The Ministry of Education recently unveiled an investment project "NT$50 billion in five years" with the aim of making one of the country's national universities rank among the top 100 in the world and 10 university departments the best in Asia within five years. It appears that promoting higher education is akin to building a skyscraper. Once funds are poured in, the world's highest building will rise up on a Taipei street one day.
Unfortunately, education is not like constructing buildings. It requires plain, solid infrastructure work that doesn't win praise for a long period of time. It is definitely not like a bowl of instant noodles that can immediately appease one's hunger, despite a lack of nutrition. It is worrying that this latest project is merely another instant-noodle plan the ministry plans to carry out following its "pursuit of excellence plan."
What higher-education concepts is the "NT$50 billion in five years" plan based on? At first glance, this project should be called a plan for promoting academic research standards, rather than advancing higher education. Internationally reknowned universities cannot be produced simply by investing heavily, coming up with several dissertations and cultivating a handful of academic stars. Qualifications for such universities are multi-faceted and do not hinge on the quality and quantity of dissertations.
A budget of NT$50 billion can buy taxpayers several good aca-demic papers, but not excellent higher education.
Many first-class US universities or colleges are noted for providing an outstanding education. Their teaching staff, however, are not always distinguished by their research. The main task of these schools is to conduct a college education. They have not set up any graduate institutes. Elevating research standards is certainly related to advancing higher-education quality, but the two are not identical issues.
Given Taiwan's limited national strength, we have to ask the ministry whether educational investment should focus on raising the research standards of a few university departments or boosting the all-round quality of higher education.
The "NT$50 billion in five years" plan means NT$10 billion per year -- which is roughly equal to a 10-year budget for a national university the size of Yang Ming or Chung Cheng. The "pursuit of excellence" plan, implemented in two phases, exhausted more than NT$20 billion, which equals a 20-year budget for a medium-size national university. But how has the nation's academic research advanced after the two-phased project? How much has higher education improved?
Rumors in academic circles say these plans, including the university merger scheme, were drawn up to rationalize the demands by a handful of academic stars' for research subsidies.
Some people predicted that these stars would invent new ideas every three or four years just to justify their huge demand for research funds. A National Taiwan University professor complained at a seminar that he always has to have some proposals ready in his desk so that he can apply for large-scale plans when requested. He said what is lacking is not research funds but a good academic environment.
Most of the ministry's proposals for enhancing the quality of higher education are not that far removed from the thinking prevalent a century ago: a belief that we can transplant Western technology and civilization here by mere superficial emulation. It's the same when it comes to founding universities.
First-class Western universities base their foundation on strong liberal arts and science colleges. You could never name a school which has two weak colleges of liberal arts and science as a first-rate university.
In contrast, none of Taiwan's universities boasts first-class liberal arts and science colleges. How could they possibly become world-renowned schools merely with the help of financial investment? Such a belief shows that neither the education authorities nor the universities' leaders understand what makes an ideal school.
National Taiwan University stands the best chance of becoming a fine university but its college of liberal arts has been weakened by infighting for years. Its philosophy department, which was involved in political struggles, remains unimproved despite the democratization of Taiwan. I've never heard the school's authorities put forth any concrete plan to better the philosophy department or college of liberal arts.
Many of the school's professors believe that the university would be hopeless if the college of liberal arts is not strong. Colleges of liberal arts and science assume a heavy responsibility in a university's basic education, or general knowledge courses. Basic education would fail if the college of liberal arts is weak.
Many academics don't have high expectations for the "NT$50 billion in five years" project. Subsidies of NT$10 billion per year might end up lining the pockets of a handful of academic stars who are already working on the "pursuit of excellence" plan.
The National Science Council, which distributes research funds, has long faced questions about its ability to discover distinguished scholars and give them support.
The council's Department of Humanities and Social Sciences is the most troubled. The factional infighting in the universities has unfortunately spread to this department, which was weak to begin with. The department's leadership avoids responsibility and is incapable of making correct judgements. This has also made power and influence dominant within the academic circles.
Against this backdrop, the "NT$50 billion in five years" project is doomed to fail. Why should the ministry dig its own grave? If advancing higher education is really its goal, why doesn't it use the NT$50 billion to improve universities' colleges of liberal arts and science? With five years set as a phase, we can map out a 20-year plan to boost these colleges.
This may be a plain approach, lacking in glamour and applause. But it would offer hope for our system of higher-education.
Allen Houng is a professor at the Institute of Neuroscience at National Yang-Ming University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS