Don't Blame Government for Unemployed

Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed had on Saturday called on the public to stop blaming the Government’s policies for these unemployed graduates. Minister of Human Resources, said that graduates should take the initiative to acquire skills needed for work in the private sector and not merely depend on the Government to provide them with courses. They were responding to comments made by delegates during the recent Umno general assembly on the quality of local graduates as many of them could not secure jobs upon leaving university.

So is it the Government's fault that there are that many unemployed graduates?

I agree that the government cannot be totally blamed for the graduates' predicament. However, I certainly wouldn't absolve them from blame altogether.

The government's policy has been to increase significantly the number of graduates over the past two decades without the necessary increase in quality support resources as well as lowering the standards in which students gain acceptance into the local universities. This quantity versus quality policy has played a large role in unemployed graduates, particularly from universities with excessively stretched resources, such as Universiti Teknologi Mara Malaysia (UiTM).

Despite the supposed switch to a "meritocratic system", the number of bumiputera students enrolling into public universities increased significantly from 55% to 62% in the current year. This has been achieved through the undesirable means of enlarging the undergraduate to such an extent that quality is substantially impaired. I can only imagine that the reason for such a policy is politically motivated to placate the bumiputeras that a "meritocratic" switch, had little impact on Malay enrolment. Even then, you have disgraceful menteri besars who are hell-bent on dismantling of the system.

Many of these students who enrolled into the local universities should instead have been granted opportunities to pick up industrial skills with polytechnics as opposed to more theoretical and academic courses in universities.

Other contributing factors to the decline in standards in the local universities include the Government's misguided policy in promoting the Malay academia at the expense of the non-Malays. This has clearly resulted in many quality lecturers and academics leaving the public universities and joining the private sector, as well as seeking greener pastures overseas. At the end of the day, such myopia has resulted in poorer academic environment for the universities, of which the bumiputera students forms the majority.

Hence it is only right for Dato Mustapa to state that "it is time we give priority to quality." Let's just hope that he will be able to improve the quality of the higher education system, and not just provide empty rhetoric.

Who's really marginalizing whom?

This news item in the Star caught my attention today. It was reported that "An island school with 26 pupils had a 100% failure in the UPSR examination" and that this school was located in Kota Belud, in the state of Sabah.

More worrying was the following statement which gives us an indication of the status of education standards in the state of Sabah:

"Sabah education director Normah Gagoh had disclosed the school’s failure when announcing the UPSR results which saw an overall poor performance where, of the 44,432 pupils who sat for the examination, only 20,727 passed."

That's a deplorable 47% passing rate!

Here's the response of the MP of Kota Belud and former Chief Minister of Sabah to this:

“The results are shocking. We have to look at it seriously,” former chief minister and Kota Belud MP Datuk Mohd Salleh Tun Said said.

He said the possible reasons for the failure could be poverty, lack of infrastructure including power supply on the island and the lack of parents' involvement in the children's education.

If the former CM of Sabah didn't or couldn't raise the standards of education in his own constituency, not to mention the whole state of Sabah, can we say that his actions led to the marginalization of Sabahans, especially the Bumiputeras in the rural areas?

Tony has eloquently blogged about this in his personal blog and he shows that Sabah has the highest poverty incidence rate in the whole of Malaysia.

I wonder which party holds the Chief Ministership of Sabah? I wonder who's really marginalizing whom while fattening their own pockets?

JPA Scholarship Questions?

Wow, students who want their queries on the Public Service Department (JPA) scholarships answered can now do it online. As reported in the Star today, they need to just log on to the PSD website, "post their queries on an interactive portal and chat with any of its 33 officers."

According to Head of Corporate Communications, Hasniah Rashid, queries would be answered "immediately by the officers or within three days, at least, for those requiring specific and detailed answers."

The system apparently is still in pilot stage, and the next session for the department’s online chat will be on Nov 24 from 8am to noon. The department plans to hold similar online chats every last Friday of the month.

Now, concerned parents and Form Five students out there, mark the date and do test the response from the Public Service Department. Or if you do have questions to ask and would like me to attempt the querying, let me have your queries. ;-) I'll see what I can do.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a great idea, it just needs to be implemented properly. Should the "tests" be successful, we should give the necessary kudos to JPA for making the effort. If however, there are shortcomings, we should provide the constructive criticisms.

Rejected by JPA - what do you think?

In the midst of the media circus that is the UMNO GA, this humble letter in Malaysiakini.com caught my eye. Since letters to Mkini are open to the public (without subscription), I've decided to reproduce it here, point out a few issues and ask for your comments. I'll let you read the letter first after which I'll write my own comments.

M Rafee
Nov 15, 06 4:16pm

My child was born as an intra-uterine growth retardation (IUGR) baby. The doctors had advised us to always monitor her health as she grew. They were worried some of her organs might develop problems. In fact, when they induced her to be prematurely delivered, one of the doctors told me that they anticipated her to be born without limbs. I had nearly fainted.

But with God’s grace, my child was born physically complete. Among my three children, she grew up to be the smartest. She obtained 5As in her UPSR exams, 7As in her PMR exams and 7As in her SPM exam. She did her matriculation and got clearance from the Ministry of Higher Education to study medicine in Indonesia, her childhood dream.

Me and my wife, who are both government servants, had already paid the initial payment of RM60,000 which is part of the total cost of RM200,000. For the balance, we applied for a loan from the Public Services Department (JPA). But unfortunately, JPA rejected our application.

Now I want to humbly ask JPA, is a RM150,000 loan request a very substantial amount, compared to the billions of dollars that have been abused in our country? The irony is that when we appealed, one of the officers had the cheek to say, ‘If you all can’t afford, why send her overseas to study medicine, just make her study any of the courses offered by the local universities’.

God willing, my child will one day become a doctor and serve the Malaysian rakyat. And she will definitely pay the loan installments once she starts working. All types of loans are given to bumiputeras and if there is a political connection, some of them can borrow millions of ringgit without the need to pay them back.

It is a well-known fact that some of the banks went ‘kaput’ after providing huge loans which later were declared non-performing.

Here we as loyal and high-performing (cemerlang) government staff are imploring for aid to allow their child to achieve her dream of becoming a doctor, but the relevant authorities are so inconsiderate that they don’t even bother to consider the parents’ long-term loyal service to the government.

Subsequently, we had no choice but to mortgage our humble abode to finance our child’s education to see our IUGR baby beat all the odds and become a doctor. Though at a very high cost for we are paying a monthly payment of RM1,100.

Okay, now for my thoughts.

Firstly, I find it surprising that his daughter wasn't given a JPA scholarship. Her PMR and SPM results seemed pretty good. (I'm assuming that M Rafee's daughter belongs to the Bumiputera category when it comes to scholarship allocation purposes) 7As is not 11As but I would have thought that it should be sufficient to obtain some form of government scholarship.

Furthermore, he mentioned that his daughter had obtained permission from the MOHE to go to Indonesia. I'm not sure what the implications of this are, but if MOHE grants you permission, isn't that a tacit approval of your chances to obtain a scholarship? (Most of my friends who went to England or Australia to study medicine didn't have to seek MOHE approval)

Secondly, M Rafee wasn't even asking for a scholarship but for a loan (usually JPA loans have lowere interest rates but they do have to be paid back).

Thirdly, both M Rafee and his wife are civil servants which makes JPA's rejection of their loan request seem even more implausible.

Fourthly, I'm not sure if JPA knew of his daughter's childhood health problems (I must admist I don't know what intra-uterine growth retardation (IUGR) is or what debilitating effects it causes) but if they did, shouldn't they take this into consideration when processing M Rafee's loan application?

Fifthly, I applaud M.Rafee for making a substantial financial sacrifice (by first, paying the 60,000RM initial payment out of his own pocket and secondly by taking out a mortgage on their house when the JPA application failed) to make her daughter's dreams come true especially given the fact that civil servants are not the most well paid of workers in Malaysia.

Sixthly and lastly, I posit this scenario for our readers to reflect and discuss. If we were posed this exact scenario and was told at the end that the letter writer and his daughter belong to the non-Bumiputera category, would our reaction stay the same or would it change?

Some food for thought.

International Activities

Thanks to Tiara of EducateDeviate, here are some of the fairly interesting international events and activities targetted at students all over the world. These 2 events are The Greenpeace Organising Term and the International Youth Volunteering Summit.

Greenpeace Organizing Team '07

Greenpeace is accepting applications for the Spring 2007 semester of the Greenpeace Organizing Team, which they describe as a semester of “ACTION, TRAINING, & TRAVEL”.

The Greenpeace Organizing Term is an action-filled semester and the best hands-on training for students to become environmental leaders. You’ll be making an investment in your leadership skills and training in grassroots organizing, media, direct action, and campaign strategy. You’ll travel abroad with Greenpeace and join a team of incredible activists working to protect the planet. Many students are also able to receive class credit for the semester.

This semester involves training at their offices in Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA and travel to other parts of the world to meet local activists and visit the country. Their training is in-depth, covering everything from event management, organizational skills, media strategy, campaign skills, direct action - even driving boats, using communications equipment, and climbing.

Spaces are open to students aged 18 and above, though freshmen and sophomores (first and second years) are preferred. Tuition is $3,500 and covers travel costs and expenses; limited scholarships are available.

For more information, visit the Greenpeace Organizing Team website or their MySpace Profile. You can also email them at got@wdc.greenpeace.org or contact Samantha Corbin at +1 202-319-2468.

International Youth Volunteering Summit '07

The International Youth Volunteering Summit is a new annual summit aimed at getting young people around the world together to discuss issues based on volunteering, non-profits, and helping the world. It is part of a planned series of activities, such as fellowships and foundations, to get youth to make a difference internationally and in their communities. From their website:

IYVS is a place for young people who care deeply about global progress to come together to understand the challenges and opportunities for their engagement; to hone the skills and mindsets that will enable them to better plan, execute, and participate in change-focused projects, and connect with like-minded peer communities from around the world.

Currently they are calling in applications for delegates for their second annual summit:

International Youth Volunteering Summit ‘07
Dates: Feb 22-25, 2007
Location: Northwestern University, Chicago, USA

While the participants will be predominantly American, they are recruiting 10 international youths aged 18-25 to be part of this summit as well. Applications are free: you will need contact details of a reference, as well as a 400-500 word project proposal on a possible project to be funded by the IYVS; guidelines are available on their application form. Chosen participants will be eligible for up to full scholarships for travel and housing (based on financial need) as well as eligibility for further grants upon completion of the summit.

Details about last year’s summit can be found at their prospectus, which explains their mission and vision, a schedule of events, future plans, participating bodies, sponsors (such as TakingITGlobal, UNESCO Youth, and perhaps Rotary International) and much more. Although it is for the 2006 summit, it is still relevant background for the 2007 summit too.

IYVS seems like a great way to get community-minded youths from everywhere mingling, networking, and exchanging ideas on how to impact the lives of those around them. Opportunities like this don’t come too often, so act quick. Applications are due Nov 10th, however applications will be accepted on a rolling basis between Nov 10th and Dec 1st, until all delegate positions are filled. If you are a student currently living in the US or Canada, fill out the Online Application here, and the deadline is Dec 11th.

Good luck! :-)

Private Higher Education Roundtable (III)

For those interested in what I raised during the private higher education roundtable in Mandarin, I'll provide a short summary in this post. In addition, you can also access a Chinese version of the points raised in my personal blog here.

But before that, I thought I should add my personal opinion on the comment which was made by one of the readers here, which claimed that the other two speakers aren't qualified to discuss issues relating to the private education industry. The key reason was their apparent lack of academic credentials, despite their long experience in the industry.

Let me state categorically that if there's anyone who potentially lack qualifications to discuss the private higher education industry, it would be me. Despite a basic degree obtain from a prominent university, I've zero experience in the academia. And with the exception of having interviewed many candidates from the private colleges, I may not have the in-depth experience of the industry like the other panellists.

While Dato' Peter Ng, President and Vice-Chancellor of Universiti College Sedaya International and Tan Yew Sing, President and Founder of Inti College International are both more businessmen than academics, but that certainly doesn't disqualify them from providing their input and share their experience on the private higher education sector.

In fact, I found during our roundtable discussions, they were remarkably restrained by not attempting any self-serving promotion of their own private colleges. I can't remember a single instance whereby they cited their own colleges as examples of whatever points they were raising. They were also fairly open and honest with regards to the potential shortcomings of the industry. Of course, they will try to put things in a more positive light, but who wouldn't? That's the reason why I believe the producers invited me to be part of the panel isn't it? To act as some sort of a counterweight to ensure a good balance in views expressed by the panelists. But I certainly came off the programme with increased respect for the 2 fellow panellist, despite certain differences in views.

OK, back to the topic. Some of the key issues I managed to raise pertains to the quality of the local private education institutions of higher education.

• Insufficient academics and lecturers of good quality
  
  For example, many private colleges engage foreign lecturers from developing countries and many students have complained with regards to the quality of these lecturers, in particular with regards to their language abilities. In addition, many of the private colleges also engage fresh graduates without any significant experience. Many of these graduates didn't graduate from top schools or have achieved top results to become competent lecturers.
  
  
• Entry requirements which are set too low
  
  There are too many private institutions of higher learning which accepts students with entry requirements which are too low. The world's top universities accept only students in the top percentile of entry requirements, local institutions need to adopt a more qualitative approach to become truly world-class. For example, many highly technical and rigourous courses such as engineering held by private colleges accept students without a pass in Additional Mathematics, which would have been a minimum entry requirement for other top universities.
  
  
• Course content too shallow
  
  I've interviewed many fresh graduates from local private and public institutions. Many of these candidates graduated with twinning degrees granted by the local private colleges. In the case of hiring computer application developers, I found many candidates with these degrees unsuitable, despite apparently good results due to the shallow content of their courses. For example, many computer science degree programmes are carried out without any significant practical programming classes!
  
  
• 3+0 Degree Programmes
  
  I've blogged many times with regards to 3+0 degree programmes here. I disagree with the attempts by private colleges to market such programmes to students with the incentive for the latter to complete their degree faster. It is obvious that such degree programmes will only result in the students learning less, resulting in longer term negative impact on the students. If the top universities in the world like Oxbridge and the London universities require at least 18 months to 2 years in preparatory A-Level courses, what makes these degrees more special that they don't have such pre-requisites? Are the students enrolled more intelligent and talented such that they can skip the extra preparatory programmes?

This part isn't highlighted in the roundtable, but the following are my suggestions in brief on what the Ministry of Higher Education should do, to help improve the quality of the local private universities and colleges. They include requirements that the local institutions of higher learning publish the detailed resumes of their lecturers and academics for the respective degree programmes as well as the lowest entry criteria for particular courses accepted for the previous enrolment exercise. The Ministry should also limit the marketing campaigns of local institutions to facts-based advertisements instead of world-class trumpet blowing exercises. Finally, I'd strongly encourage the Ministry of Higher Education to phase out the conduct of 3+0 degree programmes.

Well, those are my thoughts in a gist. The above aren't all the points which I mentioned during the programme, but are what I thought is more important anyway. Obviously there are plenty of points to further blog about, as well as further substantiate or to be put into context. Hopefully the Roundtable would have raised pertinent issues from both sides of the fence and lead to, in its own small way, the betterment of education in Malaysia. So, remember to catch the next 2 episodes of the programme on the following consecutive Sundays at 10.45pm, Astro Asia Entertainment Channel. ;)

Discrimination @ US Universities?

Well, apparently so, based on a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Though Asian-Americans constitute only about 4.5% of the U.S. population, they typically account for anywhere from 10% to 30% of students at many of the nation's elite colleges. Even so, based on their outstanding grades and test scores, Asian-Americans increasingly say their enrollment should be much higher -- a contention backed by a growing body of evidence.

The situation has resulted in increased lawsuits against premier universities for discrimination. For example, a China-born US permanent resident, 17-year-old freshman, Mr Jian Li at Yale University has filed a suit against Princeton. Despite racking up the maximum 2400 score on the SAT and 2390 -- 10 points below the ceiling -- on SAT2 subject tests in physics, chemistry and calculus, Mr. Li was spurned by three Ivy League universities, including Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

It appears that applicants of Asian-American origins are subjected to higher entry requirements than other Americans.

...Center for Equal Opportunity, in Virginia, found that Asian applicants admitted to the University of Michigan in 2005 had a median SAT score of 1400 on the 400-1600 scale then in use. That was 50 points higher than the median score of white students who were accepted, 140 points higher than that of Hispanics and 240 points higher than that of blacks

And apparently these allegations aren't new. Harvard University and University of California have both been placed under scrutiny previously.

In 1989, as the federal government was investigating alleged Asian-American quotas at UC's Berkeley campus, Berkeley's chancellor apologized for a drop in Asian enrollment. The next year, federal investigators found that the mathematics department at UCLA had discriminated against Asian-American graduate school applicants. In 1992, Berkeley's law school agreed under federal pressure to drop a policy that limited Asian enrollment by comparing Asian applicants against each other rather than the entire applicant pool.

Asian-American enrollment at Berkeley has increased since California voters banned affirmative action in college admissions. Berkeley accepted 4,122 Asian-American applicants for this fall's freshman class -- nearly 42% of the total admitted. That is up from 2,925 in 1997, or 34.6%, the last year before the ban took effect.

What was also interesting was that Mr Li was required to fill in questions on college applications about his ethnicity, just as we Malaysians do. He left the answers blank for "[i]t seemed very irrelevant to [him], if not offensive," and rightly so, I would think.

Hence discrimination, albeit more subtle, exists even in the land of equal opportunities. However, that's where the similarities between the Malaysian and the US education and governanace system end.

While discrimination and bias, being a function of individual personalities will definitely exist in all levels of society, there is a concerted attempt to remove such injustices in the United States. Unlike in Malaysia, whereby discrimination is often institutionalised, there is recourse for discrimination victims in the United States such as the legal action by Mr Li. And such recourse have obviously proven to be effective for, based on the examples cited, clear evidence of changes in policies and trends have been recorded.

Even in situations whereby discriminations appear subtle and not institutionalised in Malaysia, there is effectively little or no recourse for students in Malaysia, as cited in my earlier blog post on "Managed Meritocracy". To demonstrate the government's commitment to ensure that there are no discrimination beyond the institutionalised positive affirmative action policies, it has to establish an independent empowered body to monitor and evaluate complaints of discrimination, whether based on ethnicity, religion or gender.

Thanks to Mark for the heads up on this report ;)