It’s not just about the market
Universities are not just about training the workforce, but also about preserving knowledge and producing graduates who can be creative and imaginative.
THE Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs has come out with a report proposing changes in legislation and policy to increase university autonomy.
If you have more free time than you know what to do with, you can take a look at it on its website. I’ve read it and found the points they make quite good, in particular the need to free universities from too much government interference.
There is a tendency for the Government to think that since public universities get much of their funding from public coffers, it has the right to totally determine how universities are run.
This line of thinking is misguided on several grounds.
Firstly, public funds are monies that come from the people. Therefore, the primary responsibility of public universities is to the people and not to the government of the day.
Secondly, and related to the first point, universities must be run free from too much governmental interference as instructions by politicians may not be the best thing for our institutions of higher learning.
They are, after all, creatures of the moment and political expediency, and they may not have the necessary philosophical depth to understand what is needed to ensure a good higher education.
I have a couple of points to make about the report though. Its emphasis is on university autonomy, thus focusing on the university as a single entity. But a university is made of many different entities, namely faculties and departments (or “schools” if you want to be trendy).
Autonomy must be given at all levels. There is a tendency for a topdown approach in this country, and this applies to upper university management too. The top people think they know best and can impose their ideas and values on all those below them.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that rocket science is very different from Malay Studies. Each faculty and department must have the autonomy to decide for itself on questions of academic excellence.
There is nothing quite as frustrating as having a vicechancellor from a totally different discipline imposing policies on the various faculties and departments.
A university is a very diverse place and there has to be autonomy for all these diverse elements to make decisions for themselves. Let me give a simple example.
It may be that for medical researchers, the publications that are best for them to get their work accepted are international journals. However, for some subjects in law like Civil Procedure, it would probably be much better to be published locally so that your work can be read and used by those that matter: the Malaysian legal fraternity.
Another point I want to make is that there is too much focus on market forces and education, as though the market is the ultimate arbiter on how things should be. To some extent this is true. Some subjects are very dependent on keeping up to date with the realities of the world in order to stay relevant.
But there are some things which, on the face of it, simply do not have market value, but still have very great value. Subjects such as History, Philosophy, Literature, Cultural Studies and the like may not appear to be attractive to the “real world”.
But this is not necessarily the case. Graduates from such subjects (sometimes referred to as the liberal arts) may not have the immediate skill sets needed by industry, but what they should bring to the table is a mind that has been disciplined by academic vigour with the ability to think creatively and imaginatively.
But even that is not the point. Universities are not just a place to train a workforce; they are also the depositories of knowledge.
It is crucial to preserve knowledge as it is the knowledge earned over time that makes us, individuals and society as a whole, what we are. This aspect of universities must not be lost, even if it may have no direct and immediate impact on the market.