Tzu Chi University has performed a miracle in the University Impact Rankings, destroying the illusion that greater resources bring a higher score. In the list released by the Times Higher Education on April 3, the university ranked 67th, top among 12 Taiwanese institutes on the list, including National Taiwan University (NTU), which was 70th.
I have always questioned global rankings of this sort, as well as the obsession with quantitative criteria.
However, I am curious about the criteria for this list, which ranked a small university ahead of a big one.
Surprisingly, the rankings were based on the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The organizer of the list used 11 of the goals suitable for university development, including good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, climate action, and sustainable cities and communities, a different methodology from other evaluations.
To gain higher rankings, the government has put a lot of resources into a few top universities and few resources into universities with teaching excellence. In return, the top universities merely move up and down the rankings from year to year, gradually attracting researchers cultivated by other institutes.
The results of investing resources to gain higher global rankings and whether the top universities are using their resources appropriately have long been targets of criticism.
Universities that are not ranked highly have fewer resources and suffer from an outflow of talent. In addition, research often caters to Western needs, while overlooking local needs because of the indexation of journals promoted by businesspeople in the West. For these reasons, I never take the rankings seriously.
This problem is a result of uneven resource distribution — the strong become stronger and the big become bigger. While top universities are becoming bloated, those that lag behind are almost starving to death.
Fortunately, after President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration took office, the government made a U-turn regarding resource distribution by sharply cutting funds for top universities and encouraging all institutes to cultivate local talent to obtain and use resources effectively. This is a helpful paradigm shift.
Today, Tzu Chi University’s educational characteristics outshine NTU in alternative rankings. This in itself is praiseworthy, because the news is surprising everyone.
My first thought on reading the news was that the criteria for the rankings would have a crucial effect.
This is also inspiring for higher education in Taiwan. A mouse defeating an elephant is no longer a fairy tale.
All those professors at top universities who complain that their rankings drop due to insufficient government funding should consider the following three questions:
As the public resources that Tzu Chi University receives are insignificant compared with what top universities receive, why did it stand out in the rankings?
The institutes in global rankings need a lot of resources to direct toward maximization of data to meet rankings’ criteria, but is it really worth it for a relatively small nation to join this game?
Does the giant gap in the distribution of limited resources not cause a flight of talent from regular universities?
Is the predatory approach of spending too much on the top universities and not enough on smaller ones to achieve higher rankings in line with social values such as fairness and justice?
Shih Chao-hwei is a professor in Hsuan Chuang University’s department of religion and culture.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
Last month, two major diplomatic events unfolded in Southeast Asia that suggested subtle shifts in the region’s strategic landscape. The 46th ASEAN Summit and the inaugural ASEAN-Gulf-Cooperation Council (GCC)-China Trilateral Summit in Kuala Lumpur coincided with French President Emmanuel Macron’s high-profile visits to Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. Together, they highlighted ASEAN’s maturing global posture, deepening regional integration and China’s intensifying efforts to recalibrate its economic diplomacy amid uncertainties posed by the US. The ASEAN summit took place amid rising protectionist policies from the US, notably sweeping tariffs on goods from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, with duties as high as 49 percent.