the same as a degree from LSE.

Conclusion

My conclusion as well as advice to prospective university students, especially those with excellent SPM/STPM (or equivalent) results (e.g., SPM aggregate <10):>

1. At this point of time, based on the quality of twinning degrees offered by the local private institutions, do not sign up for these degrees. You will lose out in terms of the quality of education, and correspondingly damaging your future career prospects. This is not to say that you will not get employed if you were to undertake the twinning degree programmes - it is to say that your full potential may not be achieved.
   
   
2. If you have the funds, or is able to obtain the necessary scholarships, take the academic route which will lead you to the top 20 university in the UK (top 5 in Australia and top 20 in USA). The Top 20 universities according to the Guardian in the UK are:
   
   1. Oxford
   2. Cambridge
   3. Imperial College
   4. Schl of Oriental & African Studies
   5. London Schl of Economics
   6. King's Col, London
   7. University College London
   8. York
   9. Warwick
   10. Edinburgh
   11. St Andrews
   12. Queen Mary, London
   13. Bath
   14. Nottingham
   15. Manchester Uni
   16. Surrey
   17. Bristol
   18. Sussex
   19. Cardiff Uni
   20. City
   
   
3. If you do not have the funds and is for some reason or other not able to obtain the necessary scholarship (but have obviously got excellent secondary school results), aim to enter the top 5 local universities. University Malaya is always a safe bet in terms of academic quality. You are likely to save more money and be a better graduate from these universities instead of joining the twinning programmes.

For the authorities (i.e., our Ministry of Education, and or Ministry of Higher Learning), the most important agenda should be for the right candidates with the right qualifications be enrolled in the right educational institutions. It is an absolute waste of Malaysian talent, if the most promising secondary school student is enrolled into a bottom 20 university of any country. The Ministries should:

1. Take a pro-active stance in monitoring and regulating the commercial marketing activities of our local private colleges. Some of the marketing activities clearly exaggerates the quality of the education provided which misleads uninformed students. I often cringe when I hear or read advertisements by these colleges proclaiming (with impunity) their "world-class" qualities. While the above study relates purely on UK universities, it is my experience dealing with twinning graduates from all countries (UK, USA, Australia) which leads me to the conclusion that the above UK study when applied on the other countries will lead to similar results.
   
   
2. Be pro-active in guiding students to the institution of learning which best "fit" the potential of the students at the secondary level. The Ministry should publish guides which outlines the qualities of the schools both locally as well as overseas, so that students will be able to tell whether they are really enrolling into a "top" institution (or one which is ranked near the bottom). Note that these guides should NOT be designed by the administrative civil servants (which they often are), but actually produced by the relevant academic specialists on the above subjects as well as based on credible studies (such as the University ranking guide published by The Times or the Guardian in the UK).

As I have mentioned at the start, it really really peeves me to find students opting for the wrong courses in the wrong institutions of higher learning, which happens quite frequently due to misinformation or poor (or misguided) educational and career guidance. The university years are some 3-4 years of your life which you will not likely repeat again, and if the graduate has made the wrong choice, he will have to live through it by compensating through other means during his work life (e.g., taking a more difficult route to prove himself) in order to fulfil his or her fullest potential.

My Vision of A Model School in Malaysia

It was reported on the 7th April by Bernama that the Education Ministry plans to turn 15 in Cyberjaya and Putrajaya into model institutions. Our Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said the schools -- eight primary and seven secondary -- could become showcase institutions for schools in the country.

The only measure highlighted by the minister to make these schools centre of excellence was for links to be set up with leading schools abroad.

He suggested that the schools step up relations and co-operation in teachingwith leading schools abroad, with which links had been established -- including via the Internet -- following his visits abroad.

These foreign schools are in the league of the Rimba Secondary School in Brunei and the Lancaster Grammar School in the United Kingdom.

While setting up these links will benefit to some extent in help the schools gain stature, it will be clearly insufficient to make these schools model and respected institutions.

Having experienced quality education first hand in the region and in United Kingdom, the following are my personal opinion of what it will take to create model institutions in Malaysia, irrespective of whether they are located in Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur or for that matter Kuala Terengganu.

There are 3 major critical ingredients in creating and producing model schools – the students, the academic staff (teachers) and the school facilities & environment.

1. The Students
   
   a. While it’s probably not possible to “stream” for primary school students, it’s possible to “select” the crème-de-la-crème of primary school graduates for secondary school education. The top students in the country should be given the opportunity to fulfil their utmost potential in an educational institution which will provide them the best environment to blossom. It is these students who will one day become the leaders of the country, and it is only rightful that they be given the best education to make wise and informed decisions on the country’s behalf in the future.
   
   Primary school students who have performed exceptionally well should be given the opportunity to apply to these model schools. Candidates from poorer financial background should be provided with the necessary scholarship and financial assistance.
   
   Students who “blossom” later in PMR examinations should be given the opportunity to join these schools midway in the secondary schools.
   
   b. To promote the Malaysian national identity, the racial balance of students in the schools should reflect that of the country. There should however, not be the typical inflexible strict adherence to quota numbers which typically discourage performance measures but instead encourages unhealthy racial bias. The racial mix should probably read a minimum mix of 30%:20%:10% of Malay, Chinese and Indian students respectively. This ratio doesn't encourage racial bias, but will instead take in the best students from each race.
   
   
2. The Teachers
   
   a. The schools should have the best teachers and academicians hired to educate our brightest students. By the best teachers, they will not be restricted to our local pool of teachers. For e.g., if we have not got enough quality teachers in English, we should "import" qualified expatriate teachers for the language courses. In Singapore, despite the fact that the standards of English are already very high, they have continued to hire expatriate teachers for their very best schools to maintain and further improve the standards. Such should be the standards of excellence that the Malaysian model schools should target for.
   
   b. In addition, these teachers should be paid at the private sector rates to encourage performance as well as better retention of teachers. As these are the best teachers in the country, tasked with the heavy responsibility to educate our brightest students, it's only fair that these teachers are remunerated in accordance to their quality, performance and responsibilities. In setting these private sector rates, the Ministry of Education should not be concerned with the existing pay structure of teachers but instead be reviewing them from the perspective of what will be necessary to attract and retain the best teachers.
   
   
3. The Facilities and The Environment
   
   The best teachers and students will probably collaborate best in a well-equipped school with all the required text and learning materials, as well as the necessary learning tools such as computer and internet facilities. This "part" of the "model school" is unfornately, what was exactly planned under the "Smart School" plans by the Ministry. Unfortunately, the execution of the project was so weak, there was much monies wasted for the above.
   
   In addition, the students should also have the environment to "blossom" as an all-rounder equipped with the necessary resourcefulness as well as critical thinking skills. These skills can all be encouraged both on the sports fields and halls, and for those less inclined to sports, societies and clubs. Students must be encouraged to take part in these extra curricular activities and should be given the required freedom to explore on interests and areas which they are keen on. The freedom enjoyed will then nurture the more creative individuals to lead our country in various sectors in the future.

The Ministry should take heed of the 3 very simple key steps listed above in their plans to design "model schools". The Ministry of Education has too often focused on the "hardware" (school buildings, land, equipment etc.) and too little on the necessary "software" to nurture top students (e.g., teachers, syllabus, course structure etc.). Creating the right "model schools" will not only produce excellent leaders and citizens for the future, but it will also help resolve the other major issue (not to be discussed in this article) confronting the country - that is the loss of talents through brain drains.

The "Neither Here Nor There" Degree Courses

I've just completed yesterday, a job interview with a candidate with a degree in Multimedia from a local private university. From a fairly candid discussion with regards to the degree course content and the candidates job prospects, it has encouraged me to write about an issue that has been on my mind for a while - the "neither here nor there" degree courses.

I will use the above candidate, Sherry (not her real name) as an example. To give a bit of background, in the internet and multimedia industry today, there are typically 2 types of candidates employers are looking for - (1) the computer programmer (obviously) and (2) the graphic/multimedia designer (to design the various interactive screens, animated sequences etc.).

Sherry did very well for her SPM examinations - scoring some 6As and 2Bs. She wanted to join the IT industry which seems to provide a bright future career, and at the same time was "excited" by the "multimedia" concept. Hence her first choice of a Bachelor's Degree in IT, majoring in Multimedia in a local private university. Unfortunately, as such courses are in our education system (offered by many public and private colleges and universities), they are often "muddled" in their course content - consisting of a mixture of basic IT courses as well as teaching the students how to use certain multimedia tools. The resulting problem for her today:

1. She will not be good enough to be hired as a Programmer, as her foundation in programming is still too weak (although she could have been good, given the right degree course with the potential she has shown in her SPM)
   
   
2. She is skilled in multimedia tools such as Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Flash, Macromedia Director etc. However, being a pure science student in secondary school and university, she has no foundation in art and graphic design - making her a weak candidate for Web Designer. After all, one of the key criteria for the works of a web designer is to ensure aesthetic qualities in a web interface. The multimedia course is hence analogous to teaching a student how to use a paint brush, without showing the student how to paint pretty.
   
   
3. It is unsurprising then to find that a large pool of the so-called IT graduates are finding it difficult to seek employment because what they have undergone in university puts them in "no-man's land", particularly in the IT industry. Our candid discussion led to the next step in which Sherry should take. The questions raised were like whether she should pursue a career in IT through further studies to improve her foundations in programming or whether she should pursue alternative careers, say enrolling in a management trainee programme.

Anyway, my key contentions as highlighted by Sherry's predicament are as follows:

1. Unversities should stop offering "trendy" courses which are poorly thought-out on the mistaken notion that they will be "attractive" to prospective students. It is important that these courses are tailored to the right set of students for the right objectives. Degree courses should have sufficient academic rigour in exercising the analytical and thought process instead of merely teaching skills in using a software application.
   
   
2. Teaching software product knowledge in tools such as Photoshop, Flash and Director are more applicable as "Certificate"-based courses (which students may take separately at the University or at other commercial colleges) as these are definitely not "degree" based courses. As an analogy, Microsoft Word is to writing as Photoshop is to drawing. One should not be awarding degrees for "studying" Microsoft Word!
   
   
3. Universities and colleges are contributing to our pool of unemployed graduates by offering courses which are not providing the right foundations for the relevant job positions in the respective sectors.
   
   
4. By packaging these product skills as a degree course, it also leads to serious mismatch with regards to the graduates employment and remuneration expectations. Graduates of the above "Multimedia" and other similar degrees are expecting to be paid the same as graduates from other more rigourous courses like "Software Engineering", as well as similar rosy career paths. These expectations are unfortunately far from reality. Graduates in "Multimedia" in this case are competing against graduates from Art & Design Schools who are possibly weaker from an IT perspective, but are stronger from a design and aesthetic perspective - and they come at a much cheaper price! The Art school students are usually weaker in IT skills, but that can be easily compensated by a few short months of training on the various design software applications like Photoshop, Flash and Director (not very difficult applications to learn - hence not suitable for degree courses). Students from Art schools generally have lower salary and career prospects expectations, and hence are easier to be satisfied and retained by employers. Hence, from the above perspective, why should employers fork out more money for these multimedia graduates, incur more effort in growing and retaining them while at the same time, they are likely to be less artisitically inclined than the Art school graduates? Employers will not pay the same salary, and offer the same growth path to "multimedia designers" than software engineers, as the latter clearly have more challenging and sophisticated skills required and their growth space is wider and more technically in-depth.

The Bachelors degree in Multimedia is not the only such course around which is weak and often do not meet the demands of the IT employers. There are now plenty of fanciful IT courses with trendy names hoping to attract students into these faculties - a commercial ploy by many of these colleges. Some of the courses which I find are particularly weak and are "neither here nor there" would be degrees in "e-commerce", "internet technology", "multimedia application management" etc. What makes the situation worse is many students specifically choose some of the above subjects because they are known to be less academically rigourous, and hence providing them with an easier path to a degree in IT or computer science.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of objective information evaluated by independent parties on the usefulness of these courses in the job market. Students are therefore advised to consider very carefully the courses to choose to subscribe to in university as a supposedly minor difference between "multimedia" and "computer science" will actually result in vastly different outcomes subsequent job placement and future career options.

Graduates need to be serious (1)

In an article on News Straits Times on the 8th April, it was reported that our Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn said he hoped to submit a paper to the Cabinet on the Graduate training scheme's re-introduction over the next two weeks.

The scheme, he added, was successful in finding jobs for unemployed graduates the first time around as it had enhanced their marketability by equipping them with new skills.

For those not familiar with the scheme, it is essentially the Government paying for the "unemployed" graduates' salary of RM1,800 per month for a period of 6 months. This acts as an incentive for companies to employ these graduates as the objective is for the Government to subsidise their initial orientation and on-the-job training to make the graduates more proficient before being able to command their own "salary" without government assistance. It is a noble scheme, which however, has its "problems" in implementation.

The government for obvious reasons will not be able to discriminate between the better or poorer graduates in terms of qualifications. Hence as a result, easily employable first class honours graduates will still qualify for the scheme (should the employers be aware of the scheme in the first place). As a result, part of the subsidy is basically "wasted" on graduates who may have otherwise found easy employment irrespective of whether the subsidy was available. However, there being no statistics or studies provided to show the quality of candidates who have managed to find work with the scheme - it'll be difficult to measure its actual effectiveness. As an employer myself, I'm more than happy for the scheme to continue because I will be able to obtain subsidy for candidates whom I would have hired anyway.

As part of the scheme however, the government should first engage qualified consultants to conduct seminars to assist these graduates improve their employability. This tasnk should actually be that of our universities, but unfortunately they have not been able to fulfil their role in this. The very first step to gaining employment is to have a decent resume which will "open the door" to an interview with the prospective employers.

Unfortunately, I find that the majority of Malaysian graduates (both foreigh and local ones) are not sufficiently serious with their resumes. I have reviewed many resumes, especially those which are submitted via internet-based recruitment sites such as Jobstreet. Candidates have failed to take their resumes seriously - and if the can't be serious about their own resumes, why should the prospective employers be serious about hiring them. Some of the indifferent attitudes displayed in their resumes include simple stuff such as:

(1) refusal to use capital letters in as much as their entire write up, even for the names! This is particularly irritating when the candidates to not capitalise the "I" in their comments or essays. To me, this displays clear laziness, and the candidates do not possess a meticulous attitude to their work. Should employers hire these candidates and risk complaints from their clients?

(2) refusal to have their grammar properly checked whether via a word processor or someone else with better command of the language. As an example, the following is two write ups I obtained from local twinning private college students with a 2nd class (upper) degrees:

• I am a person who like to take challenge and get explosure on job. I have been on business trip in Australia, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand to get myself have more broad thinking whenever i am doing project anaysis and consultant.I am working as MIS for travel company, communicate well with end user, programmer, oversea MIS and management is a very important job for me. Deadline is alway given by management to me on every project assigned. Project management and project analysis are the job I am interesting [APIIT]
• There is one time where i've develope a medium size web application system. At that time i'm still new in the IT industry and do not know the important of security. While the system was at it's final stage, i come across an article about web security and i start to realize the important of the security of a system. End up, i've to restructure and patch the system. [Inti]

I cannot imagine the candidate writing a requirements specification or a project report on behalf of the company for a client. If the candidate cannot write in decent English in his or her resume, then there's little chance for her to have the opportunity to impress in an interview.

(3) The third problem with job applications is that the candidates often do not "answer" the questions asked. In my Jobstreet advertisements, I always request that the candidate answer some general questions to help differentiate candidates who appear to have equal academic competence. An example of a question will be "Cite a time you were not pleased with your performance. What did you do?" The answers I get - I can compile a book! And these are from candidates with at least 2nd Class Upper equivalent results.

• night. I do my own personal thing. [TAR College]
• i will change my performance. [Greenwich Univ / Sunway College]
• To obtain and establish a valuable work experience from your company in the internal and external environment.... I’m available for an interview at anytime that convenience to you and also I’m ready for an immediate vacancy if I’m given a chance. [UPM]
• I have experinece in developing online based system . the tools that i used to developing the system is ASP.NET, VB, Macromedia FLash and Macromedia Dreamweaver. [UM]

This is a case of the graduates not being serious in the job application process. The process today is now so convenient via emails and internet recruitment sites, they no longer pay serious attention to detail and no longer attempt to review their resume and application. They just "rush" to complete and submit the application without giving thought to the fact that submitting a hastily completed application and poorly formed resume is not going to increase the chances of employment by much.

Choosing the wrong course?

In a Malay Mail article yesterday - it was highlighted that a substantial portion of the registered 66,000 unemployed graduates are from some of the most popular courses.

Business administration, computer and information technology, and engineering are the most sought-after courses by many school leavers.

This has resulted in a high number of unemployment among graduates from these disciplines – 19,900 business administration graduates, 9,500 from computer and information technology, and 7,500 engineering graduates.

While it may not have been intended, the article may have inadvertently sent the message to prospective university students that the above courses are to be avoided due to low demand for their skills post-graduation. I'd like to state that this will probably be a wrong "read" of the above statistics.

First of all, while the number of graduates unemployed from these courses are the highest, the article did not give any statistics on proportion of candidates from each of these faculties are unemployed. This information will be key, as given that the above courses are the largest faculties in the universities in Malaysia (or even inclusive of overseas universities), then obviously the likelihood will be the absolute numbers of unemployed from these faculties will be largest is very high. For e.g., the number of students taking B. Sc. Chemistry probably do not exceed 2,000 students in the entire Malaysia per annum, and will hence never make it to the top unemployed list, even *if* possibly up to 50% of them remain unemployed.

Secondly, a point which I will further comment in subsequent blog entries, many of the students of these courses, particularly those in IT and Engineering should not have "qualified" for these courses in the first place. It is my opinion that many of the students from STPM/SPM who have been accepted into these courses in the Malaysian universities, should never have qualified for these courses in the first place. The entry level of the courses in some of the local universities has been set so low, that these poor students will never have a chance to perform credibly in these courses - resulting in their unemployment status. For e.g., I've seen many many graduates will very poor results in Mathematics (and Additional Mathematics) in SPM/STPM but qualified for these courses. With a poor foundation in Mathematics, it would have been better for these candidates to have taken other courses which they may have performed better. Without giving undue disrespect to the weaker candidates, if you don't have at least a B4 for your additional mathematics for SPM, avoid Engineering or Computer Science courses! In Singapore, the requirements are even higher with candidates accepted into these courses only if they have a minimum "B" grade for the Further Mathematics in 'A' Levels.

Further to the second point above, the courses in Computer Science and Engineering in many of the local universities are already very lacking in academic rigour. With a large number of candidates graduating with CGPAs below 3.0, it is unsurprising that this lot becomes "unemployable" in the Malaysian private sector.

The bottomline is, students should pick courses based on their capabilities and not based on what's apparently "in-demand" out there (e.g., IT courses). If you are not cut out for IT or Engineering, putting yourselves through the courses is not going to make you more employable in the IT or Engineering markets. I can testify that there is a shortage of IT candidates in Malaysia, and we need more capable IT staff. However, that does not mean that we'll employ anybody who receives a piece of degree paper (no matter how bad his grades are abilities are).

Job Fair for the Unemployed (The Star 12.4.05)

The Star today has a decent comment on the proposed job fair by the Ministry of Human Resources. Agreeably, the idea is a good one, particularly to help resolve the pool of graduates who has not yet been able to find gainful employment.
However, the measure is pretty much a short term one as it does not address the key underlying issues as to why there are so many graduates who are finding it difficult to find employment. The relevant authorities will really have to take the necessary painful decisions to restructure Malaysia's higher education system (as well as secondary education) in order resolve the "employability" problem among the Malaysian graduates.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/4/12/focus/10638011&sec=focus

Job fair will benefit both companies and job seekers
Comment by V.K. Chin

A JOB fair can have several benefits for both employers and those looking for work. Other than looking for work it will be an avenue to those who are about to complete their formal education to find out what is available in the employment market.

While this concept is still a novelty in Malaysia, it is in fact a regular feature in many developed countries in an effort to let the public know what they have to offer.

In this context, some companies may be reluctant to participate in such fairs as their favourite method of looking for workers is by advertising or media publicity.

They are used to school leavers approaching them for work and therefore not used to selling themselves to the public. Some may not like to change this mindset or to give the public the wrong impression.

The response to such fairs will depend to a certain extent on the performance of the economy. In a booming economy, there will be more vacancies than candidates and some companies will have trouble in getting new employees.

Conversely, in a recession, there will usually be more candidates than jobs because most companies will not be doing well. They will be shedding jobs rather than looking for new workers.

The proposed job fair is at the initiative of the Human Resources Ministry, which is extremely concerned with the large number of unemployed graduates, especially those from local
universities.

It is trying to play matchmaker and to give the unemployed graduates the chance to find out what the companies have to offer. There is little doubt that the fair will be well received in view of the many who are unable to find work after graduation.

The target will be those who have been staring at unemployment for several months and they are likely to crowd the fairs when they are held in their hometowns.

Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn disclosed last week there were thousands of jobs on offer at the fairs for the interested groups to choose from. It is up to them to find
out more from those companies participating in each fair.

Though it is the first such fairs to be organised, its success as far as attendance goes is
almost guaranteed. It is also possible that many companies may sign up workers on the spot if they should find some suitable candidates.

But its objective is not for recruitment only as another important aspect of the fair is to enable job seekers to find out more details first hand from representatives of participating companies.
The fair is therefore an excellent idea and beneficial to both companies and those looking for work and it should be turned into an annual affair instead of a one-off undertaking so that future school leavers too can make use of this useful event.

Google Search Page