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
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,
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
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then