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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS