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Second, the present enrollment system at universities is outdated.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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers