This year, 96 percent of students who applied for university were admitted. Next year the enrollment rate is expected to reach 100 percent. This leads many people to suspect that university entrance standards are too low. And for good reason.
However, some publications recently said the enrollment rate could drop 2 percent or 3 percent next year.
A university system should be judged by the quality and the level of university graduates -- not the quality and level of the freshmen.
A university is a place for studying; it is about developing and learning.
The key question is whether students achieve sufficient benefit from their studies -- not their level at the start of their college education.
If a student does exceptionally well in high school but does not take university seriously, university will be wasted on that student, which would be sad indeed. University graduates are the end product of our education system.
We should be worried about improving the level of university graduates -- not enrollment rates and setting elite standards for attending university. A higher dropout rate would also be good if it meant that students not suited to university leave or realize they want to pursue a different career path.
Higher education standards in university classes would see the nation's students work hard and get the most out of their education.
It's only natural that universities should see a certain percentage of students drop out each year. Among freshmen the dropout rate should be relatively high, as first-year students who find university is not what they want or who can't make the grade leave to avoid wasting their time. By graduation, at least half of the students in a given class should have dropped out.
A dropout rate indicates a university's quality control.
During their four or more years of university studies, whether a student stays on should be decided by that students' grades -- not just based on one exam. They should see university as a first step to their future.
If universities emphasized the dropout rate instead of the enrollment rate, a high enrollment rate would not be a bad thing. If the enrollment rate goes down, and the dropout rate up, that could pose a problem. Quantitative change leads to qualitative change. So if we take the current high enrollment rate and combine it with a high dropout rate we get the best recipe for students and faculty alike.
Such an approach would be very useful for encouraging young people. It gives young people who want to study at university every opportunity to give it a shot.
University entrance exams and recommendations are not without flaws, and if entrance rules are relaxed, this could compensate for some of their problems.
At the same time this approach would improve our education system by urging students to study diligently and achieve better results.
For the universities, a high enrollment rate means they can recruit sufficient students, while a high dropout rate means they can ensure the quality of the graduates.
If we tried to improve the quality of university students by bringing down the enrollment rate by requiring higher grades on the university entrance exam, this could improve the level of freshmen, but if the dropout rate does not increase, the level of university graduates will not necessarily improve.
Richard Hwang is a research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Last year, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) turned the Double Ten National Day ceremony into a platform for grievances against the government. Yesterday, standing before the president and foreign dignitaries, he warned against Taiwan becoming a “false democracy, in reality a dictatorship.” Then he called for unity. Democratic leaders must tolerate criticism, even on ceremonial occasions, but Han misused his position and a national celebration to insinuate that Taiwan’s elected president was steering the country toward dictatorship and cast himself as a statesman offering reconciliation. Han asked how Taiwan’s security should be examined, using a medical analogy. If he insists on playing
RSS