Tzu Chi University has performed a miracle in the University Impact Rankings, destroying the illusion that greater resources bring a higher score. In the list released by the Times Higher Education on April 3, the university ranked 67th, top among 12 Taiwanese institutes on the list, including National Taiwan University (NTU), which was 70th.
I have always questioned global rankings of this sort, as well as the obsession with quantitative criteria.
However, I am curious about the criteria for this list, which ranked a small university ahead of a big one.
Surprisingly, the rankings were based on the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The organizer of the list used 11 of the goals suitable for university development, including good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, climate action, and sustainable cities and communities, a different methodology from other evaluations.
To gain higher rankings, the government has put a lot of resources into a few top universities and few resources into universities with teaching excellence. In return, the top universities merely move up and down the rankings from year to year, gradually attracting researchers cultivated by other institutes.
The results of investing resources to gain higher global rankings and whether the top universities are using their resources appropriately have long been targets of criticism.
Universities that are not ranked highly have fewer resources and suffer from an outflow of talent. In addition, research often caters to Western needs, while overlooking local needs because of the indexation of journals promoted by businesspeople in the West. For these reasons, I never take the rankings seriously.
This problem is a result of uneven resource distribution — the strong become stronger and the big become bigger. While top universities are becoming bloated, those that lag behind are almost starving to death.
Fortunately, after President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration took office, the government made a U-turn regarding resource distribution by sharply cutting funds for top universities and encouraging all institutes to cultivate local talent to obtain and use resources effectively. This is a helpful paradigm shift.
Today, Tzu Chi University’s educational characteristics outshine NTU in alternative rankings. This in itself is praiseworthy, because the news is surprising everyone.
My first thought on reading the news was that the criteria for the rankings would have a crucial effect.
This is also inspiring for higher education in Taiwan. A mouse defeating an elephant is no longer a fairy tale.
All those professors at top universities who complain that their rankings drop due to insufficient government funding should consider the following three questions:
As the public resources that Tzu Chi University receives are insignificant compared with what top universities receive, why did it stand out in the rankings?
The institutes in global rankings need a lot of resources to direct toward maximization of data to meet rankings’ criteria, but is it really worth it for a relatively small nation to join this game?
Does the giant gap in the distribution of limited resources not cause a flight of talent from regular universities?
Is the predatory approach of spending too much on the top universities and not enough on smaller ones to achieve higher rankings in line with social values such as fairness and justice?
Shih Chao-hwei is a professor in Hsuan Chuang University’s department of religion and culture.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs