A diligent student of mine sent me a very interesting article to read one day. And to tell you the truth, it got me thinking a great deal about the nature of higher education in Malaysia and its place in the lives of those it would effect most; the young. The article sent to me was short and was about careers in American academe. It introduces the reader to those seeking academic careers and how their choice of universities for post graduate training will ultimately affect their prospects in future careers. Those coming from elite institutions will chart the course of their careers through the pursuit of research, hoping one day to reach the pearly gates of fame and fortune. This group of people will naturally gravitate towards the better (read: more well funded) all rounded universities which not only offer better funding for research but who also are hosts to some of the best students in the world. Those not so lucky wannabe academics who don’t come from such august institutions will probably have to resign themselves to less well known and more ‘pluralist’ and ‘communitarian’ institutions which place more emphasis on teaching than on actual research. The author of the article continues to say that perhaps the academics in the latter category will be less likely to face ‘anomie’ as they have come to the realization that they will never be able to achieve fame through research excellence. Those hailing from the elite institutions however will probably go on to do research, but that there will be no guarantee that they will actually be able to win the Nobel prize, in which case will lead them to disillusionment. Thus those at the bottom of the barrel or even those at the mid-section of the barrel, since having coming to terms with their own mediocrity will therefore lead fuller lives. This may sound slightly erroneous but the author quickly qualifies this by saying that there are faculty members in less ‘glamorous’ universities whom may even be of higher caliber than those in he the elite institutions. Still, I find some of his arguments hard to stomach. The US is home to many institutions of higher education, ranging from mega universities (where the student body is the size of a small city) to small liberals arts colleges where a typical class size is no larger than ten students. State funded universities like those within the University of California system are one such example of these mega universities that offer great research as well as ‘mass education’. Towards the other end of the spectrum, we have small liberal arts colleges like Middlebury which cater no so much to the lofty ideals of research but rather offer solid liberals arts education, exposing small groups of students to the wonders of astronomy, Spanish, calculus and even Aristotle. In short the US education system is so willing to experiment that depending on what kind of student or even academic you are, one will be sure to find a ‘home’. So whether you are an Einstein wannabe ( I read somewhere he was a terrible teacher) or have been inspired by Sidney Poitiers’ ‘To Sir with love’ character, within the US higher education system, one can definitely either produce ground breaking research or make a lasting impact on the lives of the young. No matter whatever qualms you may have about the US and its external policies, one cannot deny that this willingness to experiment with different educational systems has invariably produced scientists, artists and even philosophers. But of course, I am not going to be ranting or raving about the wonders of the American education system am I?
Of course not, because after all I am in Malaysia and whenever in class I am always encouraging my students to think Malaysia despite the fact that most of our textbooks are from the US (you see my point?). So what can we say about the universities here in Malaysia? Well for one, there is very little of the pioneer spirit, of experimentation in terms of higher education. Most of the universities in Malaysia still follow the ‘developmental’ model wherein its role is largely to ‘produce’ a large group of educated people to power the needs of a growing nation. Recently however, this ‘developmental’ model of universities has been called into question as many of its graduates face unemployment upon graduation. The sociological perspective of course points us to factors such as the economy and other structural reasons. But more seriously, public universities have been unable to run away from accusations of less than meritocratic standards of admission. Even though many of the older public universities have been given more independence in terms of admissions, the old labels still stick. To ostensibly fill the gap, private institutions have sprouted up and the sheer number of these institutions show us just how ‘massified’ higher education has become. What does this tell us? Well for one, higher education will always be a premium in a country which places importance on the paper chase as a way to achieve upward social mobility. As it become increasingly more competitive to enter public universities, these private institutions will continue to grow offering popular courses in business, media studies, engineering and scientific disciplines producing graduates whom will fill a specific market requirements. So where does this put our younger generation? Are they merely to be ‘moulded’ into model citizens (think: National service) or are they pushed into the marketplace as ‘knowledge workers’ forever beholden to ‘market forces’?
