It is time we look at how our universities can be true to their
noble calling as a mirror of humanity’s great heritage rather than be in
danger of choosing show over substance.
A UNIVERSITY is a
temple of learning and a storehouse of the knowledge and wisdom of the
past. It is a receptacle of art, culture and science and a mir=ror of
humanity’s great heritage. At the same time it is a laboratory for
testing out a new vision of the future.
In more than four decades
as a teacher, I have witnessed the ebb and flow of many educational
movements. Some of them give me the feeling that we are choosing show
over substance.
> Industrial links: In order to refute
the charge that universities are ivory towers with no appreciation of
societal needs, all universities have forged close relationships with
the professions, industries and commerce. Curricula are devised to
satisfy Qualifying Boards and potential employers. Students are required
to do periods of apprenticeship. Captains of industry are often
recruited as adjunct professors.
All this is laudable. At the
same time it must be realised that our orientation towards industries
and the professions distorts university education in some ways. A
balance is needed.
> Lack of liberal education: The
role of universities is to advance knowledge and build characters and
not just careers. In their obsession with narrow professional goals and
employability of graduates, many universities adopt curricula that are
bereft of the arts and humanities. This paucity and poverty is
accentuated because, unlike many countries, professional courses in
Malaysia do not require a degree at entry point.
If a university
is true to its worth, it must provide holistic education and produce
well-balanced graduates who have professionalism as well as idealism, an
understanding of the realities as well as a vision of what ought to be.
Merely supplying technically-sound but morally-neutral human cogs in an
industrial wheel to contribute to high production figures, will not in
the long range lead to enlightened development of human capital or of
society.
> Research: The crucial, core factor in a
university’s eminence is qualified academicians with proven research
abilities and a solid commitment to lead and inspire their wards to
travel up the mountain path of knowledge.
A university cannot
become an acclaimed university unless it possesses a large number of
scholars who are the voice of the professions and who not only reflect
the light produced by others (knowledge application) but are in their
own right a source of new illumination (knowledge generation).
However,
emphasis on research is leading to a number of adverse tendencies.
Teaching is being neglected. Committed teachers are being bypassed in
tenure and promotions in favour of entrepreneuring researchers.
Instead
of singling out and supporting good researchers wherever they are
found, the Malaysian approach is to anoint some universities with RU
status and shower them with special grants. Innovators in non-research
universities are thereby prejudiced.
> Research has various components: Capacity, productivity and utility.
The
first (capacity) can be developed. Sadly, often it becomes an end in
itself. The second (productivity) does not necessarily follow from the
first. The third (utility) is often lacking. A great deal of research
has no impact on the alleviation of the problems of society. Prestige
and profit override public purpose. We need better criteria for research
grant eligibility.
> Seeking best students: At the
risk of sounding heretic, I wish to say that this modern obsession with
seeking “the best students” is not conducive to social justice. Highly
motivated, intelligent and articulate students make teaching a pleasure.
But
what is even more satisfying is to take ordinary students and convert
them into extraordinary persons; to mould ordinary clay into works of
art.
It is submitted that entry points should be flexible. They
should be based on holistic criteria. They should take note of initial
environmental handicaps. They should be cognizant that equitable access
to knowledge is a factor in sustainable development. They should further
the university’s role to assist in social and economic progress; to cut
poverty; to help the disadvantaged.
Entry points are less important than exit points. How a student ends the race is more important than how he/she began it.
All
universities should be required to run some remedial programmes for
under-achievers and to practise affirmative action for all marginalised
sections of the population.
> Over-specialisation: Our
system is committed to teaching more and more on less and less.
Production of enough professionals and technocrats for the industries
and the job market is an overriding role. However there is clear
evidence that half or more than half of the graduates end up in roles
outside of their university training.
In an age of globalisation,
economic booms and busts, and high unemployment rates, there is a
growing disconnect between what students study and what their subsequent
careers are.
It is therefore, necessary to train students for
multi-tasking, multi-disciplinary approaches; to have split-degree
courses; and to produce graduates who have career flexibility and who
are able to adapt to different challenges at work.
> Community service:
Universities must serve society and not just by producing graduates for
the job-market. All university courses must have an idealistic
component and must straddle the divide between being people-oriented and
being profession-oriented.
The curriculum must be so devised
that staff and students are involved in the amelioration of the problems
of society, in schemes for eradicating poverty, protecting the
en-vironment, providing fresh water, storm control, protection from
disease, adult education and free legal, medical, commercial and
technical advice.
Tailor-made, short term courses for targeted
groups should be devised to enrich lives. These courses should have no
formal entry requirement. Town-gown relationships should extend to links
with NGOs, GLCs and international groups that are involved in wholesome
quests like environmental sustainability.
> Globalisation:
Internationalisation of knowledge is crucial for humanity’s
advancement. However, to be truly global, we must not ignore citadels of
excellence in Japan, Korea, China, India and Iran. It retards our
progress and prevents us from addressing problems peculiar to our clime
that our tertiary education suffers from a debilitating Western bias.
Our course structures, curricula, textbooks, and icons are all European
and American. It is as if the whole of Asia and Africa is and always was
an intellectual desert. The opposite is true.
Asian universities must build their garlands of knowledge with flowers from many gardens. That would be true globalisation.
Comment
By Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi
>
Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM
Related post:
Form over substance in higher education and university
China is the main show
When China Rules The World: The End Of The Western World And The Birth Of A New Global Order
