A stunning academic ethics scandal erupted last week after two professors at National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology were accused of taking money from students to help search for thesis ghostwriters so that the students could obtain their master’s degrees.
As a result, a renewed, scathing conversation is taking place about the management and quality of in-service programs at universities and graduate schools, especially executive master of business administration (EMBA) programs. Incidents of academic ethics failures are rooted in in-service program instructors lacking awareness about their role as high-level management educators.
From my own observations over the years, many professors are easily cowed by EMBA students, as they generally hold privileged positions in society and the workplace, and educators are at a loss concerning what to do.
However, no matter how powerful an EMBA student is in the outside world, they are still just a student when they are on campus. They should not be allowed to simply throw their weight around and buy academic credentials.
As a self-aware educator of higher-level management, not only do I need to be able to respond to students’ challenges, but I also have to be able to defend my own professionalism. More than that, I also have to be able to give critiques on biased attitudes toward studying. Cultivation of this type of practice requires the consensus and support of academic professors. This approach also comes from what academic educational bodies call an “environment of learning.” This is the greatest challenge in-service master’s programs face within Taiwan’s higher education system.
Some might say it is not easy to run EMBA and in-service programs, and that competition is fierce. In actuality, these are just normal expectations — to aim high and try hard. Instructors involved in scandals such as this are a classic example of people lacking self-awareness as higher education management professionals. Despite in-service education being an important part of a university’s social responsibility in providing lifelong learning, if educators are unable to instruct their in-service students in word and by example, then they should not be teaching.
As for the lack of market demand for in-service programs, schools might want to consider winding down operations. If instructors are just in it for the money and cannot help their students attain the educational goals of their program, it erodes academic rigor and respect, and damages academic development.
Such deterioration could result in severe damage to the entire institution’s reputation.
If these programs fall back by even one step, they end up flat against a wall with nowhere to run. Higher-level management school educators have no choice but to be prudent and circumspect in their curricula and standards.
Lin Hsuan-chu is the executive director of the executive master of business administration program at National Cheng-Kung University’s School of Management.
Translated by Tim Smith
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS