It is once again time for students to fill out their preferences for schools as part of the Joint University Entrance Exam. It is also the time for the "golden dollar marketing" to put its seductive powers to good use in attracting college and university-bound students.
As a result of the liberalization of the educational system, changes have occurred in the ways universities solicit stu-dents. Universities are beginning to use marketing concepts to attract students. In the begin-ning, it was a matter of small gifts. Then many universities began offering substantial scholarships to students willing to name the institution as their first preference. Before long it became a veritable auction with universities outbidding each other with amounts in excess of NT$2 million.
If this trend continues, the day will come when taking the entrance exam not only will offer the chance of admission to a university, but it will be similar to buying a lottery ticket with prizes of scholarships worth tens of millions of dollars.
Whether this prospect actually becomes reality, the saying that "there is a house of gold hidden in books" has already been proven true. Is this good?
What I fear is that the solicitation of students with such vulgar marketing methods will cultivate an attitude in students of always looking for money. It could blur their focus when deciding about their future. It also breeds a money-worshipping culture in our universities. Is this good?
I also worry that this way of attracting students will split students into two groups -- those with big scholarships and those without. Is this good?
Are such marketing strategies really conducive to upgrading the academic quality of our universities? Could it be that the universities will not reap the benefits they expect and that higher education will deteriorate into an arena for auctions and bargains? Is this good?
I think that everyone is expecting a kind of marketing that emphasizes the educational philosophy, academic strength and the specialties of univer-sities. Why can't universities be a bit more creative and appeal to higher ideals in order to cultivate graduates having a profound insight and broader perspec-tives? Wouldn't this be better?
Wouldn't it be worthwhile to try to open the eyes of those students sufficiently qualified to participate in these golden lotteries and who are more intelligent to the traps hidden in this game? Should they let themselves be seduced by money and, in a moment of greed, set their ideals aside and drop their search for a university with ideals and character where it is worth spending four years of their lives?
I want to ask the parents of these elite students, who have experienced the chaos and the growing pains of Taiwan's society and who already have a deep hatred of the "money phenomenon," if they can't give their children a hint to help them find the calm necessary to find their own direction.
Or do they want to see their children falling for the illusions of the greed trap?
The all-pervasive "black gold" politics is being condemned throughout society. Society also looks upon universities as the clear stream of social development and places so much hope and expectations in them.
I wonder why society ignores this kind of eccentric marketing that seeks to win popularity by such shocking methods. Why doesn't our community take a good look at this greed that is only just beginning to contaminate our universities?
Who will provide the answers to these questions?
Samuel Wang is dean of academic affairs at Chung Yuan Christian University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS