TMI: Race quotas, politics led to falling UM standards, says World Bank study.... By Leslie Lau

Race quotas, politics led to falling UM standards, says World Bank study

By Leslie Lau
Executive Editor

October 17, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 17 — A World Bank publication has found that standards at Universiti Malaya have fallen and the institution has been kept at a disadvantage because of race-based admission quotas and political interference in university management.

In contrast, Singapore’s decision to prioritise research, keeping English as the medium of instruction and a merit-based admissions policy have all contributed to the success of the National University of Singapore’s success, according to “The Road to Academic Excellence,” which studies what contributes to a world-class research university.

The study also noted that Malaysian secondary school students are not well prepared for tertiary education.

It points out that the Malaysian education system promotes rote learning, conformity and uniformity rather than fresh and creative thinking.

The study is led by two scholars — Philip Altbach and Jamil Salmi — while various chapters see contributions from various academics.

Salmi, a Moroccan education economist attached to the World Bank, also notes that “disturbing political developments, from the burning of churches to the whipping of a woman for drinking beer in public,” also cast a shadow on Malaysia’s “image as an open and tolerant society.”

The comparisons between UM and NUS is contained in a chapter entitled “The National University of Singapore and the University of Malaya: Common Roots and Different Paths.”

The chapter is authored by Hena Mukherjee, a former Universiti Malaya department head with a doctorate in education from Harvard University, and Poh Kam Wong, an NUS Business School professor.

According to the study, “at an early stage, the Singapore government realised the universities’ role in sustaining economic growth.

“In contrast, after 1970, UM’s institutional goals reflected the New Economic Policy, an affirmative action plan for ethnic Malays and indigenous groups, put in place in the wake of disastrous 1969 ethnic riots that took the lives of hundreds of people on both sides of the racial divide.,” the study found.

The authors said that apart from the student quota system, the NEP translated into more scholarships to Bumiputeras, special programmes to facilitate their entry into higher education institutions, and the use of the Malay language in place of English in the entire education system by 1983.

“In UM and in government, the policy impact spiralled upward so that Bumiputera staff members, over time, secured almost all senior management, administrative, and academic positions.

“As NUS kept pace with the demands of a growing economy that sought to become competitive internationally, with English continuing as the language of instruction and research, UM began to focus inward as proficiency in English declined in favour of the national language — Bahasa Malaysia — and the New Economic Policy’s social goals took precedence.”

The study noted however that there has been widespread recognition that the implementation of affirmative action policies in Malaysia has hurt the higher education system, sapping Malaysia’s economic competitiveness and driving some (mainly Chinese and Indians) to more meritocratic countries, such as Singapore.

In the broader study, the lead authors found that research was an important element in the making of a world-class university, as well as top-grade talent.

“We’re both convinced that serious research universities are important in almost all societies,” Altbach, who is the director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, told the New York Times last week in an interview.

Said Altbach: “Independence, luck, persistence, some kind of strategic vision, adequate resources — usually, but not always, public resources — good governance structures, good leadership, the ability to attract good students and so on. But we have found that the quality of the faculty is really crucial.”

Salmi, who co-ordinates the World Bank’s activities related to higher education, told the same newspaper of their new 390-page study, which will be released later this month, that their advice is like that supposedly given for a rabbit stew recipe: “First, catch your rabbit.” Only in this case the advice would be: “First, catch your faculty.”

“The difference between a good university and great university comes down to talent.”

TMI: Beyond the economics of merit... By Kapil Sethi

Beyond the economics of merit

By Kapil Sethi

TMI: November 08, 2010

NOV 8 — A new Talent Corporation is to be set up to reverse brain drain. Lots of glitzy new infrastructure projects will be implemented under the ETP. A slew of performance benchmarks will ensure that there are no goof-ups at the implementation stage. All this and more is supposed to move us out of the middle-income trap into a high-growth, high-income trajectory to become developed by 2020.

Are these pipe dreams or an achievable vision of the future? Economic models and projections are just that — models and projections based on hard data. Life,on the other hand, has a peculiar habit of intervening at the most inopportune time to turn the so-called future on its head. It’s called the human factor.

In all kinds of collective human endeavour, for any project to succeed, clear ambition and an even clearer unity of purpose are prerequisites. We have to want to put up a theatre production, and everyone has to play their appointed parts in synchronicity for it to be a success. A corporation has to be hungry for new business, and the sales team has to play their parts to perfection in a pitch to the prospective client for the company to be successful. Even for wars to be prosecuted successfully, a clear enemy and a committed military operating as one are essential.

In our case, the ambition to be a developed nation by 2020 is clear and has been for a while now. Where it breaks down is in the unity of purpose. We all want to be rich, but insist that other races in the country are impeding our path.

Is following the NEP for another 10 years the way to do it? Is emphasising merit also racist, as implied by a senior statesman recently? Does the current government know best and should we give them a chance? Is throwing money after it the solution? Or is using predictive economics the way to go?

It might be worthwhile to step back and understand why we are unable to derive a consensus on how to approach the issue.

In front of a global audience, we are able to forget race. We claim ownership of Lee Chong Wei, Shalin Zulkifli and Nicol David equally proudly. When we visit a nasi lemak stall in London, we introduce it to Mat Sallehs as a Malaysian, not Malay dish. In business especially in the private sector, we treat each other as colleagues in task accomplishment. Love increasingly has no boundaries.

It is actually only in situations that we are surrounded primarily by people of our race that we play up the perceived differences between us. It is after all a very fundamental social characteristic to protect the ones closest to us and repel all others who are identified as the other.

But in the context of our economic ambitions, emphasis on race is a hindrance because it frames the definition of “us” very narrowly, and the “other” too widely. If we aggregate the strengths of all of us, Malaysia has to compete with the rest of the world. But if we emphasise the strengths of only a race, then we have to first compete with other races before competing with the rest of the world.

Whatever be their other shortcomings, the current crop of politicians have not been slow to recognise this. When it comes down to it, both coalitions before deciding which candidate to put up for elections look at “winnability” — a peculiar amalgam of the ethnic composition of the electorate, the loyalty of the candidate to the party, his personality and positions on issues, even her smile.

The appeal of the prospective candidate has to generally go beyond race today. The wider the definition of “us”, the greater the winnability of the candidate. As we have witnessed in several by-elections, once the decision is made and there is grassroots acceptance of the winnability of the candidate, there appears a unity of purpose in the ranks and momentum can be shifted, a no-hoper made a serious contender and vice versa.

This is not to say that we should just bury our racial differences, but in a hyper competitive world we need to widen our definition of “us” in our public lives to accommodate all Malaysians so we can achieve our economic ambitions. This is why the call for a merit- and needs-based model for the future is more in consonance with our ambition than a race-based model.

Expansion of educational and workplace opportunities on the basis of merit and/or economic needs does not need to diminish our racial identity, it just aligns our skillsets to the economic realities of the world. In today’s world, affirmative action needs to support every citizen’s right to opportunity, unhindered by a lack of means.

Race has its place in our private and social lives, but if we want to achieve our economic goals, it should not have any place in school, not in sport and certainly not in business. Race and merit need to co-exist, not compete. Our ambitions need to be aided with an even clearer unity of purpose.

At home though, surrounded by people of my own kind you can always find me with a bottle of whisky in my hand loudly denouncing all those who call us alcoholics.

Kapil is an advertising strategist turned brand consultant based in KL, who likes nothing better than to figure out why people behave the way they do. Naturally this forces him to spend most of his time lounging in coffeeshops and bars. He can be reached at kapilanski@yahoo.com