Taiwan People’s Party Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was last month invited to deliver a speech at National Chengchi University, where he caused an uproar by saying that if university graduates cannot earn a high starting salary, the departments from which they graduate should be downsized.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) said that university is first and foremost for students to learn how to make a living. Chang’s reminder is worth thinking about.
The starting salary of university graduates depends on many factors, with industrial structure and workforce demand playing an important role. Either way, university departments and their curriculums should enable students to embark on their careers after they graduate.
The education students receive should also help them improve themselves, earn promotions and develop their skills in different fields. In other words, university departments should offer “basic vocational education.”
According to the Technical and Vocational Education Act (技術及職業教育法), basic vocational education aims to “provide students with the professional knowledge, skills, and professional ethics and self-restraint required to join the workforce, and establish a sense of pride in their future technical or vocational profession.”
However, not a single word is mentioned about vocational training in the University Act (大學法).
Article 1 states: “Universities shall have as their objectives conducting academic research, training and educating highly skilled people, enhancing culture, serving society, and boosting national development.”
The statement is not wrong, but it should be made clear to university students that eventually they must find a job and earn a living.
The current laws imply that university students should devote themselves only to the pursuit of knowledge, and that they should attend graduate schools to obtain a master’s and doctoral degrees. Students have no idea what will happen after they complete their studies.
Vocational schools’ mottos often demonstrate the objective of cultivating students through basic vocational education.
My alma mater, the Affiliated Industrial Vocational High School of National Changhua University of Education, has the motto of “Honesty, Integrity, Professionalism, Excellence.” Students are expected to acquire professional expertise (knowledge) and practical skills (technique). They should also base what they have learned on honesty and integrity. This is in accordance with the Technical and Vocational Education Act.
After my classmates and I graduated, we chose different career paths, but all of us have adhered to the school motto and contributed whatever we could to society.
Most vocational schools, as well as technical and vocational colleges and universities, have maintained the goal of offering basic vocational education to students.
Many university students look down upon basic vocational education, believing that it is only meant for students attending technical and vocational schools.
The truth is that in medical schools, which are the hardest to get in through college entrance examinations, every student is required to complete their internship before becoming a licensed doctor of medicine. Being a medical intern is essentially a part of basic vocational education.
Similarly, to become a licensed lawyer, artist, athlete or healthcare worker, one needs to go through the process of basic vocational training. Students from those departments usually do not have difficulty landing a job, although the starting salary varies from person to person.
If a university department does not provide any plan for vocational education, students are certain to feel confused and uncertain about their future.
The issue of a low starting salary is not merely an educational problem. That said, all university departments should make an effort to offer basic vocational education for students.
Teachers should also highlight the connections between education and career training, so that students can utilize the assistance they need and be at ease.
Huang Rong-wen is an adjunct professor at National Changhua University of Education and a former principal of the Affiliated Industrial Vocational High School of National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Emma Liu
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS