Tzu Chi University has performed a miracle in the University Impact Rankings, destroying the illusion that greater resources bring a higher score. In the list released by the Times Higher Education on April 3, the university ranked 67th, top among 12 Taiwanese institutes on the list, including National Taiwan University (NTU), which was 70th.
I have always questioned global rankings of this sort, as well as the obsession with quantitative criteria.
However, I am curious about the criteria for this list, which ranked a small university ahead of a big one.
Surprisingly, the rankings were based on the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The organizer of the list used 11 of the goals suitable for university development, including good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, climate action, and sustainable cities and communities, a different methodology from other evaluations.
To gain higher rankings, the government has put a lot of resources into a few top universities and few resources into universities with teaching excellence. In return, the top universities merely move up and down the rankings from year to year, gradually attracting researchers cultivated by other institutes.
The results of investing resources to gain higher global rankings and whether the top universities are using their resources appropriately have long been targets of criticism.
Universities that are not ranked highly have fewer resources and suffer from an outflow of talent. In addition, research often caters to Western needs, while overlooking local needs because of the indexation of journals promoted by businesspeople in the West. For these reasons, I never take the rankings seriously.
This problem is a result of uneven resource distribution — the strong become stronger and the big become bigger. While top universities are becoming bloated, those that lag behind are almost starving to death.
Fortunately, after President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration took office, the government made a U-turn regarding resource distribution by sharply cutting funds for top universities and encouraging all institutes to cultivate local talent to obtain and use resources effectively. This is a helpful paradigm shift.
Today, Tzu Chi University’s educational characteristics outshine NTU in alternative rankings. This in itself is praiseworthy, because the news is surprising everyone.
My first thought on reading the news was that the criteria for the rankings would have a crucial effect.
This is also inspiring for higher education in Taiwan. A mouse defeating an elephant is no longer a fairy tale.
All those professors at top universities who complain that their rankings drop due to insufficient government funding should consider the following three questions:
As the public resources that Tzu Chi University receives are insignificant compared with what top universities receive, why did it stand out in the rankings?
The institutes in global rankings need a lot of resources to direct toward maximization of data to meet rankings’ criteria, but is it really worth it for a relatively small nation to join this game?
Does the giant gap in the distribution of limited resources not cause a flight of talent from regular universities?
Is the predatory approach of spending too much on the top universities and not enough on smaller ones to achieve higher rankings in line with social values such as fairness and justice?
Shih Chao-hwei is a professor in Hsuan Chuang University’s department of religion and culture.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS