Well, being praised and congratulated by well wishers may be an ordinary occasion for the VC and the university, but what gives the soft spoken and mild mannered academic when bombarded with brickbats and nasty comments? And these are what were in store for him with regard to the latest THE-QS ranking on the university which obviously is not in favour of the university.
The THE-QS World Univeristy Ranking 2009 - top universities can be found here.
This write-up is not about to rub in more salt into the open wound, but just a simple analysis on the VC’s latest defensive stance on the matter as published in yesterdays Utusan Malaysia “Bencana Penarafan Universiti?”. A poorly translated English version can also be found here.
If being defensive by matching one’s predicament with something not at all analogous to the matter and then shifting the blame on to others is anything to go by then this article can be one good example. No offense intended, but this is what I view the article to be.VC’s reference to the bombardment of emails as ‘bencana’: (emails came non-stop confirming the "disaster" which hit Malaysia) which he received with regard to the ranking and comparing it (or putting it in the same parallel) with the disasters in Indonesia, the Philippines, Samoa and Japan is to my appreciation a bit off tangent, to say the least.
The VC wrote “Although only a few IPTA are affected, the implication is disturbing.” I would say it is disturbing to him and a few other academics in USM, but you can’t bundle up a few disturbed people in USM and generalize that the THE-QS ranking has disturbed every academic and universities in this country? Hey, cool down a bit!
In the next paragraph he wrote – “only those listed are questioned, while others which are not in the list (including private institutions of higher learning - IPTS - which is advertised in the media as being global) seem to be safe from the disaster, giving the impression that that it is better not to be listed at all. Naturally, if you are not in the game, why should you be questioned?
In the next paragraph the VC then attacked and questioned the validity of the organizer of the THE-QS : This alone is confusing enough as to what exactly is expected, let alone by the organiser of THES-QS when it adamantly claimed that the rankings are accurate, free and reliable. Although there are (sic) evidence which proves otherwise, we just nod our heads.
My opinion - if there is evidence, then we should adhere to it - why should we nod our heads in agreement to everything at face value? Does this statement imply that USM are also complying with the THE-QS organizer’s whims and decisions?
After beating a few more rounds about Giessen and its university – the Justus Liebig Universitat Giessen, he wrote: The rankings, especially by a commercial organisation, is totally ignored. They are also not apologetic – infact (sic), if there is any lesso(n) to be learned from the ranking activities, it is regarded as not suitable to be used as the bench mark for education institutions.
For this I agree in full. However, from this writing, they (the ranking activities) are not ignored. The writing reflects that the VC is upset about its result, not their activities.
Further the VC went on to analogously compare the rankings with: It is not like a beauty contest, which ranks its winners based on the main formula 36-24-36 as the ideal one. Is it apt that two people are being compared based on their looks alone human beings and not for their humanity (?) Likewise, the institution known as a university - more so, when the measurement used is likened to a factory product or for a beauty contest.
This analogy is very lame – obviously, you can’t compare the methods used by an organization to gauge university rankings (however weak their methodology is) with the methods used in a beauty contest. Using this as an analogy is a bit digressed, don’t you think? If an official from the THE-QS might have read this, he/she would have concluded that this write-up must been done by an undergraduate of a lowly rated university in their rankings.
The VC goes on to: (I) assume the conference would be boisterous with debates on the ranking, when looked at from an international perspective. I agree, anyone would not have assumed otherwise.
But he went on: Obviously, I was wrong. For the next two days, the isu (sic) on ranking was never mentioned, whether by the speakers or the participants. When attempts were made to get their views, the feedback was lukewarm, like “what about it?”…. they look very cynical, like saying "Who are they to make our university like a puppet"(?)
This clearly reflects that the VC was himself expecting that the ‘disaster’ would also strike elsewhere like it did in Malaysia, but much to his disappointment, it did not.
And then he went on to use the dreaded beauty contest analogy again: The conclusion is, in ranking, we have to follow orders. For example, a beauty queen, she has to have good grooming and dressed well, even in a bikini, to walk well and smile to win the heart of the judges. Otherwise, it is difficult to win. What more, in such a contest, the participant from a host country will often be a winner, although not the first place. This is also becoming common in raking activities where elements of sponsorship and bribery are beginning to spread.
Come on, give them a break! How can we say that the universities ranked at the top in the THE-QS ranking like HARVARD University, University of CAMBRIDGE, YALE University, UCL (University College London) and the IMPERIAL College London are commonly gauged by their sponsorship or bribed by the judges like in a beauty queen contest? This is a bit far-fetched!
In the third last paragraph (of the English version) the VC wrote: Hence, there was a time when universities are recommended to advertise their names and logo in the websites of sponsors, with a certain fee, so that they are more "customer-friendly". Unfortunately, there are some who are lured by this, like a participant of a beautry (sic) queen going to bed with a judge of the pageant with the hope of winning the contest.
In my opinion, a small fee to advertise our name and logo in a common website won’t do any harm to show that we exist in this world. But comparing that small sum with a beauty contest participant bribing the judge by going to bed with him is a bit rotten to be called an analogy at all.
This critical review is quite harsh if you consider who wrote it, but it is well meant. Apex ego aside, this write-up is a fair comment and a well balanced view from some one who thinks, as the Vice-Chancellor of a university chosen to carry the APEX standard of universities in Malaysia, should have laid down a better argument to challenge or rebut the THE-QS ranking in a manner well accepted by both the layperson and the academics.
I sincerely hope the VC is magnanimous enough to take this analysis as it is and not kill the message by killing the messenger.
p/s One might wonder if the VC would sing the UM tune if the THE-QS results were in favour of USM?
No comments:
Post a Comment