The fact that students who only had an average of three points in every subject in this year's university entrance exam were eligible for admission to university has become a hot topic in education. But the Ministry of Education's measures to remedy this problem, such as closing down universities and setting minimum enrollment requirements, only address the symptoms and not the fundamental problems in higher education in Taiwan.
First, there are too many universities and too few students, so even without the ministry's measures, some universities will have to close. When a bank goes bankrupt, the money in its savings accounts still has some minimal guarantee from the central bank. But how would the ministry handle a university's possessions and the people connected to the school when a university closes down? What about the teachers, the student body and the alumni? The costs and problems this constitutes should not be ignored.
To avoid wasting university resources, the only solution seems to be to expand the potential pool of students. There are two possibilities for this -- one is recruiting students from China, the other is recruiting students from other countries. The former involves too many political problems to resolve in the short term.
As to the latter, there are three problems. The first is language. Unless university courses are taught in English, it will be hard to attract foreign students. Therefore, universities need to gradually increase the number of courses taught in English.
The second problem is that the foreign students who now come to Taiwan are from countries that aren't doing very well economically. They depend on scholarships given out by the Taiwanese government and are provide no substantial economic benefit to the universities.
Third, the government has to stabilize the situation across the Taiwan Strait, as foreign students will not study in what is considered a dangerous place.
Second, the present enrollment system at universities is outdated. There are too many universities, for too few students, necessitating a change in the recruitment system from choosing the most talented students, to assigning students to a variety of universities. The old method of recruiting students worked in a time when there were more students than places in universities, but that no longer works. Now that there are more places in universities than there are students a new method is needed, to keep the diversity of the students' backgrounds within a campus and the competition between universities from disappearing.
The current system works for a minority of students -- those studying at national schools, those from prosperous families and those living in major cities. For the majority it does not offer a fair deal.
For private universities to survive and develop, they have to think of a way to change their recruitment system. Students from rural areas and less advantaged families should ask themselves what benefits the current recruitment system gives them.
Third, there is no connection between quality of the education and a university's tuition fees. If the tuition fee for National Taiwan University is only half of that of a private university, then who would want to go to a private university, unless they are not accepted by any other school? Any effort private universities make to woo students would be futile.
The ministry should take the opportunity to allow more freedom in the higher education system. For example, allowing universities to decide their own recruitment methods (maybe even bypassing the university entrance examination) and setting their own tuition fees to reflect the quality of the education offered.
At present, the higher education system has too many regulations and restrictions that govern the initial phase of university admissions. This should shift toward a system that allows universities a greater say in assessing and admitting students. As long as the government can maintain the quality of the education offered nationwide, it should be the universities themselves and market forces who govern the recruitment process.
Chang Ruay-shiung is the vice president of National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS