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 their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS