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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS