The Joint Board of College Recruitment Commission has decided that starting next school year, students who have scored zero in one subject in the General Scholastic Ability Test will still be eligible for admission through application and recommendation, as long as their overall score for all subjects required for the program exceeds zero.
The commission said the change could have positive, as well as negative effects: It could help reduce stress among students, but it could also encourage them to give up preparing for certain subjects early on.
Below are some questions to be considered in this context.
First, what is the primary cause of the low enrollment at universities? Is it the low birth rate or that universities nationwide have become too homogeneous?
As the birth rate remains low, which is amplified by a drop in births during years of the tiger, a dozen universities now face the prospect of possibly closing down after their enrollment rates for the last academic year fell below 60 percent.
There are many public and private universities, but very few of them offer something that others do not. To compete for students, schools have engaged in a “price war,” leaving many private schools at the bottom with few, or even no, new enrollments.
Second, what percentage of students is especially talented in a particular field? While it would be sufficient to simply grant exceptions to such students, allowing them to apply for universities despite having scored zero in one subject, to the bewilderment of many, the commission decided to drastically change the admission rules from requiring students to study every single subject to allowing them to abandon almost any subject.
This “all or nothing” change makes one wonder how many talented students would benefit from it. It is certainly a good thing to try and make sure all students get accepted to a program they like, but is it not better to do so by granting exceptions to the few students who are highly gifted, rather than lowering the admission threshold for all universities?
The government should not use gifted students as an excuse to help diploma mills at the bottom of the ladder recruit more students.
Third, how would lowering the threshold for university admissions help prevent schools with declining enrollment from closing down?
Minister of Education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠) has said that closing down universities is not the only solution, and that the priority is to make good use of existing educational resources and help transform them.
Lowering the admission threshold for all universities is not a long-term solution. It is little different from cutting prices to clear stocks. Only by helping schools transform and develop distinctive features can they attract students.
Fourth, what is the purpose of reducing the pressure on students? Our times and environment are constantly changing, and anything we do necessarily involves stress.
What would students gain from reduced stress from education? Would they be required to spend more time learning additional skills, or would they end up doing nothing with their free time, since getting a diploma would have become extremely easy?
If stress reduction fails to bring about positive change, the nation’s higher education could end up losing its competitiveness.
Hsu Hui-huang is a doctoral candidate at National Chung Cheng University’s business administration department.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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