Sam Rany, Ph.D.

Tuesday 31 July 2012

គុណភាពអប់រំនៅកម្ពុជាត្រូវតែពង្រឹង!

ទស្សនៈព្រឹត្តិការណ៍សេដ្ឋកិច្ចខ្មែរ

ដោយ គី សុខលីម

ពីមួយឆ្នាំទៅមួយឆ្នាំ ប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបានផលិតធនធានមនុស្សកាន់តែច្រើនឡើងៗ។ ជាក់ស្តែង សាលារៀនដែលជាថ្នាលបណ្តុះបណ្តាលធនធានមនុស្សបានបើកទ្វារកាន់តែ ច្រើនឡើងៗ ទាំងនៅក្នុងទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញ ទាំងនៅតាមបណ្តាខេត្តនានានៅក្នុងប្រទេស។

ក្នុងមួយឆ្នាំៗនិសិត្សច្រើនពាន់ម៉ឺននាក់បានចេញពីសាកល វិទ្យាល័យ។ ជាការពិត ជារៀងរាល់ឆ្នាំ មាននិសិ្សតច្រើនពាន់នាក់បានបញ្ចប់ការសិក្សាមែន ប៉ុន្តែសំណួរដែលកំពុងចោទឡើង គឺទាក់ទងទៅនឹងគុណភាពអប់រំ នៅក្នុងប្រទេសក្រីក្រមួយនេះ។ ប្រសិនបើគេនិយាយក្នុងក្របខណ្ឌក្នុងប្រទេស និងផ្អែកលើហេតុផលក្រោយរបបប៉ុលពត ជាការមិនអាចប្រកែកបានគឺថា គុណភាពអប់រំរបស់កម្ពុជាមានការរីកចម្រើនទៅមុខគួរសមមែន ប៉ុន្តែប្រសិនបើគេធ្វើការប្រៀបធៀបគុណភាពអប់រំរបស់កម្ពុជាជាមួយ ប្រទេសនៅក្នុងតំបន់ ឬប្រទេសអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ធំៗវិញ វិស័យអប់រំកម្ពុជាស្ថិតនៅឆ្ងាយដាច់ពីគេសឹងហៅមិនឮ។

តើមូលហេតុអ្វីបានជាវិស័យអប់រំកម្ពុជានៅទន់ខ្សោយ?

មូលហេតុមានច្រើន ប៉ុន្តែ បញ្ហាធំៗកត់សម្គាល់មានដូចជា៖ ទី១ គឺដោយសារប្រាក់ខែគ្រូបង្រៀននៅតាមសាលារដ្ឋមានចំនួនតិចតួច។ ប្រាក់ខែមិនអាចរស់បានធ្វើអោយគ្រូបង្រៀនគ្មានចំណង់នឹងបង្រៀន ឡើយ។

ទី២៖គឺដោយសារគ្រូបង្រៀនមួយចំនួនបាត់បង់ក្រមសីលធម៌ មានន័យថា ប្រាក់ខែរដ្ឋទាបមែន ប៉ុន្តែពួកគេអាចរកក្រៅបានគួរសម។ រកកម្រៃក្រៅផ្លូវការបានច្រើនហើយ ប៉ុន្តែពួកគេនៅតែគ្មានឆន្ទៈនឹងបង្រៀនដដែល។ នេះគឺដោយសារការបាត់បង់សតិសម្បជញ្ញៈក្នុងនាមជាអ្នកបណ្តុះបញ្ញា ញាណ។

បញ្ហាទី៣ដែលទាញទម្លាក់គុណភាពអប់រំដែរនោះ គឺគុណភាពគ្រូបង្រៀនតែម្តង។ គ្រូបង្រៀននៅតាមសាលារដ្ឋមួយចំនួនមិនមែនចេញមកពីសិស្សឆ្នើម ប្រចាំសាលាទេ។ ដោយសារប្រាក់ខែគ្រូបង្រៀនទាប សិស្សឆ្នើមភាគច្រើនមិនចង់ក្លាយខ្លួនទៅជាសាស្រ្តចារ្យឡើយ។

មូលហេតុទី៤ដែលរុញច្រានអោយគុណភាពអបរំមានកម្រិតទាបដែរនោះ គឺដោយសារសាកលវិទ្យាល័យមួយចំនួនគិតពីរឿងចំណេញប្រាក់កាសច្រើនជាង គិតពីគុណភាពសិក្សា។ សាកលវិទ្យាល័យខ្លះមិនហ៊ានរឹតបន្តឹងវិន័យខ្លាំងទេ ពីព្រោះពួកគេខ្លាចនិសិ្សតមិនចុះឈ្មោះរៀននៅទីនោះ។ ការគិតរបៀបនេះវានឹងរុញច្រានគុណភាពអប់រំខ្មែរអោយធ្លាក់ទៅរក មហន្តរាយថែមទៀត។

មូលហេតុចុងក្រោយដែលគ្រោះថ្នាក់ខ្លាំងដែរនោះ គឺការសូកប៉ាន់ ដើម្បីចៀសវាងការប្រឡងធ្លាក់ពីកម្រិតមួយទៅកម្រិតមួយ។

អ្នកតាមដានសភាពការណ៍សង្គមសេដ្ឋកិច្ចនៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបាន អត្ថាធិប្បាយថា រដ្ឋាភិបាលគួរពិចារណាបន្ថែមទៀតពីរឿងគុណភាពអប់រំនេះ។ គុណភាពមនុស្សគឺជារឿងស្លាប់រស់របស់គ្រួសារ សហគមន៍ និងប្រទេសជាតិ។

កាលពីសម័យដើម កុលសម្ព័ន្ធនីមួយៗវាយប្រហារគ្នាតាមរយៈកម្លាំងបាយ ដើម្បីកាន់កាប់អំណាចនៅក្នុងតំបន់ណាមួយ។ ប៉ុន្តែក្នុងសម័យសតវត្សរ៍ទី២១នេះ សហគមន៍នីមួយៗ ឬប្រទេសនីមួយៗលែងប្រយុទ្ធគ្នាតាមកម្លាំងបាយទៀតហើយ។ តែជាការប្រយុទ្ធគ្នាដោយប្រើប្រាស់បញ្ញាញាណ។ តាមរយៈបញ្ញាញាណនេះ ប្រទេសខ្លះ ដូចជា ប្រទេសជប៉ុនជាដើម ធ្លាប់ក្លាយជាមហាអំណាចសេដ្ឋកិច្ចទី២ បន្ទាប់ពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកមុននឹងផ្តល់តំណែងនេះទៅអោយប្រទេសចិនវិញ។

ឯាកមកនិយាយពីប្រទេសកម្ពុជាវិញ ប្រសិនបើកម្ពុជាចង់ក្លាយទៅជាប្រទេសមហាអំណាច ឬចង់ក្លាយខ្លួនទៅជាប្រទេសមួយដែលតំបន់ ឬពិភពលលោកទទួលស្គាល់នោះ ការផលិតធនធានមនុស្សដែលមានគុណភាពខ្ពស់គឺជារឿងចាំបាច់បំផុត។ ជាពិសេស នៅក្នុងបរិបទដែលប្រទេសកម្ពុជាត្រូវប្រកួតប្រជែងក្នុងក្របខណ្ឌ សហគមន៍អាស៊ាន រួមជាមួយប្រទេសដទៃទៀត នៅឆ្នាំ២០១៥ខាងមុខនេះ។

សូមកុំភ្លេចថា គ្រួសារមួយ សហគមន៍មួយ ប្រទេសជាតិមួយ ដែលសម្បូរទៅដោយមនុស្សមានចំណេះដឹងប្រកបដោយគុណភាពខ្ពស់ គ្រួសារនោះ សហគមន៍នោះ ប្រទេសនោះពិតជាអភិវឌ្ឍលឿនជាងគ្រួសារ សហគមន៍ឬប្រទេសដែលមិនសូវមានអ្នកចេះដឹង៕

កម្ពុជាត្រូវសង់វត្តបន្ថែម ឬមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ-មន្ទីរពិសោធន៍?

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

ប៉ែន មីរ៉ាន់ដា

វត្តអារាម ជាទីសក្ការរបស់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរប្រមាណ ៩០ % ដែលកាន់សាសនាព្រះពុទ្ធ ដែលជាសាសនារបស់រដ្ឋ។ យើងកត់សម្គាល់ឃើញថា ចំនួនព្រះសង្ឃ និងវត្តអារាម កំពុងតែកើនឡើង ហើយការសាងសង់ ត្រូវបានយកចិត្តទុកដាក់ ដោយរាជរដ្ឋាភិបាល និងសប្បុរសជននានា។ តែបើក្រឡេកមើលចំនួន និងទំនើបកម្មមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ និងមន្ទីរពិសោធន៍វិញ មិនមានការកើនឡើងគួរឲ្យកត់សម្គាល់ឡើយ។

ឈរលើគោលការណ៍អា ស៊ានដែលនឹងបង្កើតសមាគមសេដ្ឋកិច្ចអាស៊ាន (ASEAN Economic Community, AEC) ត្រឹមឆ្នាំ ២០១៥ និងគោលការណ៍សកលភាវូបនីយកម្ម កម្ពុជានឹងប្រឈមការប្រកួតប្រជែងផលិតផលទាំងបរិមាណនិងគុណភាពនៅលើ ទីផ្សារតំបន់ និងពិភពលោក។

តើកម្ពុជា ត្រូវត្រៀមលក្ខណៈបែបណាខ្លះ ដើម្បីកែប្រែការប្រឈមឲ្យទៅជាឱកាស ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម និងសេដ្ឋកិច្ច? តើរដ្ឋាភិបាល ឬសប្បុរសជន ពាណិជ្ជករ គួរប្រើថវិកាខ្លះ ដើម្បីការសាងសង់មជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ និងមន្ទីរពិសោធន៍វិទ្យាសាស្ត្រដែរឬទេ?

ជាដំបូង តួនាទីវត្តអារាមពិតជាសំខាន់ណាស់ សម្រាប់ពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរដូចជា ការផ្តល់ពុទ្ធដីកា និងដំបូន្មាន របស់ព្រះសង្ឃ ដល់ពុទ្ធសាសនិក និងជាកន្លែងផ្ដល់ចំណេះដឹង។ វត្តអារាមក៏ជាទីស្នាក់អាស្រ័យ របស់និស្សិតបុរស ដែលមកពីទីជនបទដើម្បីបន្តការសិក្សាថ្នាក់ឧត្តមនៅទីក្រុង។ អត្ថបទមួយរបស់ Arnaldo Pellini (2004) ក៏បានបង្ហាញឧទាហរណ៍ របស់សមាគមវត្តអារាមក្នុងស្រុកស្ទោង ខេត្តកំពង់ធំ ដែលដើរតួនាទីជាសមាគម ថវិកា និងស្រូវសម្រាប់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ។ បើតាមស្ថិតិរបស់ក្រសួងធម្មការ និងសាសនា ដែលដកស្រង់ដោយសារព័ត៌មាន Xinhua គិតមកត្រឹមខែមេសាឆ្នាំ២០១០ មានវត្តអារាមចំនួន ៤៣៩២ និងព្រះសង្ឃច្រើនជាង ៥ ម៉ឺនអង្គ ក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា។ បើយើងគិតពីសមាមាត្រភាគរយព្រះសង្ឃ និងប្រជាជនសរុប ១៣,៣៩៥,៦៨២ (NIS, 2008) គឺស្មើ ០.៤ %។

ម្យ៉ាងវិញ ទៀត ថវិកា ដែលត្រូវសាងសង់វិហារ និងកុដិ ក្នុងវត្ត នីមួយៗយ៉ាងហោចក៏ត្រូវចំណាយពី ២០ ទៅ ៣០ ម៉ឺនដុល្លារអាមេរិកដែរ ហើយបើយើងមានមហិច្ឆតាដើម្បីធ្វើទំនើបកម្មវត្តទាំងអស់ដែលមាន ស្រាប់ យ៉ាងហោចណាស់ក៏ត្រូវការថវិកាជិតមួយកោដិដុល្លារអាមេរិកដែរ។ ការសាងសង់ទៀតសោត ពពាក់ពពូនគ្នានៅតែតំបន់ជិតៗ ហើយតំបន់ឆ្ងាយៗ ជាពិសេសតំបន់ព្រំដែនដែលត្រូវការប្រជាពលរដ្ឋរស់នៅឲ្យបានច្រើន នោះ ក៏មិនសូវជាមានដែរ។

តើយើងទទួលបានអ្វីខ្លះ ពីការអភិវឌ្ឍបែបនេះ? ពិតណាស់ ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ មានទីវត្តអារាមទូលាយស្អាតបាត សម្រាប់ជួបជុំគ្នាពេលមានបុណ្យទានម្ដងៗ។ តែបើក្រឡេកមើលព្រះសង្ឃមួយចំនួនតូច បានបង្ហាញភាពឡូយឆាយដាក់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ និងវាយឫកស្មើគហិបតី សម័យទុំទាវ ដែលនេះ ជាការខកចិត្តរបស់ពុទ្ធសាសនិក ដែលចំណាយអស់កម្លាំងញើសឈាម ដើម្បីឧបត្ថម្ភ វិស័យពុទ្ធសាសនា។ ម្យ៉ាងទៀត បើក្រឡេកមើលទៅព្រះសង្ឃតាមវត្តអារាមក្នុងក្រុងភ្នំពេញ គេនឹងឃើញព្រះសង្ឃក្មេងៗជាច្រើនដែលរវល់ជជែកតាមទូរស័ព្ទសាធា រណៈក្បែររបងវត្ត។ តាមការពិតទៅ វ័យ ១៨-៣៥ ឆ្នាំ គឺជាវ័យដ៏សស្រាក់សស្រាំក្នុងការងារ ដើម្បីប្រយោជន៍គ្រួសារនិងសង្គមជាតិ ហើយបើយើងសម្លឹងមើល សីលធម៌សង្គមខ្មែរបច្ចុប្បន្ន ដែលកំពុងធ្លាក់ចុះ រួមមានទាំងការរំលោភសេពសន្ថវ: (កាមកិលេស) ការសម្លាប់វាយតប់ ដែលករណីខ្លះត្រឹមតែមើលមុខគ្នានោះ វាប្រាសចាកនឹងសីលប្រាំ សម្រាប់ពុទ្ធសាសនិកទូទៅ។

តាមពិតទៅ យើងគួរតែមិនមានក្ដីបារម្ភ ពីបញ្ហាសីលធម៌សង្គមទេ ព្រោះយើងមានព្រះសង្ឃយ៉ាងច្រើន ដែលជាអ្នកប្រដៅសាសនា ក្នុងសង្គមយើង តែហេតុអ្វីបានជាបទល្មើសទាំងនេះ នៅតែកើតមានឡើង និងកំពុងបន្តកើនឡើង? ឬមួយក៏អ្វីដែលយើងបានចំណាយយ៉ាងច្រើននោះមិនមានប្រសិទ្ធភាព?

បច្ចេក វិទ្យាក្នុងអត្ថបទនេះ មិនសំដៅទៅលើព័ត៌មានវិទ្យានោះទេ តែយើងចង់ផ្ដោតទៅលើបច្ចេកវិទ្យា កសិកម្ម និងចំណីអាហារដែលដើរតួសំខាន់សម្រាប់ខឿនសេដ្ឋកិច្ចជាតិ។
សម្តេច នាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន ធ្លាប់មានប្រសាសន៍ថា៖«យើងគួរតែអភិវឌ្ឍបច្ចេកវិទ្យាកសិកម្មរបស់ យើងឲ្យបានដូចប្រទេស ដទៃ។ បើយើងនឹកពីប្រទេសបារាំង យើងនឹងស្គាល់ស្រាទំពាំងបាយជូរពី Bordeaux ប្រូមា និងថ្លើមក្ងានដ៏ថ្លៃ»។

តើយើងត្រូវការអ្វី ដើម្បីឈានទៅដល់ការអភិវឌ្ឍផលិតផល និងផលិតកម្មជាទ្រង់ទ្រាយធំ?
ចម្លើយ គឺ យើងត្រូវឆ្លងកាត់ការស្រាវជ្រាវនិងកែលម្អតាមបែបវិទ្យាសាស្ត្រនៅ ក្នុងមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ ឬមន្ទីរពិសោធន៍។

ឧទាហរណ៍ ប្រសិនបើយើងចង់ផលិតទឹកដោះគោ ដើម្បីបំពេញតម្រូវការទីផ្សារក្នុងស្រុក និងក្រៅស្រុក នៅប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ដែលមានអាកាសធាតុក្នុងតំបន់ត្រូពិកក្ដៅ-សើម យើងត្រូវប្រើពេលបង្កាត់ខ្វែងពូជគោទឹកដោះ និងពូជក្នុងស្រុក ដែលធន់នឹងស្រេ្តស ហើយបើយើងចង់បានសាច់គោ ដែលមានរសជាតិឆ្ងាញ់ ផលិតភាពខ្ពស់ ប្រើចំណីតិច យើងក៏ត្រូវបង្កាត់សម្រាំងពូជដោយត្រូវប្រើបច្ចេកទេស បង្កាត់សិប្បនិម្មិត ផ្ទេរអំប្រ៊ីយ៉ូ...។ល។ បើយើង ចង់បានពូជដំណាំ ដែលធន់នឹងភាពរាំងស្ងួត សត្វល្អិត ទិន្នផលខ្ពស់ គុណភាពល្អ យើងអាចប្រើបច្ចេកវិទ្យា Genetic Modified Organism (GMO) ការបណ្ដុះ ជាលិកា...។ល។
បច្ចេកវិទ្យាទាំងនេះ ក៏អាចប្រើដើម្បីការពារពូជសត្វកម្រនិងរុក្ខជាតិកម្រ ក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបានដែរ។ តើយើងមានលទ្ធភាពពេញលេញសម្រាប់ការផ្លាស់ប្តូរនេះ ឬនៅ? ចមើ្លយគឺពិតជាមិនទាន់ទេ ហើយពិតណាស់ដើម្បីធើ្វវាបានយើងត្រូវការពេលវេលា ថវិកា ធនធានមនុស្ស និងទីកនែ្លង។

យើងមានមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ ឬមន្ទីរពិសោធន៍វិទ្យាសាស្រ្តតិចតួចណាស់ ខ្លះមិនដំណើរការទៀត បើតាមការប៉ាន់ស្មាន ការសាងសង់មជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ ឬមន្ទីរពិសោធន៍វិទ្យាសាស្រ្ត ដោយបំពាក់ឧបករណ៍បរិក្ខារទំនើប អាចមានតមៃ្លថៃ្លជាងវត្តអារាម ពី ២ ទៅបីដង តែយើងក៏មិនត្រូវការរហូតដល់ទៅជិត ៥ ពាន់កនែ្លងនោះដែរ ត្រឹមតែ ១ ភាគ ៥០ នៃចំនួននេះ វាច្រើនពេកទៅហើយសម្រាប់កម្ពុជា។

បញ្ហា មួយទៀត ជម្រើសរបស់និសិ្សត សម្រាប់ការរៀនវិស័យកសិកម្ម ក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាក៏មានតិចទៅទៀត ខណៈដែលកម្ពុជា ជាប្រទេសកសិកម្មស្រាប់។ ដូចដែលធ្លាប់ឮមកហើយ ឪពុកម្តាយ បានឲ្យដំបូន្មានទៅកូនសម្រាប់ការជ្រើសរើសរៀនវិស័យណា ដែលពេលចេញទៅធ្វើការ មានម៉ាស៊ីនត្រជាក់ មិនហាលថ្ងៃនិងភ្លៀង និងកាប់ គាស់ដី។
ជាលទ្ធផល រៀងរាល់ឆ្នាំ មាននិសិ្សតដែលបញ្ចប់ឧត្តមសិក្សាផ្នែកគ្រប់គ្រង ព័ត៌មានវិទ្យា ធនាគារ ដែលធ្វើការមិនប្រើជំនាញទាំងនេះ។ ដូច្នោះ ការកសាង និងបង្កើនចំនួនមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវ និងមន្ទីរពិសោធន៍វិទ្យាសាស្រ្តជាភាពចាំបាច់ ដែលនឹងបង្កើតការងារបន្ថែមដល់និស្សិត និងជួយជំរុញស្តង់ដារ វិទ្យាសាស្រ្ត និងគុណភាពផលិតផល ដើម្បីប្រកួតប្រជែង ជាមួយប្រជាជាតិដទៃ។

សរុបសេចក្តីមក ការបង្កើនសន្ទុះការសាងសង់វត្តអារាម ក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា នាពេលបច្ចុប្បន្ន គួរតែមិនមានភាពចាំបាច់ ជាងការអភិវឌ្ឍ និងស្រាវជ្រាវវិទ្យាសាស្រ្ត លើផ្នែកកសិកម្មទេ។ សិស្ស និងនិសិ្សតក៏គួរតែមិនចាំបាច់បារម្ភ និងរារែកចំពោះការជ្រើសរើស និងប្រឡូកក្នុងវិស័យកសិកម្ម និងការស្រាវជ្រាវវិទ្យាសាស្រ្ត លើផ្នែកនេះដែរ។

វាជាខឿនសេដ្ឋកិច្ចដ៏ចម្បង របស់ប្រទេសជាតិនាពេលបច្ចុប្បន្ន និងទៅអនាគត ហើយយើងគួរតែត្រៀមខ្លួន ពង្រឹងសមត្ថភាពបន្ថែមលើវិស័យនេះ ដែលយើងបានឈានជើងចូលអង្គការពាណិជ្ជកម្មពិភពលោក (WTO) ហើយនឹងឈានជើងចូលសមាគមសេដ្ឋកិច្ចអាស៊ាន (AEC) នាពេលខាងមុខ៕ ដោយ ប៉ែន មីរ៉ាន់ដា និស្សិតថ្នាក់បណ្ឌិត នៅសាកលវិទ្យាល័យ New England នៅប្រទេសអូស្ដ្រាលី

Sunday 29 July 2012

Unscrupulous agents get Chinese students into US schools

Time 29 July 2012 Issue No:232

Because many Chinese students have trouble making sense of the American admissions process, a huge industry of education agents has arisen in China to help guide them – and, in some cases, to do whatever it takes to get them accepted, writes Justin Bergman for Time.

This autumn, David Zhu will join an exodus of Chinese students boarding planes for the leafy, beer-soaked campuses of American colleges and universities, a dream his parents have had since they started saving a $157,000 nest egg for his education. The 21-year-old hired an education agent in China to clean up and ‘elaborate’ on the essay he submitted as part of his application.

Stories like Zhu’s are becoming increasingly common, and this has created a thorny ethical dilemma in the US. According to a 2010 report by the consultancy Zinch China, eight out of every 10 Chinese undergraduate students use an agent to file their applications. And with such intense competition among agents, cheating is rampant, the group says.

Full report on the Time site

This fall, David Zhu will join an exodus of Chinese students boarding planes for the leafy, beer-soaked campuses of American colleges and universities. Zhu, currently a student at Shanghai’s prestigious Fudan University, will be enrolling at Oregon State University to pursue a bachelor’s degree in business — a dream his parents have had since they started saving a $157,000 nest egg for his education. But like many Chinese students who don’t speak English fluently, Zhu might not have been accepted without a little help. The 21-year-old hired an education agent in China to clean up and “elaborate” on the essay he submitted as part of his application. “Actually, the agency helped my application to some extent,” he says.
Stories like Zhu’s are becoming increasingly common as the ranks of Chinese students going abroad for college continue to swell. Because many Chinese students have only basic knowledge of foreign universities and have trouble making sense of complicated applications, a huge industry of education agents has arisen in the country to help guide them — and, in some cases, to do whatever it takes to get them accepted. This has created a thorny ethical dilemma in the U.S. While many American schools are elated by the influx of Chinese students as they’ve scrimped and saved to make ends meet in the economic downturn, some educators worry that the reliance of Chinese students on agents has led to some unintended — and troubling — consequences.

(MORE: Why Are China’s Universities Losing Their Star Students?)
Although Chinese students have been going to America to study for decades, their numbers have spiked dramatically in the past few years. In the 2010–11 school year, more than 157,000 Chinese students were enrolled at institutions of higher learning in the U.S. — a 22% increase over the previous year and tops among all countries. (Second-place India had just 104,000.) The largest increase has been among undergrads: China sent nearly 57,000 to the U.S. in 2010–11, up from 10,000 five years earlier. For the wealthy, an overseas education is becoming almost standard. A survey conducted by China’s Hurun Report found that 85% of rich Chinese parents planned to send their kids abroad to study. The U.S. is their preferred destination, followed by the U.K. and Canada.
While there are a host of reasons for this explosion, money and prestige appear to be the most important factors. Not only can more Chinese families now afford to pay the tuition at a foreign university, they also view it as a better investment in their children’s future. Universities in the West are revered in China, and homegrown schools — even the best ones — fail to measure up. “I think the college education in China is not very practical,” says Vincent Sun, another Fudan student who will be enrolling at MIT this fall to pursue a master’s degree in finance. “When I will be searching for a job, I think a degree from a very famous [foreign] university is a huge thing I think that will put me into a very good place.” Ironically, a foreign university can also be a fallback for Chinese students who don’t do well enough on the national exam, the gaokao, to get into a Chinese school — there’s always an American college willing to take their tuition dollars.

But many of these students would probably never make it to America without a middleman to pave the way. According to a 2010 report by Zinch China, a consultancy that advises U.S. colleges and universities on China, 8 out of every 10 Chinese undergraduate students use an agent to file their applications. And with such intense competition among agents — not to mention ambitious students and their overzealous parents — cheating is rampant, the group says. It estimates that 90% of recommendation letters from Chinese students are fake, 70% of college application essays are not written by the students, and half of all high school transcripts are falsified. “The world of higher education is becoming extremely competitive, much more so than it was even 10 years ago, and I think the kids are looking for an edge,” says Tom Melcher, chairman of Zinch China. “Everyone is looking around and saying, ‘Well, everyone else is cheating, why shouldn’t I?’”

(MORE: These Schools Mean Business)
Another issue that concerns some admissions officers in the U.S. is where the money is coming from. Not only are agents paid by families in China — up to $10,000 before bonuses, according to Zinch — some American schools also have contracts with agents that guarantee them a commission for each student they enroll. This practice constitutes a potential conflict of interest, says Philip Ballinger, head of a commission launched by the Washington-based National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) to study the issue of foreign recruiting. “If money is first, then perhaps the interest of student or the person that’s involved is not first,” he says.

What’s desperately needed is greater oversight in China and the U.S. — something both sides are now trying to address. The Chinese government realizes that doctored transcripts are a problem: earlier this year, it launched a new service to verify students’ high school grades for foreign universities. But because there are literally thousands of agents operating in China, cheating will persist. “The Chinese kids, when I talk to them, they sort of think it’s the schools’ fault. The schools will say you have to have a recommendation letter from a guidance counselor, and Chinese kids don’t have guidance counselors,” Melcher says. Zhu, the student enrolling at Oregon State, says his agent didn’t falsify documents beyond the “elaborated” essay, but he believes doing so is sometimes a necessary evil. “Some schools in China test students by very hard questions beyond their abilities, so the scores students get are very low. So the students who want to go to the USA, they had to change their scores,” he says. “But the students are still very good students because they’re in the best schools in Shanghai.”

In the U.S., there are hopes that the NACAC committee investigating overseas recruiting practices will bring much needed clarity to a situation that has been a relative free-for-all in recent years. While federal law prohibits colleges and universities from paying commissions to recruit students in the U.S., there is no statute against doing it internationally. NACAC has a policy against it, but enforcement has been put on hold while its investigation is continuing. The group’s second meeting is set for this fall; recommendations are expected to come in 2013.

(MORE: Why Is College Enrollment Dropping?)
Although it acknowledges that fraud is a major concern, NACAC is focusing initially on the question of whether universities should be permitted to pay overseas recruiters commissions. Mitch Leventhal, vice chancellor for global affairs at the State University of New York (SUNY) and an outspoken pro-recruiter advocate, argues that agents can provide a legitimate and useful service for foreign students, provided they operate in a professional and transparent way. He says it’s ridiculous to suggest that universities should stop using agents. “That’s sticking your head in a hole. They’re not going to go away because market demand is there, so the best way to address it is to engage them and identify the good ones.”

Leventhal believes he’s found a way to do that. He’s founder of an organization called the American International Recruitment Council, which has developed a rigorous process for certifying international agents. Agents must volunteer and pay a fee for the service, which involves a third-party investigation of their business, an external review by two members of U.S. universities and a confidential complaint system. So far, the group has certified about 45 agents, who benefit, Leventhal says, from having increased access to U.S. schools. And after agents are thoroughly vetted, he sees nothing wrong with paying them commissions, so long as the schools are also transparent about it. At SUNY, the fee is 10% of the student’s first-year tuition. “No one likes to pay a commission to a real estate broker when we buy a house because it’s another expense,” he says. “But we don’t deny the fact that a real estate broker works on commission and deserves to earn something for their effort.”

This sentiment isn’t shared by everyone. Mark Sklarow, head of the Washington-based Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA), says students in China are better served by so-called educational consultants, who are paid solely by families (not by U.S. universities) to find the best educational match for students. Dozens of consultants in China have applied to become IECA members, but the organization must first ensure they’ve never accepted money from a college or university and they’ve never engaged in fraudulent practices. He believes that as Chinese students become more familiar with the U.S. application process, they’ll increasingly turn to consultants like these to help them make decisions about colleges rather than put all their trust in agents.

Sklarow says the U.S. is at a turning point too. For the past five years, colleges and universities were “balancing their budgets on Chinese students,” but he thinks the pressure is now on them to find a way to regulate the system. “I think until American colleges stand up and say we need a way to guarantee that the students we accept, that the records we’re looking at are whole, complete and legitimate, the problem continues to grow.”

Universities admit more poor students in China

Xinhuanet29 July 2012 Issue No:232

A little more than a month after sitting the gaokao, China's college entrance exam, Zeng Mengyao is celebrating her results. She will attend Xiamen University in China's eastern Fujian Province. Zeng's dream to be admitted to a prestigious university would have been crushed without the national preferential policy introduced by the Ministry of Education this year, reports Xinhuanet.

According to this year's college admission plan, 12,100 higher education vacancies will be allocated to students from 680 poverty-stricken counties in 21 provincial areas. Residents in these counties had an annual per capita income of CNY2,676 (US$418) last year, about half the national average.

Statistics from the Ministry of Education show that the national average admission rate in some leading universities last year was 8.5%, while the number in the 680 impoverished counties was 5.7%. Zeng fell eight points short of the admission score set by Xiamen University, yet she will soon be heading there thanks to the new policy

Full report on the Xinhuanet site

UNITED KINGDOM Private college to award its own degrees

BBC News29 July 2012 Issue No:232

A private college in London has been given the power to award its own degrees in a move the government says will increase competition in England's higher education system, writes Angela Harrison for BBC News.

Regent's College, which is in London's Regent's Park, says it hopes to get university status in the near future. It is one of two private colleges being given degree-awarding powers this week and which are the first to get the right since the coalition government came to power. The identity of the second college has not yet been made public.

Until now, people studying at Regent's College have received degrees through its partnerships with various universities and institutions, including the Open University. Students study for British and American degrees at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Most pay fees of about £14,000 a year.

Yale stops sending students to Peking University

Yale Daily News29 July 2012 Issue No:232

Despite reaffirming its partnership with Peking University seven months ago, Yale has decided this summer that it will not continue its programme sending undergraduates to live and study at the Chinese institution, citing low student enrolment, write Gavan Gideon, Daniel Sisgoreo and Tapley Stephenson for Yale Daily News.

Yale College Dean Mary Miller, whose office recommended the programme’s cancellation, said the Peking University-Yale University Joint Undergraduate Programme in Beijing became financially unsustainable due to weak participation, with only four students signed up this autumn.

Though Yale President Richard Levin called the programme a “great success” when Yale renewed its commitment to the partnership in December, enrolment has consistently been below the level administrators had hoped for since the programme was launched in 2006. Miller said it was not sustainable to have staff outnumbering students.

INDIA Online education market ‘to grow to $40 billion by 2017’

Press Trust of India29 July 2012 Issue No:232

India's online education market size is set to grow to US$40 billion by 2017 from the present US$20 billion, reports the Press Trust of India.

“We expect drastic changes in online education in the next two- to three-year period,” LoudCloud Systems Chief Technology Officer Anil Sonkar said.

India has one of the largest education systems in the world, with a network of more than a million schools and 18,000 higher education institutions. More than half of the country's 1.2 billion population falls in the target market for education and related services.

LoudCloud is engaged in providing e-learning technologies in India. It has roped in Odisha-based Centurion University of Technology and Management for their distance education branch, which is set to start in June 2013, he said.

SOUTH KOREA Universities caught lying about graduate employment

The Korea Herald29 July 2012 Issue No:232

A number of South Korean universities have been falsifying graduate employment data to raise funds and attract students, according to a government investigation, writes Oh Kyu-wook for The Korea Herald.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced last Thursday after a two-month investigation that it found 28 universities across the country had falsely reported the employment rate for their graduates. The ministry report came as an increasing number of universities in the country face declining student enrolment and tightened budgets.

“The graduate employment rate is an important indicator when we value universities. So some of them tried to fake the numbers in order to receive funds from the government,” an official said. The ministry currently funds universities based on an annual evaluation, and the graduate employment rate is one of the most important points of the report, he added.

Full report on The Korea Herald site

Rankings – ‘Multi-dimensional’, ‘user-driven’ are the magic words

Frank Ziegele and Gero Federkeil29 July 2012 Issue No:232

In a recent article in University World News Phil Baty, editor of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, warned that rankings needed to be handled with care. If we consider the impact international rankings have today, we can only agree with Baty’s notion that “authority brings responsibility”.

In more and more countries – Baty cited examples – a good league table position in the major global rankings plays a decisive role in policies of cooperation of universities with foreign institutions, as well as with regard to the recognition of foreign degrees and the portability of loans and scholarships.

These are clear signs of a dangerous overuse of rankings. No ranking has been introduced for these purposes and – hopefully – most producers of rankings would reject this role.

But we want to argue that ranking providers should not only object to misuses: it is more important to design rankings in a way that makes misuse difficult and guides users to apply rankings in an appropriate and meaningful way.

The ‘composite indicator’ problem

One of the major mistakes of rankings is the use of a ‘composite indicator’. A more or less broad variety of indicators is weighted and aggregated into an overall score for the whole university. One number is thus intended to measure the complex performance of a university!

If rankings provide information in this way, they seduce users into making decisions based on that one number. This is surely an oversimplification of quality in higher education.

Rankings can provide some quantitative information on particular aspects of the performance of universities – teaching and learning, research, international orientation and others. To do this, they have to focus on a limited number of selected dimensions and indicators, which means no ranking is able to reflect the full complexity of universities.

Some global rankings, which focus on reputation, measure nothing more than the strength of the universities’ global brand, which might not correlate to their performance. Yet their results are actually influencing that very reputation.

Other specialised rankings, for example Webometrics rankings, only measure the success of university policies in attaining web presence, but not their teaching or research performance. Despite this, the user is lured into believing s/he will be able to identify the best universities in the world with these kinds of rankings.

U-Multirank

How can we change this? The magic words are ‘multi-dimensional’ and ‘user-driven’ ranking.

The U-Multirank project, initiated by the European Commission, developed and tested the feasibility of such a system.

Different stakeholders and users have different ideas about what constitutes a high quality university and hence have different preferences and priorities with regard to the relevance of indicators. There are neither theoretical nor empirical arguments to assign a particular pre-defined weight to an indicator.

U-Multirank takes these points seriously by leaving the decision about the relevance of indicators to the users of the ranking. It presents a separate ranking list for every single indicator and suggests using an interactive internet tool, which allows people to choose the indicators that are most relevant to them.

Moreover, the set of indicators is not restricted to bibliometric research performance, but also includes dimensions such as teaching and learning, knowledge transfer, regional engagement and international orientation. This multi-dimensional approach is able to make the different institutional profiles and the particular strengths and weaknesses of universities transparent.

In combination with its grouping approach (building three to five performance groups instead of calculating a pseudo-exact league table), U-Multirank avoids the lure of oversimplification inherent in the attempts to crown the ‘best’ university in the world.

The provision of more differentiated and, admittedly, more complicated information decreases the pressure to change the methodology just to come up with a different list than in the year before. Since a major quality criterion for rankings is the stability of their methodology, this point further increases the value of the multi-dimensional approach.

The development of the U-Multirank model and the response to it from within higher education and among stakeholders has already stimulated a number of changes in the traditional global rankings. Some now also work on field-based rankings and some have started to include interactive elements to allow for user-driven elements.

However, they still stick to league tables and composite indicators instead of providing a really multi-dimensional and user-driven ranking. Let’s start the democratisation of rankings by leaving the choice completely to the user.

U-Multirank also looks for a broader and stakeholder-oriented approach in generating ranking data: the idea, which was tested in the feasibility study, is to combine international (bibliometric and patent) databases with the outcomes of institutional, student and alumni surveys.

This allows the comparison of, for instance, facts about study programmes (as U-Multirank provides a field-based ranking) with student satisfaction surveys, leading to a differentiated picture of performance.

If you only know the student-staff ratio, you can’t say if a high ratio means high quality in small groups or just a lack in demand due to bad quality. As soon as you can correlate the ratios to the students’ judgment of their contact with teachers, you will have a better impression of performance.

We have heard the objections against U-Multirank – “is this still a ranking?” or “will users understand this?” or “people still want to know who is number one!”

We would answer: as U-Multirank still shows vertical diversity by measuring performance, it is a ranking system. To make it understandable despite the complexity, the user-friendliness of the web portal will be of major importance. And, last but not least, we believe in intelligent users.

The next phase of the European Commission’s project has to demonstrate that all this can be implemented as a stable system.

* Professor Frank Ziegele is managing director and Gero Federkeil is manager in charge of rankings at the Centre for Higher Education Development in Germany.

Higher education institutions need to rein in (especially internal) costs

William Patrick Leonard29 July 2012 Issue No:232

In an article in The Seattle Times last month, featured in University World News, two members of the University of Washington’s board are quoted as saying: “This is the fourth year in a row our students have seen a double-digit tuition increase…It can’t go on.”

The University of Washington is not alone in facing declining external support. The American higher education community’s prospects for its own sustainability are questionable. It is unlikely to endure as we know it, with reliance on tuition fee and enrolment increases compensating for the failure to more rigorously control costs and balance budgets. Public and non-profit private institutions alike have focused for too long on short-term solutions.

Without a large endowment income cushion, the bulk of US public and non-profit private institutions have been focused on the short-term imperative of bringing revenues in line with an array of immediate, unavoidable and inflexible operating costs that these institutions bear.

Short-term remedies to balance institutional budgets present only a limited solution. Decades of relatively predictable government support appear to have engendered a sense of unquestioned entitlement, as institutions have added programmes and services on top of existing expenses.

There are three short-term internal tools for balancing institutional budgets. To date, only
two – increasing tuition fees and-or enrolment – have been regularly used.

Tuition fee increases have become an annual expectation. Conversely, increased admissions, while not often recognised as a revenue enhancement tool, have been used with equal frequency.

The former has been until recently grudgingly accepted by students and their benefactors. The latter has been widely accepted inside and applauded outside the academy as a means of expanding access to the American dream. Unfortunately, economies of scale aside, increasing the size of the student body tends to lead to future cost increases, as more faculty, staff and other resources are needed to support a larger student body.

An unsustainable cycle

Near-exclusive reliance on these two short-term remedies has trapped many of the nation’s public and non-profit private institutions in an unsustainable cycle.

After decades of tuition fee increases exceeding the Consumer Price Index, coupled with declining measures of value added, students and their benefactors are increasingly less tolerant of these annual increases. This disquiet has been exacerbated by mounting student debt and questions about the subsequent income students need to earn to settle the obligation.

Popular expressions of growing dissatisfaction have in turn prompted the steady decline of the once unquestioned support of elected officials. In recent years, state subsidies to public institutions have declined to the point that some flagship public institutions are publicly considering morphing into some form of non-profit status without any governmental support.

Enrolment and tuition fee increases appeal to institutional leaders. They have been perceived as far less internally contentious alternatives. Pushing for a higher enrolment gives the institution and the public a sense of positive momentum.

Increasing tuition fees has been received by students, parents, elected officials and the public at large as inevitable. The objections from external constituents have been met with the reminder that quality must be maintained, if not enhanced. Recently, the traditional grudging acceptance of the quality defence appears to have reached its limit.

Cutting costs avoided

The third internal budget balancing tool, cutting costs, has been the least favoured. It can negatively influence programmes and hence careers. I suggest that many institutions, large and small, have found it politically easier to increase revenue rather than control costs.

They have tended to resist seriously questioning the viability of ineffective or inefficient programmes and services. Simultaneously, many have increased their continuing cost burden by enhancing existing programmes and services as well as adding new ones.

Simplistically, institutional costs may be crudely subdivided into two categories – external and internal.

The external costs are composed of purchased goods and services. Unless the institution has the power to negotiate price, its utility, insurance, contracted services and consumable costs are largely beyond its control. External costs are strongly influenced by the internal costs that institutions should have more control over.

The place to start is internal costs. In American higher education internal costs are governed as much by unquestioned culture as by contractual obligations. Institutions have tended to regard the traditional mix of faculty, curriculum, calendar and infrastructure as immutable. This has been accompanied by an exaggerated sense of entitlement to external support.

The majority of US higher education institutions can no longer rely on the historic levels of government support or philanthropic largesse. Nor can they depend on the continued utility of tuition fees and enrolment increases to align revenue with their immutable culture-driven costs.

In order to endure, these institutions will have to restrict, rather than abandon, their dependence on external support. In the near term they should carefully assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of each existing programme and service in their current cost portfolio.

To further dampen cost escalation in the longer term, they would be wise to recall that it is far less painful to stop a recommended programme or service addition before implementation than to subsequently terminate it.

Institutions must become much more responsible for the internal balancing of their budgets. Otherwise, their sustainability is questionable. Consistently demonstrating internal cost control could go a long way towards rebuilding external trust and funding.

* William Patrick Leonard is vice dean of SolBridge International School of Business in Daejeon, Republic of Korea.