Form over substance in higher education and university rankings

Death knell for higher education

There is a growing obsession with form over substance and nowhere is this more evident than in the unhealthy interest taken with university rankings.

THIS month marks the 22nd year I have worked as an academic.

In that time, I have seen many changes in the university. There have been, of course, some improvements since those early days.

For one thing, technology has transformed things for the better.  Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

The very first publication I wrote went through this rather painful process.

First, I had to go to the library and find the relevant cases and journal articles. Then having taken copious notes, I went back to my office where I proceeded to write out my thoughts with an ancient device known as a pen.

Having completed this task, I would send my scratching to a lovely lady in the general office downstairs whose job title was “steno”.

She would type out what I wrote, give it back to me to check and then I would return it to her with any corrections. Finally, it would be placed into a pocket made of paper known as a stamped envelope and posted to the publisher.

Now, all cases and statutes including many journals are online. I type my work myself (with the computer checking my spelling and grammar) and when I am done I e-mail the stuff to the publisher.

All in the comfort of my office where I can play Flight of the Hamsters in between constructing sentences filled with gems of wisdom.

I will be the first to admit that I am quite old-fashioned in many ways, but I can categorically say that I don’t miss the days before the Internet and Word.

Progress, unfortunately, is not always positive. And it saddens me to say that over these last two decades I have seen changes that in my opinion ring the death knell for higher education.

In my opinion, the key problem is that those who decide the direction of our universities have lost track of the values that have to underpin these institutions in order for them to play a meaningful role in society.

There is a growing obsession with form over substance and nowhere is this more evident than in the unhealthy interest taken with university rankings.

Politicians harp on about it, so the Government makes it a priority. Because the Government wants higher rankings, the vice-chancellors start ranting about it too.

Rankings have become the raison d’etre for universities.

The quick fix then becomes the holy grail, hence universities look to the ranking criteria and they focus their efforts on doing all they can to meet those criteria.

This blinkered modus operandi then leads to some seriously contorted developments which ignore the principles that are necessary for the proper foundations of truly good universities.

Academic autonomy is one of those principles.

A university is a complex organisation. It is unlike a factory where there is by and large one goal and usually one method with which to achieve the said goal with the best quality and efficiency.

Even in one faculty, there are many variations. Take, for example, the Faculty of Arts – you have departments as diverse as English and Geography; Urban Planning and Gender Studies; International Studies and Indian Studies; the list goes on.

You can’t possibly be laying down a single criterion for quality for such a diverse group. But that is what happened.

Nowadays, if you want to prove your quality, the only way you can do it, which is embraced by universities, is if you publish in the journals recognised by the ranking organisations.

It doesn’t matter if you are an English professor who publishes well-received novels, or if you are a Gender Studies lecturer who uses your knowledge for women’s activism.

What about the fine arts? Shouldn’t the creation of new ideas in dance and theatre take precedence over an article in some obscure (but acknowledged by the rankers) journal which only a handful of people will read?

Increasingly, the thinking of universities is it is our way or the highway.

Such a top down approach cannot work because each academic unit in a university has its own expertise and its own value system.

This has to be respected because they themselves should know how to advance their discipline both in an academically and socially meaningful manner.

Autonomy brings with it the necessary flexibility for each department and each academic to chart the necessary course which will improve themselves and their own disciplines.

And who should know better what that course should be than those who have trained in that discipline.

I am not against the publishing of works in reputable journals. I acknowledge that they are important to the advancement of academic thought.

What I am saying is that the diversity of academia means that there are numerous methods to determine quality. And the best way to achieve quality is by having true academic autonomy so that those who know best are the ones who determine the way to achieve the best.

BRAVE NEW WORLD By AZMI SHAROM
azmisharom@yahoo.co.uk

Related posts:
Malaysian education is too Western-centric, ignorance of Asian values, etc!...
Malaysian Universities need decolonization, relook the ratings and rankings
Top 10 universities in South East Asia, Malaysia not in!
Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality and English not up to par!.

Hillary Clinton is the real dominator of U.S. foreign policy

Hillary Clinton(Photo/Xinhua)

Hillary Clinton has not been frequently mentioned during the third and final debate of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, but her influence cannot be easily ignored.

The final presidential debate focuses on foreign policy, which is closely related to Clinton's position as U.S. Secretary of State. More importantly, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney proposed a new global strategy. Both of them seemed to approve Clinton's "smart power" with the minute difference lying in how to be "smart." Romney said that the U.S. Navy has owned the smallest number of warships since 1917, and Obama refuted that the United States also has fewer horses and bayonets but it has such powerful equipment such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. The dialogue is one of the few highlights in the third debate, and can be considered as typical example of different yet convergent political views. 

Clinton proposed the strategy of "smart power" during the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race and has implemented it under the Obama administration. Obama has always been absorbing Clinton's ideas on foreign affairs since he took office. For example, on the issue of Middle East, approval rate of the United States in Muslim countries was as low as 15 percent while Obama reduces vulnerability of foreign policy, with the help of Clinton, during the presidential debate this year.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor under former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, has rated Clinton's diplomatic performance in the past four years as A- or B+. Romney has found it hard to pick on Obama's foreign policy since he is unseasoned on foreign affairs. During the first two rounds of presidential debate, he tried to play tougher but achieved less. Therefore, in the finale on Oct. 22, Romney did not indulge in issues of foreign affairs, including attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya which worries Obama most. His consultant explained that the third presidential debate matters less since the topic is far away from people's daily life. The Republic Party cares more about the 12 swing states and female voters' support. Romney just needs to act like a commander in chief.

Indeed, American voters are now more concerned about domestic affairs such as employment, personal income, medical insurance, and even abortion than about foreign affairs. No matter who wins the presidential election, the United States is most likely to continue the foreign policy formulated by Clinton.

Read the Chinese version: 美大选三辩不只是俩男人的战斗, source: Jinghua Times, author: Huang Heng

China critics 'doomed to failure'

BEIJING (AFP) - China on Monday warned its critics they were "doomed to failure" as Beijing confirmed that Premier Wen Jiabao's family had employed lawyers to help fight The New York Times.

 "There are always some voices in the world who do not want to see China develop and become stronger and they will try any means to smear China and Chinese leaders and try to sow instability in China," said foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei.

"Your scheme is doomed to failure," he added. The official was responding to questions about Wen's decision to hire lawyers to fight claims published by The New York Times last week that his family had owned assets worth $2.7 billion.

"Premier Wen Jiabao's family has entrusted lawyers to release a statement and will continue to clarify the report," the spokesman said.

The South China Morning Post on Sunday printed a statement from Wen's lawyers, saying it was the first time a top Chinese leader had issued a rebuttal to a foreign media report.

Friday's New York Times article came at an especially sensitive time for China, as the Communist Party strives to clean house before a pivotal once-in-a-decade handover of power next month.

Detailing a string of deals, the Times said many relatives of the government's number two - a self-styled man of the people - had become "extraordinarily wealthy" during his years in office. Investments by Wen's son, wife and others spanning the banking, jewellery and telecom sectors were worth at least $2.7 billion according to an analysis of company and regulatory filings from 1992-2012, it said. - AFP

Related posts:
When China Rules The World: The End Of The Western World And The Birth Of A New Global Order 
China is the main show

The demise of BJCC, a memorable day for Penang Golf Club (PGC)?

THE new Penang Golf Club (PGC) entity has been launched with much aplomb.

Taiyo Resort (Pg) Bhd chairman Datuk Eiro Sakamoto said it was a historical day that the 18-hole Bukit Jambul Country Club (BJCC) had been renamed PGC.

“I’m overwhelmed and happy with the huge turnout.

“The name Penang Golf Club is also easier to remember,” he said during a press conference at the club in Bukit Jambul on Saturday.

In conjunction with the launch, the PGC also hosted the 2nd Penang Chief Minister’s Golf Tournament which saw a participation of 180 participants.

“This is a very positive sign. Many members are happy to see our efforts in renovating our courses, purchasing 100 new golf buggies as well as building a new coffee house and the Sakurajima Japanese Chinese Restaurant at the club.

“And the renovation was completed 14 months ahead of schedule,” said Sakamoto.

“We will continue to make PGC and Penang known to golfers and tourists, both local and overseas,” he said.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said the renaming was a testimony of the confidence the state government had on Sakamoto to help realise the aim to turn PGC into an international golf course.

“Hopefully, this will also allow us to have more international golf tournaments in the future,” he said.

- The Star Metro

Related posts:
BJCC renamed Penang Golf Club, welcome to the newly upgraded Penang Golf course   

Golf, a good walking game!

'Outsourcing not the fair way ...

BJCC Golf and Country Club News

Golf clubs in Malaysia face closure with new tax
Golf courses targeted for re-development - Too valuable ...

China is the main show

Martin Jacques shares his views on the growing clout of the world’s second largest economy.

AUTHOR and academic Dr Martin Jacques released an updated and expanded second edition of his widely acclaimed book, When China Rules The World: The End Of The Western World And The Birth Of A New Global Order, earlier this year.

During a recent visit to Kuala Lumpur when he attended an Asian Centre for Media Studies event, Jacques (pic) spoke to The Star about his book and its approach to the subject. Some excerpts:

How is the second edition different from the first?

Time. Because China is growing so quickly, China time is fast. There’s been a lot of updating throughout the second edition.

When I wrote the first edition, the 2008 (US-centred) financial crisis had just happened. The last chapter is about the crisis, which was little commented on before.

The second edition looks at the beginnings of a Chinese economic world order.

How far is the second edition a response to critics of the first?

I don’t think what I’ve done is a response to the critics. The inaccuracies in the first edition were very few, and I’ve certainly responded to those.

There was a bit of a jump in the argument between the rise of China and its relations with other countries.

Here I look at not just China-US relations, but the rise of developing countries generally, of which China is a part.

I use the phrase “rule the world” as a metaphor. I’ve learned a lot from meetings and discussions.

There was never much in the first edition I wanted to change. The structure of the book is basically the same.

Do you see China’s rise as continuing into the future?

Yes, definitely. Along the lines of the book, without any doubt whatsoever.

How might a new China-centred tributary system emerge in East Asia?

There are echoes of a tributary system. The most obvious return to that is the rise of China.

East Asian economies today are much more China-centric. There’s the fact we’re now moving to a new China-centric system.

China is probably the most important market for countries in the region, for trade and investment, with its high-speed rail links, and so on. Getting on with China will be absolutely crucial for countries in this region.

Can economic dominance translate into clout in other spheres?

If China is economically dominant, that gives it a great deal of influence over other countries.

The draw of China will be that much greater. China will be a huge cultural presence in the region.

Lots of people in this region will study in Chinese universities. Beijing will be a tremendous draw.

You can see that in the flight patterns of Malaysia Airlines, for example. Previously, Malaysians travelled to Britain, not so much to other East Asian countries; it would be interesting to see the changes.

The attraction of Shanghai will be that of a big city like New York. People are attracted to power.

We’ll be much more familiar with Chinese governance and institutions. From being a mystery, they’ll be familiar; we were used to the United States before, but much more with China (in future).

What of Greater China, the mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan?

All the ties will get stronger.

Hong Kong will remain very much as now, I don’t expect it to change. It will become increasingly integrated (with the mainland) and Sinicised, and (still) in many senses not very Chinese.

I would expect Taiwan to move ever closer to China. Taipei feels it has nowhere to go except closer to China.

There are already a large number of Taiwanese working in China. There has been growing economic integration.

Over the next 20 years, Taiwan will probably accept Chinese sovereignty. It will come because it is absolutely the logical step.

What of the prospects of China’s collapse, as some predict?

There are gradations on the scale. China isn’t going to sail into the sunset without problems. But what I’m extremely sceptical about are predictions about the problems leading to economic meltdown and Armageddon.

Some day China may see a multi-party system, although unlikely. China may be more open, but it will still be very much Chinese.

A collapse is not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

Can China’s economic power translate into cultural influence?

It will take a long time. China is still a poor country.

Rich countries don’t aspire to be like a poor country; economic power is the basis (of cultural influence).

The Beijing Olympics is an example: China was unable to stage it 10 years before.

Since the rest of the world is not familiar with Chinese culture, the process of feeling comfortable with China culturally and politically will take a long time.

Because Chinese culture is so different from Western culture, it will take a century for the West to be familiar with it. I’m sceptical that it won’t happen.

How is China’s rise regarded by India?

India has a big problem with China, as it has a very strong view of China. India is a long, long way behind (in growth).

Indians are traumatised by China; their relationship with China is erratic, fickle and fearful. Because of the border wars, China looms very large in the Indian imagination.

The issue doesn’t disturb the Chinese, but for Indians it’s an issue. India is so far behind that the thought of overtaking China (economically) is the talk of fantasists in dreamland.

India needs to learn as much as possible from China and pursue a strong relationship with it. It needs a clear strategy in dealing with China.

India should stop this petty rivalry. At the moment there’s not much of that happening.

What of China’s relations with South-East Asia?

In historical terms for this region, 100 years (since the end of China’s dynastic rule in 1912) is not such a long time.

There is a familiarity with China in this region that is not found in other parts of the world.

This marks out relations with China as different here. Countries in this region relate with China in a multifarious process.

Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar are dealing (economically) with China mostly through Chinese provinces closest to them.

It’s a situation most nation states don’t allow in their regions. But Chinese provinces close to these countries will deal more with them in future.

As for relations with the United States?

It will take the US at least 10, maybe 20 years from now to treat China as an equal.

It will happen in a series of baby steps here and there, for example by treating China as a partner in the region, rather than as a problem like now.

But it won’t happen within 10 years. In certain circumstances it may happen quicker, such as a (Western) financial crisis, or it would take longer.

And Europe?

There’s been poor coverage of China in the rest of the world, mainly from ignorance. Coverage tends to be Eurocentric.

Soviet reforms under Gorbachev with glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) were well received in Western Europe. But the Soviet system could not be reformed.

China’s communist revolution had better historical roots than the Soviet’s.

What remains of the ‘Washington Consensus’ (ie, US-style economic doctrine)?

It’s dead. In the developing world, China is the main show. Why look at America?

China is actively doing (the alternative): there are general lessons in its emphasis on infrastructure, the importance of the state, of political stability, and so on.

Will there be a third edition?

I probably won’t do a third edition. It was hard work with the (second edition), being governed by the framework of the existing book.

I’d probably work on something fresh. More on the lines of “understanding China,” so that people can understand the conceptual thinking.

By BUNN NAGARA The Star/Asia News Network

 Related posts:
When China Rules The World: The End Of The Western World And The Birth Of A New Global Order   
Fearful of China's rise? Sep 28, 2012
Dawn of a new superpower Jul 08, 2012