Looks like the 'rankings' for the public universities are out before those for the private universities. Thanks to a friend from USM for letting me know about this NST article which came out yesterday.
17 out of the 20 public universities in Malaysia were evaluated and 'ranked'. Only 1 university made it to the "Excellent" category - USM. 6 universities made it the "Good" category and the remaining 10 were put in the "Satisfactory" category. None of the 17 universities evaluated were put in the "less satisfactory" or "weak" category.
According to the NST report,
And only one university - Universiti Sains Malaysia - made it into the second category of "Excellent"in the first ever university perception exercise in the country. It received a five-star ranking.
Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) were lumped in the "Good" category. They had four stars.
Those in the Satisfactory list are Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia and Universiti Utara Malaysia.
None fell in the "Less Satisfactory" or "Weak" categories.
The Academic Reputation Survey (ARES), carried out by a team spearheaded by the National Accreditation Board (LAN), involved 17 of the 20 public universities.
First of all, I think it is a good first step for the MOHE to even make these rankings available to the public. I'm always in favor of having more rather than less information in the public realm. So I would commend the Minister for making this move.
Secondly, given that this is the first time that such a task has been undertaken in Malaysia, one would expect there to be a lot of flaws in such a ranking system. Even the Minister, Tok Pa, acknowledge this when he said that the results of the Setara rating system, which ranks public universities in three categories, namely, research universities, broad based universities and specialised universities, would not be released to the public as of now because of problems with the data and methodology. We would expect the methodology and the data collection process to improve over time.
These positives aside, I have to point out the flaws, of which there are many.
Firstly, the ranking system should not be based on survey data only. Some more objective data should be used in conjunction with survey data. Perhaps because the ARES specifically aims to capture public perception (or more accurately, the perception of universities among the academia and some members of the corporate world), we should not expect objective data to be included in this ranking. But, hopefully, such measures will be calculated and included in the Setara rating system.
What sort of objective measures? I can think of a few - the % of lecturers with PhDs and / or Masters, the average GPA score of students admitted, the ratio of lecturers to tutors, library book holdings, IT expenditure per student, just to name a few. The use of more objective measures should complement and balance out the measures calculated using surveys. Of course, one could still disagreement of the exact type of objective measure to use since some will obviously be more advantageous to the more established universities e.g. the average GPA score of students admitted. But I don't really have a problem with this given that these so called 'advantages' usually translate into a better academic environment in these universities. Would someone not rank let's say Harvard higher because it has a much higher average GPA entry requirement compared to let's say Diablo University?
The use of these more objective measures also forces the universities and the MOHE to collect these statistics, some of which are important to researchers as well as to interested parents, students, policy makers and so on. Wouldn't you be interested to know what the average GPA entry into UM is compared to UUM? Wouldn't you want to know how much more UKM spends on IT compared to USM?
Secondly, the high non-responses among the respondents who were sent the survey should be reduced. It was reported that the ARES questionnaire was sent to 954 respondents and but only 272 responses were received. That is a response rate of less than 30% which raises possible questions of whether the responses were biased towards any direction.
According to the report, the respondents were replied were broken down into the following categories:
242 public and higher education institutions, two Asean universities (National University of Singapore and Institut Teknologi Brunei), nine corporate bodies and 19 professional and certification bodies.
The large number of respondents from 'public and higher education institutions', which I'm assuming are institutions in Malaysia, probably explains why there were no institutions in the 'less satisfactory' and 'weak' categories.
Intuitively speaking, there should be more variance in the rankings of these universities beyond the top three categories, especially given that I didn't even recognize the names of some of the universities listed e.g. Universiti Malaysia Pahang (where is this university located?), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (which I'm guessing used to be designated as a college), Universiti Malaysia Perlis (can Perlis support its own university?), Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (I thought this was primarily a teacher training college?), Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (never heard of), Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (no idea), Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (is this new?). I haven't goolged these universities individually but if any of our readers are familiar with any one of these universities, please post a comment and enlighten us.
The fact that so many of the respondents were from our public universities probably meant that many of them didn't feel comfortable in giving some of these lesser known universities a 'less satisfactory' or 'weak' rating. I think even if the sample size included more corporate bodies or even overseas academics, it would run into the challenge of many respondents who cannot evaluate the universities which they have not heard of or are unfamiliar with.
The fact that many of our public universities are relatively new and unknown is probably why the following three universities were not included in the survey - University Darul Iman, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan and Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (what?).
This being said, I think that the rankings are indicative of the relative 'quality' of our public universities. Most people would say that USM, UKM, UM are probably the top three public universities in Malaysia followed by UPM, UIA and perhaps UITM and UTM. The fact that USM was rated 'excellent' is perhaps a validation of some sorts for the more progressive policies of promotion and emphasis on research which the VC there is carrying (Dzulkifli Abdul Razak whose columns regularly appear in the NST).
What we require is a further refinement of the ranking system and more objective measures to be used in conjunction with survey responses.
I'll stop at this point and let our readers weigh in with their views.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Political Expediency or Policy Flexibility?
5 years after the start of the policy of teaching Science and Math in English, it was recently announced that the UPSR exams for Science and Math would continue to be in English, BM, or in the vernacular language of a student's choice i.e. Chinese or Tamil. My gut reaction to this policy is one of befuddlement and confusion. I was imagining me explaining this policy to some of my American friends. So, Science and Math are taught in English in Malaysia, my American friend would ask. Yes, I said, but exams in these two subjects can be taken in BM, English, Chinese or Tamil. So, what's the point of teaching these two subjects in English, my American friend would continue. I don't know, would be my honest response!
You can read about this issue in various Star reports - here, here, here, here, here and here.
Is this decision an indication of policy flexibility on the part of the Ministry of Education because some students still would not be able to handle exams in Science and Math in English? Or rather, is this political expediency on the part of the Ministry and the Minister, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, so as not to offend the Chinese politicians in the MCA as well as politicians in UMNO, and to a certain extent, certain segments of the voting population as well?
I suspect that it is the latter rather than the former. Furthermore, I take this as an indication of the failure of the Ministry to successfully implement the policy of teaching Science and Math in English. The excuse that some students in the rural areas still cannot cope with taking these two subjects in English is plainly laughable in that these are the same students who have been taught these two subjects in English for 6 years! The same excuse, hence, is also not valid among those in Chinese primary schools!
The decision not to have an 'English only' UPSR exam for these two subjects sends a signal to teachers in rural areas as well as those in Chinese schools that they can 'revert' to teaching these two subjects in BM and Chinese (and for those in Tamil schools to teach in Tamil). As far as I know, there's no 'monitoring' or 'policing' mechanisms in schools to ensure that teachers actually teacher these two subjects in English. So, if students still have the choice of the language in which to take these two subjects at the UPSR level, wouldn't it be 'easier' for teachers in rural areas and in Chinese schools to teach these two subjects in a language which they have a better command in, presumably BM and Chinese?
While implementing the 'English only' policy would have some short term consequences in that the scores in some of these 'vulnerable' areas might be affected, I fear that the medium to long term consequences would be greater. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 to 3 years time, an announcement is made that the policy to teach Science and Math in English would be stopped because it was found that it had not achieved its objective of improving the standard of English.
I think this would have been a hard decision to make politically but I think the Minister should have put his foot down and fend off the critics and the naysayers. While some may criticize the efficacy of the policy of teaching Science and Math in English in the first place, I think that to give this policy a fair chance to succeed, it should be taken to its logical end, which is to use only English for Science and Math exams at the UPSR level. By allowing students to choose their language of choice to take these two exams at the UPSR level is to doom this policy to failure as teachers and students 'defect' to learning these two subjects in their own language of choice.
You can read about this issue in various Star reports - here, here, here, here, here and here.
Is this decision an indication of policy flexibility on the part of the Ministry of Education because some students still would not be able to handle exams in Science and Math in English? Or rather, is this political expediency on the part of the Ministry and the Minister, Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, so as not to offend the Chinese politicians in the MCA as well as politicians in UMNO, and to a certain extent, certain segments of the voting population as well?
I suspect that it is the latter rather than the former. Furthermore, I take this as an indication of the failure of the Ministry to successfully implement the policy of teaching Science and Math in English. The excuse that some students in the rural areas still cannot cope with taking these two subjects in English is plainly laughable in that these are the same students who have been taught these two subjects in English for 6 years! The same excuse, hence, is also not valid among those in Chinese primary schools!
The decision not to have an 'English only' UPSR exam for these two subjects sends a signal to teachers in rural areas as well as those in Chinese schools that they can 'revert' to teaching these two subjects in BM and Chinese (and for those in Tamil schools to teach in Tamil). As far as I know, there's no 'monitoring' or 'policing' mechanisms in schools to ensure that teachers actually teacher these two subjects in English. So, if students still have the choice of the language in which to take these two subjects at the UPSR level, wouldn't it be 'easier' for teachers in rural areas and in Chinese schools to teach these two subjects in a language which they have a better command in, presumably BM and Chinese?
While implementing the 'English only' policy would have some short term consequences in that the scores in some of these 'vulnerable' areas might be affected, I fear that the medium to long term consequences would be greater. I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 to 3 years time, an announcement is made that the policy to teach Science and Math in English would be stopped because it was found that it had not achieved its objective of improving the standard of English.
I think this would have been a hard decision to make politically but I think the Minister should have put his foot down and fend off the critics and the naysayers. While some may criticize the efficacy of the policy of teaching Science and Math in English in the first place, I think that to give this policy a fair chance to succeed, it should be taken to its logical end, which is to use only English for Science and Math exams at the UPSR level. By allowing students to choose their language of choice to take these two exams at the UPSR level is to doom this policy to failure as teachers and students 'defect' to learning these two subjects in their own language of choice.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Positive changes to the UUCA
Read this on the Star today. Tok Pa announced that there will be significant changes in the UUCA or the Universities and University Colleges Act soon and these changes will be reflected in the amendments to the UUCA Act 1971 which will be tabled in parliament soon. I think this is positive news, especially for those who have been advocating for significant change in this area. But do these changes go far enough? I think we'll have to wait and see until the actual amendments are tabled.
Some of the changes reported in the Star include:
1) Lecturers do not need to ask for permission to speak on academic matters
(Not really know what this means except perhaps to say that a lecturer can express his or her views about certain academic policies in class?)
2) Removing provisions for the automatic suspension and dismissal of students convicted of criminal offenses and substituting them with the university’s discretion to proceed with disciplinary measures.
3) Decriminalize student disciplinary laws (which means offenses already classified as criminal under other legislation will no longer be classified as such under the Act)
(I think 2 and 3 are similar and I guess that if a student is charged / arrested under the ISA or the Seditions Acts, it means that he or she will not be automatically suspended by the university?)
4) Provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures
5) Provide for staff and student representation on the university’s governing bodies.
6) There are also proposals seeking to enhance the roles of the board of directors, senate and vice-chancellor and to provide for more accountability.
(6 is consistent with the the National Higher Education Action Plan blogger about here)
Other more controversial issues which have not been reported include:
1) The ability of students in universities both public and private to engage in political affairs including joining political parties, a right which should be afforded to all active citizens who are above the age of 21 and are eligible to vote
2) The fairness of campus elections including allegations that 'pro-government' factions or groups have received the support or aid of university administrators
So far, I've been slightly agnostic in regards to the impact of 'student activism' on the quality of a university. I don't think student activism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a world class university (or even an 'Asian class' university). LSE was a hotbed of social / leftist activism in the 50s and 60s but is now one of the most 'capitalistic' of British universities with lots of business tie-ups, a higher number of foreign students to increase the revenue and so on. It was a well known university when it was a hotbed of activism and it has gone from strength to strength under a more 'capitalistic' model. Berkeley was the center of the 'flower-power' movement in the US in the 60s and is still one of the more 'radical' campuses in the US (thought nothing like what it was in the 60s) along with Columbia but Harvard and MIT were by comparison, much more 'conservative'.
NUS in Singapore is clearly taking the more 'conservative' approach of making NUS a world class university by providing lots of monetary incentives to attract good people and promote good research but keeping a close tab on political activities of both students and lecturers. (For those who want an insight to the workings of the Spore government against lecturers, just google 'Christopher Lingle' and you'll see what I mean)
While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university, I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organized and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world class university. NUS will encounter resistance when it tries to break into the ranks of recruiting world class academics some of whom might not like working in a country where political freedoms and freedoms of expression are restricted. Different universities in the US and the UK have taken different routes towards making themselves world class but all of them have one thing in common - that there is academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organize if and when necessary. Hence, the UUCA needs to be reformed such that it can be part of an overall package of initiatives to improve the level of academic freedom in our public universities. I can imagine that in a situation of greater academic freedom, UM, given its location in KL / PJ, will have greater student activism compared to let's say UUM in Sintok. But both universities will have the opportunity to create an environment which is conducive to academic freedom for both students and academics.
I think some of the moves made by Tok Pa in terms of reforming the UUCA should be applauded. But given some of the restrictions he faces (both internal, within the university system and external, within the constraints of the BN, especially UMNO), I won't be surprised if the amendments to the UUCA won't go far enough, at least for now, to create an environment where students and lecturers can freely express their views and opinions.
Some of the changes reported in the Star include:
1) Lecturers do not need to ask for permission to speak on academic matters
(Not really know what this means except perhaps to say that a lecturer can express his or her views about certain academic policies in class?)
2) Removing provisions for the automatic suspension and dismissal of students convicted of criminal offenses and substituting them with the university’s discretion to proceed with disciplinary measures.
3) Decriminalize student disciplinary laws (which means offenses already classified as criminal under other legislation will no longer be classified as such under the Act)
(I think 2 and 3 are similar and I guess that if a student is charged / arrested under the ISA or the Seditions Acts, it means that he or she will not be automatically suspended by the university?)
4) Provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures
5) Provide for staff and student representation on the university’s governing bodies.
6) There are also proposals seeking to enhance the roles of the board of directors, senate and vice-chancellor and to provide for more accountability.
(6 is consistent with the the National Higher Education Action Plan blogger about here)
Other more controversial issues which have not been reported include:
1) The ability of students in universities both public and private to engage in political affairs including joining political parties, a right which should be afforded to all active citizens who are above the age of 21 and are eligible to vote
2) The fairness of campus elections including allegations that 'pro-government' factions or groups have received the support or aid of university administrators
So far, I've been slightly agnostic in regards to the impact of 'student activism' on the quality of a university. I don't think student activism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a world class university (or even an 'Asian class' university). LSE was a hotbed of social / leftist activism in the 50s and 60s but is now one of the most 'capitalistic' of British universities with lots of business tie-ups, a higher number of foreign students to increase the revenue and so on. It was a well known university when it was a hotbed of activism and it has gone from strength to strength under a more 'capitalistic' model. Berkeley was the center of the 'flower-power' movement in the US in the 60s and is still one of the more 'radical' campuses in the US (thought nothing like what it was in the 60s) along with Columbia but Harvard and MIT were by comparison, much more 'conservative'.
NUS in Singapore is clearly taking the more 'conservative' approach of making NUS a world class university by providing lots of monetary incentives to attract good people and promote good research but keeping a close tab on political activities of both students and lecturers. (For those who want an insight to the workings of the Spore government against lecturers, just google 'Christopher Lingle' and you'll see what I mean)
While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university, I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organized and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world class university. NUS will encounter resistance when it tries to break into the ranks of recruiting world class academics some of whom might not like working in a country where political freedoms and freedoms of expression are restricted. Different universities in the US and the UK have taken different routes towards making themselves world class but all of them have one thing in common - that there is academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organize if and when necessary. Hence, the UUCA needs to be reformed such that it can be part of an overall package of initiatives to improve the level of academic freedom in our public universities. I can imagine that in a situation of greater academic freedom, UM, given its location in KL / PJ, will have greater student activism compared to let's say UUM in Sintok. But both universities will have the opportunity to create an environment which is conducive to academic freedom for both students and academics.
I think some of the moves made by Tok Pa in terms of reforming the UUCA should be applauded. But given some of the restrictions he faces (both internal, within the university system and external, within the constraints of the BN, especially UMNO), I won't be surprised if the amendments to the UUCA won't go far enough, at least for now, to create an environment where students and lecturers can freely express their views and opinions.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
5 Alternative Career Paths
We've talked about alternative career paths and also thinking outside the box when it comes to choosing which universities to go to (I'm a keen supporter of liberal arts colleges in the US). Definitely not as much as one of our readers, Tiara, who through her blog, has been a consistent advocate of alternative career paths. I thought that I conduct a thought experiment and ask myself what 5 alternative career paths would I choose for myself if I could do it all over again. I thought it would be interesting if some of our readers shared their alternative career paths with us as well. Here are mine:
1) Study botany and work for companies / on projects related to reforestation
I've always liked the idea of working in the jungle (though I'd probably fail at it now) and I've always been horrified when hearing news items that jungles the size of Belgium are cleared from the Amazon every year. And close to home, the impact of illegal logging in Sabah, Sarawak and parts of Peninsular Malaysia. What better way to combine those two interests than to work to cultivate fast growing trees in forest farms so that actual jungles or forests don't have to be cleared? If I end up not liking the jungle that much, I could always work in a lab to create new stocks of faster growing, more durable trees.
2) Study math and computer science and work for a gaming company
Computer games are big business nowadays. Halo 3 grossed something like US170 million worldwide in a little under 24 hours. I'm a big fan of first person shooter games and strategy games like the Civilization series. I know that creating the games themselves might not be half as fun as playing them but I'd still like the intellectual challenge of constructing complex algorithms for the AI in games like Civ or thinking of better 'physics' when you shoot a monster with a sawed off shot gun in games in Serious Sam. It's not as easy as it might sound!
3) Study foreign languages and work as a translator or a journalist or a diplomat
I've always admired those who could speak half a dozen languages at a drop of the hat. You'd probably meet a ton of these people if you're working in an environment like the UN. Malaysians already have a head start compared to Americans or Brits for example, because many of us grow up speaking at least two languages - English & Malay, English and Chinese - and some of us three - English, Malay, Chinese or English, Malay, Tamil. Wouldn't it be great if we could pick up Japanese, Spanish, French and German along the way and perhaps some of the less commonly spoken Asian languages like Thai, Burmese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog? I think I would have enjoyed the challenge of using this linguistic ability to work for the UN or as a roving journalist traveling the world or as a diplomat.
4) Study zoology or marine biology and work with animals
I've always been fascinated by sharks and am an avid watcher of Discovery during Shark Week. My dream is to swim with a great white without the protection of a cage (though I'm sure that will never happen or if it did, it would be the last thing I do). I've even more fascinated with sharks now that I've seen footage of how great whites in South Africa can jump out of the water when they are catching seals (they called it 'breaching') and how some sharks can be 'hypnotize' into a state of 'tonic' . If I don't make it with the sharks, I could always go study my other favorite animals - giant constrictor snakes such as the python and the anaconda or giant crocodiles.
5) Study graphic design and animatronics and work for a CGI / special effects company
I'm a big fan of sci-fi and action movies and what better way to influence the look and feel of these movies than to work for one of the companies such as Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) who help make these types of movies. I know that George Lucas has recently opened an animation studio in Singapore and I know some friends who work in this industry. I think it's really cool but you really have to be into the whole 'nerdy' Star Wars figures and sci-fi scene to have a passion for this.
It's too late for me to choose one of these career paths but perhaps for some of our readers, the world of choices is still open to them. We have enough people wanting to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, consultants, investment bankers and the like. How great would it be if we had more people working in jobs which they feel passionate about and at the same time are not 'run of the mill'. Too often, we choose jobs or career paths which are considered 'safe' but not necessarily what we're passionate about. If we can marry the two (interests and career path), how much more rewarding and fulfilling life would be. Ahhh, to be young again...
1) Study botany and work for companies / on projects related to reforestation
I've always liked the idea of working in the jungle (though I'd probably fail at it now) and I've always been horrified when hearing news items that jungles the size of Belgium are cleared from the Amazon every year. And close to home, the impact of illegal logging in Sabah, Sarawak and parts of Peninsular Malaysia. What better way to combine those two interests than to work to cultivate fast growing trees in forest farms so that actual jungles or forests don't have to be cleared? If I end up not liking the jungle that much, I could always work in a lab to create new stocks of faster growing, more durable trees.
2) Study math and computer science and work for a gaming company
Computer games are big business nowadays. Halo 3 grossed something like US170 million worldwide in a little under 24 hours. I'm a big fan of first person shooter games and strategy games like the Civilization series. I know that creating the games themselves might not be half as fun as playing them but I'd still like the intellectual challenge of constructing complex algorithms for the AI in games like Civ or thinking of better 'physics' when you shoot a monster with a sawed off shot gun in games in Serious Sam. It's not as easy as it might sound!
3) Study foreign languages and work as a translator or a journalist or a diplomat
I've always admired those who could speak half a dozen languages at a drop of the hat. You'd probably meet a ton of these people if you're working in an environment like the UN. Malaysians already have a head start compared to Americans or Brits for example, because many of us grow up speaking at least two languages - English & Malay, English and Chinese - and some of us three - English, Malay, Chinese or English, Malay, Tamil. Wouldn't it be great if we could pick up Japanese, Spanish, French and German along the way and perhaps some of the less commonly spoken Asian languages like Thai, Burmese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog? I think I would have enjoyed the challenge of using this linguistic ability to work for the UN or as a roving journalist traveling the world or as a diplomat.
4) Study zoology or marine biology and work with animals
I've always been fascinated by sharks and am an avid watcher of Discovery during Shark Week. My dream is to swim with a great white without the protection of a cage (though I'm sure that will never happen or if it did, it would be the last thing I do). I've even more fascinated with sharks now that I've seen footage of how great whites in South Africa can jump out of the water when they are catching seals (they called it 'breaching') and how some sharks can be 'hypnotize' into a state of 'tonic' . If I don't make it with the sharks, I could always go study my other favorite animals - giant constrictor snakes such as the python and the anaconda or giant crocodiles.
5) Study graphic design and animatronics and work for a CGI / special effects company
I'm a big fan of sci-fi and action movies and what better way to influence the look and feel of these movies than to work for one of the companies such as Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) who help make these types of movies. I know that George Lucas has recently opened an animation studio in Singapore and I know some friends who work in this industry. I think it's really cool but you really have to be into the whole 'nerdy' Star Wars figures and sci-fi scene to have a passion for this.
It's too late for me to choose one of these career paths but perhaps for some of our readers, the world of choices is still open to them. We have enough people wanting to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, consultants, investment bankers and the like. How great would it be if we had more people working in jobs which they feel passionate about and at the same time are not 'run of the mill'. Too often, we choose jobs or career paths which are considered 'safe' but not necessarily what we're passionate about. If we can marry the two (interests and career path), how much more rewarding and fulfilling life would be. Ahhh, to be young again...
Friday, October 05, 2007
Long Way Home Charity Ride
Hey guys, remember my friend Tzuo Hann who's cycling home to Malaysia from the UK? He's in Turkey now and I think his story has been featured in the Star and a few Chinese papers. Anyways, he's trying to raise funds for a few charities and I'd like to draw attention to his fundraising website. It's a really difficult journey for him (sleeping in the open, no hotels mind you, very little support along the way etc...) and I admire his gutsiness. This is no easy journey where you're followed by an entourage of politicians or where you're promised a 'datukship' when you get home after a 20 hour or so swim. It's a real slog. You can read about his journey here.
The New Affirmative Action
Wanted to draw you guys to an excellent but long New York Times write up recent developments on affirmative action policy in the US, specifically in the state of California which has made admissions based on race and race only to be illegal. I think it's a very well researched and nuanced article dealing with the complications of affirmative action policies. Which makes me wonder if there have been such studies done in the Malaysian context. (Probably not!)
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Evaluating the Higher Education Action Plan (Part II)
I blogged about this issue earlier here, highlighting some of the positives on the Higher Education Action Plan. Now, I'd like to go into some of the details in particular 2 of the 5 'institutional pillars' of the action plan namely the pillars of 'governance' and 'leadership'.
On the issue of governance, the action plan discusses how, even though administrative power has been transferred to the respective public universities, this has not led to the desired outcomes in practice:
"With regard to university management reforms, the Government has implemented the legal framework to transfer administrative powers to universities. In the Universities and University Colleges Act (Amended 1996), the University Council was replaced by the respective university’s Board of Directors (BOD). However, the amendments have not as yet fulfilled their intended purposes."
As far as I know, the decentralization of powers was intended to make a more dynamic university administrative structure with the university's BOD playing an active role in guiding and helping to 'direct' the university towards a continued path of excellence and improvement. However,
"The current practice of centralised administration is neither practical nor strategic. The BOD continues to function as a university council and has neither the status nor authority to act as a true corporate board. Further legislative amendments may be necessary to properly redefine the roles of the BOD."
Corporate boards have also run into criticism in recent years because they have been seen as rubber stamps for the CEO of the respective companies since many of them were appointed by the CEO or the chairman.
A corporate board is supposed to play an oversight role and a check on the activities of the CEO of a company. If a university's BOD is supposed to play a similar role, then they should not be appointed by the sitting VC and should ideally consist of prominent and respectable members in the public sphere including ex-academics and alumni. I recall the days when the late Tan Chee Khoon was part of the UM's university council and seemed to have played a positive role in ensuring that the internal practices in the UM was fair and transparent. I can think of someone like Raja Nazrin who can play a similar role within the BOD.
In addition, the BOD should also be able to have some power in determining whether the term of the VC is extended or not. As far as I know, the contract of any VC of any public university is extended by the Minister of Higher Education. If the BOD can have at least as much power as the Minister, this will ensure that the BOD has actual 'teeth' and that the VC will be forced to take into account some of input of the BOD.
While the BOD should not have a say in the day to day running of a university, I think they should act as some sort of arbiter involving serious cases of university management including accusations that the management is involved in corruption, abuse of students, rigging of student elections, controversial promotion exercises and so forth. This way, we can ensure that the VC does not have absolute power to ride roughshod over the students, especially those who happen to disagree with the VC.
The issue of university governance in the Malaysian context is particularly complex. From the perspective of the Minister of Higher Education, he or she would want a high performing VC but also one who would listen and follow the orders of the Minister in question, especially on sensitive issues. A smart VC, would try to act to 'appease' or appeal to the Minister in question to ensure that his or her contract is renewed. A smart VC would also know that it's more important to appease the Minister than to make dramatic changes so that the university can move forward in the right direction. A pragmatic Minister would know that it's more important not to 'rock the boat' (for example, by firing 'deadwood' academics) than to make substantive changes for improvement.
With the current state of our public universities, we need visionary VCs who are willing to shake the boat to implement some substantive changes and equally willing Ministers who are willing to accommodate these changes. Having a BOD who can keep the VC on this path of progress and to shield the VC from the political pressures faced by the Minister can be very useful.
Without some of these changes, I don't see how the BOD is anything more than a rubber stamp body with little power, much as what was mentioned in the Action Plan.
On the issue of leadership, I was particularly impressed by the language used in this Action Plan. Here is what the plan said about the position of the VC, the most important leadership role in a public university:
"The selection process must ensure that Vice-Chancellors are drawn from the highest ranks of professionals. They must be fiercely competitive and must focus principally on achieving strategic objectives. They must possess the credentials and track records of proven leadership, and they must earn and command the respect of their key stakeholders.
The position of Vice-Chancellor will not necessarily be subject to internal promotion. It is an open post, which will ensure that the best candidate is chosen for the job. In consonance with this policy, a panel of independent interviewers will select and recommend candidates for these positions whenever the term of a Vice-
Chancellor approaches completion. It is envisioned that this practice will evolve into a selection process by way of public advertisement."
In addition:
"The BOD, along with the MOHE, will play a more active role in drawing up as well as monitoring appropriate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Vice-Chancellors and senior management of universities.
If leaders fail to achieve predetermined targets, they need to be prepared to make way for a renewal process to happen. It matters not if they were asked to do more than their peers, their institutions will still need to complete their transformational journey.
The overall leadership process can only be executed smoothly if proper succession planning is conducted. Future leaders must be identified early and introduced to AKePT’s leadership development programme. Proven leaders will enter a leadership channel, and, should the need arise, will undertake greater challenges at other HEIs."
Bold words indeed. We hope that the process of appointing any new VCs in our public universities (and the renewal of existing contracts) in the future will follow these recommendations. Tony has written on this issue here and here and we can only hope that the Ministry will keep to the bold words issued here in the Education Action Plan.
I can already sense that the Ministry is facing some pressure in regards to the appointment of senior positions in the public universities (such as the appointment of two women VCs in UM and UKM and the more recent appointments of a few non-Malays to the positions of deputy VCs). One can only hope that we are heading towards the direction where the best candidate regardless of race, religion and even nationality can be appointed to the position of the VC of our public universities.
In the longer term, I hope that our public universities can move increasingly towards the direction of taking the politics out of our education system. This way, we can ensure that less and less 'compromises' which sacrifice the quality of our public universities are made. One way to do this is to decrease the level of dependence on public finances to run and expand our universities, which is the model that most public universities in the UK and in Australia are taking, and which many public universities in the US have already taken. But this is a subject for another post.
In the meantime, let's hope that the Action Plan items on better governance and leadership can be implemented in the near term.
On the issue of governance, the action plan discusses how, even though administrative power has been transferred to the respective public universities, this has not led to the desired outcomes in practice:
"With regard to university management reforms, the Government has implemented the legal framework to transfer administrative powers to universities. In the Universities and University Colleges Act (Amended 1996), the University Council was replaced by the respective university’s Board of Directors (BOD). However, the amendments have not as yet fulfilled their intended purposes."
As far as I know, the decentralization of powers was intended to make a more dynamic university administrative structure with the university's BOD playing an active role in guiding and helping to 'direct' the university towards a continued path of excellence and improvement. However,
"The current practice of centralised administration is neither practical nor strategic. The BOD continues to function as a university council and has neither the status nor authority to act as a true corporate board. Further legislative amendments may be necessary to properly redefine the roles of the BOD."
Corporate boards have also run into criticism in recent years because they have been seen as rubber stamps for the CEO of the respective companies since many of them were appointed by the CEO or the chairman.
A corporate board is supposed to play an oversight role and a check on the activities of the CEO of a company. If a university's BOD is supposed to play a similar role, then they should not be appointed by the sitting VC and should ideally consist of prominent and respectable members in the public sphere including ex-academics and alumni. I recall the days when the late Tan Chee Khoon was part of the UM's university council and seemed to have played a positive role in ensuring that the internal practices in the UM was fair and transparent. I can think of someone like Raja Nazrin who can play a similar role within the BOD.
In addition, the BOD should also be able to have some power in determining whether the term of the VC is extended or not. As far as I know, the contract of any VC of any public university is extended by the Minister of Higher Education. If the BOD can have at least as much power as the Minister, this will ensure that the BOD has actual 'teeth' and that the VC will be forced to take into account some of input of the BOD.
While the BOD should not have a say in the day to day running of a university, I think they should act as some sort of arbiter involving serious cases of university management including accusations that the management is involved in corruption, abuse of students, rigging of student elections, controversial promotion exercises and so forth. This way, we can ensure that the VC does not have absolute power to ride roughshod over the students, especially those who happen to disagree with the VC.
The issue of university governance in the Malaysian context is particularly complex. From the perspective of the Minister of Higher Education, he or she would want a high performing VC but also one who would listen and follow the orders of the Minister in question, especially on sensitive issues. A smart VC, would try to act to 'appease' or appeal to the Minister in question to ensure that his or her contract is renewed. A smart VC would also know that it's more important to appease the Minister than to make dramatic changes so that the university can move forward in the right direction. A pragmatic Minister would know that it's more important not to 'rock the boat' (for example, by firing 'deadwood' academics) than to make substantive changes for improvement.
With the current state of our public universities, we need visionary VCs who are willing to shake the boat to implement some substantive changes and equally willing Ministers who are willing to accommodate these changes. Having a BOD who can keep the VC on this path of progress and to shield the VC from the political pressures faced by the Minister can be very useful.
Without some of these changes, I don't see how the BOD is anything more than a rubber stamp body with little power, much as what was mentioned in the Action Plan.
On the issue of leadership, I was particularly impressed by the language used in this Action Plan. Here is what the plan said about the position of the VC, the most important leadership role in a public university:
"The selection process must ensure that Vice-Chancellors are drawn from the highest ranks of professionals. They must be fiercely competitive and must focus principally on achieving strategic objectives. They must possess the credentials and track records of proven leadership, and they must earn and command the respect of their key stakeholders.
The position of Vice-Chancellor will not necessarily be subject to internal promotion. It is an open post, which will ensure that the best candidate is chosen for the job. In consonance with this policy, a panel of independent interviewers will select and recommend candidates for these positions whenever the term of a Vice-
Chancellor approaches completion. It is envisioned that this practice will evolve into a selection process by way of public advertisement."
In addition:
"The BOD, along with the MOHE, will play a more active role in drawing up as well as monitoring appropriate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Vice-Chancellors and senior management of universities.
If leaders fail to achieve predetermined targets, they need to be prepared to make way for a renewal process to happen. It matters not if they were asked to do more than their peers, their institutions will still need to complete their transformational journey.
The overall leadership process can only be executed smoothly if proper succession planning is conducted. Future leaders must be identified early and introduced to AKePT’s leadership development programme. Proven leaders will enter a leadership channel, and, should the need arise, will undertake greater challenges at other HEIs."
Bold words indeed. We hope that the process of appointing any new VCs in our public universities (and the renewal of existing contracts) in the future will follow these recommendations. Tony has written on this issue here and here and we can only hope that the Ministry will keep to the bold words issued here in the Education Action Plan.
I can already sense that the Ministry is facing some pressure in regards to the appointment of senior positions in the public universities (such as the appointment of two women VCs in UM and UKM and the more recent appointments of a few non-Malays to the positions of deputy VCs). One can only hope that we are heading towards the direction where the best candidate regardless of race, religion and even nationality can be appointed to the position of the VC of our public universities.
In the longer term, I hope that our public universities can move increasingly towards the direction of taking the politics out of our education system. This way, we can ensure that less and less 'compromises' which sacrifice the quality of our public universities are made. One way to do this is to decrease the level of dependence on public finances to run and expand our universities, which is the model that most public universities in the UK and in Australia are taking, and which many public universities in the US have already taken. But this is a subject for another post.
In the meantime, let's hope that the Action Plan items on better governance and leadership can be implemented in the near term.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Full Scholarship to Wesleyan University, Connecticut
Read this in the Star today in regards to a full 4 year scholarship to one of the top private liberal arts colleges in the US. I highly recommend those who are interested in receiving a liberal arts education to apply for this scholarship. It's sponsored by the Freeman Foundation, a foundation that has done a lot of work in East Asia in the arena of education. Details are below.
WESLEYAN University in Connecticut, United States, is once again calling for applications for its Freeman Asian Scholars Programme.
Each year, two Malaysian students will receive a scholarship to study at the university.
The scholarship, worth some US$35,000 (RM120,000) per year, will cover tuition and student fees for a four-year undergraduate programme at Wesleyan.
Applicants must be Malaysian citizens and should have their SPM results by the time of application. Students in programmes such as A-Levels, STPM, Canadian Pre-University and South Australian Matriculation or are in an American-style secondary school are eligible to apply.
Selection will be based on academic records and extra-curricular merits.
Applicants must take the SAT and the TOEFL.
A written application must be submitted by Jan 1.
Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed in Kuala Lumpur in February or March.
Students who qualify for the 2008 intake can get application forms from the American Home Assurance Company (03-2058 5399) or Macee (03-2166 8878).
For more details about the scholarship, click here.
For a description of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, click here.
WESLEYAN University in Connecticut, United States, is once again calling for applications for its Freeman Asian Scholars Programme.
Each year, two Malaysian students will receive a scholarship to study at the university.
The scholarship, worth some US$35,000 (RM120,000) per year, will cover tuition and student fees for a four-year undergraduate programme at Wesleyan.
Applicants must be Malaysian citizens and should have their SPM results by the time of application. Students in programmes such as A-Levels, STPM, Canadian Pre-University and South Australian Matriculation or are in an American-style secondary school are eligible to apply.
Selection will be based on academic records and extra-curricular merits.
Applicants must take the SAT and the TOEFL.
A written application must be submitted by Jan 1.
Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed in Kuala Lumpur in February or March.
Students who qualify for the 2008 intake can get application forms from the American Home Assurance Company (03-2058 5399) or Macee (03-2166 8878).
For more details about the scholarship, click here.
For a description of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, click here.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
OXCEL Revisited
One of the proprietors of OXCEL has written to me requesting that "[I] take down the fake certificate and other postings or we shall have to take the neccessary actions both in Malaysia and England."
He further added that "[the] blog should focus on reporting the truth instead of 'khabar angin'. A true reporter is able to support their claims with Facts. Your facts/ source is seriously faulty, which then brings down your creditability. I would have expected a University of Oxford graduate to be thorough and analytical in their research, thoughts and opinions."
I am taking the initiative to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to the certificate, and will be removing the image of the alleged certificate from my earlier post here. However, for the moment, I'll be leaving the earlier posts as is on the site.
I have also offered twice since I first blogged on this issue for him to provide a formal reply to the site for the readers. This offer has not been taken up. However in his email to me, he did insist that "OXCEL is a legal entity in the UK unlike the other 'dubious institutions' that you have reported on. OXCEL also does not award degrees."
Readers are given every opportunity to evaluate the story and make their own conclusions. And if I'm proven wrong, I'll be more than happy to apologise.
He further added that "[the] blog should focus on reporting the truth instead of 'khabar angin'. A true reporter is able to support their claims with Facts. Your facts/ source is seriously faulty, which then brings down your creditability. I would have expected a University of Oxford graduate to be thorough and analytical in their research, thoughts and opinions."
I am taking the initiative to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to the certificate, and will be removing the image of the alleged certificate from my earlier post here. However, for the moment, I'll be leaving the earlier posts as is on the site.
I have also offered twice since I first blogged on this issue for him to provide a formal reply to the site for the readers. This offer has not been taken up. However in his email to me, he did insist that "OXCEL is a legal entity in the UK unlike the other 'dubious institutions' that you have reported on. OXCEL also does not award degrees."
Readers are given every opportunity to evaluate the story and make their own conclusions. And if I'm proven wrong, I'll be more than happy to apologise.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Evaluating the Higher Education Action Plan (Part 1)
Two blueprints which outline how the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) aims to transform the state of higher education in Malaysia was launched in early September. These two blueprints are: the National Higher Education Strategic Plan and National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010. I think many of our readers have been asking us to comment on these blueprints but because of various commitments both Tony and I haven't gotten down to going through these two documents in detail. I finally had some time today and I decided that I would go through these blueprints and share some of my thoughts on some of the strengths and weaknesses of the blueprints. This first post is mostly about my general impressions of the Action Plan.
Firstly, I'm quite certain that both documents were not written by civil servants within the MOHE but was probably sub-contracted to an outside consulting firm (the likes of BCG, McKinsey or Ethos Consulting). When one compares the Zahid Commission report with these two documents, especially the Action Plan, this immediately becomes clear. The Action Plan in particular, are chock full of slides that seem vaguely familiar to me, in terms of their formats. (I was a management consultant in a former life)
If I am correct, and I'm 90% sure that I am, it points to the sad state of our civil service that such an important document needs to be subcontracted to an outside consulting firm, at taxpayer's expense, to be completed. (There has been a growing trend within the various ministries to rely more and more on outside consultants for these types of blueprints). Other than the cost to the taxpayers, which might range anywhere from 500,000RM to 3 million RM, depending on the consultant used, I think that the two documents, in particular the Action Plan, has benefited having an outside consultant's input.
For one, instead of just having a blueprint (like the Ministry of Education's National Education Blueprint), the MOHE decided on having a Strategic Plan as well as an Action Plan. Having the additional Action Plan (which is where most of the press attention has been focused on) is useful because it gives an actionable timeline which the MOHE can be made accountable to and it makes clear some of the deliverables of the Strategic Plan (such as the Apex universities, MyBrain15, Academic Audit, Graduate Training Scheme and Lifelong Learning). Under the section on critical agendas, there are clear action plans which the MOHE has oversight over and needs to follow so as to implement these deliverables.
Having an outsider's perspective also means that the MOHE is not tied down to outmoded ways of thinking that may be symptomatic of many civil servants. Some of the language used in the Action Plan is definitely 'uncivil service like' especially in the section on the selection of the VC position, which I will discuss in further detail in a subsequent post. Most of the consultant who would have drafted / crafted this Action Plan would be young, idealistic and mostly overseas educated and would not have some of the political inhibitions which a civil servant or even a politician within the BN would have.
Of course, Malaysia is well known for having the ability to come up with great blueprints but fail in the implementation stage. While the Action Plan draws up concrete steps which the MOHE needs to take, it is still up to the MOHE to implement these stages efficiently and transparently.
My second observation about these two plans is that there is a great deal of the Zahid Commission Report on Higher Education which has been included in the content of these two plans. I think that this is a good step since it brings about some continuity and also reinforces certain positive philosophies and ideas over time. It is not like the situation in the MOE where the National Education Blueprint produced under Musa Muhammed was thrown out when a new Minister of Education, in this case Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, took over as the Minister and commissioned his own new National Education Blueprint. Tok Pah took the wise step of not throwing out the findings of the Zahid Commission, which was commissioned under the previous Minister for Higher Education, Shafie Salleh.
Improving higher education in Malaysia not only entails a mindset change within the leadership of the public universities in Malaysia but also a mindset change within the civil service in the MOHE. The fact that we have a consistent message being promoted within the MOHE, from the Zahid Commission to the time period under Tok Pa, helps, in my opinion, to spur on this mindset change within the MOHE.
Of course there are specific criticisms in regards to the Strategic and Action Plan which I have and will go into in subsequent posts, but I'm generally quite positive in regards to the substance of the Action Plan. Indeed, I see positive changes being brought about slowly within the MOHE and also in other initiatives that have to do with higher education being promoted and implemented by other ministries, most notably in MOSTI such as the QB3 Malaysia Program, blogged about here. (which I hope will be a positive and sustainable program, despite the insensitive remarks on the part of JJ while he was speaking to a group of Malaysian students there).
I'll talk about proposed changes to the governance structure in public universities in my next post.
P.S. You can read both plans here.
Firstly, I'm quite certain that both documents were not written by civil servants within the MOHE but was probably sub-contracted to an outside consulting firm (the likes of BCG, McKinsey or Ethos Consulting). When one compares the Zahid Commission report with these two documents, especially the Action Plan, this immediately becomes clear. The Action Plan in particular, are chock full of slides that seem vaguely familiar to me, in terms of their formats. (I was a management consultant in a former life)
If I am correct, and I'm 90% sure that I am, it points to the sad state of our civil service that such an important document needs to be subcontracted to an outside consulting firm, at taxpayer's expense, to be completed. (There has been a growing trend within the various ministries to rely more and more on outside consultants for these types of blueprints). Other than the cost to the taxpayers, which might range anywhere from 500,000RM to 3 million RM, depending on the consultant used, I think that the two documents, in particular the Action Plan, has benefited having an outside consultant's input.
For one, instead of just having a blueprint (like the Ministry of Education's National Education Blueprint), the MOHE decided on having a Strategic Plan as well as an Action Plan. Having the additional Action Plan (which is where most of the press attention has been focused on) is useful because it gives an actionable timeline which the MOHE can be made accountable to and it makes clear some of the deliverables of the Strategic Plan (such as the Apex universities, MyBrain15, Academic Audit, Graduate Training Scheme and Lifelong Learning). Under the section on critical agendas, there are clear action plans which the MOHE has oversight over and needs to follow so as to implement these deliverables.
Having an outsider's perspective also means that the MOHE is not tied down to outmoded ways of thinking that may be symptomatic of many civil servants. Some of the language used in the Action Plan is definitely 'uncivil service like' especially in the section on the selection of the VC position, which I will discuss in further detail in a subsequent post. Most of the consultant who would have drafted / crafted this Action Plan would be young, idealistic and mostly overseas educated and would not have some of the political inhibitions which a civil servant or even a politician within the BN would have.
Of course, Malaysia is well known for having the ability to come up with great blueprints but fail in the implementation stage. While the Action Plan draws up concrete steps which the MOHE needs to take, it is still up to the MOHE to implement these stages efficiently and transparently.
My second observation about these two plans is that there is a great deal of the Zahid Commission Report on Higher Education which has been included in the content of these two plans. I think that this is a good step since it brings about some continuity and also reinforces certain positive philosophies and ideas over time. It is not like the situation in the MOE where the National Education Blueprint produced under Musa Muhammed was thrown out when a new Minister of Education, in this case Hishamuddin Tun Hussein, took over as the Minister and commissioned his own new National Education Blueprint. Tok Pah took the wise step of not throwing out the findings of the Zahid Commission, which was commissioned under the previous Minister for Higher Education, Shafie Salleh.
Improving higher education in Malaysia not only entails a mindset change within the leadership of the public universities in Malaysia but also a mindset change within the civil service in the MOHE. The fact that we have a consistent message being promoted within the MOHE, from the Zahid Commission to the time period under Tok Pa, helps, in my opinion, to spur on this mindset change within the MOHE.
Of course there are specific criticisms in regards to the Strategic and Action Plan which I have and will go into in subsequent posts, but I'm generally quite positive in regards to the substance of the Action Plan. Indeed, I see positive changes being brought about slowly within the MOHE and also in other initiatives that have to do with higher education being promoted and implemented by other ministries, most notably in MOSTI such as the QB3 Malaysia Program, blogged about here. (which I hope will be a positive and sustainable program, despite the insensitive remarks on the part of JJ while he was speaking to a group of Malaysian students there).
I'll talk about proposed changes to the governance structure in public universities in my next post.
P.S. You can read both plans here.
Monday, September 17, 2007
B. A. (Hons) Thuggery (II)
Well, remember about a year back when I wrote on degree and masters programmes offered by some of our local universities on Thuggery? Well, it appears that the course is being taught seriously, at least at Universiti Putra Malaysia.
As reported in Malaysiakini and widely circulated via emails, first-year UPM student Yee Yang Yang has to consider legal action to get back his laptop which was seized by the campus security on Friday night. In addition to his laptop, the security officers also carted away Yee’s mobile phone, MP3 player and 10 other items valued at RM6,000 during a spot check of his hostel room. Documents were also confiscated.
Even his attempts to lodge a police report over the matter has been refused, clearly demonstrating the bias of the police force over the matter - especially when successive Inspector General of Police have promised that all reports will be duly received and acknowledged.
And it is most unfortunate that UPM has been designated as one of Malaysia's four premier universities, a "Research University" by the Minister of Higher Education. To use the description of the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang, UPM will probably be more aptly termed as a "Mat Rempit University".
As reported in Malaysiakini and widely circulated via emails, first-year UPM student Yee Yang Yang has to consider legal action to get back his laptop which was seized by the campus security on Friday night. In addition to his laptop, the security officers also carted away Yee’s mobile phone, MP3 player and 10 other items valued at RM6,000 during a spot check of his hostel room. Documents were also confiscated.
"They (security officials) wanted me to give them the password for my phone and laptop so that they could check the contents," he told reporters outside the campus security's office this afternoon.Can you believe that this university has a "special task unit" under the almighty Student Affairs Unit, which is a "big-brother-like" student-monitoring outfit, forming part of the campus security? See the video on his attempts to retrieve his belongings from the "security officers" here.
"I refused. I want them to return my things and to apologise to me publicly because they did not follow proper procedures when they took away my belongings.
Even his attempts to lodge a police report over the matter has been refused, clearly demonstrating the bias of the police force over the matter - especially when successive Inspector General of Police have promised that all reports will be duly received and acknowledged.
And it is most unfortunate that UPM has been designated as one of Malaysia's four premier universities, a "Research University" by the Minister of Higher Education. To use the description of the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang, UPM will probably be more aptly termed as a "Mat Rempit University".
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
OXCEL Certificate
I wrote about the educational awards offered by the "Oxford Centre for Leadership" (OXCEL) a few weeks back here and here. For those with a keen eye, you will see that the text within the sites have been modified accordingly to be less misleading, for example, in its (non) association with Oxford University. OXCEL runs its programmes in Malaysia here.
But I'm curious. OXCEL has recently conducted a convocation ceremony at the Oxford University itself on the 3rd of September 2007, specifically at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. (Oxford colleges and institutes rent out their premises for use by private organisations to raise funds.) And I've been made aware that the following is the alleged copy of certificates issued to the "graduates" from OXCEL.
[UPDATED 21/9/2007: I have removed the alleged certificate for the owners of OXCEL has written to state that the copy in my possession is a forged document. I have however, requested for a original copy to be posted online, but this request has been rejected for apparent fear that further forgeries will be made.]
But I'm curious. OXCEL has recently conducted a convocation ceremony at the Oxford University itself on the 3rd of September 2007, specifically at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. (Oxford colleges and institutes rent out their premises for use by private organisations to raise funds.) And I've been made aware that the following is the alleged copy of certificates issued to the "graduates" from OXCEL.
[UPDATED 21/9/2007: I have removed the alleged certificate for the owners of OXCEL has written to state that the copy in my possession is a forged document. I have however, requested for a original copy to be posted online, but this request has been rejected for apparent fear that further forgeries will be made.]
Friday, September 07, 2007
Non-Malay Deputy VC appointed
Read this in the Star today. UM has appointed a non-Malay to the position of deputy VC (development). It was reported that 'the Higher Education Ministry has approved the creation of a new deputy vice-chancellor's (V-C) post in Universiti Malaya that will help link its research development with infrastructure development.' I was pleasantly surprised to it was a non-Malay who was appointed to this position since I had always assumed that all the deputy VCs in the public universities were 'reserved' for Malays.
This is not to say that I think that a person should be appointed to a certain administrative post just because he or she is of a certain race. I would support the candidacy of any and all qualified candidates regardless of race. But we have seen how certain Malaysian academics have left our shores and have become VCs in other universities in Asia most notably Prof Wang Gangwu who was the VC of the Hong Kong University from 1986 to 1995. The fact that many of these academics (mostly non-Malays) who have been passed up time and time again for promotion opportunities probably encouraged them to relocate to other universities in other countries in the region or further abroad.
Prof Dr Khaw Lake Tee certainly seems qualified. It was reported that 'Prof Khaw earned her first-class honours in Law from UM, a master’s degree from Monash University, Australia and a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science', a pretty impressive CV.
It was also reported that 'Other universities to follow suit in making such an appointment are Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Mara.'
I think this is an encouraging move in so far as it seems to indicate a greater willingness on the part of the MOHE to level the playing field, as it were, by promoting a more meritocratic approach towards promotion opportunities in our public university.
But I'm still waiting for the day when we get to see a well established and well qualified non-Malay academic take up the position of the VC of a Malaysian public university.
This is not to say that I think that a person should be appointed to a certain administrative post just because he or she is of a certain race. I would support the candidacy of any and all qualified candidates regardless of race. But we have seen how certain Malaysian academics have left our shores and have become VCs in other universities in Asia most notably Prof Wang Gangwu who was the VC of the Hong Kong University from 1986 to 1995. The fact that many of these academics (mostly non-Malays) who have been passed up time and time again for promotion opportunities probably encouraged them to relocate to other universities in other countries in the region or further abroad.
Prof Dr Khaw Lake Tee certainly seems qualified. It was reported that 'Prof Khaw earned her first-class honours in Law from UM, a master’s degree from Monash University, Australia and a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science', a pretty impressive CV.
It was also reported that 'Other universities to follow suit in making such an appointment are Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Mara.'
I think this is an encouraging move in so far as it seems to indicate a greater willingness on the part of the MOHE to level the playing field, as it were, by promoting a more meritocratic approach towards promotion opportunities in our public university.
But I'm still waiting for the day when we get to see a well established and well qualified non-Malay academic take up the position of the VC of a Malaysian public university.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Mock Interviews
How many times have you mumbled , shook your legs, and chewed bubble gum while talking to others, without realizing it?
In a university interview, communicating effectively can be your ticket to see the world, learn under world-renowned faculties, and get a prestigious degree. Descartes Education and Counseling Center will be conducting a one-on-one mock interview with you, then take a video of your progress, and finally replay it to help you rectify any problems during your mock interview, for FREE.
Interviewers representing world-renowned universities will give you insight to what a good interview entails, and will advise you against more than just mumbling, shaking your legs, or chewing your favorite bubble gum during interviews!
On the same day, Descartes Education and Counseling Center (DECC) will be having an official launching. Be sure to learn more about DECC and don't forget to check out the future plans/events of the center.
Details:
Who?
In a university interview, communicating effectively can be your ticket to see the world, learn under world-renowned faculties, and get a prestigious degree. Descartes Education and Counseling Center will be conducting a one-on-one mock interview with you, then take a video of your progress, and finally replay it to help you rectify any problems during your mock interview, for FREE.
Interviewers representing world-renowned universities will give you insight to what a good interview entails, and will advise you against more than just mumbling, shaking your legs, or chewing your favorite bubble gum during interviews!
On the same day, Descartes Education and Counseling Center (DECC) will be having an official launching. Be sure to learn more about DECC and don't forget to check out the future plans/events of the center.
Details:
Who?
- Ms. Chook Yuh Yng
Yuh Yng holds a Masters in Engineering from Trinity Hall, Cambridge. She currently heads the Sales Department of Jobstreet.com, the very successful online recruitment website. - Dr. Ong Shien Jin – Interviewer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Shien Jin graduated from MIT with a degree in Mathematics and went on to complete a PhD in Computer Science in Harvard University. As an educational counselor for MIT, he conducts interviews for MIT applicants in Malaysia - Mr. Bakthiar Talhah – Interviewer, Princeton University
As Regional Director for PFC Energy and Director of the Asian Downstream Practice, Mr. Talhah has vast experience in the field of global energy and investment opportunities. Mr. Talhah holds an Engineering degree from Princeton University.
Sunday 9th of September 2007Where?
Time: 1 pm to 4 pm
Descartes Education and Counseling CenterThose interested in registering for the mock interviews can send an e-mail to descartes.ecc(at)gmail.com with a brief description of their own background and the DECC team will get back to you as soon as possible.
55-1 Jalan SS21/1A,
Damansara Utama,
47400 Petaling Jaya.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Sachs came, Sachs spoke, Sachs left
Sorry for the long delay since the last post. Term just started for my last week and I was getting back into the swing of things back in school. For regular readers of this blog, you would know that I have been keeping track of Jeffrey Sachs appointment as the first chair of the Royal Ungku Aziz Chair of Poverty Studies at the UM. This was first announced in November, 2006 and you can read my posts about this issue here and here. He finally came to Malaysia in the middle of August, a couple of weeks back. I've been critical of UM's decision to award this chair to Professor Sachs namely because I don't think it is cost effective and I don't really think that Prof Sachs can do justice in terms of academic contribution to his post. Instead of criticizing MOHE and UM again, I think I'll take a swipe at Prof Sachs this time.
Ever since his appointment was announced, I've been keeping track periodically for news feeds regarding Prof Sachs as well as trying to see if there were any changes to his bio, primarily to see if the press here in the US or other Western countries would pick up on his appointment as well as to see if he would indicate on his bio in Columbia's Earth Institute website, where he's the director, that he had taken up this post in Malaysia.
Like I've said before, it's not common for a professor to hold more than 1 chair in more than one university at a single point in time, primarily because this requires a professor to share his or her time between more than one university. Most universities prefer not to have this kind of arrangement since they want to have 'exclusive claim', if you will to a professor's time and name. Most professors also do not want to have more than one appointment since this means that they have to do work (teaching, admin duties, faculty meetings etc...) for more than one university which leaves them with less time to do their real research. Even academic superstars such as Paul Krugman, teach or are associated with one university at a single point in time. (Krugman recently moved from MIT to Princeton)
There are some professors who can negotiate for special arrangements with their universities but many of them do so for personal reasons. For example, I have a professor here at Duke who spends one semester at England and one semester in at Duke because he's English and his family is back home in England and his research agenda requires him to spend part of in Europe. But I also imagine that part of this arrangement also requires him to be paid less by both institutions, probably splitting his salary 50/50 or thereabouts.
So here's my first beef with Prof Sachs. I think that UM is paying him tons of money to take up this chair but gets little in return. In one of my previous post, I estimated that it probably costs the UM / MOHE somewhere in the range of RM2 to 3 million annually to recruit Prof Sachs to his post. And this appointment is for 2 years. But he is not required to do any teaching or any advising, as far as I know. I'm not sure how much research he can do given that he probably spends less than two weeks in a year in Malaysia! If he was appointed in November last year and he came to Malaysia for one to one and a half weeks in August, this is pretty good money for 2 weeks worth of 'work'. (more like rehashed lectures and platitudes) If he knows that he cannot dedicate a sufficient amount of time and effort towards some sort of academic contribution as the Chair of Poverty Studies at UM, why take it in the first place? It surely can't be only because of money since by all accounts, Prof Sachs is already a wealthy man.
The job description of the Chair and the Centre of Poverty Studies seems like quite a handful. It can be found at this link.
The objectives of the Chair and the Centre are to:
- Serve as a focal point for academic work, research, consultancy and technical assistance in the fields of poverty and development for the academic community, the public, policy makers and the international community;
- Develop new approaches and methodologies in the study of poverty;
- Improve the understanding of life in the rural areas and amongst poverty groups;
- Help increase accessibility to information pertaining to rural communities and poverty groups;
- Disseminate information through the creation of databases, publications, seminars,
conferences, workshops, the internet and the media;
- Contribute towards capacity building in the rural areas especially amongst the poor;
- Encourage the incorporation of local and indigenous knowledge in the development process.
This doesn't seem like something which a Chair can accomplish by spending 2 months in the country, not to mention 2 weeks.
Of course, it could be that Prof Sachs has taken a salary cut from Columbia because of his appointment at the UM. It could be that Prof Sachs is not costing UM RM2 to 3 million ringgit a year (or even half of that). It could be that his appointment beings only in 2007 and not in 2006 as originally announced and so he's only beginning to ramp up his participation and responsibilities as the Chair of Poverty Studies at the UM. I hope that this is the case.
But as far as I know, Prof Sachs is back in the US and will only return to Malaysia sometime in January next year to look at the poverty rate among orang aslis or to do some work regarding poverty in Kelantan, I'm not sure which.
My second beef with Prof Sachs is that if he's been appointed to this Chair, why hasn't he updated his CV at Columbia to indicate this appointment? He obviously updates this now and then since there are some details there in regards to some of this activities in 2007.
As important, why hasn't he made any announcement here in the US with regards to this appointment? It was made big news in Malaysia but the US press was ignorant of this appointment. If UM was hoping that this appointment would give more name recognition to UM here in the US or in other developed nations, I think they have to be somewhat disappointed at the lack of publicity in the media outside Malaysia. I've been keeping track of news feeds from google news over the past year periodically checking on new on Jeffrey Sachs but have found no mention of this appointment in any news feeds outside Malaysian papers.
(Just for fun, why don't our readers google these to see what kind of hits they find: Jeffrey Sachs Chair Poverty Studies, Jeffrey Sachs Universiti Malaya)
Of course, it could be overreaction on my part since Prof Sachs might be just waiting for his appointment details to be confirmed before putting up these details on his website.
But of course, there could be other reasons as to why Prof Sachs might not want to make to big of a deal in regards to this appointment within the US and also within Columbia.
There will certainly be some criticism of his association with the UM as well as with the Malaysian government. Columbia students and faculty, more so than students and faculty in other US universities, are more familiar with the internal politics in Malaysia and are likely to be critical of the lack of democracy within Malaysia. Columbia is a university known to be associated with political dissidents. Many of the student activists from Tian An Men landed up in Columbia. Anwar Ibrahim has been a frequent visitor to Columbia before his arrest and after his release. His last visit to Columbia was probably in January 2006. The UM is also the place which terminated the contract of Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, probably one of Malaysia's best known academics (together with Prof Jomo).
This is pure speculation on my part but Prof Sachs is probably smart enough to know that his appointment to the UM would draw some some attention within Columbia University from faculty as well as students which explains why he's been relatively quiet about this appointment here in the US.
My last beef with Prof Sachs is related to this point. He's smart enough to know that his appointment it not purely an 'academic' one. He's smart enough to know that he's at such a high level of prominence that he won't be able to spend much time doing the 'real' research and administrative duties which a Chair must assume. Hence, the 'deal' must have been something like this - we give you a generous financial package, you don't need to do much real research, just come to Malaysia and tell us good things about ourselves.
While it is true that Malaysia has done a lot to reduce poverty and probably has one of the best poverty reduction rates among developed countries (better than most African and Asian countries but not as good as Korea, Singapore or Taiwan all of which were as poor as some African countries 50 years ago but are now all richer than Malaysia), Prof Sachs seems to have ignored the other problems in Malaysia such as government corruption, urban poverty, poverty among the orang Aslis and in east Malaysia (which is maybe why he wants to do some work in this area), the rising level of income inequality, distortions within the Malaysian economy as a result of government policies and so forth.
(For a list of newspaper reports covering his speeches, see here, here and here)
Does Prof Sachs feel comfortable in his role as an unofficial spokesperson for the Malaysian government and the Malaysian government's policies? This seems to be stepping out of the bounds of what a respected academic should do.
I'm sure that this is not the last I'll be blogging about this issue. I stand to be corrected on many of these points when and where more details are known (such as Prof Sachs arrangement with Columbia, the terms and conditions of his UM appointment, the amount of time and the kind of research he'll be doing in Malaysia etc...) But as things stand, I have to say that I'm quite disappointed with Prof Sachs for taking up this appointment as Chair of Poverty Studies at the UM and the manner in which he has not made this appointment known within Columbia and the US academic community.
Ever since his appointment was announced, I've been keeping track periodically for news feeds regarding Prof Sachs as well as trying to see if there were any changes to his bio, primarily to see if the press here in the US or other Western countries would pick up on his appointment as well as to see if he would indicate on his bio in Columbia's Earth Institute website, where he's the director, that he had taken up this post in Malaysia.
Like I've said before, it's not common for a professor to hold more than 1 chair in more than one university at a single point in time, primarily because this requires a professor to share his or her time between more than one university. Most universities prefer not to have this kind of arrangement since they want to have 'exclusive claim', if you will to a professor's time and name. Most professors also do not want to have more than one appointment since this means that they have to do work (teaching, admin duties, faculty meetings etc...) for more than one university which leaves them with less time to do their real research. Even academic superstars such as Paul Krugman, teach or are associated with one university at a single point in time. (Krugman recently moved from MIT to Princeton)
There are some professors who can negotiate for special arrangements with their universities but many of them do so for personal reasons. For example, I have a professor here at Duke who spends one semester at England and one semester in at Duke because he's English and his family is back home in England and his research agenda requires him to spend part of in Europe. But I also imagine that part of this arrangement also requires him to be paid less by both institutions, probably splitting his salary 50/50 or thereabouts.
So here's my first beef with Prof Sachs. I think that UM is paying him tons of money to take up this chair but gets little in return. In one of my previous post, I estimated that it probably costs the UM / MOHE somewhere in the range of RM2 to 3 million annually to recruit Prof Sachs to his post. And this appointment is for 2 years. But he is not required to do any teaching or any advising, as far as I know. I'm not sure how much research he can do given that he probably spends less than two weeks in a year in Malaysia! If he was appointed in November last year and he came to Malaysia for one to one and a half weeks in August, this is pretty good money for 2 weeks worth of 'work'. (more like rehashed lectures and platitudes) If he knows that he cannot dedicate a sufficient amount of time and effort towards some sort of academic contribution as the Chair of Poverty Studies at UM, why take it in the first place? It surely can't be only because of money since by all accounts, Prof Sachs is already a wealthy man.
The job description of the Chair and the Centre of Poverty Studies seems like quite a handful. It can be found at this link.
The objectives of the Chair and the Centre are to:
- Serve as a focal point for academic work, research, consultancy and technical assistance in the fields of poverty and development for the academic community, the public, policy makers and the international community;
- Develop new approaches and methodologies in the study of poverty;
- Improve the understanding of life in the rural areas and amongst poverty groups;
- Help increase accessibility to information pertaining to rural communities and poverty groups;
- Disseminate information through the creation of databases, publications, seminars,
conferences, workshops, the internet and the media;
- Contribute towards capacity building in the rural areas especially amongst the poor;
- Encourage the incorporation of local and indigenous knowledge in the development process.
This doesn't seem like something which a Chair can accomplish by spending 2 months in the country, not to mention 2 weeks.
Of course, it could be that Prof Sachs has taken a salary cut from Columbia because of his appointment at the UM. It could be that Prof Sachs is not costing UM RM2 to 3 million ringgit a year (or even half of that). It could be that his appointment beings only in 2007 and not in 2006 as originally announced and so he's only beginning to ramp up his participation and responsibilities as the Chair of Poverty Studies at the UM. I hope that this is the case.
But as far as I know, Prof Sachs is back in the US and will only return to Malaysia sometime in January next year to look at the poverty rate among orang aslis or to do some work regarding poverty in Kelantan, I'm not sure which.
My second beef with Prof Sachs is that if he's been appointed to this Chair, why hasn't he updated his CV at Columbia to indicate this appointment? He obviously updates this now and then since there are some details there in regards to some of this activities in 2007.
As important, why hasn't he made any announcement here in the US with regards to this appointment? It was made big news in Malaysia but the US press was ignorant of this appointment. If UM was hoping that this appointment would give more name recognition to UM here in the US or in other developed nations, I think they have to be somewhat disappointed at the lack of publicity in the media outside Malaysia. I've been keeping track of news feeds from google news over the past year periodically checking on new on Jeffrey Sachs but have found no mention of this appointment in any news feeds outside Malaysian papers.
(Just for fun, why don't our readers google these to see what kind of hits they find: Jeffrey Sachs Chair Poverty Studies, Jeffrey Sachs Universiti Malaya)
Of course, it could be overreaction on my part since Prof Sachs might be just waiting for his appointment details to be confirmed before putting up these details on his website.
But of course, there could be other reasons as to why Prof Sachs might not want to make to big of a deal in regards to this appointment within the US and also within Columbia.
There will certainly be some criticism of his association with the UM as well as with the Malaysian government. Columbia students and faculty, more so than students and faculty in other US universities, are more familiar with the internal politics in Malaysia and are likely to be critical of the lack of democracy within Malaysia. Columbia is a university known to be associated with political dissidents. Many of the student activists from Tian An Men landed up in Columbia. Anwar Ibrahim has been a frequent visitor to Columbia before his arrest and after his release. His last visit to Columbia was probably in January 2006. The UM is also the place which terminated the contract of Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, probably one of Malaysia's best known academics (together with Prof Jomo).
This is pure speculation on my part but Prof Sachs is probably smart enough to know that his appointment to the UM would draw some some attention within Columbia University from faculty as well as students which explains why he's been relatively quiet about this appointment here in the US.
My last beef with Prof Sachs is related to this point. He's smart enough to know that his appointment it not purely an 'academic' one. He's smart enough to know that he's at such a high level of prominence that he won't be able to spend much time doing the 'real' research and administrative duties which a Chair must assume. Hence, the 'deal' must have been something like this - we give you a generous financial package, you don't need to do much real research, just come to Malaysia and tell us good things about ourselves.
While it is true that Malaysia has done a lot to reduce poverty and probably has one of the best poverty reduction rates among developed countries (better than most African and Asian countries but not as good as Korea, Singapore or Taiwan all of which were as poor as some African countries 50 years ago but are now all richer than Malaysia), Prof Sachs seems to have ignored the other problems in Malaysia such as government corruption, urban poverty, poverty among the orang Aslis and in east Malaysia (which is maybe why he wants to do some work in this area), the rising level of income inequality, distortions within the Malaysian economy as a result of government policies and so forth.
(For a list of newspaper reports covering his speeches, see here, here and here)
Does Prof Sachs feel comfortable in his role as an unofficial spokesperson for the Malaysian government and the Malaysian government's policies? This seems to be stepping out of the bounds of what a respected academic should do.
I'm sure that this is not the last I'll be blogging about this issue. I stand to be corrected on many of these points when and where more details are known (such as Prof Sachs arrangement with Columbia, the terms and conditions of his UM appointment, the amount of time and the kind of research he'll be doing in Malaysia etc...) But as things stand, I have to say that I'm quite disappointed with Prof Sachs for taking up this appointment as Chair of Poverty Studies at the UM and the manner in which he has not made this appointment known within Columbia and the US academic community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)