President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has promised to allow Chinese students to enroll in Taiwanese universities. Given Taiwan’s education system, it may be unwise to undertake such a policy lightly. Ma has stated that many private universities have trouble attracting students and hopes to open up enrollment to students from China. However, the real problem can be found at the core of the education system.
A high-quality education system is pyramidal, but Taiwan’s is wide all around, making for an abnormal system. Since nearly everyone can enter college or obtain a graduate degree, what is the point of distinguishing between middle and high-level education? During the presidential election debates, Democratic Progressive Party candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) said that schools or departments that do not make the grade should be eliminated. This makes sense, because failing to meet standards means failing to uphold educational obligations. In that case, why should the money that taxpayers provide for education be allocated to such schools?
Quite a few private universities and even some public universities that receive public funding have been increasing their tuition rates. The reason for this is that there are too many schools, which has resulted in fewer funds available for each school. Consequently, they find themselves short of money.
Another question that needs to be asked is whether students who attend degree “factory” schools are really serious about their education. In most cases, probably not. Why, therefore, should educational funds be used for them? Would it not be more useful to allocate these funds to help Taiwanese universities break into the world’s top 100?
Furthermore, does a college education mean that one’s salary will be higher than that of someone who attended a vocational school? Not necessarily.
If this is not the case, then why invest in a college education? The answer, in short, is that we are afraid of not being able to get a job. In the past, a high-school degree was sufficient for applying for a job. Nowadays, you need to be a college graduate.
Let us hope, therefore, that Ma will take Hsieh’s ideas into consideration because our dysfunctional educational system is already starting to have a negative influence on the economic issue of employment.
Education is not necessarily the only means to ensure one’s future. Regardless of the profession one chooses, there is always a chance that outstanding results will be obtained. The biggest disgrace for Chinese was the Song Dynasty-era concept that “only the educated are of esteem. Everyone else is inferior.”
What happens if children are struggling with their studies? Does this mean that their future is doomed? This concept must be changed and we should not place so much pressure on children. Instead of forcing them to study, would it not be better to allow them to learn different skills and abilities that would help them later on in life?
To change this type of thinking, low-quality schools and departments must be weeded out. This would help highlight the strengths and advantages of Taiwan’s educational system and encourage students who are unable to obtain the results they need to get accepted into higher-level schools to learn more diverse skills that will help them find jobs in future.
The influence of education stretches long and deep. However, Taiwan’s education system in its current form leaves students in fear and unable to make a future of their own.
In addition to his “i-Taiwan 12 projects” and “6-3-3” economic policy, the most important thing for Ma will be to find ways to rectify our defunct education system.
Tony Huang is a business major at Shu-te University.
TRANSLATED BY JAMES CHEN
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