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
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