Those university rankings
RESULTS from some of the international university rankings were announced recently. Universiti Malaya (UM), the country’s oldest university, came out tops nationally once again. Globally, UM moved up some notches to be among the top 100 or 200, depending on which ranking you look at. It is still behind its contemporary, the National University of Singapore (NUS), which is among the top 10 or 20 in the world.
UM and NUS are about the same age. Why, then, does UM linger below NUS? The answer, it seems, has to with the difference in research support between the two. The research budget for NUS averages RM1bil. In stark contrast, UM has received only RM45mil a year for the last five years. Pittance!
If money is a major factor in the ranking exercise, what chance have private universities in the race? The truth is private universities have almost zero government financing. Again, there is no fairness in the comparison.
Notwithstanding that reality, private universities are known to put a lot of effort into improving their standings in the rankings. Ranking is seen as more important to these institutions than to public universities because the former use the ranking more to market themselves to students, especially overseas students. Students still use published rankings to decide where to study. Public universities, on the other hand, are mostly assured of student intake through the central admission system, UPU. Their undergraduate programmes are reserved only for local students. The government subsidises most of the costs.
Higher Education directorgeneral Prof Datuk Seri Dr Mohamed Mustafa Ishak was interviewed on a local TV channel recently that asked viewers to call in with questions. There was mention, as usual, of making Malaysia an international hub for higher education and also some discussion about ranking. A caller posed this question: If UM is the No.1 university in the country, why can it not survive on its own without a government subsidy? Instead, he suggested, the government should lend more support to the smaller universities that are still struggling. His argument was that since UM is at the top nationally, it should be able to attract more students. The caller may not have had a full understanding of the higher education system in the country. But he did offer sound reasoning.
We must first ask ourselves why we want to make the country an international hub for higher education. To me the strategy is quite clear. We want to make the higher education sector another revenue earner for the economy. It has been reported that before the Covid-19 pandemic, the country has been enjoying an annual injection of about RM40bil from the education sector into the economy. Other education hubs like Australia, Britain and the United States have been reaping even more, much more. During the pandemic, as a result of the big drop in overseas enrolment, all those hubs have been devising ways to get back the numbers. And their target market is mainly undergraduate students, not so much postgraduates.
Since the target is to bring in as many undergraduates to study in the country as possible, then the strategy should be directed by private universities. They are the ones bringing in most of the overseas undergraduate students. This means they are the ones bringing in the foreign exchange revenue the country needs. They are also the ones that need the rankings more than public universities so they can attract students to come here.
In other words, it is in the interest of the nation to give more support to private universities to improve their rankings. This implies that the government must channel some of its higher education funding to help private universities bring in more foreign students.
Branding and marketing may need more support from the government. Otherwise, like many a dream hub in the country, the education hub may turn out to be a nightmare.