The number of universities and graduate institutes in Taiwan is excessive and the average quality of these schools has declined. According to statistics from the Ministry of Education last year, there are as many as 139 universities with 1,904 graduate schools and the numbers are rising. Almost 1,000 graduate programs have been launched in the past few years. Since both teachers and equipment are insufficient, a crisis appears inevitable in higher education.
Theoretically, setting up more higher educational institutes to improve the quality of talent is not a bad thing. As local companies move from "manufacturing-oriented" to "service-oriented," it's necessary for this country to improve the education level of its people. Nevertheless, improving manpower quality should not be the sole criterion for establishing more universities and graduate schools.
Take for example the phenomenon of graduate schools becoming more like universities and universities becoming more like senior-high schools (研究所大學化、大學高中化). Not only have many schools failed to cultivate students who possess both ability and morality, but they have caused more social problems. Here are some suggestions:
First, the education ministry's supervision is crucial. The establishment of new schools is usually entangled with local forces, or political and business interests. As a result, the ministry must come up with a complete, independent evaluation system, and conduct its evaluations of schools fairly and objectively regardless of outside pressure.
The success of this system depends on the ministry's determination. Unless government authorities can resist outside pressure and carry out evaluations accurately, they may repeat the superficial evaluation process of the past.
Second, all schools have to make strict demands on their students. Universities in this country are famed for "letting you fool around for four years" (由你玩四年) -- Chinese slang which sounds like the English word "university." Although the curriculum of our graduate programs are relatively strict, many graduate schools recruit more students than they should in order to make more money -- seriously distorting the ratio of teachers to students. Therefore, the number of students at each institute should be regulated. Graduate schools should never turn themselves into diploma mills by arbitrarily offering "special programs for working students" (在職專班).
Perhaps we can learn from foreign graduate institutes by taking applicants' average grades in the last two years of university into account. We should also require that all graduate students maintain a 3.0 ("B" in the US system; 80 points in Taiwan's system) grade point average (GPA). Some foreign graduate institutes require students to take qualification tests in order to proceed to their second year. This mathod deserves our consideration.
Third, we must understand that education is a long-running project. Government authorities have to listen to different voices before deciding major education policies. They also have to carefully examine the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the feasibility, of the proposed education policies -- instead of using students as guinea pigs.
More importantly, they should never ignore the consistency of major education policies. Over the past decade, there have been seven education ministers with an average tenure of a little more than a year, since some of them were forced to step down for political reasons. These ministers have also tended to pass the buck when under criticism. To maintain the professionalism, objectivity and consistency of higher education, such political interference and leadership problems should never occur in the future.
Chang Sheng-en is a lecturer of English at Shih Chien University and National Taipei College of Business.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath