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
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS