Top-notch funding use
In an editorial on university funding, the point was made that if the way National Taiwan University has used the special funding received under the Road to Top-Notch Universities Project is problematic, it must be even more true of other universities receiving this funding (Editorial, July 13, page 8). Regarding this point, I am writing in defense of the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan Tech), where I have been teaching since September 1975.
Taiwan Tech is the only university from the technological and vocational education track to have received funding under the Top-Notch Project. As with the vocational education track as a whole, Taiwan Tech has a higher proportion of students from low-to-middle income families than comprehensive universities do. In 40 years of teaching, I have learned that students do not necessarily end up in vocational education because of lack of talent or effort. Often family misfortune — such as divorce, financial difficulties, the illness or death of a parent, results in a student seeking part-time work to help with family expenses, leaving little time or money to prepare for entrance exams.
It has long been the goal of Taiwan Tech through a variety of policies to enable students from such backgrounds to receive the best possible education. Thus, with the funding received from the Top-Notch Project, Taiwan Tech has sought to enhance the full spectrum of our students’ educations, from the classroom through club activities — where leadership skills are learned — and even scholarships to enable lower-income students to take advantage of opportunities to study abroad. However, in promoting club activities and study abroad, we ran into a major obstacle — the need many of our students have to hold down one or more part-time jobs to pay for their education and help with family expenses, a challenge we met by fulfilling one of the requirements of the Top-Notch Project — internationalization.
We have more than 800 international students from more than 40 countries (in a student body of nearly 10,000) — a percentage ranking among the top in Taiwan, mostly studying for master’s degrees or doctorates. Thus, we are playing the role that US universities played for Taiwan 40 years ago, training the new generation of university faculty and leaders in business and government for these countries, a considerable impact for a small school in a small country — an impact that is set to continue to grow long into the future. Our faculties can thus have graduate students to assist with their research, in spite of the effects of Taiwan’s low birth-rate.
In addition, Taiwanese students who cannot afford to study abroad can receive one of the chief benefits of such study here on campus — interacting with people from different cultural backgrounds, leading to a broadened world view. We see our international students not as a “burden” but as a major asset, and welcoming them has involved input from the entire university community — English-taught courses, staff learning English, and the creation of a bilingual, multicultural campus. We are proud of Taiwan and proud of how we show Taiwan to the world.
Although vocational education track universities generally receive lower subsidies than comprehensive universities in Taiwan, and Taiwan Tech has received one of the lower Top-Notch subsidies, we have been careful in our use of the extra funding and mindful from the beginning of the need to develop sources of replacement funding for when the project ends. Given all of this, we are now internationally ranked in the middle of all the universities that have received the Top-Notch funding, ahead of universities which received several times the subsidies we have.
Thus, I strongly affirm that Taiwan Tech not only has not wasted our portion of the special funding, but has accomplished a great deal with relatively little. Taiwanese can be as proud of us as we are of them.
Alicia Lloyd
Office of International Affairs,
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
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
RSS