PERGERAKAN Tenaga Akademik Malaysia (Gerak) notes with interest the
December 13 statement by the Public Universities Vice-Chancellors and Rectors
Committee (JKNC/R) taking issue with criticisms of public universities’
obsession with international university rankings. JKNC/R’s piece, while
directed at Gerak, is clearly prompted by our member Lee Hwok Aun’s
article.
We welcome the JKNC/R’s response, and the attempt to assure the
Malaysian public that public universities are not obsessed with the
rankings.
We wish we could be confident about these assurances. Unfortunately, the
JKNC/R’s commentary leaves more questions than answers. In particular, four
issues are still hanging.
First, does this article represent a consensus among vice-chancellors
and rectors? We also note the opinion of International Islamic University of
Malaysia rector Professor Dzulkifli Abdul Razak, who wrote in his NST column
that he is “increasingly unsure of the worth of the ranking game”, and that he
is “of the opinion that the whole exercise is ‘intellectually dishonest’,
perhaps bordering on unethical”.
Do other vice-chancellors or rectors harbour such deep
reservations?
Gerak is also concerned in this regard about the lack of disclosure on
the pursuit of rankings more generally, including the question of
funding.
Public universities operate using public funds. Any expenditure must be
beneficial and bring positive returns to society at large. Do the benefits
gained from the pursuit of ranking outweigh the amount of money spent on
it?
Unfortunately, little information has been provided by all public
universities about the costs involved in pursuing the rankings game.
For instance, how much has been spent on hosting foreign faculty and
students (for internationalisation marks)? How much has been spent on page
charges (for publishing in paid publications, increasing number of papers and
citation numbers)?
How much money has been put aside by universities to house special units
and personnel to satisfy the ranking pursuit? And so forth.
It would have been great if the JKNC/R had shed some light on this
as well.
Second, the JKNC/R speaks soothing words about the benefits and limits
of rankings, but neglects to respond to the specific issues raised by
Lee.
Everyone, even QS, will admit that the rankings have limitations and
flaws. The JKNC/R article evades the specific issues highlighted in Lee’s
article, instead choosing to dwell on generalities that are easily agreeable
but not meaningful for addressing the problems at hand.
They merely note, “while recognising that university rankings are here
to stay, we are aware of their many limitations, their intended and unintended
biases, and their convenience-based usage by institutions and other parties.
They cannot be the one and only measure of excellence”.
It is worth recapping Lee’s arguments, which should spur our university
administrations to reconsider the dominant role of the rankings criteria.
The recent experience of Universiti Malaya (UM), as Malaysia’s top
ranked university that other public universities will likely model, is highly
pertinent.
Is the word obsession causing discomfort? Call it obsession, fixation,
or preoccupation, but the underlying issue is the same. UM is used as the
dominant yardstick despite a host of problems and deficiencies.
UM’s soaring performance in the overall rankings masks backsliding on
various fronts.
All of UM’s flagship programmes, which breached the top 50 in subject
rankings and were lavishly celebrated until 2017, have fallen down those lists
since then.
UM’s score on the QS system has improved the most in citations – which
has biased the universities’ resources and reward systems toward highly cited
research – and in “reputation” as reported in voluntary surveys (not randomly
sampled). On the internationalisation of staff and students, which are based
more objectively on empirical data, UM’s score has continuously declined.
Whether UM is obsessed, preoccupied or fixated with the rankings is a
question of attitude. To gain some insight, let’s consider the administration’s
media statements, which reflect the issues and measures of success that it
chooses to tell the world.
From 2017 to 2019, 11 out of 18 media statements celebrate UM’s
rankings. None of the others concern academic achievement; six are
administrative or non-academic in content.
Other universities do not publicise such all-consuming enthusiasm for
their ranking scores, but you do not shout so loud when your rank is above 300
or 200. Will they become more consumed if they start to breach the top 200,
then possibly the top 150 and 100? It feels like they will follow UM.
Thirdly, the JKNC/R suggests the teaching and internationalisation of
universities as major priorities that are enhanced by participating in the
rankings game, but overlooks how rankings either have little to do with the
teaching dimension, or have a dubious record of delivering benefits.
JKNC/R says the “main purpose is to support students’ pursuit of their
academic goals”, but teaching factors in negligibly in the QS rankings. If
JKNC/R is truly holds this view, should they not decisively declare rankings as
a secondary priority?
They go further in specifying some benefits of the rankings, notably
that it enhances reputation and provides a reference for prospective
students.
This is the biggest element of QS’ business. But is it delivering? The
JKNC/R statement did not specify Malaysian or international students. Let us
consider both in turn.
For the JKNC/R to expect Malaysian university applicants to refer to the
rankings is dumbing down the process.
If it is true that applicants actually use the rankings as a primary
reference, this is a major indictment of our education system which needs to be
redressed.
Malaysia has only 20 public universities, and many universities specialise
in particular programmes. It is hard to imagine the international rankings
adding anything meaningful to the applications process.
UM, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(UKM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
attract the cream of the crop because they are more established and
prestigious, and information and alumni testament are abundantly available to
make informed choices.
In addition, what sort of students do we desire? If they really do rely
on the rankings rather than their own in-depth research to find a good
programme that matches their interests and abilities, this should actually
cause alarm because the system is stifling their brains.
We should instead invest in educating and counselling them on how to
research and select their choice programmes, perusing university websites and
lecturer profiles, and so on.
Let’s look at international students. Rising up the rankings generates
publicity and can enhance universities’ brand. But the recent track record is
woefully lacklustre.
The chart below shows international students share of enrolment and the
QS ranking of five established universities of the preceding year, which would
be referenced by prospective applicants.
Between 2013 and 2018, UM, UKM and USM steadily improved their rankings,
and internationalisation fell. UPM and UTM steeply climbed the QS ladder, but
international student shares only inched up marginally.
The JKNC/R, in extolling the internationalisation benefits of rankings,
presumably includes research collaboration in the mix. This is even more
serious than the issue of students referring to rankings in their decision-making.
Any experienced scholar will know that expertise and academic records,
personal ties and networking, are the decisive bases for international
collaboration and productive endeavours. Institutional rankings, if factoring
in at all, are an afterthought.
We hope our university administrations focus on academic staff
empowerment rather than relying on the rankings to boost internationalisation
of research.
The fourth and final problem with the JKNC/R statement is simple and
fundamental. We read the closing paragraph, which reveals that this committee
of university leaders is waiting for the Education Ministry to decide whether
the rankings matter.
The reluctance of vice-chancellors to exercise their intellectual
faculties and professional autonomy, and to declare their own stance, is
astonishing. The JKNC/R justifies the policy of prioritising rankings without
critically addressing the limitations and flaws, and ultimately deems the
practice and the current key performance indicators template will continue
because the ministry says so.
Indeed, many systemic and deep-seated problems persist, but all the more
Gerak calls for vice-chancellors and rectors to rise up to the leadership and
rigour expected of their rank.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please provide your name and affiliation