Walk-In Interviews for PhD Holders

Hey guys, as highlighted in my post on my own blog, much apologies for having been neglecting my blogging responsibilites for the past few weeks. The new "career" is certainly dragging me all over the place and leaves me very little time to plonk myself for long periods of time in front of the computer to churn out something meaningful (and I'd hate posting something quickly just for the sake of posting). There's lots of stuff to blog about, and I'll try to catch up with them in the coming weeks. Hopefully this post will kickstart the action on this blog again! ;)

First, I thought I'd highlight a peculiar advertisement made by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) recently to attract more PhD holders into our public institutions of higher learning (IPTAs).

The good news is, the Ministry appears to be taking steps to increase the number of PhD holders amongst our university teaching community. But the curious thing is the approach which the Ministry has taken to meet its objectives - that is, via open walk-in interviews! You can read the statement issued by Pn Rubaayah Osman, a public relations officer of the Ministry here.

Temuduga pengambilan tenaga akademik secara berpusat bagi calon-calon yang memiliki Ijazah Doktor Falsafah (PhD) akan diadakan pada 26-28hb Mei 2007 mulai jam 9.00 pagi hingga 4.00 petang di Aras 2, Stesen Sentral, Kuala Lumpur.

This method of recruitment of PhD holders raises several questions.

1. It appears that these PhD holders are treated a little like factory workers who are asked to turn up at a specific location and just wait for his or her turn to be called. If there are a lot of people, then one would just have to wait a couple of hours longer.
   
   Given the above, do we expect quality PhD candidates from top universities globally to be interested in turning up for these interviews and be treated as such?
   
   And by default, through adverse selection, would such interview proceedings lead to weaker candidates who are not able to otherwise secure academic appointments in other leading colleges making an appearance?
   
   
2. And secondly, it also raises the key question as to why the Ministry has to take the role of the recruiter, instead of the respective faculties within the universities themselves?
   
   Does the Ministry has the necessary wide-ranging expertise to interview candidates of all specialisation on the spot? How could intelligent discussions be held if the relevant experts are not present to discuss the relevant subjects?
   
   Worse, if the civil service administrators are playing the role of recruiters, would they even sufficiently understand university demands of lecturers and researchers?
   
   And if these potential candidates are just required to turn up to submit their documents, instead of a thorough interview, wouldn't it have been better to request that they submit their applications either online or by post first so that the right expertise can be arrange to conduct the interviews. Otherwise, for many of these candidates who may well be outstation, would have to travel long distances just for a meaningless interview exercise.
   
   
3. Finally, should the role of recruitment to left to the relevant universities to decide? Is there no more autonomy in our universities to decide on their own recruitment?
   
   Would these new recruits, once posted to the universities, be subjected to "marginalisation" from the existing lecturers?

Hence in a lot of ways, the above exercise, just doesn't make much sense. Which of course leads to plenty of conjectures and speculations. And here is my 2-cent worth of conjectures:

1. Firstly, the University recruiters are reluctant to recruit qualified PhD candidates as lecturers in their universities. The reluctance is understandable in that the decline in the quality of our local universities over the past 2 decades have resulted in many unqualified and poor quality academics occupying positions of "power" within the university administration. As the patronage culture within the universities become ingrained, appointment of top quality academics, most of which are PhD holders become scarce for such appointments would be detrimental to their own positions.
   
   Hence, the Ministry while recognises the need for more PhD holders to be academics in our IPTAs, things are not moving on the ground. MOHE which lacks the political will to force reforms within the universities, then decides to take the less painful route of recruiting these PhD holders directly for placement in the universities.
   
   
2. Secondly, it was also very very interesting to note that the statement released by MOHE specifically mentioned that:
   
   Bagi calon calon... yang mempunyai pengalaman kerja di sektor kerajaan atau industri amat dialu-alukan terutamanya di kalangan bukan bumiputra.
   
   I am very encouraged by the action taken by MOHE for it is certainly extremely rare for Government recruitment advertisements encouraging applicants from non-bumiputras, instead of otherwise. It is a clear recognition that there is a drastic shortage of non-bumiputras in our public institutions of higher learning.
   
   However, when this is reflected with the earlier point, it lends credence to the fact that not only are the incumbent university authorities not recruiting sufficient PhD holders, they are also biaised against the recruitment of non-bumiputras, making it necessary for the unprecendented move by MOHE to step into the recruitment process to "remedy" the shortcomings.

That then leaves the question (which I don't have a definite answer for) of whether, such centralised recruitment exercise to overcome the shortcomings of the current recruitment processes is the best possible mechanism.

Will the new recruitment process bring unexpected and other detrimental side effects? Or will it even attract the quality PhD holders which it seeks to do?

Chinese Ed Speaking English

This post was inspired by one of the previous comments in my most recent "update" post. I think we've been quick to criticize the relatively poor standard of English among those in Malaysia who are Chinese educated. But often, we forget too quickly how difficult it is to master a language which is not our 'mother-tongue' so to speak. Frankly, I'm always impressed by people I meet who are Chinese educated but are also relatively fluent in English. Like one of the commentators in the last post mentioned, how easy how it for those of us who are English / BM educated to speak as fluently in Chinese?

My 'mother-tongue' is Mandarin because that is the language I use to converse with my parents (with a generous smattering of English, BM and Cantonese). But I wasn't Chinese educated (to my deep regret, later in life). I could not imagine myself delivering a lecture or a speech in Mandarin in the same fashion as many Chinese educated politicians and friends deliver speeches and lectures in English (and sometimes BM). And I would consider my Mandarin as better than most Chinese were not educated in Chinese. Even as I'm learning how to write and read in Mandarin at Duke, I find that I'm far from comfortable in speaking in formal settings in Mandarin simply because my vocabulary is insufficient and I often get my sentence structure mixed up.

So for a Chinese ed person to make the transition to speaking English, to me, is actually a pretty impressive transition given that I have a sense of how difficult it is for an English educated person to make the transition to Chinese. Tony is pretty impressive in that he, like myself, was English ed but his Chinese is much better than mine and he's much more fluent in delivering off the cuff speeches in Mandarin compared to myself. Of course, I don't have to face the same frontline scrutiny and pressures as he does. But still, this only highlights the difficulty of making such transitions be it from English to Chinese or the other way round.

So the next time you meet someone who might not speak perfect English and if this person happens to be Chinese educated, think of how you would fare if you were asked to speak in Chinese. Or if you're Chinese educated listening to the poor grammatical structure and vocab of an English educated person speaking Chinese, give the poor guy / gal a break because he or she is at least trying.

I can extend this to those who are fluent in both Malay and English (and to the rare few who are fluent in Malay, English, Mandarin and perhaps even a few dialects) and heap kudos on them to. (though having the same script for Malay and English obviously helps)

Quick update from Kian Ming

So many things to talk about, so little wireless access. I've got quite a few things on my blog list including the decision to get rid of UPSR and PMR exams (generally positive), the decision to raise the allowances for teachers in rural areas (generally positive), a quick update on Jeffrey Sachs and what he's doing as the Royal Ungku Aziz Chair of Poverty Studies (very negative). But unfortunately, I don't have streamyx at home and have been too busy catching up with friends and family to spend many hours at Starbucks or Coffee Bean. Apologies for the lack of posts but hopefully I'll have some time at the end of next week!

Teach for America

Justin wrote to share his thoughts on the Teach for America movement in the United States and thought he'd like to share his ideas with the readers here.

I am Justin Wong, a Malaysian currently studying in USA, and I try to keep my ears open to the socio-economic issues back home (in fact I wrote a paper on it). I have stumbled across a movement that is gaining support and impact here in America and I can't think of a more appropriate person to share this with than one such as yourself.

You might have heard of it but allow me to introduce Teach For America (), a non-profit organization that addresses the achievement gap in the not-so privileged areas in the country. It recruits ready and willing college graduates who commit two years to teach in places in dire need of educators. I find this to be a noble effort indeed.

I have always felt for the 'situation' of the Malaysian education system, though it may not entirely be the case such addressed by Teach For America. With proper planning and execution, I believe that education issues such as lack of capable teachers or unemployment rate can be addressed. If the government is taking its time to do something about the pressing need for better, fairer, or further spread education (regretfully, I do not know every issue there is), a committee of dedicated learned individuals can.

With this letter I am not asking you to act upon my thoughts, instead I'd like to hear what you and perhaps some other capable persons think about an idea to put together an organization that benefits Malaysians. A simple discussion would suffice, regarding any ramifications, possibilities, limitations, or maybe even visions for anything our good countrymen can do for the future's generations. Forwarding this to anyone else who would like to share and add would do much good, I believe.

I intend to see Malaysians help each other for the nation's betterment. I hope you receive this letter well.

- Justin Wong
Junior of Towson University, Maryland, USA

Our esteemed Minister of Science, Technology and Information

I heard about this through a reader of this blog but didn't know of its veracity and so didn't refer to it until this letter from Mkini was published. It is a short summary of the racist attitude taken by Jamaludin Jarjis (or JJ as he is popularly known) at the recent apperance in California. I wonder if the esteemed Minister realizes that India has created a number of world class technology companies and that certain Indian pharmeceutical companies are slowly but surely creating waves in the international scene. His actions and words, if true, are unforgivable and he should be given a public reprimand. I've cut and paste the letter below.

Apology demanded from racist minister
Dr Sheela Moorthy
May 2, 07 2:52pm

I am a Malaysian currently living in the USA. I am supporting the education of my sister who is enrolled at CalPoly, California.

The reason I am writing this letter is to express my disgust and anger regarding comments passed by the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Jamaludin Jarjis during a working visit to California recently.

He was present at a gathering organised by the Malaysian Consulate for the students to meet him. The purpose of this meeting was for them to address any concerns or queries they had. Being away from home, we all know that we love to meet our fellow-countrymen regardless of what color or creed they may be.

And being brought up in the true Malaysian way, we were thought to respect each other and look beyond the shallowness of skin color.

This was not the case with our minister. He made several derogatory remarks about Indians in general, about how they were brought in as 'buruh kasar' and at one point asked my sister about how many Indians were in her batch of students.

My sister answered him saying there were two of them. The other Indian student was fair-skinned and was actually sitting at the same table as the minister.

He did not realize that this student was also an Indian and went on saying that he must be a 'high class’ Indian and then pointed at my sister and said that she must be a ‘low class’ Indian as she was darker skinned.

I am appalled that we have people like this sitting at the helm and trying to run a multi-racial country. I urge all Malaysian to stand together and voice out against weeds like this who give our country a bad image.

I demand an apology from him and I want him to take responsibility for his words and I believe that malaysiakini is one of the venues to voice my dissatisfaction.

US Education Fair

The U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur and the Malaysian American Commission of Educational Exchange (MACEE) will jointly host a “USA Fair” on Sunday, May 6, at the Menara Yayasan Tun Razak, 1st Floor, No. 200, Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur, from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. The fair is free and open to the public. Special door prizes will be awarded, including a free airplane ticket on Malaysia Airlines and vouchers for discounted travel.

For those who are interested in getting an education in the United States, the USA Fair will provide answers to all your queries. You will be able to learn more about:

• Four-year undergraduate study programs in the U.S.
• American Degree Program transfers and twinning programs which allow you to work toward a U.S. degree right here in Malaysia
• graduate education
• “summer work and travel” programs which allow you to earn up to RM20,000 in 14 weeks, and then travel in the U.S. for up to a month
• High school exchange programs
• Financial aid and scholarships
• The U.S. visa process

Great opportunities such as working as a camp counselor or au-pair, as well as professional internships are available – all the details will be at the fair! U.S. visa officials will be on hand to help guide you through the visa process and answer any visa questions you might have.

For more information, please visit here or here or call 03-2166-8878.

Two kinds of scholarships

I thought the announcement of these two scholarship programs, one old and one about to be launched, on the same day on the Star was an interesting example of the schizophrenic nature of the Malaysian state. I'll paste some exerpts from both newspaper reports and let our readers make their own judgements. PS Note: My posting volume will be reduced in the next month or so as I'm back in Malaysia and I don't have DSL or broadband at home.

Firstly, the BN scholarship:

KUALA LUMPUR: K. Sathyvelu studied just one-and-a-half hours a day. Yet, he became one of the six SPM top achievers chosen for the Special Scholarship Award by Bank Negara yesterday.

This award enables the carpenter's son to study any course of his choice in one of the top universities in the world chosen by the bank.

Sathyvelu, who scored 15 1As, plans to become one of Malaysia's richest men and cites billionaire philanthropist T. Ananda Krishnan as his role model.

For now though, his love of mathematics and science is prompting him to do Actuarial Science at the London School of Economics.

“One of my dreams is to study overseas, and I know my parents cannot afford to send me abroad. That was the reason I took 15 subjects,” said Sathyvelu.

The others who received the award from Bank Negara Governor Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz yesterday were Nadiah Amirah Jamil from Johor, Afiqah Abdul Aziz from Sarawak, Azwan Arif Abdul Aziz from Perak, Chong Qing Joel from Johor and Siti Fatimah Mukhtar from Kelantan.

Nadiah had 14 1As, four 2As and one 3B and wants to study Pharmacy, Siti Fatimah from Kelantan had 17 1As and one 2A and wants to study medicine and Azwan Arif from Perak had 10 1As and wants to study chartered accounting. All want to study at Cambridge University.

Chong Qing from Johor had 11 1As and wants to study engineering at Imperial College of London while Afiqah from Sarawak with 13 1As wishes to study dentistry but has yet to choose a university.

The scholarship covers full tuition fees, subsistence allowance, airfare and book and computer allowance. Scholars are not bonded but have to return to Malaysia to work.

Zeti said the scholarship was part of Bank Negara efforts towards nation-building.

The selection was stringent and they were looking for candidates who were resilient and adapted to changes easily, she said.

Bank Negara has given out more than 1,000 scholarships to Malaysians and the Special Scholarship Award was introduced three years ago, she said.

Secondly, a scholarship for Muslim students.

PUTRAJAYA: Muslim students who excelled in major examinations will be honoured in the first-ever Muslim Students Excellence Awards to be held on June 23.

Nine awards will be presented to students who did well in the STPM, SPM and PMR examinations.

Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Othman, the religious adviser to the Prime Minister, said this was the first time that Muslim students who did well in their studies would be awarded. The top award will be thePrime Minister’s trophy.

Two awards, he said, would be presented to the special Muslim students in recognition of their hard work and good examination results. Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will present the awards in a ceremony to be held at Istana Hotel, organised by the Malaysian Muslim Students Foundation (YPIM).

“At the event, the foundation will be launching a welfare and education fund, so more activities can be held to help Muslim students nationwide,” he said at a press conference yesterday.

Reviving Missionary Schools

I was very intrigued to read this Mkini report on the CCM's (Council of Churches Malaysia) push to want to revive missionary schools in Malaysia. Being a product of a missionary school, La Salle PJ, I am naturally sympathetic to this plan.

Missionary schools were generally recognized as schools where one could receive a good education because the disciplinary standards were high, the teachers were generally motivated and could teach well, the standard of English was relatively high and the 'brothers' and 'sisters' (priests and nuns) created an environment that was highly conducive to learning. Most of us are familiar with some of these schools - La Salle, St. Xavier, Anglo-Chinese, Bukit Bintang, the many Convent schools - and many of us continue to be supportive alumni members.

It is widely acknowledge that the standards of education in many of these missionary schools have gone down the tubes and have lost the distinctiveness which made them highly conducive environments for learning. They were slowly but surely 'nationalized' when the brothers and sisters who were running these schools reached retirement age and were 'replaced' by headmasters and teachers from the civil service . Many of these replacements did not have a clue in regards to the 'culture' in these missionary schools. Hence they did not have a clue as to how to perpetuate this 'culture' of learning. The older, more experienced teachers slowly began to retire in these missionary schools and they were replaced by inexperienced teachers who were trained mostly in the teacher training colleges. The 'busing' in of more and more outside students, many of them from asrama schools, also contributed to the rapid loss of the 'character' of these missionary schools.

With this in mind, what can organizations like the CCM and Catholic 'organizations' like the Jesuit priests who started the La Salle schools do to restore the quality of education in our national schools?

I think they have to leverage their strengths in a few key areas, namely:

1) The ability of these organizations to use their know how based on their previous experience of running these schools. This includes the ability to restore a sense of discipline among students as well as respect for teachers and the culture of learning and in the recruitment of new teachers and retaining old ones.

2) The ability of these organizations to harness the collective energies of the alumnus. While many of these old alumni still contribute to these schools financially or if their kids are in these schools, through the PTAs, but they could definitely play a larger role for example in being on a board of trustees which has some say in how these schools are being run. Also, one can argue that many more alumni members would want to step up and contribute if they see that there was a concentrated effort to restore the character of these missionary schools.

3) The ability of these organizations to show that missionary schools can be run in a way which is professional and in a way which values education without being overtly religious. I went to La Salle PJ primary and secondary from Standard 1 to Form 3 and in no way did I feel as if Catholicism was being 'promoted' at least not overtly. I did go for Cathechism classes in primary school but that was something optional.

But to do some of these things, the Ministry of Education has to sign off. While the likelihood of this happening is very small, for the sake of argument, let's look at a few areas in which there needs to be greater flexibility in regards to how these schools will be run if its missionary 'character' is to be restored. Let's assume that the CCM together with some Catholic organizations gets the MOE to allow them a greater say in how these former missionary schools are run. What are some of the considerations that need to be taken into account?

1)Who is to give the proper input?
- Many of the Jesuit priests, nuns and the early founders of these schools have either passed away or retired. While their experience can be used / consulted, long term and regular input needs to be given by a different group of people. I suggest that some sort of board of trustees comprising distinguished alumni, parents of current students and possibly reputable MOE appointees (just to make them feel more comfortable) should be given some amount of power in regards to running these schools.

2) What kind of jurisdiction is needed?
- I think that these missionary schools should be given some flexibility in the hiring of teachers (outside of the MOE system perhaps), some flexibility in the curriculum, charging extra fees to pay for better teachers and facilities (means tested so as not to exclude poor students) as well as some control over who gets into these schools (some sort of admission criteria). The intended outcome is that a school which is multi-racial, comprising mostly of local, above average students, with good teachers and interesting curriculum (beyond the mandated syllabus) and an environment of learning and discipline.

Of course, all this is just talk given that the MOE is not likely to want to cede control over these schools. But it's good to put a few things on the table for discussion sake, in case any space opens up in how the government thinks of organizing education policy.

Doubling number of foreign students - a good thing?

The push to increase the number of foreign students in Malaysia is continuing, according to Tok Pa, as recently reported in the Star. This is not something new as I've blogged about this here and here. I've expressed my doubts on whether our public and private universities have the capacity to absorb foreign students at the postgrad level. Tony probably has similar doubts on the capacity of our private universities and colleges to absorb these questions at the undergraduate level. Let me share some more thoughts about this issue.

In the Star report, it was reported that 'Malaysia aims to double to 100,000 the number of foreign students at local institutions of higher learning by 2010, Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed said.'

He also said that 'Government would embark on a two-prong approach to realise the target, which he described as a “significant increase” to achieve the goal to turn the country into a centre of education excellence.'

The two-prong approach is presumably the approach of attracting foreign students both at the undergraduate as well as the postgraduate level.

Generally speaking, I'm in favor of expanding the education sector, especially the private sector, in Malaysia as an alternative source of employment and growth given that our manufacturing base is declining. Why 'especially the private sector'? It costs less for the government, it doesn't take up valuable spaces in the public universities, there's arguably more capacity or spaces in private universities and colleges. While Tony's concerns in regards to the education standards in many of these private colleges and universities are definitely legitimate, I think that competition among the private universities will slowly raise the educational standards in the top-tier private universities such as Nottingham, Monash at Sunway and perhaps HELP and SEDAYA just to name a few more prominent private colleges. As foreign students become more discerning and more information becomes available, they will be able to sift out the more 'legit' private universities versus the more 'dubious' ones.

I'm less supportive of increasing the number of foreign students in public universities firstly because as mentioned above, they take up valuable spaces which should be reserved largely for Malaysian students, especially if they are also heavily subsidized by the Malaysian government. I'm not so averse to having more post-grads at the public universities, especially if they are NOT subsidized by the Malaysian government, because the demand for postgrad studies among Malaysians is lower and because of the possible value added among these foreign post-grads to higher education in Malaysian (potential future lecturers and researchers) as well as to the larger economy (potential knowledge workers).

So some future points to ponder:

- Where will the increase in foreign students in Malaysia occur? (Private undergrad, private postgrad, public undergrad, public postgrad)
- Where are these foreign students coming from? (It's better to have a wide distribution of students from different countries and regions rather than having them come predominantly from one region)
- How are the public and private universities responding to these increases? Do they have the capacity to do so?
- How will the interests of Malaysian students, especially at the undergrad level in public universities, be safeguarded?
- What can and will be done to ensure that foreign students are not 'cheated' by private universities in terms of overpromising and underdelivering? (the same level of protection should be afforded to Malaysian students as well of course)
- Are there certain fields at the postgrad levels (such as science and engineering) which are being targeted, especially in public universities?

My ideal policy outcomes would be something like:

- Increasing standards in private universities by forcing them to compete for foreign students, both at the postgrad and undergrad levels
- Ability to attract quality postgrad students from different countries / regions to public universities
- Steady growth for the education sector as a whole in Malaysia
- Ample 'protections' for both local and foreign students

In the meantime, we'll be tracking this issue very closely.

Contacting us

For those of you who don't know our email addresses (it's in our respective profiles), you can email us at tonypua@yahoo.com for Tony, obviously, and im_ok_man@yahoo.com for me, Kian Ming. I'll be coming back to KL for about a month in May so maybe we'll have another get-together like the one we had last year? If not, if you want to meet up with me individually to talk about doing a PhD in the US or other related education issues, please email me with your details and hopefully, we'll be able to meet up in May. Indeed, one of our readers whom I met at last year's get together just emailed me to let me know that he got into a Duke Phd program and will be joining me at Duke later in fall.

Why Jiao Zong rejects ranking of Smart Schools

I was slightly irritated when I read in the Star yesterday that "Jiao Zong (United Chinese School Teachers Association of Malaysia) chairman Ong Chiow Chuen was quoted in the Sin Chew Daily as saying that the move would have a negative effect." This 'move' is in reference to the decision by the Ministry of Education (MOE) to implement a 5 star rating system for smart schools. I am fully supportive of moves by the MOE to release more information to the public at large which I think will create more transparency and accountability on the part of the school administrators as well as the Ministry. But why did Jiao Zong's chairman reject this ranking system?

First of all, I'm not even sure if there are any Chinese medium schools in the smart school project. A cursory examination of the list of smart schools show that these are all secondary schools and none of them could be considered, as far as I can tell, 'Chinese' national secondary schools in the sense that Catholic High in PJ is a 'Chinese' national secondary school i.e. most of the students are Chinese students from SRJK(C) primary schools and who take Chinese as a PMR as well as an SPM subject. So, I'm a little bit puzzled as to why Ong would object to the ranking of smart schools.

Secondly, his logic of rejecting the ranking of smart schools fails me. He said: "It would give the public a clear picture on how good or bad a school was and this would prompt parents to use all means to ensure that their children were placed in schools that are highly rated."

Given the fact that smart schools already receive greater funding and attention from the Ministry, wouldn't the demand to go to these schools already be sufficiently high? Also, aren't there current procedures which allocate students based on where they live which precludes the sudden streaming in of a large number of outside students who want to enroll in the best smart schools? Furthermore, aren't there other good schools out there which are not designated as smart schools?

As I'm from PJ, I'll use some PJ examples. I can't imagine that all parents would suddenly want to send their girls to Sri Aman since it is a smart school and it would probably do quite well in the ranking system given the demographic profile of the students who go there as well as their middle class and well educated parents. This is because there are other good schools in PJ such as Assunta and Catholic High.

I have to admit that I haven't read the full Oriental Daily interview with Ong. (If anyone knows of the link, please post it here and I'll read the full interview) So I might be guilty of not fairly judging his statements.

But this I will say and I say this based on a more general impression of Dong Jiao Zhong (Dong Zhong and Jiao Zhong) as organizations - that they are not keen on education reform and that they are not keen on being transparent internally and the basis of this attitude is that these organizations are governed and run by aging men who are conservative by nature. Anything that smacks of change is an affront to the way they like things to be - which is to preserve the status quo and not to have change.

While Dong Jiao Zhong has done a great deal in regards to protecting and raising awareness of the plight of Chinese schools in Malaysia, it has done less well in reforming the state of Chinese education in Malaysia. I will just point to two specific examples. They have failed to address the poor standard of English that is being taught and learned in Chinese primary schools as well as Chinese independent schools. So much so that they could not provide alternative proposals when the Ministry of Education decided to implement the teaching of Science and Math in English across all primary schools including Chinese primary schools. The second example is one which Tony has blogged about before - which is the issue of corruption among headmasters in Chinese schools.

The rejection of ranking schools is symptomatic of the conservative streak within Dong Jiao Zhong, I argue. If this leads to a ranking of Chinese primary schools, for example, it will reveal the myth that all Chinese primary schools are equally good at teaching Science and Math, for example, and perhaps reveal the poor standard of English among students in these schools as well as some of their teachers.

While having school rankings is not a panacea for the state of education in Malaysia, I regard it as a positive and progressive step. The fact that the chairman of Jiao Zhong has rejected this move further cements my impression that Dong Jiao Zhong is reluctant to reform itself and to take progressive steps to improve the state of education among Chinese primary schools as well as independent Chinese secondary schools.

Masters in Economics (Part 1)

This post was inspired by a comment left by Elanor Tan in regards to whether one should pursue a Masters in Economics locally in Malaysia or go abroad. I thought it would be a good learning experience for me to look at the local offerings in regards to Masters in Economics courses and compare them to similar programs in the UK and the US, something which I'm a little more familiar with.

Assuming that one did his or her undergraduate degree in economics (like the person who left the comment in Elanor's blog) in a local university in Malaysia, the first question that his person should ask is - why exactly do I want to pursue a Masters in Economics? This question is important because it dictates where one should go to pursue one's Masters, whether it is a local program or an overseas program.

For example, if this person is interested in researching a particular aspect of the Malaysian economy (but doesn't want to spend 3 to 5 years on a PhD), it would make more sense for him or her to enroll in a Masters program in a local university. Most, it not all, Masters programs in Economics in UK and US universities are very theoretical and quantitative. Even at the undergraduate level in most UK and US universities, Economics students are required to take numerous quantitative courses -in mathematics (calculus, matrices etc...) as well as statistics (regression, distribution, etc...). I'm guessing that the undergraduate requirements in most Economics programs in Malaysian universities are not as rigorous. A brief glance at the UM faculty of economics and administration website shows that it is possible to take quantitative courses at the undergraduate level but it is unclear if these quantitative courses are required courses. So if one doesn't like math or stats, I would highly discourage you to go to the UK or the US to do a Masters in Economics.

While it is possible to pursue a rigorous quantitative route at the local level, both at the undergraduate and graduate level, there is also the option of obtaining a Masters by dissertation (instead of coursework) at the local level. I'm not familiar with such an option being possible in most US or UK universities, unless it is not a pure Masters in Economics e.g. Masters in Public Administration or a Masters in International Development. So, if you're interested in investigating, for example, the impact of Malaysia's industrialization policy on economic development, I think you would be better served by doing a Masters in a local university, under a knowledgable supervisor, with easy access to local resources.

What if this person wants to do a Masters as the first step towards a PhD in Economics? Some of what I've said above still applies. If you're not quantitatively inclined and if you want to do something which is Malaysia specific, you're better off enrolling in a local program. The downside, however, of enrolling is a local program is that your PhD will be less 'marketable' because, if you've not done sufficient course and if your PhD research design in one that is limited in scope, you'll find that you'll be able to teach only in Malaysian universities. If this is fine with you, then again, by all means, enroll in a local program.

If this person really likes Economics as a subject (and not just one particular aspect of the Malaysian economy) and is not averse to quantitative methods (math and stats), then I'd advise this person to try to enroll in a US or UK university. Most US universities, however, are less inclined to enroll a person seeking only to do a Masters degree program in Economics preferring PhD students instead. Thus, there are not many top-ranked US schools which offer this choice. Some, however, do offer a one or two year Masters in related fields such as a Masters in International Studies (Yale). Nuffied College in Oxford offers a 2 year quantitatively driven Masters program in Economics and both Cambridge and LSE offers a one-year Masters program in Economics which covers the basic theoretical ground in Economics (Micro, Macro, Stats) for further graduate work.

So it this person is intersted in Economics but only wants to do it at the Masters level, then apply to a UK university. If this person wants to do a Masters as a step towards a PhD degree, then apply to a US university.

Finally, what is this person just wants to get a Masters in a field which would advance his or her career? Then, I would suggest that you consider taking an MBA instead of a Masters in Economics. An MBA is a much more widely recognized degree and it covers a much broader area than a Masters in Economics. Of course, the next question would be - a local MBA or an overseas one? This is perhaps a subject for another post, but my general recommendation is that if you don't have too many restrictions (family, financial), apply to go to an MBA school overseas, preferably in the US (although LBS in London and INSEAD in Fontainebleu, France are also good options in Europe).

To recap, enroll in a local Masters program in Economics if:

(1) You are not quantitatively driven
(2) You want to research a particular aspect of the Malaysian economy
(3) You have other personal considerations - time, financial, family

enroll in a Masters program in Economics in the UK if:

(1) You don't mind quantitative methods
(2) You like Economics but you're not sure if you want to do a PhD in Economics
(3) You want to finish this Masters in one year
(4) You don't have other personal restrictions

enroll in a Phd program in Economics in the US if:

(1) You like quantitative methods
(2) You are quite sure you want to pursue a PhD in Economics
(3) Your area of interest in economics is not necessarily restricted just to Malaysia.

enroll in a MBA program if:

(1) You are seeking a Masters degree in general for career advancement and are not particular interested in Economics but just want to get an advanced degree.

These are generalizations and does not apply to all situations or to all people. Take it with a pinch of salt. As to which local university one should try to enroll in, that is the subject of another post.

P.S. For those who might not know, I did my BSc in Economics at the LSE and my MPhil in Economics in Cambridge. I'm currently doing my PhD in political science at Duke University. One of these days, I'll share in more detail my positive and negative experiences associated with my education in the UK as well as the US.

Cost-Benefit of Overseas Education

Many parents today save up a lot of money for their children to pursue an overseas education. More than a few would have asked, is it all worth it? Well, someone actually did a fairly detailed cost-benefit analysis on the issue using a simple financial model (with assumptions of course). Check out Ahmad Ismail's analysis on the issue here.

Basically, the conclusion appears to be that "there is nearly no economic benefit to sending children abroad as opposed to sending them to local universities". Unfortunately, I haven't the time this 2 days to do a rigourous study of overseas education and its cost and benefits, I'll give my 2-sen on my personal views with regards to the issue.

The most significant global phenomenon of tertiary education for the past decade or so, has been the "democratisation" of degree-level education. That is sort of a polite way of saying "everybody also can get a degree from somewhere or other". We have argued that the focus on the quantity of universities and university graduates has reduced the quality of degree level education in Malaysia. However, it is not a phenomenon unique to Malaysia.

To varying degrees (pardon the pun ;)), it is the same for Australia, United Kingdom and the United States. The global result is hence the overall decline in the average quality of degree graduates. For example, a student who would possibly have qualified only for a diploma in the past, would have no problems securing a degree certification today.

Viewed from the above context (which is different from the approach taken by Ahmad), the argument that an overseas education may not be economically more beneficial than a local university holds a certain level of merit. My experience in recruitment has certainly taught me that local graduates are not uniformly weaker than foreign ones, as often generalised (and I would say, generalised wrongly). There are graduates from foreign universities who I would not hire, even if I'm offered a 3-month free trial, just as I wouldn't some local graduates.

At the same time, there are many local graduates who I would happily hire, and rate equal or better than most "overseas" graduates. Hence, in this regard, my personal experience 'sort of' adds justification to Ahmad's hypothesis.

However, I believe that there are exceptions. The exceptions are when these overseas graduates originates from the top universities overseas. Whether justified or otherwise, the market rates graduates from say, Yale or Cambridge much higher than those from the average (for lack of a better descriptive term), universities. I must admit that I have personally benefited from such treatment having graduated from Oxford. Whether its fair, justifiable or otherwise, my chosen alma mater eased my entry into on of the top global consulting companies and indirectly helped my start up business due to better chances of seeking appointments with key client managers. Even today, in politics, I'm being viewed a little differently, whether I like it or not.

Hence, in all likelihood (it's still a long time yet) for my own daughter, I'll happily (by hook or by crook) send her overseas if she gains entry into some of the top schools in the world, knowing that she will benefit directly or indirectly from such an education. However, if she's say, an average student, local universities or possibly the insitutions down south, may be the preferred choices.

There is however, a caveat to the above argument. The choice between a local public university as opposed to an overseas university also presupposes that the former is an applicable option, particularly for non-bumiputeras. If access to local public universities isn't a reliable option due to uncertainty of entry requirements as well as course allocation, then the students have no choice but to secure their tertiary education either at local private unversities like Multimedia University or via twinned programmes with local private colleges or directly to overseas institutions.

Hokie Tragedy

Yesterday, a gunman, in two separate incidents, open fired and killed at least 32 people and then took his own life on the campus of Virginia Tech, in the worst mass shooting tragedy in US history. Virginia Tech is located in Blacksburg, Virginia, about a 3 hour drive from where I am at Durham, North Carolina. Our condolences, thoughts and prayers are with the families, students and friends of Virgnia Tech. (Hokie is the name of their sports team / mascot) At Screenshots, we are told that all the Malaysians at Virginia Tech are safe.

Observations from Cambridge for UM

A well written letter posted in Malaysiakini that is worth reading.

Observations from Cambridge for UM
Sekar Shanmugam
Apr 13, 07 1:59pm

On Oct 12 last year, I had the privilege to attend a seminar on leadership delivered by the vice- chancellor of the University of Cambridge at the university’s business school.

After all, the recent uproar in Malaysia about the further drop in rankings of my alma mater - the University of Malaya - in the 2006 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) rankings, I thought I could gather some insights on the running of one of the oldest universities in the world and to share lessons with those responsible in formulating policies for higher education back home.

As the vice-chancellor was introduced to the stage, I quickly glanced through her credentials in the programme leaflet and must say that I was truly impressed even before she started to speak.

Professor Alison Richard was installed as the 344th vice-chancellor of Cambridge on Oct 1, 2003 and incidentally is the first woman to hold the position full-time. An anthropologist with a first degree from Cambridge and a doctorate from the University of London, Richard joined the faculty of Yale University in 1972.

Her academic leadership at Yale culminated in her appointment as Provost of Yale in April 1994. The provost is the chief academic and administrative officer of the university after the president, and as provost, Richard oversaw major strengthening of Yale's financial position and significant growth in academic programmes.

Richard started her talk by dismissing the notion that challenges associated with running a university are distinct from the challenges of running a business. I was surprised by this remark as I assumed that the university - steeped in tradition - would frown upon drawing parallels with the ‘dark’ side that being the ‘non-academic and profit-oriented’ establishment of the business world.

To drive home her point, she elaborated on two areas where the challenges are similar albeit a little unique. These, in fact, are valuable lessons.

Lesson 1 - The measurement of success

While measurements of revenue, profit and shareholder value are typical ‘success’ benchmarks for businesses, appropriate measurements for universities are saddled with ambiguity. She went on to mention that league tables are to be taken with a pinch of salt – and this, mind you, comes from the vice-chancellor of a university that was ranked second in the 2006 THES survey.

There was not even a tinge of self-proclamation of success. Instead, she humbly pointed out that these league tables are merely looking at the present and the past, and give little indication of the future.

The more pertinent measurement of a university, she feels, is how it contributes to the country’s economy. To this, Richard made reference to a report by an independent research firm, the Library House. The research encompassed the university’s technology cluster (that now numbers 900 innovation-based companies) concluded that if Cambridge did not exist, the impact on the UK economy will be a whopping £57.5 billion (net present value) with over 154,000 jobs needing to be replaced.

Lesson 2 - Recruiting the best

The challenge in the area of recruitment is not so much as attracting the brightest talent (the Cambridge name does a sufficient job of that) but in hiring the best candidates. In the university’s context, best means brightest and being able to do both cutting edge research and to impart knowledge to others – that is, to teach at undergraduate or graduate level.

She acknowledges that there will be the occasional missteps but as long as the university has the resources and commitment to hire the best, a strong sense of purpose among the leadership team to make Cambridge great and to have the honesty to examine failures, excellence will be maintained.

As I strode out of the lecture hall towards the refreshment table, I could definitely resonate with most of what she said. After being at a renowned global IT company for the greater part of my career and exposed to how global organisations run their businesses, it dawned on me that the lecture could have just about been by a CEO of a global corporation. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised that it was delivered by an academic.

I definitely sensed that she is all fired up and optimistic of Cambridge achieving its future goals. In fact, she did declare that she will step down to let someone else carry the torch if the flame within her dies down.

It was indeed an eye-opener coming from the ‘CEO’ of an 800-year-old university who has recognised that the survival of the university in the new global platform is not to rest on its past achievements and traditions but to move forward with vigour to maintain Cambridge’s stature as one of the greatest learning institutions of the world.