Want to be a Lawyer?

She is here to save the world from wars, conflicts and evil.

And she does that without the power the stop time, change minds or fulfill demands like a genie. She does that by blindfolding herself, holding a double edge sword on the right hand, suspending a balance weighing scale on her left hand.

She is Justitia, the Roman Goddess of Justice.

Are you prepared to blindfold yourself to uphold justice, without fear or favor, without regard for power, wealth or identity? Are you prepared to make judgments by giving balance considerations on a case's support and opposition? Are you prepared to counter the perversion of the course of justice with your double edge sword, which may be wielded either for or against any party?

Are you prepared to save the world?

Whether you like debating and presenting arguments, or you like to think quietly before you make a verdict, there is a place for everyone in a law education, there is a chance for everyone to maintain social order with one of humanity's inherent virtue – justice. There is a chance to save the world.

The Descartes Education Counselling Centre is proud to present an information session featuring Dr. Tang Hang Wu, a highly experienced Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.

Dr. Tang, with his 13 years of exposure to the law and a PhD from the prestigious University of Cambridge, will be sharing insights into a law education and career, including information on admission to the National University of Singapore. The details of the session are as followed:

Information session by Dr. Tang Hang Wu

Date : Friday, 11 January 2008
Time : 4.00 - 5.30pm
Venue : Descartes Education Counselling Centre, 55-1 Jalan SS21/1A, Damansara Utama, 47400 Petaling Jaya

Admission is free, although donations are most welcome ;-). For more information, do visit Descartes website here.

Bakri Musa on 'Yet another Report'

I reproduce Bakri Musa's excellent column on the latest MOHE sponsored World Bank report on higher education in Malaysia. While I'm less pessimistic about the value of such reports, I agree with many of the general points he raises.

Among the points he raises - the fact that less than half of faculty in Malaysian universities have PhDs compared to almost 100% in Canadian universities, the fact that we shouldn't be comparing ourselves with basket cases like Zimbabwe, the need for greater autonomy (especially from political interference) among the universities, the need to increases fees at public universities (and scholarships as well).

The only minor quibble I have with Bakri is that I think Chinese drop outs are as likely to become VCD sellers and car mechanics as they are to help out their parents in mom and pop retail and hawker stalls.

Higher education: Yet another report
M Bakri Musa | Dec 21, 07 12:19pm

It is a sure sign that local leaders are way over their heads (or refuse to make the tough decisions) when they start calling in expensive international consultants. This is the case with Higher Education Minister Mustapa Mohamad’s commissioning (together with the Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department) the World Bank that resulted in its report: Malaysia and the World Economy: Building a World-Class Higher Education System.

You can be certain that the report, 18 months in the making, was not cheap. That would be just the beginning. Consultants have a knack of making themselves indispensable, so expect even greater expenses when they are called in to help implement their recommendations.

Yet for all the expertise, wealth of data, and impressive comparative statistics presented in this 285-page report, its recommendations are nothing new or original. These include, among others, granting greater autonomy, meritocracy both in admitting students and recruiting faculty, rationalising the role of the private sector, and emphasis on science, technology, and research.

What we lack is the political will to make the tough necessary decisions to implement them. Unfortunately no foreign experts no matter how skillful their powers of persuasion are can help in this arena. My only hope is that as those recommendations now carry the World Bank’s imprimatur, the natives are more likely to listen.

World Bank’s Report

The Report is conveniently divided into two parts. The first addresses or “diagnoses” the various issues like governance and financing, quality matters, graduate unemployment, and the integration of universities with the national innovation system. It begins by “benchmarking” Malaysia against selected OECD and East Asian countries. No marks for guessing where we stand; we are not even in the same league. For example, less than half the faculty at the University of Malaya, supposedly the nation’s premier, has terminal qualifications as compared to over 98 percent at Canada’s McGill.

The only point I see in making such obviously glaring comparisons is to wake up our leaders who are smugly satisfied as they are forever comparing Malaysia with the likes of Zimbabwe.

The specific recommendations are in the second part of the report.

The Report rightly highlights the universal dilemma of quality versus quantity with the democratisation of higher education. One solution, which I recommend in my book An Education System Worthy of Malaysia would be to emulate California’s tiered model. Malaysia has adopted some aspects of this by designating selected institutions as “research universities.” Designating alone is not enough and would be counterproductive unless accompanied by other changes, like much greater autonomy and considerably increased funding.

The beauty of the Californian system is that there are enough commonalities and clearly defined channels to enable student to switch from one system to the other. This flexibility is necessary to accommodate changes in students’ plans.

Also notable with the Californian system is that each campus enjoys considerable autonomy, including choosing its own students and faculty. The central office serves only administrative functions like dealing with the legislature and managing the faculty’s pension plans.

In Malaysia, the ministry micromanages every campus, right down to choosing the color of the faculty lounge drapes. I wish the Report would emphasise this point. As University of Malaya Law Professor Azmi Sharom observed, if we really love our universities, we must free them. I would further suggest that Higher Education Minister Mustapa should listen more to professors like Azmi Sharom and less to Umno Youth leaders, or even World Bank’s experts.

Problems with International data

The report is inundated with cross-national statistics. While it is good to compare ourselves against others, we must first however be assured that we are using the same measuring stick. This is easier said than done.

Take the apparently straightforward data on years of schooling. This seemingly objective criterion is anything but. One does not have to be particularly perceptive to note that nine years of schooling in South Korea would produce a far superior graduate as compared to someone with many more years spent at an American inner city school. Likewise with comparing nominal figures on expenditures per student; a dollar at the University of Malaya would go a long way as compared to at the University of California.

If we are not careful we could be easily misled; we would then be better off without those statistics. At least a dead clock tells the right time twice a day; a malfunctioning clock never. Likewise with data; bad data is more damaging than no data. A bad compass is worse than no compass. With the latter you would not be misled, and you learn to use your senses.

Studies done on OECD countries indicate that it is not so much the years of schooling that matter with respect to labor productivity rather the workers’ actual language and mathematical skills. Harvard’s Robert Barro shows that it is not just any education system that enhances economic development rather one that emphasizes the sciences, technology and mathematics that is crucial.

This is clearly demonstrated in Malaysia. The government’s oft stated goal of 60:40 ratio favoring students in the science stream remains just that: a goal. More important than focusing on this thus far unattainable objective would be to raise the mathematical skills and science literacy of all our students. Most American universities require all their students to take a year of science and mathematics.

Malaysian data indicate that Malays have more years of schooling and fewer dropouts than non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. Yet the economic performance of Malays lags that of Chinese. The reason is obvious. The education of Malays is heavy on arts and religion; Chinese, science and technology. When Chinese students drop out, they work for their parents’ enterprises, be they mom-and-pop retail stores or roadside hawker stalls, where they learn important lessons of economics and life generally far more effectively than at school. Malay students would hang around waiting for government jobs. The only lesson they would learn in such an environment is that the world owes them a living.

There is however one comparative statistics worth noting: tuition fees differential between public and private institutions. In Malaysia it is about ten-fold whereas in America it is about a 3 to 5- fold difference. I would narrow this by increasing tuition at public universities, coupled with more generous students aid. This would generate more revenue as well as reduce the subsidy for rich students.

Timid report

The Report soft-pedals two separate but interrelated crucial issues: one, the dangerous racial segregation of educational institutions at all levels; and two, the intrusive as well as destructive role of politics, in particular language nationalism.

The Bank advocates the giving of scholarships for students to attend private institutions as one way of making them reflect the greater Malaysian society. I would go further and make it a condition for granting of permits. I agree with the Bank that we should treat private and pubic institutions equally with regard to awarding research funds and other grants. If these institutions are doing good research and performing useful societal functions, what difference does it make whether they are public or private?

Politics underlie most if not all the problems of our education system. While it is impossible to divorce politics (institutions ultimately must respond to the political realities) nonetheless once certain objectives are agreed upon by the body politic, then let the professionals take over in implementing them.

Take the teaching of science and mathematics in English and the general need to enhance the English proficiency of our students. This decision was made at the highest political level, yet at the slightest obstacle in implementing, an otherwise sensible policy was reversed. It is such a flip-flopping that is so destructive.

The World Bank should have been more forceful in presenting its recommendations and in highlighting what ails our education system. Had the Bank done so it would have encouraged the many voices for reform from within. That might just nudge these politicians and bureaucrats to take the necessary bold steps.

OECD university rankings

Read this in a November copy of the Economist - The OECD is trying to come up with a different way of ranking universities. The results are scheduled to be out in 2010.

I'll reproduce the article in full below and then follow up with some of my own comments.

A new sort of higher education guide for very discerning customers

WORKING out exactly what students and taxpayers get for the money they spend on universities is a tricky business. Now the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based think-tank for rich countries, is planning to make the task a bit easier, by producing the first international comparison of how successfully universities teach.

That marks a breakthrough. At the moment, just two institutions make annual attempts to compare universities round the world. Shanghai's Jiao Tong University has been doing it since 2003, and the Times Higher Education Supplement, a British weekly, started a similar exercise in 2004. But both these indices, which are closely watched by participants in a fickle and fast-expanding global education market (see chart), reflect “inputs” such as the number and quality of staff, as well as how many prizes they win and how many articles they publish. The new idea is to look at the end result—how much knowledge is really being imparted.

“Rather than assuming that because a university spends more it must be better, or using other proxy measures for quality, we will look at learning outcomes,” explains Andreas Schleicher, the OECD's head of education research. Just as the OECD assesses primary and secondary education by testing randomly chosen groups of youngsters from each country in reading and mathematics, it will sample university students to see what they have learned. Once enough universities are taking part, it may publish league tables showing where each country stands, just as it now does for compulsory education. That may produce a fairer assessment than the two established rankings, though the British one does try to broaden its inquiry by taking opinions from academics and employers.
Click here to find out more!

There is much to be said for the OECD's approach. Of course a Nobel laureate's view on where to study may be worth hearing, but dons may be so busy writing and researching that they spend little or no time teaching—a big weakness at America's famous universities. And changes in methodology can bring startling shifts. The high-flying London School of Economics, for example, tumbled from 17th to 59th in the British rankings published last week, primarily because it got less credit than in previous years for the impressive number of foreign students it had managed to attract.

The OECD plan awaits approval from an education ministers' meeting in January. The first rankings are planned by 2010. They will be of interest not just as a guide for shoppers in the global market, but also as indicators of performance in domestic markets. They will help academics wondering whether to stay put or switch jobs, students choosing where to spend their time and money, and ambitious university bosses who want a sharper competitive edge for their institution.

The task the OECD has set itself is formidable. In many subjects, such as literature and history, the syllabus varies hugely from one country, and even one campus, to another. But OECD researchers think that problem can be overcome by concentrating on the transferable skills that employers value, such as critical thinking and analysis, and testing subject knowledge only in fields like economics and engineering, with a big common core.

Moreover, says Mr Schleicher, it is a job worth doing. Today's rankings, he believes, do not help governments assess whether they get a return on the money they give universities to teach their undergraduates. Students overlook second-rank institutions in favour of big names, even though the less grand may be better at teaching. Worst of all, ranking by reputation allows famous places to coast along, while making life hard for feisty upstarts. “We will not be reflecting a university's history,” says Mr Schleicher, “but asking: what is a global employer looking for?” A fair question, even if not every single student's destiny is to work for a multinational firm.

First of all, I think it's a good alternative to the Shanghai Jiao Tong and the THES rankings in that this OECD ranking tries to measure the 'learning outcomes'. I'm generally in favor of more information being collected and published rather than less and leave it up to the 'marketplace of ideas' to sort out the implications of the different ranking systems.

Secondly, I'm sure that this ranking system will also invite its fair share of critics and criticisms as well. One immediate challenge I can think of in terms of measuring 'learning outcomes' is the difficult of measuring the 'value added' of a university. Obviously, students graduating from Harvard will, on average, know more, compared to students graduating from a community college in the US or students graduating from UM. This is because students who enter Harvard are obviously brighter and know more compared to other students in less known universities. Hence, the measure of 'learning outcomes' of a university should be the 'value added' that it provides to its graduates, rather than the absolute level of 'learning outcomes'.

I recall that Singapore used to measure (not sure if they still do) the value added of each school at the secondary level comparing the PSLE (Primary 6) scores of students entering different schools and their O level grades. This way, one can control for the fact that students going to schools such as Raffles Institution and Raffles Girls School have much higher PSLE scores compared to those students going to the 'neighborhood' schools. I'm not sure if the OECD measure is able to control for such factors. My feeling is that it probably won't and what it will end up measuring is the absolute levels rather than the 'value added' levels.

If this ranking system measures absolute rather than value added levels, I think that graduates from Malaysian public universities are at a disadvantage compared to many of its peers in other countries. Here are a couple of reasons why this is the case:

Good students in Malaysia have many options to study in non-Malaysian public universities because of scholarships (public and private), the determination of many Malaysian parents to save for and fund such studies, the relative proficiency in English of such students and the availability of options in private universities (including many 'twinning' programs). In addition, there are push factors such as the quota system in the public universities which push many good students out of public universities and leaves many weaker students in the public universities.

For most students in developed countries i.e. the OECD countries, their first option is to study in a university (mostly public, with the exception of the US) in their own country because these are seen as credible choices and also where some government funding is provided. This means that universities in such countries are able to retain their best and brightest within its own universities. Rarely would you expect many of the best and the brightest in these countries to study full time in universities in other countries. In Malaysia, the opposite is true. Rarely would you expect the best and the brightest to study in the local university. You would expect these individuals to be studying in a foreign university. Hence, the quality of students at our public universities are 'scrubbed' of many of the best and brightest students (with perhaps the exception being the law and medicine students).

For many students in Asian countries such as Japan, India, China, Taiwan and Korea, their public universities are credible options for their best and brightest to study at. Many Chinese students aspire to study in Beijing or Tsinghua. Many of the 'technical institutes' in India are a breeding ground for the best and brightest in India. Although the proportion of students from these countries going overseas is increasing (especially as China and India become richer), there is still a critical mass of good students going to their public universities, unlike in Malaysia.

A note on Singapore - Many of the best students in Singapore end up going overseas on government scholarships. But Singapore universities are also able to retain a critical mass of good local students in its public universities (apart from the law and medicine students). Let me give you some concrete examples. About half of all students who take A levels in my alma mater (and Tony's as well), Raffles Junior College (RJC), obtain 3 As or more. I think a similar cohort from Taylors or Sunway will probably have at most 20% obtaining 3As or more. Most of these 3As and above students will not get government scholarships to go overseas but go to the Singapore unis i.e. NUS, NTU and SMU. In contrast, most of the top scorers at the A levels in Malaysia ends up going overseas. A much smaller proportion of the student population takes the STPM with most of the tops scorers wanting to take up law or medicine at the local universities. Many of the top students have been 'filtered' out by STPM.

Furthermore, Singapore universities are able to attract good Malaysian students to attend. Many good Malaysians who can't get into their preferred course in Malaysian unis (because of the quota system) end up going to Singapore. I know of two Malaysian students at the PhD level at Duke who went to Singapore unis. At the same time, many of my Asean scholar friends also decide to attend Singapore unis because they don't want to or cannot afford to go overseas.

This is not to say that our public unis don't have good or even great students. The law and medicine students are clearly the exception because of the high level of competition to get into such pro grams. But the proportion is far lower than that in Singapore, not to mention the developed countries or even Asian countries such as China and India.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the learning process in our public universities. If even a sliver of some of the horror stories I've heard in regards to the learning process in our public universities - high absentee rates among lecturers, lecturers who 'dumb down' their lectures or make exams easier, etc... - then I'm quite certain that there might be a 'value decrease' in the impact of our public universities on our graduates.

I don't know if the OECD measure will include any or many of our public universities but I'm quite sure that it it does, our graduates will do worse compared to their compatriots in other Asian countries and most definitely compared to universities in the developed countries.

I think some of the obstacles I've outlined above would be too great for the current MOHE minister, To Pak, to overcome, regardless of action plans and such.

Sacrifice for one's country

This is a slightly different post from one that normally appears on this blog. The picture in this post was voted by viewers of the Today show as the most memorable photo of 2007. As I heard the story of the woman at Arlington cemetery, I began to reflect on whether someone of a similar profile would have put his or her life on line for Malaysia. Sadly, I have to say no.

The woman in the photo is one Mary McHugh, who was visiting the grave of her fiance, James John Regan, at Arlington Cemetery, just outside Washington D.C. James Regan was killed in Iraq in February, 2007, where he served as a sergeant in the US Army.

While many of us may have doubts in regards to the US initiated war in Iraq, I find it harder to question the motives of brave, young men (and women) like James Regan, who was willing to put his life on the line for the higher aspiration of defending his country. These are the people who were caught in the political crossfires and the crossfires (literally) of the war in Iraq and paid for it with their lives.

What makes James Regan a little more unique than the 3000 plus US soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq (and the many more Iraqis who have lost theirs) is that he could have made many other career choices, many of which were more lucrative financially and all of which would not involve putting his life on the line.

From this website, I found the following in regards to James Regan.

With an undergraduate degree from Duke, a top LSAT score and a laser-like focus, Jimmy Regan would have succeeded in whatever he wanted to do in life.

Instead of taking a scholarship to law school or a financial services job, Regan followed a calling to the military, where he became an Army Ranger and served two tours of duty in Afghanistan and two in Iraq, family members said.

After graduating from Duke, Regan turned down a job offer from UBS, a financial services company, and a scholarship to Southern Methodist University's law school to enlist in the Army, where he passed on Officer Candidate School to focus on becoming a Ranger.

"He said, 'If I don't do it, then who will do it?'" said Regan's fiancee, Mary McHugh, a medical student at Emory University who, like scores of others at the Park Avenue house yesterday, wore Regan's high school graduation photo clipped to her shirt. "He recognized it as an option and he couldn't not do it."

Army Sergeant James John Regan was born June 27, 1980, in Rockville Centre, New York. He graduated from Chaminade High School in Mineola, New York,m where his lacrosse skills earned him a scholarship to Duke. There, while earning a bachelor's degree in economics, he played midfield on two teams that won conference championships and one that reached the NCAA semifinals.

Regan enlisted in February 2004 and spent three years in the Army, earning a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and several medals marking his service in Iraq and Afghanistan. He went to the Army's language training school and read about the countries he patrolled, but remained humble enough to make his three sisters laugh with a Borat film-character impression or explain the region's centuries-old conflict to his mother, Mary Regan, when he was home for Christmas.

Regan's stint in the Army was to end in February 2008, and he and McHugh planned to marry the next month. They were to move to the Chicago area, where her family lives, and he was going to become a social studies teacher and coach lacrosse.

The equivalent to James Regan in Malaysia would be if a Harvard or Oxbridge grad choose to serve in the Malaysian army or become a teacher in a rural area in Malaysia instead of taking up a lucrative job as a management consultant or an investment banker. There are very few such individuals in Malaysia.

I can speculate as to why this is the case.

We have far fewer individuals in absolute terms who go to such 'elite' universities compared to the US or even the UK.

Perhaps, more important is the fact that very few of us feel compelled enough to 'sacrifice' ourselves for a country which perhaps might not appreciate these kinds of sacrifices.

The few examples I can think of are usually associated with opposition parties in Malaysia. I can think of Nathaniel Tan, a graduate or Harvard, who runs the jelas.info website and who also works for PKR and his colleague, Nik Nazmi, who went to MCKK, KYUEM and King's College. I hesitate to put Tony in this category since he's had some commercial and financial success before going into politics full time although this does not lessen his personal sacrifices of going into opposition politics.

Perhaps I'd be more encouraged to hear about more Malaysians going into non-partisan work which benefits the community or the country in a larger sense. It does not have to involve joining the army or the police force. It could be starting an NGO or working for one. It could be joining the teaching profession. It could be working in a rural clinic. But the current state of our country's political and social environment does not encourage these kinds of 'sacrifices', sadly.

Malaysian Students in the US

The US based Institute of International Education (IIE) recently published a report on foreign students in the US. I thought that a few of the findings from that report is worth noting, some of which are relevant to Malaysia.

The top 25 'sending' countries, from the IIE website, is as follows:

Rank Country Total Under Graduate
1 India 83,833 15% 71%
2 China 67,723 15% 71%
3 Korea 62,392 45% 38%
4 Japan 35,282 63% 20%
5 Taiwan 29,094 26% 58%
6 Canada 28,280 48% 44%
7 Mexico 13,826 58% 31%
8 Turkey 11,506 29% 57%
9 Thailand 8,886 26% 58%
10 Germany 8,656 37% 43%
11 United Kingdom 8,438 52% 31%
12 Saudi Arabia 7,886 43% 16%
13 Nepal 7,754 67% 26%
14 Hong Kong 7,722 67% 21%
15 Indonesia 7,338 63% 23%
16 Brazil 7,126 49% 37%
17 Colombia 6,750 45% 41%
18 France 6,704 33% 43%
19 Kenya 6,349 64% 27%
20 Vietnam 6,036 68% 22%
21 Malaysia 5,281 63% 24%
22 Nigeria 5,943 60% 31%
23 Pakistan 5,401 52% 37%
24 Russia 4,751 40% 49%
25 Venezuela 4,523 60% 26%

Some observations:

(i) Firstly, it is not surprising that the largest number of students come from India and China. What is not shown here is that the number of students from Indian have almost tripled and those from China have almost doubled since 1995. There was a small drop in the number of China students post 9-11 but have already exceeded the pre-9-11 levels in the last couple of years.

(ii) Secondly, there is no strict correlation between the level of development of a country and the breakdown between undergrads and postgrads from that country. For example, Japan sends more undergrads than grads to the US as does the UK as well as Turkey and Thailand. India and China sends a lot of grad students than undergrads even though they are developing countries but many other developing countries send more undergrads than grads, Malaysia being one of them.

(iii) Thirdly, not shown here, is the fact that the number of students from South East Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand) have decreased drastically since the Asian currently crisis. The number of students from these countries have roughly halved since the Asian crisis as students have presumably flocked to less expensive options like going to Australia and for many Malaysians, choosing to to 2+1 or 3+0 programs (many of which send students to the UK and Australia). There is one exception which is Vietnam where the number of students going to the US has more than tripled since 1998/1999.

What we can glean from this information which might be useful for Malaysian policymakers?

(i) Firstly, I can't help but notice, especially after my time here in the US, that the many graduate students from China and India will form the backbone of research efforts only only here in the US but also in their respective countries as these researchers return home or form collaborations which researchers in their respective home countries. Malaysia cannot compete in absolute terms but what it can try to do is to target some of the researchers who might not be able to find attractive enough jobs in the US to do research or to teach in Malaysia. Now, I know that many of you are going to say that we end up recruiting 'rejects' but I would probably prefer to hire a so called 'reject' with a US based PhD compared to someone who doesn't have a PhD, as is the case with many of the lecturers in Malaysia. You can be sure that Singapore, either NUS or NTU or SMU or some of the biotech firms, are reaching out to many of the researchers, who might for whatever reason, not want to remain in the US after they complete their PhDs. (Fulbrighters like myself for example who have to leave the US after we obtain our degrees)

(ii) Secondly, the statistics show that there are approximately 1300 Malaysians who are doing some sort of graduate degree here in the US. Many of these are doing their MBAs and other Masters programs but there is also a significant number who are doing their PhDs. Why not try to recruit some of these students to go back home to Malaysia? As I understand, there is some effort being undertaken by the MOHE to interview Malaysian graduate students, mostly in the West Coast. I think this is a good start but I think the the universities should be given more autonomy and incentives to have recruiting efforts themselves. It would be difficult for a MOHE bureaucrat to recruit a biochemistry PhD especially if the PhD holder is interested in the research environment of the specific field in specific Malaysian universities.

Recently, I discovered that many Taiwanese academics who studied in the US (for their PhDs) actually returned to Taiwan to teach in the public universities. As a result, many Taiwan universities have excellent political science departments (my field) with many academics who publish prolifically. I would not be surprised if such is the case for many other departments in Taiwanese universities as well. If Taiwan seem to be able to attract back many of its native sons and daughters, perhaps Malaysia can learn from their example.

(iii)Lastly, I don't think we should be too concerned that the number of Malaysian students going to the US is decreasing (from a high over well over 10,000 students to just over 5,000 not. At one point in time, Malaysia was probably a top 5 'sending' country to the US, especially in the mid 1990s when the economy was booming and the exchange rate was 2.5RM to 1USD). I've said this before and I'll say this again - that it's probably more economical for the Malaysian government to send sponsored students to Australia and perhaps the UK compared to the US where it's more expensive and where it takes a longer time to finish a PhD.

I also don't think that it's a problem if more Malaysian students are choosing 2+1 programs which let them go to the UK or Australia since many of the 2+1 programs do not involve the top tier universities. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether you go to the University of Queensland (Australia), Sheffied University (UK) or the University of Western Michigan (US). It's probably more important, through initiatives like the US education fair, to emphasize quality over quantity i.e. getting into good liberal arts programs which have good financial aid policies.

Don't get me wrong, the US is still a great place to study. But I think where the US education system has an edge is in the liberal arts colleges (no other equivalent in the UK or Australia) and in the top tier colleges (both state and private). And if you can get into a sponsored PhD program here in the US, I would also encourage you to come here. All or any of the top 100 research universities (state or private) in the US are great research institutes. The challenge is to get into such a program.

Changing Cardiff

Saw this excellent interview with Prof Sir Brian Smith, former VC of Cardiff University, in the education section of the Star last Sunday (Dec 16, 2007). One of our readers caught this interview as well. I'll reproduce it in full (for posterity, when the link expires) and then add some of my thoughts at the end.

By TAN SHIOW CHIN

educate@thestar.com.my

Prof Sir Brian Smith shares his strategies for restoring Cardiff University’s reputation as a research university.

FOR someone who does not like administration, it is ironic that Cardiff University (Cardiff) international ambassador and former vice-chancellor Prof Sir Brian Smith ended up heavily involved in research management.

He was first landed with it back when he was a Physical Chemistry lecturer at Oxford University.

“Every time people asked me to do an administrative job, I'd say: 'No, no, I'm doing my research'.

“So, in the end, they just said everybody has to do his, or her, bit.”

And that was how he was appointed to the university’s General Board – the body responsible for academic planning and development as well as finance and appointments.

“Then, to my surprise, I was elected chairman of the board, and that was how my administrative career started,” he shared, during a recent interview at the British Council.

Prof Smith headed the board for two years, from 1985 to 1987.

Later, he served as Master of St Catherine's College.

He was also the founding director of Isis Innovation, Oxford's intellectual property arm.

The experience gained from holding these two positions stood him in good stead when he was appointed vice-chancellor of Cardiff in 2001.

PROF SMITH: My theories worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.


Strong leadership

At that time, Cardiff was a university in trouble. Due to government cutbacks in the late 1980s, the university had reached a stage when it was essentially bankrupt and on the verge of closing.

It eventually had to merge with the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, previously a polytechnic, and obtain a government loan to pull it through that rough patch.

“My predecessor, Sir Aubrey Dickinson, had five years to get the finances and the merger sorted out – a very difficult and technical job,” shared Prof Smith.

Once its financial standing was stabilised, then came the question of how to improve the university's research capabilities.

Said Prof Smith: “Cardiff offered a fantastic opportunity.

“Here was a university that had been through very difficult times; it was the perfect opportunity to try out my theories.

“And they worked because the people at Cardiff were ready for change and ready to change dramatically.”

The main problem faced by the university at that time was that it had not yet re-established itself as a research university.

According to Prof Smith, there are a number of factors involved in the move to regain a university's research strength.

“A very big factor is research staff.

“Because British universities have a great deal of autonomy and flexibility, we were able to go out and recruit.”

And that was how Prof Sir Martin Evans, one of this year's Nobel Prize in Medicine recipients, came to join the university.

“He came to a department that was not strong but actually managed to increase its number of publications in top journals 11-fold,” said Prof Smith.

Prof Evans, he added, was a stimulating presence as he could motivate not only the new people but also those people who had been there all the while.

“Although a lot of the publications were from new staff, half came from people who were already there.

“They became much more active and proactive under him.

“It is very much a leadership issue, I think. Star scientists and academics can transform the culture around them,” explained Prof Smith.

Shared vision

Asked how he managed to attract top people like Prof Evans to join him at Cardiff, Prof Smith said he believed what counted was not just a lucrative contract but the whole package.

“I don't think it's entirely about money. I feel that Prof Evans was equally attracted by the opportunity to unify the entire biology department and direct its vision,” he observed.

To encourage productivity, Prof Smith switched the promotion system from a quota-based system (where the total number of professorial positions in a faculty were pre-determined) to a performance-based one.

He even offered an attractive retirement package to faculty members who were not producing much research.

However, in order for universities to be able to do that, Prof Smith said they need autonomy.

“The university has to be free to offer different contracts (to academics and scientists).

“And within the university, a lot of power needs to be devolved to the young people.

“It's all about having decisions taken at the lowest level practicable.

“That’s a major change,” he said.

Another important move Prof Smith instituted was to eliminate as much of the bureaucracy and structures as possible in the university.

Faculties were removed and the research and academic units dealt directly with the central administration.

“I can't describe how much paperwork that saved,” said Prof Smith, adding that the rules and regulations were also much simplified by that move.

He added that it was absolutely important that all the people in the university have a “very clear and single-minded vision”.

“Everybody (in the university) must know what the aim and mission is.

“They must also feel, in their own different ways, able to contribute to that,” he said.

Changes must also be instituted quickly, he added.

“I had about two years to make substantial changes before our first research assessment exercise (RAE).

“I think if you take a long time instituting change, things lose their momentum.

“You have to make changes when people feel the need for change.”

Due in large part to these strategies, Cardiff has risen from a ranking of 241 in the THES-QS World University Rankings in 2005 to 99 this year.

Prof Smith, however, also pointed out that saying something and doing it are quite different.

Citing autonomy as an example, he said: “Governments are very reluctant to give too much power to universities.

“University managers are also reluctant to surrender power in turn.

“The desire to hold on to power is something we have to struggle with both inside and outside universities.”

Some of the no-brainers in regards to how they apply to the Malaysian context. While it is a no-brainer to change to a performance based scheme which gives incentives for researchers to publish, giving autonomy to universities to 'reward' good researchers is easier said than done in the Malaysian context. Since all university lecturers and professors are civil servants, they are on a centrally fixed pay scale. There is less room to negotiate for pay increases or higher salaries, especially to attract outstanding talent to come to our public universities. UM, for example, cannot offer higher pay to attract outstanding talent from let's say NUS.

Similarly, it makes sense, financially at least, to reduce the levels of bureaucracy but this might run into the problem of individual departments wanting to maintain their own autonomy as well as their administrative staff. Hence, university autonomy for Prof Smith also comes with individual university centralization, from a bureaucratic standpoint at least.

Finally, he talks about how a university needs autonomy from other sources of powers including the government. Again, I think that long term, a university cannot be too closely tied to the government (because of government interference) but in the case of Malaysia, it looks like, at least in the short to medium term, the government, through the MOHE is driving changes in our public universities. While this might be a short term measure (without which our public universities might continue to languish in mediocrity), it is not a long term solution. Ultimately, our public universities need to be weaned off government interference and also government support.

I was a little disappointed that he didn't talk about funding since Cardiff is one of the universities which benefit financially from obtaining more and more foreign students (including Malaysian students), an option which is not immediately open to our public universities.

The changes proposed here are no brainers - performance, incentives, leadership and autonomy - most, if not all, of which are currently needed in large doses in our public universities.

De-Cristianising Mission Schools? (II)

Here are some follow up reports on the blog post with regards to calls by Members of Parliament to remove all traces of non-Muslim symbolises and influence our national schools.

Parliamentary Opposition leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang has received reports of such actions in the following schools, and is awaiting reports of more. He has also called for the Minister of Education, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to respond as to whether such actions are encouraged by the Ministry, tacitly or otherwise.

• St. David High School, Bukit Baru, Melaka, the cross had been replaced by a crown.
• Convent Girls School in Muar, Cross was replaced with a cresent moon on badge.
• Methodist Boys Secondary School, Kuala Lumpur

Here's also the full text from the Parliament Hansard of the speech made by the two honourable members of parliament from Parit Sulong and Sri Gading, both of which are adjacent to my hometown. Sigh.

Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros [Parit Sulong]: …Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin menyentuh satu perkara tentang Kementerian Pelajaran iaitu sekolah-sekolah mubaligh seperti Convent, La Salle, Methodist dan sebagainya. Saya difahamkan Lembaga Pengarah di sekolah-sekolah ini
sebahagiannya ditadbir dari gereja-gereja di luar negara seperti di Vatican City. Saya juga difahamkan permohonan untuk membina surau di sebahagian sekolah-sekolah ini terpaksa mendapat kebenaran daripada Lembaga Pengarah yang mana Lembaga Pengarah ini sebahagiannya ditadbir oleh gereja.

Jadi amat memalukanlah, bagi diri saya, tentang pentadbiran sekolah-sekolah ini yang masih lagi dikawal oleh pihak gereja. Begitu juga saya difahamkan tentang iklim sekolah-sekolah tersebut, banyak ibu bapa Islam menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sana, mereka kompelin sebab ada kalanya sekolah dimulakan dengan lagu-lagu gereja. Ini saya tidak tahu benar atau tidak, tetapi ia apa yang saya dapat daripada ibu bapa sendiri tetapi yang jelas di sekolah-sekolah ini terpampang simbol-simbol agama. Saya rasa kecewa di dalam negara Islam, Malaysia ini, kalau saya pergi ke sekolah convent, ada terpampang patung St. Mary di depandepan sekolah convent...

Datuk Haji Mohamad bin Haji Aziz [Sri Gading]: [Bangun]

Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros [Parit Sulong]: Silakan Yang Berhormat bagi Sri Gading.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Yusof bin Yacob]: Ya, Yang Berhormat bagi Sri Gading.

Datuk Haji Mohamad bin Haji Aziz [Sri Gading]: Bagi saya sudah tidak terkejut, Yang Berhormat bagi Parit Sulong, cerita ini... [Disampuk] Bukan soal biasa. Soalnya kenapa boleh berlaku seperti ini? Satu. Hari Raya yang lepas, saya diberitahu oleh seorang bapa, waktu Aidilfitri disambut, sekolah jenis-jenis ini tidak ditutup. Terima kasih.

Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros [Parit Sulong]: Bukan sahaja patung, tetapi Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat pergilah, tengoklah salib Kristian diletakkan di depan-depan sekolah. Saya tidak faham Kementerian Pelajaran, adakah pegawai-pegawai tidak nampak atau memang dasar kita
membenarkan perkara ini. Walau bagaimanapun, saya sebagai orang yang bertanggungjawab kepada diri saya, agama, bangsa dan tanah air ini, saya menyatakan pendirian saya bahawa patung-patung ini hendaklah dirobohkan, salib-salib ini hendaklah dimusnahkan dan pengaruhpengaruh gereja di sekolah-sekolah ini hendaklah dihentikan. Begitu juga dana yang dikumpulkan di sekolah-sekolah ini. Adakah kita mendapat laporan? Kalau boleh kementerian mendedahkan dana sekolah-sekolah ini. Saya
difahamkan ada sekolah-sekolah ini juga ditaja oleh pihak-pihak gereja. Dana-dananya datang daripada gereja-gereja dan adakah pihak kementerian pantau sumber-sumbernya? Adakah audit-audit dilaksanakan?

As some readers have suggested in the comments, the MPs should possibly call for the Government to stop sending scholars to foreign schools, particular those like Oxford and Cambridge as practically all of their colleges have a chapel within its compounds.