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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS