The criteria
for the rankings are academic and employer reputations, student to faculty
ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio and international
student ratio and also research excellence. How would these criteria affect or
benefit the students? Academic and employer reputations, presumably the
graduates are highly sough after by employers. Is that so? We only know that
our junks did not have the right skill sets and are often rejected by employers
that preferred to hire from the 3rd World unranked universities.
Fake degrees and degree mills also better, or can do.
Student to
faculty ratio, presumably a smaller ratio would mean closer and personal
attention on the students and can be translated to better grades. Enrol Ah Meng
and check if better student to faculty ratio would make Ah Meng smarter.
Citations per faculty and research excellence would mean better academics and
thus benefit the students and their quality. Use the Ah Meng to confirm if this
is also true. International faculty ratio and international student ratio, both
imply that with more foreign faces, the universities are better. So just pump
in more 3rd world lecturers and students also can. How would these
improve the quality of the graduates, more international friends, can relate
and socialize with foreigners better, easier to integrate with them? EQ is
important, what about grades?
What the
rankings said is that we are world best. When we were not world best, we need
to borrow international names, pay them, bring the whole faculties here, to say
we have world best universities. Now we can do the reverse, the universities of
the world would want to have joint campuses with us, bring our whole faculties
to their countries and pay them good rupiahs, rupees and renminbis. Maybe can
get Japanese Yen also. There will be
many joint campuses in other countries with the NUS/NTU brand and our lecturers
would be in demand. We can send all our foreign lecturers to these countries
and hire more foreign lecturers to replace them. What about Singaporean
lecturers? What is that?
My
recommendation, there is no need to send our students to the universities. The
employers would still not hire them. Maybe in 30 years time. So a better
recommendation would be to send them to the unranked universities in the 3rd
World. That is where the employers find all their good employees. Not in our
world class top universities.
Why so
funny? Paying for such good reputation but no market value, no demand. If the
high rankings would lead to a situation where the employers are queuing up to
snatch all the graduates from our top universities then it would make sense. To
be real, to be able to get employed, it is better to go to universities in the
3rd World and sign up with employment agencies from the 3rd
World given a licence to operate here. They are the game changer. They will get
the applicants the right jobs, not the piece of paper from our top
universities. They still cannot produce the right graduates with the right
skill sets for the job market.
Maybe the
Quacquarelli Symonds System may want to add a new criteria, the universities
must produce graduates with the right skill sets for the job market. If their
graduates are not wanted by the employers, did not have the right skill sets,
give them a big F.
What do you
think? Are we wasting public money for the wrong things, for a superficial
branding without substance?
PS. Watch
MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, we are going to over take you. We will bring
in more foreign faculty staff and foreign students to improve our rankings
further. And watch out students, the fees will increase with the improvement in
quality, I mean rankings.
No comments:
Post a Comment