Redesigning higher education?
MOST PEOPLE walking into PICC Perdana Hall on Jan 12 would have thought that it was the venue for something other than an “academic” event. The mood was upbeat with a dikir barat group playing to the melody of Soaring Upwards. During the 45minute wait for the official event – the song was replayed several times in harmony with the drumbeat, as though literally drumming the message into the audience. One interesting message was highlighted in the lyrics: “Ranking naik di universiti; Rakyat gembira dan senang hati.” Nice to know.
All in all, like one of emcees said, the atmosphere was like “malam gala” (gala night) with smiles on many faces, indicating how they enjoyed the “show”. Meanwhile, the facial expressions of some of the “older” (retired) academics seemed to show some uneasiness with the “gala night” image. After all, FIFA’s world event – The BEST – that was broadcast a few days earlier was somewhat sombre and more academic-like.
All is not lost. If all the pomp and pompousness were stripped off the PICC event, the academic merits might have been more visible. Among other things, it did demonstrate some intellectual slant, was evidence-based, and showed coherency within the scope of choice which in this case was entitled “Redesigning Higher Education” (Mereka Bentuk Pendidikan Tinggi).
Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh, the dynamic minister of higher education, certainly picked a timely topic for 2017 in the attempt “to provide the best higher education system in the world” as displayed by one of the slides. To my mind, the key word in this case is “system” (more accurately “ecosystem”) emphasising that education as a whole is greater than the sum of all its parts which Idris articulated well with some degree of success.
The most impressive of which is the Integrated Cumulative Grade Point Average (iCGPA) initiative that “adopts a holistic approach to assessment by assessing students across eight domains” such that they are no longer profiled by mere numbers without acknowledging their quality of being human.
The ministry’s officers were savvy enough to cast aside the use of the ubiquitous term “human capital” (generally understood as the “economic self-interest of the individual”) for the more wholesome and balanced expression, “human being” as advocated by the National Philosophy of Education as well as Shift 1 in Education Blueprint – Higher Education (2015-20125).
Not only can the iCGPA approach be considered pioneering and innovative, it is also bold and forward-looking. Kudos to ministry for leading the way so that others in the education and training sectors can emulate in redesigning (higher) education and beyond.
That said, it was a big let-down to note the opposite when it comes to the “ranking” game which falls far short in the context of redesigning higher education. Indeed the “ranking” exercise, in particular the one that is popularised in Malaysia, is nowhere close to the holistic approach of iCGPA – “spiderwebbed” in an integrated manner to describe the “overarching” profile of individual students comprehensively. In contrast, the “ranking” cited is piecemeal, siloed and subjective when so much weightage is put on perceptions which is by and large intellectually dishonest. In other words, while the students are holistically and interactively profiled through the iCGPA initiative, the profile of the institution where they studied lags far behind.
Arguably it is in contradiction to the former, a flaw that must be quickly removed if redesigning higher education is to have a lasting, meaningful impact, especially when Idris duly recognised that “mahasiswa sekarang tidak seperti dulu”. To put his examples, in perspectives, where is “heutagogy” – said to be the 21st century learning approach – placed in the exercise to “rank” a university? Or for that matter, in translating research for the grand challenges to solve national and global humanitarian problems as Idris correctly pointed out. What is more within the framework of Sustainable Development Goals as an imperative to post-2015 global agenda.
None of the statistics on “ranking” shown during the presentation broached any of these dimensions, let alone issues of institutional ethics, integrity and values as advocated in the blueprint. Earlier this month, students at University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) were reportedly “calling for white philosophers to be largely removed from the curriculum to better represent the university’s focus on Asia and Africa” as part of their “educational priorities” for 2017. They are assertive to “address the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism within our university” as part of an initiative that aims to “decolonise” SOAS.
Where then are such similar demands being reflected in the “ranking” exercise in redesigning higher education in a holistic way? In short, what it amounts to is to obliterate the retarded “ranking” mindset if higher education is to be truly redesigned, let alone decolonising it.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com