With Taiwan's new status as a WTO member, the government has been preaching that the nation must embrace the opportunities and challenges that come with accession to the trade body. It's easy to understand that WTO membership grants Taiwan greater access to foreign markets. But it is harder to warn the general public about the imminent crisis that Taiwan is facing, particularly in the weakness of its higher education.
A recent survey by London's Financial Times ranked the top 100 business schools in the world -- only four Asian universities were named. One is in China, another in Singapore and the other two are in Hong Kong. Heading the list are the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Harvard Business School. None of Taiwan's business schools made the list.
Similarly, in a regional survey of the top 100 universities in Asia conducted by Asiaweek last year, Taiwanese schools failed to break into the top 10. National Taiwan University -- widely considered to be the nation's best university -- only ranked 12th while Fu-Jen Catholic University came in at 70th place. In total, only 11 of the nation's 137 colleges and universities made Asiaweek's list.
The two surveys should serve as a wake-up call to remind us of the simple fact that higher education in Taiwan lags far behind its international competition. Even the regional competition is far ahead of Taiwan.
As part of the reform package implemented by the Ministry of Education over the past 10 years, 70 percent of graduating high-school seniors nationwide are able to gain entrance to a university or college. That number is double what it was a decade ago because of the establishment of several new colleges. Thanks to an open-door policy, virtually all high-school graduates are now eligible for college admission.
While these reforms have abolished the "elite-only" policy of old, some criticize that the lowered threshold and subsequent surge in enrollment have contributed to the deterioration of educational quality. But the truth is that international educators and surveys never recognized Taiwan's higher education. So, blaming the enrollment policy for our universities' weaknesses is not valid.
Instead, it is the narrow-minded mindset of Taiwan's educators that is to blame for the nation's inability to compete in the international higher-education market. For too long, Taiwanese educators have retreated inward and avoided competing with outsiders. They have strongly lobbied the government to not recognize degrees from institutions in China. Deep down, they know that Taiwan's overall education performance is losing its edge to China's top schools, not to mention Ivy League schools in the US.
It is this sense of inferiority surrounding Taiwan's system of higher education that has compelled generations of brilliant students to pursue graduate degrees and other training abroad, particularly in the US. As China's economy continues to grow, an increasing number of students are pursuing degrees across the Strait, disregarding the government policy of not recognizing Chinese degrees. Unless local educators and officials open their minds and begin to compete, educational reform will lead us nowhere.
Furthermore, it is pointless to argue for -- or against -- a cheap-tuition policy. Higher education is closer to a business than it is to a charity -- there is no free lunch. While Ivy League schools in the US charge about US$750 per credit hour, Taiwan's schools are doomed to failure because they charge US$150 or less.
Not only should the government lift tuition ceilings, but educators should also try hard to find funding that comes from somewhere other than parents' wallets. The government should play a more active role in encouraging and supporting each school to develop its own characteristics and reputation, rather than regulating its tuition and fees.
Economics tell us that when an official ceiling is set to change the equilibrium of supply and demand curves, it causes a shortage of supply and a surplus of demand and the market ends up in disequilibrium. So a sound policy is to abolish the ceiling -- tuition limits -- in order to restore equilibrium in the free market.
Institutions of higher education must also bear the responsibility of finding their own niches in the global market. They must differentiate themselves in order to create competition that will lead them to better rankings in the region and the world. While rankings are usually just for academic reference, they can also serve as useful benchmarks for self-evaluation. Creating one's own niche is the most dynamic source for marketable academic achievement.
All of the aforementioned strategies will make it much easier for university presidents to raise funds and solicit donations from alumni and the private sector. But if educators instead choose to ignore the need to compete, they will continue to squander any hope for the recognition of Taiwan's higher education in the era of globalization.
It is in everyone's interest to see at least a handful of Taiwan's colleges recognized on the top-10 list of any established survey. If they openly embrace competition and strengthen their institutions, educators can expect positive results in future surveys.
Ernie Ko is the editor-in-chief of the Yuda Times.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS