Apendix Qualitative Vs Quantitative in Higher Education

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7

APENDIX

QUALITATIVE VS QUANTITATIVE IN HIGHER EDUCATION


The Ninth Malaysia Plan tells us that in order for the country to be
competitive on the world stage, we need to develop Human Resource
which is knowledgeable, highly skilled, flexible, creative and imbued with
positive work ethics and spiritual values. Towards this end, a number of
key development thrusts have been identified:
(i) Comprehensive improvement of the education and training delivery
systems
(ii) Strengthening national schools so that they become the school of
choice for all Malaysians and through this strengthen national unity
(iii) Implementing measures to bridge performance gap between urban
and rural schools
(iv) Providing greater opportunity and access
(v) Creating universities of international standing
No one would disagree with such aims and the strategies to be adopted.
And whilst understanding that it takes time to see the desired results, it
must also be pointed out that issues relating to Quality and National Unity
through education have been stressed in different forms perhaps ever
since the First Malaysia Plan. Yet, what we continue to see is too high an
incidence of mediocrity as exemplified by the tens of thousands of
unemployed graduates, and probably an even higher number of those
under employed. And instead of the national educational system
consolidating national unity, we see continued polarization in schools and
institutions of higher learning along racial lines.
In the area of higher education, despite stated national aims and
objectives, the impression one gets is that Qualitative policies and
5

progress seem to have been overtaken by Quantitative ones. Look at


some examples of what is highlighted in the Ninth Malaysia Plan:(i) New Universities, University Colleges, Branch Campuses, Polytechnics
and Community Colleges have grown phenomenally. In 2005 there were
71 such public institutions and an incredulous 559 in the private sector.
Given that the population of Malaysia was 26.75 million that year, it
meant that there was 1 higher education institution for every 42,460
people. Such a ratio, even the most developed nation must surely envy!
(ii) Enrolment too had increased from 574,421 in 2001 to 731,698 in 2005
and is expected to reach 1,326,340 in 2010. This works out to an average
increase of 23.2% annually. Yet another enviable achievement!
But where are the Qualitative indicators? I think we need to go back to
basics and start afresh in formulating policy and planning in higher
education. This means the need to deliberate and debate the fundamental
purpose of education, and then to translate them into practice to produce
the desired results. All too often when purpose is discussed, education is
seen as the provider of qualified workforce for the machinery of
production and consumers of products in order to provide for the
economic prosperity of the country. And on the personal level to be able to
earn a respectable living. Whilst this is an important and legitimate
objective, over-linking education with financial goals can turn out to be
problematic in the long run.
Education needs to be more, as it needs also to serve human society.
Sharing of common goals, beliefs, outlook and values provide the
framework which binds its members together, without which a human
society cannot continue to exist. Furthermore, the society must ensure
that the common ground will continue to hold from generation to
generation. One of the real purposes of education is to produce citizens
and leaders who can ensure the smooth operation of that society - now
and into the future.
6

Our problems - corruption, injustice, oppression, poverty - are primarily


man-made. And directly or indirectly this can be traced to the education
system that produces the people who perpetuate the problem. There are
Rulers who sell out to foreign powers and subjugate their own people;
Bureaucrats who enforce laws without justice; Generals who wage war on
their own people; Businessmen who exploit and cheat; and Politicians who
abuse their power and enrich themselves. These are all educated people
and in many cases highly educated. But this is what happens when the
education system is devoid of proper moral training. The society becomes
sick because the education system is sick and this is the real crisis in
education. Nurturing the human being through moral training must always
be an inextricable part of education, reflected by teaching across
disciplines and by example; not merely by introducing an add-on course
on moral education taught without conviction, let alone passion. The
teacher is not just a professional but also a mentor and a moral guide.
If you take university education, one fundamental purpose is to foster an
academic community in which learning and scholarship can flourish with a
resolute commitment to the principle of searching and upholding Truth.
For this to happen, the university must allow for freedom of speech and
freedom of scholarship - albeit with responsibility. This entails the right to
raise what may be considered to be deeply disturbing questions and the
right to challenge what may be deemed to be cherished beliefs of society
at large and of course, of the university itself. It is this right to critical
teaching and research which the university has a duty above all to be
concerned, for there is no other institution in any liberal democratic
society, which is the custodian of this very precious yet vulnerable right.
The university must therefore be committed to the principle of respect for
intellectual integrity, freedom of enquiry and rational discourse. Indeed
the university needs to stand up and defend these attributes each time
any of them is attacked. And the State should in fact see this as critical to
the long term well-being of the nation.

Once this is in place, we can then deal with issues relating to curriculum,
teaching and learning, scholarship and research, staff and students,
leadership and management, and contributions to state and society. And
in so doing, never to lose sight of the first principle of a university which is
quite simply, the unfettered pursuit of Excellence. For excellence is
absolutely critical since universities exist to conserve, create, re-create
and communicate information, knowledge, skills and ideas and their
practical application at the most advanced level possible for society.
Indeed universities are the only institutions that can do this on a sustained
scale for they are uniquely designed to carry out this role.
In Malaysia, adherence to the principles and values discussed above is
difficult to say the least. The proliferation of public universities and the
seemingly overnight conversion of University Colleges and Teachers
Training Colleges into full-fledged universities can only result in worsening
the problem of mediocrity in total antithesis to the need for excellence.
Some Vice-Chancellors will tell you that each time a new university is
created, existing universities lose good academic staff, and worse, even
the mediocre and the dead-wood get higher positions in order to make up
the numbers. What is so tragic is that our government has been more
than generous in allocating large amounts of money to the higher
education sector, but the outcomes do not commensurate with the input.
The allocation for tertiary education in the Eight Malaysia Plan was 13.4
billion and under the Ninth Plan there is a 20% increase to 16.1 billion. Yet
in recent years we face the embarrassing deterioration in world ranking of
our universities. And because the focus seems to be in increasing
enrolments and graduates instead of occupying ourselves with improving
quality, we see inflation and erosion in the value of the university
qualification.
A serious rethink and re-examination of the current status of tertiary
institutions is necessary. Are expectations of government, society and the
individual being met? In this context the National Higher Education
Strategic Plan launched by the Prime Minister in August 2007 is to be
8

welcomed. This is in fact historic as for the first time in the history of
higher education in Malaysia, we have a comprehensive long term plan.
The Ministry of Higher Education sees the Plan as helping to create a
higher education environment that will foster the development of
academic and institutional excellence, thereby achieving for Malaysia
"world class" higher education. And with this transformation, we should
produce human capital of the highest quality with first class mentality"
needed to turn Malaysia into a developed nation.
To translate these highly desirable objectives into reality, the plan will
undertake, amongst others, the following strategic action initiatives:
(i) Strengthening of higher education institutions by attracting and
retaining the best academics that can contribute significantly to advances
in research and train graduates who can apply their knowledge in the
world of work. This is to be achieved by giving greater autonomy to
universities and by refining the role and expectations of the Board of
Directors, the Vice-Chancellor and Senior Management.
(ii) Creating an environment that fosters a culture of excellence in order to
attract the most able to enter academia and ensure that academics are
measured through continued demonstration of their passion for teaching
and research.
(iii) Building a critical mass of researchers, scientists and technologists so
that there will be at least five renowned Research and Development
Centres of excellence.
(iv) Establishing Apex Universities which will be characterized by having
the Best Leaders, the Best Faculty, the Best Students and the Best
Facilities.
(v) Transforming the Ministry of Higher Education to effect a philosophical
change from that of a Regulator and Enforcer to being a Facilitator and
Partner.
9

We can only laud the government for these initiatives, something serious
educationists and others had been hoping for thus long. But for all these
to become reality, one pre-condition must prevail - the political will to
ensure its achievement. Political will in this context implies:
(i) That university will truly be given autonomy to ensure excellence.
(ii) The Plan describes the Vice-Chancellor as the key leader to be drawn
from the "highest ranks of professionals, who must possess credentials, a
track record and command the respect of key stakeholders". However,
nothing done so far indicates this will be implemented.
(iii) Promotion of academics is to be based on their continued
demonstration of passion for teaching, research and the attributes of first
class human capital. Is this being practiced? And what is being done with
academics with "continued demonstration" of non-performance?
(iv) Creating the right environment for Research and Development is right
but will researchers be allowed to decide the agenda? This may be less of
an issue in Science and Technology, but in the Humanities and the Social
Sciences (which is hardly emphasised in the Plan), there is much doubt.
(v) Interestingly, on the issue of Apex Universities, a Government backbencher in Parliament, described this idea as flawed. To him, an Apex
University is the product of a lengthy process, and not the result of an
administrative measure; that it cannot be created, but is a process of
evolution over time.
(vi) For the ministry of Higher Education to be transformed in the manner
envisaged, it must be staffed by the best leaders, managers and
administrators, people who can command the respect of the higher
education society. How possible is this?
(vii) One overarching sentiment in the Plan, which is disturbing, is the bias
towards what is considered as Professional and Applied courses over what
10

is deemed to be General courses. On the one hand, our graduates are


supposed to be appreciative of humanistic pursuits, but the emphasis is
the perspective of Industry which is the key imperative. Professional
Courses are those that have "high exchange value" as opposed to general
courses, which by implication have "low exchange value". The real issue
of quality, irrespective of the type of course, seems to have no
importance.
In conclusion, we must acknowledge that much has been done by the
Government in the area of tertiary education and huge resources have
gone into supporting this sector. What concerned citizens wish to see is
that the high investment which the government is rightly committed to
brings the kind of results which will benefit the nation and the people. The
Mission, Strategy and Action Plans are all to be lauded. The scepticism is
whether there is political will to make these plans work. Or whether
compromises and political expediency continue to rule the day?

11

You might also like