National Taipei University of Technology (NTUT) has listed an opening for an assistant professor in its five-year junior college program for intelligent automation engineering. According to the job posting, the successful applicant would teach 16 hours per week, provide after-school tutoring, remedial teaching, laboratory management, and support for departmental affairs and student recruiting events. They would start with an entry-level salary for assistant professors, without consideration for seniority from their previous employment.
The posting reveals two serious long-standing problems in the education system: One is that thousands of project teachers have become the sweatshop workers of the education system, and the other is that reforming the system lacks proper review and oversight.
When any reform happens to have been a success, everyone competes to take credit; when it fails, nobody takes responsibility.
In accordance with the Ministry of Education’s flexible payment program, intended to retain “outstanding talent” at institutions, academic staff are often hired as “project teachers,” given responsibilities and salaries similar to the NTUT posting. Considering the conditions in that example, it is questionable, if possible, whether “outstanding talent” would be found. Schools instead hire a batch of sweatshop workers at the bare minimum wage they can get away with.
The ministry in mid-2017 announced that as the overall national talent development policy encourages science and technology schools to establish five-year junior college programs focused on fields with labor shortages, such as agriculture, forestry, fishery and animal husbandry, as well as the industrial sector, NTUT, National Formosa University and National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology would also establish similar programs the following year.
More than two years later, more public and private universities and colleges have rushed to set up five-year junior college programs. The jury is still out on the success of the reform, but then-deputy minister of education Yao Leeh-der (姚立德) has already been promoted to the Examination Yuan, and his alma mater is recruiting teachers to work in its sweatshop.
Education reform in Taiwan has always been implemented from the top down, either by experts and academics forming committees to discuss changes or through directives from department officials.
The ministry has implemented rules for schools to follow. For example, the first round of education reform was followed by a great increase in universities, as colleges and technical schools were upgraded. Then there was the establishment of comprehensive high schools and the addition of five-year junior colleges.
Normally bottom-up reform involves submitting proposals and applying for funds, and a review and approval mechanism is also necessary.
However, top-down policies need none of that — the top officials being so wise, who would dare raise any questions or make any demands?
Of the four cases mentioned here, the first three suffered from a lack of timely review and improvements, and in the end they became targets of much criticism.
No review and approval mechanism has been created for the addition of five-year junior colleges, as is the case with the “learning portfolio” policy, which has also drawn criticism.
The ministry must understand that the only way to avoid criticism of top-down reform policies is to set up a mechanism for regular post-implementation review and adjustments, and to announce those changes.
Huang Rongwen is a professor at National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai and Perry Svensson
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether