Feedbacks about Malaysian academicians from weblog

[morpheous]

warning!a very long feedbacks about Malaysian academicians from Jeff Ooi's weblog
To read more,pls go to
http://www.malaysiakini.com/fview/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5qZWZmb29pLmNvbQ==


Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Only 20% of lecturers have Ph.D qualification

There may be a reason why a substantial number of our university graduates are employed and un-employable.

Through Malaysiakini, Muhd Ramadhan Fitri Ellias, the president of Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya (MPMUM, or Universiti Malaya Graduate Representatives Council) reveals that only 20% of the academic staff at tertiary learning centres nationwide possess doctorate in philosophy (Ph.D) qualification.

He says this figure is evidently small compared to the advanced countries throughout the world.

To overcome this dilemma, he hopes that the newly carved Ministry of Higher Education will channel relevant grants to inculcate the culture for research among students at the institutions of higher learning.

Muhd Ramadhan says, all along, such grants were only made available to the lecturers.

Incidentally, theSun's Sharon Kam also talked to numerous academics who had put together a wild-card wish list for the relevant minister, Dr Shafie Mohd Salleh.

Most academics put maintaining standards of higher educacation as the top priorty. They do not want a case of different levels of education blaming each other for the quality of graduates, and for unemployment among them, and vice-versa.
Posted by jeffooi at March 30, 2004 06:10 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Why not try out TRUE meritocracy and see what happens. But then again, maybe that's too much to ask. As always.
Posted by: TTH at March 30, 2004 09:51 AM

My experience tells me:

1) Huge bureaucracy need to be passed through before lecturers can take study leave to pursue PhD
2) Many universities are reluctant to let go of their lecturers to take study leave to do PhD due to staff shortfall. Yes, it is difficult to attract people with Masters degree to work at university to teach. They can easily earn big bucks in the private sector.
3) Professional exams like CPA, CFA, CA are deemed to be more difficult than PhD. Even the industries appreciates professional qualifications rather PhD in some courses.
4) Students (generally) are not willing to pursue Masters and PhD because of the need to get job and support families. This leads to difficulty in recruiting people to teach at universities.
5) The incremental quantum in salary by having PhD does not justify doing it in the first place.
6) Very few lecturers aspire to become true-blue academician, especially in our society where materialistic attitudes are so pervasive.

Then again, all these can be construed as 'excuses'. But in reality, they are all valid reasons behind the lack of PhD holders.
Posted by: ex-lecturer at March 30, 2004 10:25 AM

Scary to know only 20% of the academic staff at tertiary learning centres nationwide possess doctorate in philosophy (Ph.D) qualification.
Posted by: Quest at March 30, 2004 10:34 AM

Why not just mass produces thousands of PhD? the good Tun said so, we have 900+ MSC status companies and considered a tremendous success. We can just do the same then for PhD. It's happening right now in local institutions!!!!
Posted by: Horace at March 30, 2004 11:16 AM

Aiyar, give the lecturer datukship lar. And better, give the dean master or headmaster a Tan Sri ship. It will solve the problem in no time.

If not, add a "Ph.D" title in the ruler title assignment cookbook. I will bet Rm0.20 with anybody, if the Sultan and Agong do so, before end of 2004, Malaysia will make more than 5000 Ph.D!
Posted by: Moo at March 30, 2004 11:24 AM

the standard of education is very very low because the government uses education for political purposes. the government relegated english to the sidelines. You know what, the main losers are the malays themselves. in a recent survey more than 80 per cent of unemployed grads were found to be lacking in english, resulting in most of them being jobless. the majority are malays. i have talked to lecturerers who have doctorates. the majority cant speak decent english. how do they manage to teach science and maths? the result is obvious. university standards fall. many people tell me that our educational standards must be quite good since we produce many graduates. well, it is simple. just lower the passing marks and presto, every ah beng, johari or mutusamy passes. the crunch is when they enter the job market and discover that their degress are not backed by their performance. in other words their degress are worthless and not respected by employers.
Posted by: chiasai at March 30, 2004 11:44 AM

Well who actually cares about what happens to our students anyway...

Have you heard of 'GIGO'? It is a simple term 'Garbage In & Garbage Out' is what you get when you go into a local uni. When a lecturer does not have a propoer qualification, how is he/she going to pass the knowledge to the students?

If we keep lowering the standards in all local uni's just so that many 'budak kampungs' can go into uni without actually challenging themselves & coming out with a sheet of paper that one can use to pack 'nasi lemaks' then how are you going to build a developed nation?

All the politicians want is to show that we have high passes. If you remember it right, in the last 2 years we have had excellent scores in UPSR, SRP & SPM. All these brilliant students have suddenly mushroomed just before the elections.

I wonder how ???

Oh yeah...if you look around, many of the brilliant minds have already left the country & many following...
Posted by: QC at March 30, 2004 11:54 AM

Maybe students are getting lazier, or unwilling to sacrifice the time and money for a Permanent Head Damage.
Posted by: modD at March 30, 2004 11:56 AM

Have anyone done any survey to show how many percent of the total foreign lecturers in public universities are from Middle East and other Islamic countries?

It gives one the impression as though smart ones are only born into Middle East or Islamic countries.

With this kind of policy, how to improve? Don't believe me? Why don't MPMUM starts from UM itself.
Posted by: wathack at March 30, 2004 12:17 PM

What's the use of PhDs when we hear engineering students complaining about their lecturer giving anti-western speeches in class while those students who would otherwise be sleeping at the back of the lecture hall will punch thier fists into the air, yelling "Jahanam Amerika!"...

Tell me, what's the use of PhDs?
Posted by: wathack at March 30, 2004 12:22 PM

MPMUM,

Forget about the PhD issue...

How do you explain these matters? Take care of your own business in UM first, before poking into others!

http://www.suaramalaysia.com/archives/000633.html

http://www.suaramalaysia.com/archives/000641.html

Talking about the AsiaWeek universities ranking. When UM pulled out from the survey, they gave a lame excuse - not enough accurate data collected for submission. Please lah... UM was just trying to save face in view of the great fall down the ranking.
Posted by: wathack at March 30, 2004 12:30 PM

To ex lecturer,

I could not agree more to the points mentioned by you. I am also an ex lecturer who used to lecture in inti College and help institute. I have to admit that the society on the whole view Phd highly. Yes, Phd is no doubt deeply appreciated but it should not be misconstrued as the ultimate qualification or someone who knows it all. In pursuing Phd qualification, it is very much research based and having a Phd would only mean that one is an expert in that particular research field.

I hold a masters degree in Finance and i have to admit that the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) is much tougher and rigorous. Someone with CFA qualification would definitely know more finance than that of someone in Phd finance.

Thus, i have to admit that the government regulations of insisting Phd among academicians may not necessarily lead to higher quality teaching. There are many Phd holders who can;t even convey their views well let alone to teach. LAN (Lembaga Akredasi Negara) or the National Accreditation Board insist that a lecturer has to be a masters degree to teach bachelor students and likewise, Phd for
masters students may not be a very good idea. Professional qualifications like CFA, ACCA and etc are not considered when those professional qualifications are of higher standing. Majority of people pursuing professional qualifications do fail whereas dropouts from Phd programme is minimal as long as the research supervisor agrees to the effort being carried out and the objectives of it.

The current Human Resource Minister, Dr Fong Chan Onn holds a bachelor degree in Engineering before pursuing a Phd in economice. he did not have much economics background when he was pursuing his Phd. Before joining politics, he was a tutor in University of Malaya in. For the fact that he didn;t have a basic degree in economics, his students ended up teaching him about macroeconomics and helped him to plot graphs.

Posted by: Thomas at March 30, 2004 12:35 PM

Jeff, mahasiswa is undergrad not graduate.
Posted by: kepoche at March 30, 2004 12:42 PM

Pursuing Phd should not be an end to itself.

The govt ought to encourage but not make it compulsory. Being an exlecturer myself, I am of the view that number of Phd holders are not an indication of quality and even knowledge one possesses.

The govt ought to give more consideration to lecturers who possesses professional qualifications rather than Phd.

Though Malaysian Govt may boast of great budget allocation for education, one ought to ask the question whether it is properly utilised. There are many bright malaysians who were denied education opportunities because of discriminatory policy favouring bumiputras.

When i was in UK pursuing my masters, there were two MARA sponsored students. One dropped out and the other managed to pass but barely. Before pursuing their masters, they graduated from University of Florida, US in accounting. it costs the government per student RM70k a year for three years while they were there. However, degree in accouting from US is hardly of value in Malaysia as our GAAP( General Accepted Accounting Practice) follows closely to UK. Though basic principles are there, accounting degrees from US is not well recognised in Malaysia. Thus, the govt has spent RM210k on a student pursuing something that could little to Malaysian society. That amount could easily sponsor 7-8 students in Malaysia locally providing opportunities for all.
Posted by: Thomas at March 30, 2004 12:47 PM

This is just another exmaple of how titles and qualifications supersede true quality. UM worked hard to achieve the ISO certification and got it recently. What's the use? It hung large banners all over the campus with a HUGE "Q" on it. Now that UM got it, what's the use?

Is it better off providing quality education? No.

Is it producing any R&D results? No.

Is it making any achiements in the academia? No.

Do they still give FREE GPA upgrade? Yes.

Do they still give marks for attendance? YES!
Posted by: wathack at March 30, 2004 12:48 PM

Agree on whatack says about engineering lecturers whacking the US....

Hey when you are lecturer who probably got an engineering degree based on the governments 'markah kesihan' & eagerness to see higher pass % , then what the heck do you actually know about the subject itself?

So isn't it better to talk about the subject that make the 'budak kampungs' stay awake rather then trying to teach something that you have no idea about and malukan yourself as the 'non budak kampungs(minority)' will question your formulas, etc..?

Oh yeah...at the end of your lecture you should alsways say 'Ok class...untuk minggu depan sila baca mukasurat x to y & make a report lah...!'
Posted by: QC at March 30, 2004 01:04 PM

In my experience, there is almost no correlation between the quality of education received from a teacher with a PhD. vs a teacher with a 'smaller' qualification.

I firmly believe that at the undergraduate level, someone with just a bachelors but with experience and passion can do an equal or better job than those with doctorates. In fact, some PhD's are obviously just teaching to satisfy requirements for their tenure, and have no passion whatsoever when teaching.

Of course, many PhD holders are also excellent teachers, and when a student wants to get involved in much more detailed research, a teacher with a doctorate may be an advantage.
Posted by: Allen at March 30, 2004 01:06 PM

I wonder if the lecturers from UM and other uni are reading these comments? If they are...one question comes to mind...anything sounds familiar ???
Posted by: PMC at March 30, 2004 01:07 PM

Okay when i was teaching at local uni based then in PJ in the 80s... all the
PhD kids are too young-setahun jagung, mentah-lah. Jadi pergi luar negeri for 2-3 years pun tak tukar their outlook, masih takut2, tak independent. Students pun jadi sangat bored tak inspired.

I don't know what kind of exposure these PhD kids got abroad. Saya tak bumi tak ada scholarship untuk PhD. So penat teaching like forever, then quit.
Posted by: kepoche at March 30, 2004 01:22 PM

and what's the use of PhD when some of these "smart" people will end up making power bombs to blow up people, like that idiot from UTM..

Heck, I wonder who made that bomb thrown to the Australia Embassy in KL early this morning. A PhD's work also?

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9131112%255E401,00.html
Posted by: wathack at March 30, 2004 01:29 PM

I wish to say this again: Unless true meritocracy is in place, all discussion on HR quality issues in this country is a bit of a wank - bunkum. Pardon the french (mine, not Pak Kadok's).
Posted by: TTH at March 30, 2004 02:10 PM

The "Dr" title nowaday is a joke. People with low level of education can buy 'doctorate degrees' by the basketful. One insure corporate tycoon has eight doctorates to his name although he didn't study beyond form 5! Such cheap doctorate degrees is making the real one embarassed to be called "Dr". Even church pastors are called "Dr" now with many shamelessly paying the degree mills to get such doctorates. So, a doctorate is no big deal now!
Posted by: Robin Hood at March 30, 2004 02:26 PM

I find some of the accusations that doctorate holders are "not necessarily" better than MSc holders appalling. It is trivially true so. The argument is not that PhDs are "absolutely better", but that PhD holders are "in general" better - for the simple reason that most universities observe better quality control when it comes to churning out PhDs. Note that I am not claiming that there are no sloppy cases.

In developed countries, there is an abundance of Ph.D. holders, so we see a phenomena of the creme of the creme contesting for professorships in universities. In Malaysia PhDs are rare because Chinese prefer wealth and Malays prefer to pray. Add that to a lack of meritocracy, and you have an alarming trend of not being able to keep the top academics, so we see a general distain from people like Thomas towards the doctorate holders.
Posted by: didythomas at March 30, 2004 02:31 PM

The MOHE may have to eat humble pie and realise that consolidation is the only way out to arrest the decline in quality.

It's all about political expediency when every state wants to have its own university. Yet most of them teach the same courses. And last anyone checked, all are languid in their ability to enthuse students, achieve national excellence let alone marketability of their products, and some sort of international ranking.

Since it's the quantity, quality and career paths of lecturers and the availability of good teaching resources which are one of the two problems, why not go back to basics and consolidate the universities?

Five large ones, each teaching non-overlapping courses, achieving economies-of-scale from one good lecturer for every past five indifferent ones.

If you need as i suspect you must, get the good lecturers from overseas and pay them top dollars to craft new sets of courseworks. You have common lecture halls anyway so the classes can be big-sized with standards drilled down and pedagogy personalized at tutorials using better-paid masters holders, perhaps those who were professionals before, now put to pasture by economic recession.

The rest of the universities should be sold to private sector consortia from any country for them to use independent of local admission policies to attract foreign students on profit-sharing basis with the government. Else if there are labs, sell them as ready-made for private sector research facilities, and if no buyers, rent them for prototyping, etc. Use your brains by questioning every assumption.

Sure, there'll be some hue and cry, but basically when you look at the budgets the local universities are currently getting compared with others say down south, it's actually skeletal and more for lecture-dishing than for building excellence or even honing research skills. So you want to maintain status quo and sound the death-knell of this country's intellectual and competitiveness future? Please also refrain from mentioning about Nobel Prizes, unless you're thinking of getting some scientists from a certain internationally-maligned group.

[please pause to reflect..]

[continue now...]

But i bet the issue that will pin down this country is actually more basic than even that - it's about the position of English that neilh and chiasai had said before.

It was a myopic decision to make BM the central language to convey knowledge in this country. Going for only Science and Maths to be in English is a bit late now. At least three generations have been lost. What were those policy makers dreaming of? A pan-archipelagic empire of bahasa baku beacons, with added arabian spice for afterlife education? Do you know what losing three generations amounts to in this take-no-prisoners modern world? Comfort yourself at your own peril, dear Malaysia, if you think the world owes you a place and a living, if the land will continue to bless you with oil, if politics will provide daily succour for your families and their future. Dream on.

[i pause for a minute or two to chew some tobacco..my eyes are bad, so can't see the spittoon]

[continuing now..]


Politicians should also realise that communal division is not bridged by language; it's bridged by adherence to common principles of justice and fairness, and the means to achieve that adherence is actually state wealth not dissipated by corruption, cronyism, crookedness etc. If RM400 Billion had been (mis)spent to maintain stability, a greater stability, nay, prosperity even, would have come the way of ALL communities, if it had instead been devoted realistically to what ired and ire this country. What would one say of a country when its D can mutter askance that his protege, a H, had deliberately conned him out of RM30 million "pocket-money" which he could have given him willingly if asked? And here i am in deep despair that i don't even have a dime to spare for the new montford school in sabah.

The private tertiary education market is no less unhealthy. A recurring trait of administration in this country is lack of foresight compounded by lack of maintenance. Open up the power sector and then pay more for power? Open up the telecom sector and then ask competitors to integrate their systems? Open up the tertiary education sector and then start closing down institutions which have been, suddenly, discovered not to have met minimum standards - while their students are midway in their courses? Open more private institutions and watch them scrape the bottom of the barrel for applicants because planning and analysis have gone off-target from using wild data provided to prop equally optimistic economic health forecasts?

Seriously, we need a complete make-over of our education system. Splitting it into MOLE (lower education) and MOHE (higher education) is but a cosmetic aspect to flex muscle to provide focus. What the heck were we doing then all these past years -no-focus seminars, building leaky labs?

I suspect when you sit down and square off the pains and their prophylactics, you will find the bottomlines requiring immediate attention are the issues which must be resolved by the process of depolitisation.

Then again, looking at the latest lineup, i expect too much of my country.

NeilH
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 02:44 PM

Like all paper qualifications, a PhD is not necessarily an indication of quality, whether that degree comes from a local or foreign university. Nevertheless, all else equal -- and we know in the real world things are never truly equal -- a PhD lecturer IS generally more knowledgeable than a master degree holder, and a master degree holder IS generally better than those who possess only a basic degree.

There are, however, many variables to be considered. One way to find out whether a degree holder -- any degree -- really knows his or her stuff is to check the transcripts. Not all degree holders are equal: there are, for example, people who barely earned their basic degree, and others whose master's transcripts show a string of Bs (in the US master transcripts usually include a code so that universities would know whether or not to offer the candidate a PhD program). Another way to assess a would-be lecturer is to examine his/her thesis: I've seen PhD theses that resembled scribblings of the illiterate. A third way is simply to ask the lecturer to write a paragraph on his favorite topic in order to detect language skills and the level of critical thinking (one of the worst garbage I've read came from someone with a PhD in literature: her whole messy essay -- printed in a national daily --talked about the "complexities" of language learning without an iota of original thought).
It is true that in recent years, foreign-trained graduates are generally better than locally-trained ones, but the courses they took, the theses they wrote, and the citations earned (from respected international academic journals) should form part of the lecturers' evaluation. All that, together with an on-the-spot writing on a topic of their choice, should give us an idea of their quality. Lastly, the evaluators should be composed of distinguished foreign professors with no ties to our universities. These temporary evaluators -- hired solely for the purpose -- could be paid a handsome wage for their work. Get the local semi-literate "human resource managers" out of the whole exercise.

LC
Posted by: LC at March 30, 2004 02:47 PM

good comments, some very caustic. but i just wonder...how many of those who sent in their comments are actually ph.d. holders...or am i reading vilifications from some sour grapes who probably had bad lecturers during their varsity days?

reading the comments, i can't help but see that most writers seem to misunderstand that having a Ph. D. does not mean that one is a good educator. It just means that the particular individual has good knowledge of a particular content. Good lecturers should be those who have either a diploma or bachelor in teaching or education. It is in these courses that one learns the principles and practices of teaching methodology.

by the way, in response to didythomas, i am chinese, a Ph. D. holder in English literature and i don't prefer wealth. And i certainly know a number of Malay Ph. D. holders who are good academicians who prefer to teach and spend quality time with their students than to spend time praying.

cheers.
Posted by: teh chee seng, Ph. D at March 30, 2004 02:47 PM




continue..

[morpheous]

continue..

Excuse me MPMUM, please learn to do proper statistics and citations, not to mention some degree of proper reasoning.

How hard is it to realise that new universities like UNIMAS, UMS or even private MMU are short of doctorate level lecturers? Just go to their webpages and viola, do your estimates and come back to me.

We do need more doctorate lecturers, but UNFORTUNATELY TO THE BUNCH OF MISGUIDED SOULS UP THERE, it is not so much to fulfil minimum quality of teaching loads.

Does anyone know why do we need PhDs in universities? HELLO?

To those who clamours the virtue and superiority of industry certifications, please let me explain to you, albeit as slowly as I can, what a Ph.D is.

"First, one must master a specific subject completely. Second, one must extend the body of knowledge about that subject."

- http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.phd.html

The tragedy of Malaysians who thinks that more PhDs is the answer to "unemployed or unemployable" undergraduates. :P

A Ph.D is never about breadth but depth. Normally, a good Ph.D takes about 4-6 years itself, but who spends that amount of time on their degrees anyway? Nowadays we have Masters in 2 years or even less. Ph.Ds are obtained under three years.

In the past, when someone earns a Ph.D in a field, the person must have mastered its discipline to such a degree that his/her supervisors must cede their authority to the candidate in that particular subject.

Nowadays?

The cheapening of the academic degree is a global phenomenon. The title itself, being perceived as a prestige, is worn with a facade of intellectuality that people no longer examine what is said carefully. Afterall, can morons understand genius?

Could the stupid recognize intelligence? Could the ignorant tell the truth apart from falsity?

When we have educators who feel that their capacity to teach is hampered by the lack of a Ph.D degree, that's TRAGIC. A Ph.D is a recognition of contribution to the field of study THROUGH SPECIFIC RESEARCH - not that you're a smart ass who can explain biological evolution to social darwinism.

When a person steps into the world of academia, he/she must realize that he is not standing on a neverending road that grows on its own. If you commit your life to the academia, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS PAVING THE ROAD - making new branches and laying new bricks.

Why does some university ranking methodologies take into consideration the % of doctorate level academic staff? That is one way to gauge the capacity and mass for RESEARCH in the institution, NOT a guarantee of quality pedagogy. With active research, lecturers keep themselves abreast with latest developments in the field and will be able to lead POSTGRADUATE students in the right path.

Undergraduate students can't find jobs? MAN, WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH WHETHER THEIR LECTURERS HAVE PH.Ds?

Allen said it best.

A PhD is not an indicator for good undergraduate lecture. It is a recognition for his/her specialised field of study and his/her contributions to it. There are Professors in Harvard and Stanford who doesn't have a doctorate degree, but that's rare. It doesn't mean that they are bright, therefore they are bestowed with PhDs. It is your RESEARCH work that distinguishes you from the rest of your lecturing peers.

Just getting your PhD so that you can sell your class contents better reeks of stereotypical commercialism.

For those who are lecturers and teachers, I salute your dedication, but please, stop making the lack of PhD as an excuse for the tardiness. Some Professor I know teach crap in class. I don't need to be spoonfed garbage, I go to the library. I don't have to score cheap points by engaging in an exercise of outsmarting the Prof. either, but I would rather be thankful if I have someone to discuss the topic through.

If you want really good undergraduates, give them better libraries and inculcate a culture of self learning and improvement.

Lecturers are not responsible for your unemployment.

END THE SPOONFEEDING, PLEASE.


Posted by: chez1978 at March 30, 2004 03:42 PM

teh chee seng said it all, albeit more politely.
Posted by: chez1978 at March 30, 2004 03:49 PM

Neih,

I have 4 degrees - have published, my bachelors and masters were from the UK, my MBA and PhD were funded by competitive American scholarships and fellowships . I had to compete with Americans, Europeans and Asians and won hands down. Currently I'm paid a pittance compared to 'foreign' Brits who partner with my institution - I have to fund myself for prestigious coferences and research, including travel. In the UK I was finaced by my parents who sacrified everything.

In my current job, sucessfully I broke the ice with leading innovation institutions in the West but am told that the money coming out of this this partensrhip is not for me or my research but to fund fat-ass trips of socialising . The ethnic dimension is very large here , too large to deny inbreeding as a factor that even taints upeard mobility.

I am ranked outstanding and the best by my executive MBA students (many are CEOs) even when compared to a 'prestigious' British school whom we are loosing so much money to that it depresses me. My dean told me to my face "what to do you know we Malaysians prefer whites (usually 3rd rate Brits who neither have the global corporate experience nor even the PhD as I and others possess).

One foreign Japanese student who was trained in the UK, US and worked in China - I sucessfully placed in a global firm in recessionary Japan.

He writes and phones me regularly and he atributes his success to my MBA supervison of his radical thesis. At first he was apprehensive about graduating from Malaysia with an MBA - but his theses won him a competitive job practically on-the-spot)out of a talent pool of 300 including top US MBA returnees form institutions such as Stanford. BTW, it was on Proton's entre plans into China and it was damning - we both got flak from my local university for that project's conclusions.


The point - I am Malaysian and global. The challenge - to stay here or leave. You know my decision. I am not inferior to foreigners but and in fact did exceedingly well in a competitive albeit meritorious environment such as the USA.


BTW, contrary to popular Malaysian misconception and being educated from both the UK and US , my experience in the British graduate school was narrower and far less intensive than major US PhD training where you have to corre course , carry a a GPA of abve 3 (B+), pass a comprenhsive exam and then, only be candidate for the Phd even if you have a very good first degree and masters from the UK. I ahd to do all this while as a full time student, teaching, researching and consulting. It is very, very intensive!

My British professors were woefully behind the curve compared to the Americans who didn't need our money nor foreign education markets like the Brits do to survive. That's why the US remains the top choice for graduate students from India, China, Taiwan , Korea, Japan and Singapore.

I was proud to be Malaysian but not anymore. The point is we are an agricultrural culture that has time-compressed into trading for the Malays while the overseas Chinese have always been that. It is easy to understand that we are not intrinsically a knowlegde based culture. Case in point - Top US schools now see the Indian Institutes of Technology and Management as equals.

While its a poor nation- it has the largest critical mass of competitive graduates that are partnering with Us corporations. The desire for knowledge and the motovaton for research certainly is helped by money but also not limited by it. The knowledge economy transcends 'old' notions of infrastructure, wealth etc.

I am also not typist!
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 04:01 PM

One perspective is this: If the lecturers are not sufficiently qualified in their respective fields of expertise in depth -- a Ph.D is one such indicator of having gone through the mill, and the number peer-reviewed researches published in benchmark journals is another -- how do we expect the universities to produce competent students that will be grabbed upon graduation?

Hence the predicament of unemployed and unemployable graduates.
Posted by: Jeff Ooi at March 30, 2004 04:20 PM

thanks, Attila.

I hope the new MOL/HE heads are reading this thread enough to resolve for better funding for promising academic leaders in local tertiaries. The other point about bottom-up reengineering i don't have much hope in.

Also, if you look around the libraries in the country, they're pathetic. Someone said recently that it would be a miracle if Malaysians read 2 books a year.

Knowing you in person, if i may,with the answer:
go. Your wings are clipped here (mine's shaved).

To chez1978's point, i wld add: the ministries should also spend more money on electronic databases, especially on those used by industries, not academics alone.

some readings on higher education:

http://www.nea.org/he/heta96/s96pg37.pdf

http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2001/brussels/Rowley_Brussels-Rowley_Sherman.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001261/126192e.pdf


Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 04:28 PM

i have been to a reputable bookshop quite a number of times. what shocks me is the number of people buying books. probably 3 or 4. dont malaysians read any more? the main reason why people dont read any more is obvious. most of the novels or scientific books are in english. i hardly see books in chinese or malay. three weeks ago, i wanted to buy this book by a russian author entitled "The Real Stalin''. I asked the salesman whether the book was available. he gave me a blank look and asked Siapa Josef Stalin. He then called his manager. the manager looked smart, had a tie and looked educated. he came over and said the book was not available. i asked him whether he knew Stalin. His reply - must be a famous novelist! the point i want to make is - we have the best buildings in the world, we are best in everything. malaysia boleh. but when it comes to knowledge we probably rank above indonesia. Universiti malaya used to be among the top in asia but in the recent asian rankings we are above gajah mada university of indonesia. that's progress.
Posted by: chiasai at March 30, 2004 04:53 PM

To didythomas,

Please don;t get me wrong. I have nothing against Phd holders. Just as there are highly revered, there is a general misconception that Phd holders are the 'expert' of a particular subject.

For instance, the general public is of the opinion that someone who holds a Phd in finance would know everything in finance which isn't true. Contrary to popular belief, you may not necessarily need a basic degree in that subject to pursue your Phd in it.

As mentioned, Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn is engineering degree holder but his holds a Phd in economics. I can;t remember what his research topic was though. Similarly, I have known of people of economics background doing a Phd in Marketing. And mind you, that person concerned do not even know what are the 4 P's of Marketing which are integral and the basics of any marketing disciplince.

Do you see what I mean? Thus, i view Phd holder highly but to say that Phd holders are generally better or more knowlegable, that may not necessarily be the case. As indicated in my previous postings, the govt should give more weightage to professional qualifications like ACCA, CIMA, CFA and etc.
Posted by: Thomas at March 30, 2004 05:25 PM

for chiasai:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/sandiego/servlet/OpenMir?do=getpdf&id=6002&forIE=.pdf


Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 05:52 PM

oops:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/05/6002.shtml
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 05:59 PM

I have a Ph.D. along with some other degrees in engineering, so yes I know what it is like to have my head knocked around. Now, I cannnot speak for Ph.D. holders in academic fields other than in science and engineering, but I can offer my general opinion on the statements that have been bandied around, based on my own experience and knowledge. I will quote some of the statements above:

Yes, it is difficult to attract people with Masters degree to work at university to teach. They can easily earn big bucks in the private sector.

True. There's always the lure of the public sector even in the developed nations (though the disparity between academic paychecks and corporate ones there is considerably smaller). The main reason for joining academia is getting to do what you like, intellectually -- getting a chunky salary ought to be a peripheral concern. Those who get in for the money are setting themselves up for disillusionment and will try to escape into industry at some point. There is a lot of slogging and hard work involved in getting tenure, i.e. that elusive professor title. In a society like Malaysia's, very few people are willing to pay that kind of price. AND! I can't say I blame them. In most Western nations, at least you get a reasonable paycheck while doing the slogging -- here the disincentive is just so great - a pauper's pay, glass ceilings, large number of incompetent peers, bad weather (totally unconducive to creative work).

Professional exams like CPA, CFA, CA are deemed to be more difficult than PhD. Even the industries appreciates professional qualifications rather PhD in some courses.

I hold a masters degree in Finance and i have to admit that the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) is much tougher and rigorous. Someone with CFA qualification would definitely know more finance than that of someone in Phd finance.

I have not taken the CPA, CFA etc. exams myself, so I am unqualified to comment on those specific exams. But I will say this... It is quite normal for companies (at least in the west) to regard professional qualifications differently from academic ones. Professional qualifications are often more practice-oriented, and is thus frequently more valuable to a profit-making organization. The converse is also true: professional qualifications are generally less valuable if you're applying for a position in a university.

There is a difference between professional and academic qualifications.

For example, an MBA is a professional qualification. An M.A. is not; it is an academic qualification.

An M.Eng. (coursework only) degree is generally considered a professional qualification. An M.Sc. or M.Eng.Sc. (thesis-based) is not.

They focus on different things. Really.

You might say, "But a degree is a degree wat?" Aha... no. People ought to recognize this, and consider talent in the right context. HR people especially.

As is the norm everywhere, private companies value practical experience over theoretical prowess in their employees. The latter inclination is only important if the company participates in activities which require research ability, e.g. doing mathematical modelling, original product development etc. A Ph.D. provides training in exactly those competencies. Sure, Ph.D holders can apply themselves and become successful in non-research oriented pursuits, but their training is specifically meant to prepare them for research careers.

By the way, just a note: do not confuse a Ph.D. with a D.B.A. or other degrees that also allow their holders to use the Dr title. They are not the same. A Ph.D. is purely a research degree (you MUST produce original peer-reviewed research).

(Side note: there are exceptions where originality is concerned. I know an Universiti Malaya physics Ph.D. who did his doctoral thesis on a topic that wasn't original; it had already been investigated by U.S. researchers 20 years earlier. But the examining committee allowed it on the premise that his research was "original" here in Malaysia -- no one here had done it.)

Students (generally) are not willing to pursue Masters and PhD because of the need to get job and support families. This leads to difficulty in recruiting people to teach at universities.

True. Though in most places in North America, graduate degrees in science and engineering come with full or partial funding.

Very few lecturers aspire to become true-blue academician, especially in our society where materialistic attitudes are so pervasive.

From my observations, this is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons as to why we lack good people (apart from the hindrances that I have hinted at above). I have observed that this is true in Singapore too -- they have a meritocratic policy and generous funding by the government (you'd be amazed how sizeable their research funds are), but they are still a ways off from producing world-class research. Over there, there is too much top-down management, obsession with media attention, and very few real thinkers (except for some scholars who come from abroad, e.g. China, Canada and a couple of other places). Many of my friends in Singaporean universities tell me that the hottest topic of discussion in staff lounges: the movement of stocks and investment opportunities.

Have anyone done any survey to show how many percent of the total foreign lecturers in public universities are from Middle East and other Islamic countries? It gives one the impression as though smart ones are only born into Middle East or Islamic countries.

No, I believe there are competent lecturers in other parts of the world too. I just have a feeling that academic positions here are not generally attractive to foreign professors. The level of research activity in this country is abysmal compared to that in developed nations. The remuneration levels are also relatively poor.

The other problem we have in attracting good people is the medium of instruction. In this regard, Singapore has been more successful (and if you read last year's speech by Singapore's minister of education (I can't remember the URL), he unequivocally states that a major part of their success in attracting prominent faculty to their universities is the fact that English is the primary medium of instruction)

Of course, the medium of instruction in India is also English, but that's another kettle of fish, which I won't get into...

In Malaysia, the prevalence of the use of English in universities is ... oh, I don't know.

Majority of people pursuing professional qualifications do fail whereas dropouts from Phd programme is minimal as long as the research supervisor agrees to the effort being carried out and the objectives of it.

Not true in North America. The dropout rate for Ph.D. candidates is about 50%, despite the existence of many capalang colleges in the United States. A Ph.D. degree is not for everyone.

People with low level of education can buy 'doctorate degrees' by the basketful.

Yes, but those are not real degrees. Try getting a job in academia with one of those.

One insure corporate tycoon has eight doctorates to his name although he didn't study beyond form 5! Such cheap doctorate degrees is making the real one embarassed to be called "Dr".

You are referring to honorary doctorates (doctoris honoris causa). And by the way, honorary doctorate holders are not customarily permitted to use the title Dr., except in parentheses. Universities give out honorary degrees for various reasons - some have looser criteria than others...

Even church pastors are called "Dr" now with many shamelessly paying the degree mills to get such doctorates.

That is not a completely fair generalization. Degree mills are degree mills, but why should you single out pastors. Most pastors I know around here actually earned their degrees through hard work.

Thus, i have to admit that the government regulations of insisting Phd among academicians may not necessarily lead to higher quality teaching. Being an exlecturer myself, I am of the view that number of Phd holders are not an indication of quality and even knowledge one possesses.

Correct. As I said, a Ph.D. is a research degree. It does not claim to improve a person's skills with regard to teaching. Of course, most Ph.D. candidates get to practice their skills by teaching undergraduate courses during their time as graduate student, but often it is something one learns by osmosis. There is very little in the manner of formal instruction in pedogical techniques.

Which leads to...

Why does some university ranking methodologies take into consideration the % of doctorate level academic staff? That is one way to gauge the capacity and mass for RESEARCH in the institution, NOT a guarantee of quality pedagogy. With active research, lecturers keep themselves abreast with latest developments in the field and will be able to lead POSTGRADUATE students in the right path.

I think you are mostly correct in this assessment.
Posted by: Richard Lee at March 30, 2004 06:06 PM

Leaving aside issues of quality over quantity and the other problems beside low bodycount of PhD's in local faculties...don't Universities have to ikut the minimum requirement of LAN or MOE or whatever...e.g. 1 Ph.D to X number of grad student or whatever? Is the 20% number prima facie too low when considered against the LAN requirements? Don't we have 200,000 undergrads or something? 1:20 ratio of lecturer to student means there are 10,000 academics of Masters/PhD level. Does that sound right?
Posted by: whothefman at March 30, 2004 06:31 PM

Richard Lee, your views and thoughts are refreshing. Might I also add that UPM and UKM are always sponsoring would be lecturers to do their PhD overseas. The only catch is that, they are contracted to the Uni. for 8 years. Hence, the limited number of applicants.
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 06:37 PM

whothefman, which brings us to the crediblity of the figures issued by MPMUM, or is he just quoting UM only? Fyi, in UITM alone there are 5000 academics nationwide and most of the one that I met are PhD holders.
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 06:40 PM

To attract excellent PhDs to teach in a varsity is not easy. A good cadidate will consider the following before he even applies for the job:

1. Is the Vice-Chancellor world renown?
2. Are research facilities world-class?
3. Is the pay commensurate?
4. What is the opportunity for further one's career?

Can any of our local universities (public & private) satisfy these basic criteria?
Posted by: EX-MU at March 30, 2004 07:08 PM

Attila

those were the days:

www.bombayfirst.org/McKinseyReport.pdf
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 07:44 PM

and another for the MOLE:

http://www.deet.vic.gov.au/deet/resources/docs/BCGreport.doc
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 07:48 PM

A wise man told me long time ago: "PhDs know more and more about less and less."
Is it still true?
Posted by: Primary School Man at March 30, 2004 08:12 PM

Richard Lee,

Thanks for chiming in. You provided a cool perspective. Cool in the traditional connotation that is.

The rest of you - I must say I keep coming back to this virtual site even though I really don't have the time for many practical reasons! Says a lot for the lively guys and gals here! It does enliven intelligence albeit colloquially rather than collegially.

But there are truths and half-truths.

North American PhD programs typically provide 'breadth' by a mandatory core course and electives. Often these are taken across disciplines/departments at the guidance of doctoral adviser before the comprehensive exams. This can be as long as 2 years and the actual research track could be 3-4 in parallel .

The rigorous training in conceptualizing/modeling and testing /reviewing high level involves cognitive processes that enables the 'far transfer' of knowledge and competencies. What this simply means is that the level of thought processing here has both depth and scope so that one can 'transcend' functional domains. This ability is highly valuable when knowledge obsolescence is rapid today. But conceptual thinking especially the process i.e., the ?how? rather than the 'what? has somewhat of a slower turnaround cycle, indeed its more robust and endearing.

In my own research, process appears to transcend functional knowledge of ? what? ? which is what that hampers the key-value -added thinking for both industry and academe in climbing the value chain in this country.

Cognitive learning strategies are part and parcel of this value chain ascent regardless of the domain. True one doesn?t need formal training with a PhD and those that show these competencies are abundant. But my experience (Oops! I nearly revealed our previous tech-shop employer there ?Neilh!) has been that such talent are recognized and rewarded even in global knowledge capital firms in this country. The implementation ethos of ?copy-and-paste and ?time-is-money? overrules. Scalability is extremely profitable so cognitive cloning and cooky-cutter competencies in procedural tasks oft posing as ?best practices? are deemed critical when you need speed to implement at lowest cost.

BTW,Neilh
-it is people like you an others that that make me realise that we have an abundance of talent but don?t recognise it. In fact we may even destroy it in this Macholand of ours. You remind me of the Tao and all that is gracious, good and humble yet ever truly lively in intelligence not just narrow intellectualisms. I wish I can take you with me. Better still why not mobilise the talent we have for the good of this country which we love?
Look towards tomorrow old friend not the past. Let's contact when I come back from o/seas end-of April.

Sincerely,

Attila
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 09:00 PM

Polis, I agree with you. Different people have different goals in life. Unfortunately, the pursuit of wealth is so ingrained in so many of us... especially in the Chinese people of Malaysia. (I wonder if it is because most of us are of southern Chinese heritage, hence the inclination towards enterprise and wealth. The northern Chinese are apparently more scholarly and can better appreciate intellectual pursuits.)

When I first started on my Ph.D., relatives got wind of it and openly wondered why I would spend 6 years getting a degree that would not significantly boost my earnings. To them, the singular object in life is to get educated just enough to earn lots of money and settle down as quickly as possible.

While I appreciate that this sentiment directly contributes to the prosperity of the Chinese people in this country, it also produces a society that is stuck at the stage of being merely functional but lacks real growth.

The Chinese people are survivors, people say. The Chinese have weathered all sorts of hardship over the centuries and will continue to do so. But too often, the Chinese get stuck at the surviving stage and forget to advance. We are practical to the point of sometimes being too practical.

I think there is a place in the world for people who prefer to study elliptic equations as well as those who watch Composite Indices.

Unfortunately, in societies such as ours (and Singapore's and Hong Kong's), the distribution is skewed towards the latter group of people.

I think we need to be impractical sometimes, at least some of us. I'd like to share a little snippet from something I read, which I found to be rather insightful:

"Archimedes prophetically predicted the fall of the Roman empire because they only funded practical mathematics research. The Romans,
lacking any theoretical mathematics to base new ideas on, did in fact decline. Their technology had hit a wall, much the same way that we
have with unification. The mathematical underpinnings of chaos theory languished as an oddity 50 years after being discovered in a dead
mathematician?s mother?s attic, before being used.

If you think about it, the Romans had everything they needed to build steam locomotives. They had advanced road building, knowledge of steam
dynamics, the ability to forge pressure vessels and an unrivaled industrial base. What they lacked was vision and the will to do anything that might seem impractical. "
Posted by: Richard Lee at March 30, 2004 09:04 PM

oos - really not a typist, mind faster than fingers. What I meant to say:
But my experience (Oops! I nearly revealed our previous tech-shop employer there ?Neilh!) has been that such talent are not recognized and rewarded even in global knowledge capital firms in this country. The implementation ethos of ?copy-and-paste and ?time-is-money? overrules. "Not' recognised is operative here. Apologies.
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 09:04 PM

Nice one Richard! As for the classical Chinese cultures still preserved in Taiwan and even i parts of China, check this out in Chinese mathematics:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Chinese_overview.html

and ancient India's:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Projects/Pearce/Chapters/Ch1.html


Can't account for overall sholastic accuracy here and there but veracity - a resounding yes!

--Attila
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 09:19 PM

It's alright, Attila, you're too generous on me.

I think Malaysia doesn't have a foundation to build knowledge. And you're right, it's just trading. And assembly, if i may add. Except for a handful of MNC plants, there's not much R&D in the private sector, and one suspects, not much earth-shaking R&D in the universities. Add to that situation a short supply of PhDs, and we basically don't have an R&D foundation. So how does one then foster an inventive society which pays premium and creates incentives for engineers and designers they in turn create new products and that motion defines new markets where one can have first-mover advantage? So that there be more re-investment funds which means more jobs which mean more capital to plough back into more R&D and close the loop?

Nowadays the majority of our professionals are highly geared in rather mundane 9-to-5 jobs pushing paper. Even the skyline in Klang Valley shows that the AEC (architects etc) have vamooshed. In the universities, a melange of energy-sapping, mediocrity-promoting, political motions.

So, missing is that market excitement that can race the blood and move wo(men) to excel. Missing is the market demand, too.

Yet we have this MOHE and this MOLE looking at internal readjustments when part of the renewal equation, the external pull factors, are missing. Have been so for a long while.

Education needs holism. Certainly, knowledge is international. That's why people who egg CNN to headline that "Malaysia Plans to Ban Mini-Skirts" may just be unknowing of the perception such irreducible statements cause.

It's like chewing gum, in a world of gum-chewers.
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 09:37 PM

Neilh, speaking of R&D in the Uni., I believe that the Gov. should invest more in here than in industry. In the UK, the Research Councils receives more than ?2 billion annualy from the Gov. to be distributed via proposals and grants. This does not include contribution from industry for industrially collaborated research.

For a Uni. to be capable of attracting 1st class academic/scientist, an attractive research area should be identified first and resources be committed to it. Bear in mind that to most true blue academic, its academic kudos and peer respect that counts the most, money comes after that.

Basically there are no research avenues and opportunity to hone one's knowledge. Only UM and UKM is seen as being research based (to a certain extent) while the rest are taught based.

That is why in Malaysia its so difficult for one to become a full Professor. Most of the local Uni. confers a Professorhip based on seniority and not academic/research excellence (of course politic and backstabbing comes into play as well).
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 10:10 PM

To ex MU,

I concur with your view that malaysia till date has failed to attract the best people let it be acamedicians, scientist or otherwise to work here and ultimately contribute to the malaysian society.

The renumeration scheme for academic staff in public universities is outdated and fail to reflect the current cost of living. My ex colleague from the previous college i lectured, was an ex UM professor in Management. After having worked for more thn 25 years, his last drawn salary was less than RM7,000 as a professor. Subsequently, he was offered a loecturing job in NTU, singapore which pays S$14,000 for an Associate professor position. He took up the offer not minding the fact that he would downgraded from Professor to that of Associate professor.

In Singapore, the salary scale for qualified lecturers with Phd begins at S$6,000 to S$9,000. Senior lecturers are at S$ 9,000 - S$12,000. Associate professor $S 12,000 - S$15,000 and finally, Professors are paid between S$15,000-S$20,000 a month!!! Compared that with our Malaysia university pay. Let's not convert. Let treat it on a 1 to 1 dollar basis as Singapore cost of living is also high. however, it is appaling that lecturers in public university pay starts at about Rm2,500 only.

the point i am trying to highlight here is that, Malaysia do not reward academicians well. In singapore, the government believe in paying top dollars in having the brightest people to teach and also to be part of the civil service. Unfortunately, in Malaysia , we view civil servants as substandards.

The fact is further made worse with Malaysia disriminatory policy of favouring bumiputras. In 1999, Tun Mahathir did once admit that the Govt. promoted a lot bumiputras to professorship not purely based on merits but on race as the factor. Of course, Tun Mahathir remarks drew flak from fellow academicians.

It is indeed dishearthening to see many qualified and bright Malaysians to leave elsewhere. The brain drain among Chinese Malaysians is inevitable as long as these discriminatory policies are in place.

In UK, while i was pursuing my Masters, out of 65 students in my class, only 10 were brits. On Phd level, the percentage of local brits pursuing were even less. One would be surprised that the best of minds are not from rich and developed countries like US or UK but that of third world. In poor and volatile societies like China, India and Russia, the best thinkers, entrepreneurs and scientist are produced.

However, the ultimate beneficiary of those startling discoveries made by these people are not their own but that of UK and US where the universities are.
Posted by: thomas at March 30, 2004 10:20 PM

thanks, polis. been almost six months, huh?

many years back, i was told that the annual IRPA exercise attracted 7 lorry-loads of applications. That seems to be a lot of applicants for what couldn't have been much money for university research. so there's a thin-spreading problem.

certainly one would wish for the horse before the cart, to have research grants in place as advertisable attractor for best brains; however, the mechanism has always been to ask for an indication of project scope and outlay first from the hopeful candidates.

Perhaps a way towards what you suggest is to promote IRPA more widely, even to extent of attracting researchers from overseas, and adding a risk-reward scheme to share findings through joint-royalties.

(for some insights, see: http://www.inna.at/data/SRIpr?sentation.ppt )

however i'm mindful it might not entirely go down well with all locals.

i guess THAT would be one problem the new MOHE will finally have to come to terms with. One thing's for sure..it's not entirely healthy for both individual and nation to live in the present situation.

as an anecdote, some years back i trudged into MIT one weekend and sort-of peered into the year-1 physics tutorial submissions (i was very curious as to what made that institution super)... a good number of the questions were in fact fundamental, i.e. write a NEW equation using known principles for the event described. It wasn't here's the equation, plug and play and find the numerical answer. The closest i can recall locally was you know the chung ling high school (penang) analogy.. when the balloon descends, you differentiate the equation of motion, so when the balloon ascends, you must (...) the equation of motion? [....= integrate]. How much of both the mit (http://ocw.mit.edu) and the chung-ling variation are part and parcel of the thinking corpus in local schools/colleges/universities?

or yeah, the old cambridge question:

on wesak night, look at the moon. explain in physical terms how that magnificently huge (biggest, in fact) halo around the moon is caused.
(5 marks).

Cosmic force is a good answer but they wanted an equation or two.
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 10:38 PM

From a Greek American who fails to point out that Sun, Juniper and Wang were formed by both Indo and Chinese Americans. But overall, I believe he is correct. The US expenditure on R& D is higher than the EU's including Finland where I visited. More important point that's missing here as Americans don't know this becuse it's not in their psychology nor cultural history - industry and university links flow more by happenstance rather quantum mechanically not formal algorithm like progams and relationships. Spontaneity is key here as in all creativity before it is necessarily 'managed'to viable market offering. Note that in East Aisia, the UK and EU are used to i.e, the familiar top-down formal coupling and planeds partnershisp . Is this the secret to commercial success from research?

Note the UK's Cambridge and other science parks have failed dismally. The Brits arrogantly didn't recognize these guys from the IITs and IIMs from India. Thought they were inferior even given their 200 year old history colonizing them and their institutions. The Americans simply did and what's more recruited them.

Chaos is a critical part of the equation of high-end R&D wich is essentially non-monotonic. Now see how culure is a critical variable, not just technology transfer ala Malaysia cognitive abilites.


"'...Unquestionably. America is the world's R&D powerhouse. Overall spending jumped dramatically in the last few years of the 20th century, rising from $169.2 billion to $265 billion, the largest increase for any six-year period in the nation's history. While much of that growth was in industry, Uncle Sam's spending still dwarfs that of any other nation. The EU spends about 1.9% of GDP on R&D, compared with America's 2.7%..."

My comment - its not just the money bozo - but an open, chaotic and individualistic culture.


Now pls go read Businees week March 16, 2004

http://businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040316_2875_tc166.htm
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 10:55 PM

Payscale for public universities is not so bad now.

AP level is from 8,500-13000
Full prof is 11000-17000/18000.Some special categories also go up to 20,000.
Lecturer still underpaid of course.Starts from 2,500.Especially teaching assistants and the like.
Senior lecturers average about 5/6000.
Posted by: whothefman at March 30, 2004 10:56 PM

I'm not a lecturer but I certainly think those figures above are inflated. I can't reveal more.
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 11:04 PM

just a thought for all of you who's reading in:

Year by year, this country is becoming more and more a piece of floatsam in the choppy sea. Grand vision of an ocean liner had given way to leaky sampan for most. But for those who can make a difference, create greats, it's become a floatsam bobbing up and down the water. Now and then, a seagull drops in and sits awhile but its sights are set elsewhere for some yonder horizon which beacons more alluringly.

For all the niceties and comfort zones this country provides, it doesn't seem to provide the attractions for great achievers. Anymore, in any case.

The Kia was almost dead and yet the koreans turned it around in 24 months; the Nissan was almost keeled over, yet the japanese called in some brazilian and he honchoed the name skywards again. Somehow, i don't think we have anything on this floatsam to turn-things-around.

And i don't mean cars only. Goodnight, folks.

i will have time to kill again tomorrow.

Neil
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 11:16 PM

Hey Neil dude,

But its just yawning morning here in Walt Whitman land.
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 11:19 PM

Whothefman, your figures are grossly out. A professor in a public university is taking home only about RM6,000 per month. Lecturer's starting pay is still below RM2,000.
Posted by: ahbeng at March 30, 2004 11:27 PM

loads of wonderful comments on a topic that is not inclined to politics. Shows that there is still hope in Malaysia.
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 11:35 PM

a few days ago i came across a national geographic special on the rise of india in the software world. it was an eyeopener. according to the report, silicion valley could probably come to a standstill without the bangalore workforce. india is No 1 in the world when you mention outsourcing. In fact outsourcing has become an election issue in the US presidential election. i would like to mention that the phenomenon happens only in the south, and not in the north. The report raised the pertinent question. what makes india tick, especially in the south. well to make it simple. english education. In north india, people tend to ignore english. most of the northerners go for hindi. In malaysia, we still regard graduates from india with contempt. i would advise government policy makers to think twice about the prejudices against education in india because in a few years india is going to be an internet superpower. my view of india has changed completely after the report. the point i am trying to stress is very simple - bring back english to the mainstream. treat english as a very important second subject. impress upon the malays that their future lies in learning english. Hisham must have the guts to change things. Hisham should know the importance of english, having been educated in england. i dont think he wants his countrymen to speak rotten english which is happening now (by the way most of his umno youth cohorts speak kampung melayu english). Hisham must have the guts to change things. we have already lost three generations to the stupid language policy. isnt it time for malaysians to say enough is enough. i think its time for malaysians of all races to stand up and say 'bring back english'.
Posted by: chiasai at March 30, 2004 11:53 PM

chiasai, although i totally agree with your views on English, what about the importance of learning BM? A majority of us Malaysians still can't speak proper Malay when its recognise as being "bahasa ibunda". This is the sticking point faced by the Ministry.
Posted by: polis at March 31, 2004 12:02 AM

polis, bringing back english doesnt mean the position of bahasa malaysia will be compromised. bahasa malaysia will still remain no 1. what i mean to say is that english shouldnt be relegated to the sidelines as what is happening now. what i mean to stay is that english should be treated seriously. right now english is treated with comtempt by the powers that be. i am a melayu but i was educated in english. i am where i am mainly because of my english education. i think i can speak for my fellow melayus of the sixties and seventies generation. melayus generally have a tunnel vision. they see only one road = the bahasa road. malays dont realise they are living in a globalised world.
Posted by: chiasai at March 31, 2004 12:10 AM

BM? Is that a language? I find many english words in it.
Posted by: duhh at March 31, 2004 01:30 AM

Many up and coming and estalished Colleges are in the process of upgrading themselves to U College status.

It seems a great number of PhD holders in some local Colleges in charge of engineering programmes are real misfits. In the early days, it was unheard of for engineers enduring a 4-year course would carry on to a suitable PhD discipline to pursue. But there were a great pool of available PhD and Master holders in physics and these are absorbed by colleges for prestige purposes masquerading them as ?engineers?. In a SJ College, a lady PhD holder in Polymer is the Head of the School of Engineering & Technology. There is not a single relevant engineering subject for her to teach except thermodynamics taught in a chemical way. What a tragedy, a square peg in around hole.

Quite a few PhD holders are recruited mainly to try and satisfy LAN?s requirement for conversion to U Colleges status. But LAN is getting wiser now and reject their applications on the grounds that these holders are doing mainly administrative jobs and not considered as teaching PhD holders. So at the end of the day, the students are no wiser even if there are PhD holders around.
Posted by: Professional Engineer at March 31, 2004 02:33 AM

As a Ph.D. holder, I know my limitations. But I also know my strengths:

I have a very broad basic education in a cluster of fields. I can teach elementary courses in any one of these fields.

I know how to gather information, analyse, conclude, and create a coherent report on my findings. I can do this for news reports, book reviews, film reviews, restaurant reviews, my own primary research areas, and secondary research areas.

I know how to create a course syllabus and lesson plans.

I can prepare and present a cohesive lecture.

I know how to research a brand new topic in a field that is not mine. I know how to speak with scholars and students in other fields and learn from them.

Most important: I know the dynamics of my own fields and related fields. I know where they have come from, what they are doing today, and where they are headed. I can impart this holistic viewpoint to students. That is my value to a secondary school, a college or a university.

These are not the qualities of the typical B.A., M.A., MBA, J.D., M.D. or professional degree holder. They are quite specific to the Ph.D. holder who has invested at least 6 years of post-undergraduate education in scholarship, research, training and teaching.

I think that Attila's and Neil's remarks have been spot on about all of this. They should be running your Ministry of All Education.
Posted by: travel2165 at March 31, 2004 04:17 AM

An example why these clowns of MPMUM have nothing better to think of.

Take a look at what our aspiring university students have in their minds:
http://www.idealis-mahasiswa.net/

Nothing but POLITICS!

Do you know why our nation never seem to have the brains that can compete with those from other countries? Our brains are only interested in politics.
Posted by: wathack at March 31, 2004 04:57 AM

more.. at the website..

[morpheous]

continue..

Excuse me MPMUM, please learn to do proper statistics and citations, not to mention some degree of proper reasoning.

How hard is it to realise that new universities like UNIMAS, UMS or even private MMU are short of doctorate level lecturers? Just go to their webpages and viola, do your estimates and come back to me.

We do need more doctorate lecturers, but UNFORTUNATELY TO THE BUNCH OF MISGUIDED SOULS UP THERE, it is not so much to fulfil minimum quality of teaching loads.

Does anyone know why do we need PhDs in universities? HELLO?

To those who clamours the virtue and superiority of industry certifications, please let me explain to you, albeit as slowly as I can, what a Ph.D is.

"First, one must master a specific subject completely. Second, one must extend the body of knowledge about that subject."

- http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.phd.html

The tragedy of Malaysians who thinks that more PhDs is the answer to "unemployed or unemployable" undergraduates. :P

A Ph.D is never about breadth but depth. Normally, a good Ph.D takes about 4-6 years itself, but who spends that amount of time on their degrees anyway? Nowadays we have Masters in 2 years or even less. Ph.Ds are obtained under three years.

In the past, when someone earns a Ph.D in a field, the person must have mastered its discipline to such a degree that his/her supervisors must cede their authority to the candidate in that particular subject.

Nowadays?

The cheapening of the academic degree is a global phenomenon. The title itself, being perceived as a prestige, is worn with a facade of intellectuality that people no longer examine what is said carefully. Afterall, can morons understand genius?

Could the stupid recognize intelligence? Could the ignorant tell the truth apart from falsity?

When we have educators who feel that their capacity to teach is hampered by the lack of a Ph.D degree, that's TRAGIC. A Ph.D is a recognition of contribution to the field of study THROUGH SPECIFIC RESEARCH - not that you're a smart ass who can explain biological evolution to social darwinism.

When a person steps into the world of academia, he/she must realize that he is not standing on a neverending road that grows on its own. If you commit your life to the academia, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS PAVING THE ROAD - making new branches and laying new bricks.

Why does some university ranking methodologies take into consideration the % of doctorate level academic staff? That is one way to gauge the capacity and mass for RESEARCH in the institution, NOT a guarantee of quality pedagogy. With active research, lecturers keep themselves abreast with latest developments in the field and will be able to lead POSTGRADUATE students in the right path.

Undergraduate students can't find jobs? MAN, WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH WHETHER THEIR LECTURERS HAVE PH.Ds?

Allen said it best.

A PhD is not an indicator for good undergraduate lecture. It is a recognition for his/her specialised field of study and his/her contributions to it. There are Professors in Harvard and Stanford who doesn't have a doctorate degree, but that's rare. It doesn't mean that they are bright, therefore they are bestowed with PhDs. It is your RESEARCH work that distinguishes you from the rest of your lecturing peers.

Just getting your PhD so that you can sell your class contents better reeks of stereotypical commercialism.

For those who are lecturers and teachers, I salute your dedication, but please, stop making the lack of PhD as an excuse for the tardiness. Some Professor I know teach crap in class. I don't need to be spoonfed garbage, I go to the library. I don't have to score cheap points by engaging in an exercise of outsmarting the Prof. either, but I would rather be thankful if I have someone to discuss the topic through.

If you want really good undergraduates, give them better libraries and inculcate a culture of self learning and improvement.

Lecturers are not responsible for your unemployment.

END THE SPOONFEEDING, PLEASE.


Posted by: chez1978 at March 30, 2004 03:42 PM

teh chee seng said it all, albeit more politely.
Posted by: chez1978 at March 30, 2004 03:49 PM

Neih,

I have 4 degrees - have published, my bachelors and masters were from the UK, my MBA and PhD were funded by competitive American scholarships and fellowships . I had to compete with Americans, Europeans and Asians and won hands down. Currently I'm paid a pittance compared to 'foreign' Brits who partner with my institution - I have to fund myself for prestigious coferences and research, including travel. In the UK I was finaced by my parents who sacrified everything.

In my current job, sucessfully I broke the ice with leading innovation institutions in the West but am told that the money coming out of this this partensrhip is not for me or my research but to fund fat-ass trips of socialising . The ethnic dimension is very large here , too large to deny inbreeding as a factor that even taints upeard mobility.

I am ranked outstanding and the best by my executive MBA students (many are CEOs) even when compared to a 'prestigious' British school whom we are loosing so much money to that it depresses me. My dean told me to my face "what to do you know we Malaysians prefer whites (usually 3rd rate Brits who neither have the global corporate experience nor even the PhD as I and others possess).

One foreign Japanese student who was trained in the UK, US and worked in China - I sucessfully placed in a global firm in recessionary Japan.

He writes and phones me regularly and he atributes his success to my MBA supervison of his radical thesis. At first he was apprehensive about graduating from Malaysia with an MBA - but his theses won him a competitive job practically on-the-spot)out of a talent pool of 300 including top US MBA returnees form institutions such as Stanford. BTW, it was on Proton's entre plans into China and it was damning - we both got flak from my local university for that project's conclusions.


The point - I am Malaysian and global. The challenge - to stay here or leave. You know my decision. I am not inferior to foreigners but and in fact did exceedingly well in a competitive albeit meritorious environment such as the USA.


BTW, contrary to popular Malaysian misconception and being educated from both the UK and US , my experience in the British graduate school was narrower and far less intensive than major US PhD training where you have to corre course , carry a a GPA of abve 3 (B+), pass a comprenhsive exam and then, only be candidate for the Phd even if you have a very good first degree and masters from the UK. I ahd to do all this while as a full time student, teaching, researching and consulting. It is very, very intensive!

My British professors were woefully behind the curve compared to the Americans who didn't need our money nor foreign education markets like the Brits do to survive. That's why the US remains the top choice for graduate students from India, China, Taiwan , Korea, Japan and Singapore.

I was proud to be Malaysian but not anymore. The point is we are an agricultrural culture that has time-compressed into trading for the Malays while the overseas Chinese have always been that. It is easy to understand that we are not intrinsically a knowlegde based culture. Case in point - Top US schools now see the Indian Institutes of Technology and Management as equals.

While its a poor nation- it has the largest critical mass of competitive graduates that are partnering with Us corporations. The desire for knowledge and the motovaton for research certainly is helped by money but also not limited by it. The knowledge economy transcends 'old' notions of infrastructure, wealth etc.

I am also not typist!
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 04:01 PM

One perspective is this: If the lecturers are not sufficiently qualified in their respective fields of expertise in depth -- a Ph.D is one such indicator of having gone through the mill, and the number peer-reviewed researches published in benchmark journals is another -- how do we expect the universities to produce competent students that will be grabbed upon graduation?

Hence the predicament of unemployed and unemployable graduates.
Posted by: Jeff Ooi at March 30, 2004 04:20 PM

thanks, Attila.

I hope the new MOL/HE heads are reading this thread enough to resolve for better funding for promising academic leaders in local tertiaries. The other point about bottom-up reengineering i don't have much hope in.

Also, if you look around the libraries in the country, they're pathetic. Someone said recently that it would be a miracle if Malaysians read 2 books a year.

Knowing you in person, if i may,with the answer:
go. Your wings are clipped here (mine's shaved).

To chez1978's point, i wld add: the ministries should also spend more money on electronic databases, especially on those used by industries, not academics alone.

some readings on higher education:

http://www.nea.org/he/heta96/s96pg37.pdf

http://www.sba.muohio.edu/abas/2001/brussels/Rowley_Brussels-Rowley_Sherman.pdf

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001261/126192e.pdf


Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 04:28 PM

i have been to a reputable bookshop quite a number of times. what shocks me is the number of people buying books. probably 3 or 4. dont malaysians read any more? the main reason why people dont read any more is obvious. most of the novels or scientific books are in english. i hardly see books in chinese or malay. three weeks ago, i wanted to buy this book by a russian author entitled "The Real Stalin''. I asked the salesman whether the book was available. he gave me a blank look and asked Siapa Josef Stalin. He then called his manager. the manager looked smart, had a tie and looked educated. he came over and said the book was not available. i asked him whether he knew Stalin. His reply - must be a famous novelist! the point i want to make is - we have the best buildings in the world, we are best in everything. malaysia boleh. but when it comes to knowledge we probably rank above indonesia. Universiti malaya used to be among the top in asia but in the recent asian rankings we are above gajah mada university of indonesia. that's progress.
Posted by: chiasai at March 30, 2004 04:53 PM

To didythomas,

Please don;t get me wrong. I have nothing against Phd holders. Just as there are highly revered, there is a general misconception that Phd holders are the 'expert' of a particular subject.

For instance, the general public is of the opinion that someone who holds a Phd in finance would know everything in finance which isn't true. Contrary to popular belief, you may not necessarily need a basic degree in that subject to pursue your Phd in it.

As mentioned, Datuk Dr Fong Chan Onn is engineering degree holder but his holds a Phd in economics. I can;t remember what his research topic was though. Similarly, I have known of people of economics background doing a Phd in Marketing. And mind you, that person concerned do not even know what are the 4 P's of Marketing which are integral and the basics of any marketing disciplince.

Do you see what I mean? Thus, i view Phd holder highly but to say that Phd holders are generally better or more knowlegable, that may not necessarily be the case. As indicated in my previous postings, the govt should give more weightage to professional qualifications like ACCA, CIMA, CFA and etc.
Posted by: Thomas at March 30, 2004 05:25 PM

for chiasai:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/sandiego/servlet/OpenMir?do=getpdf&id=6002&forIE=.pdf


Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 05:52 PM

oops:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/05/6002.shtml
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 05:59 PM

I have a Ph.D. along with some other degrees in engineering, so yes I know what it is like to have my head knocked around. Now, I cannnot speak for Ph.D. holders in academic fields other than in science and engineering, but I can offer my general opinion on the statements that have been bandied around, based on my own experience and knowledge. I will quote some of the statements above:

Yes, it is difficult to attract people with Masters degree to work at university to teach. They can easily earn big bucks in the private sector.

True. There's always the lure of the public sector even in the developed nations (though the disparity between academic paychecks and corporate ones there is considerably smaller). The main reason for joining academia is getting to do what you like, intellectually -- getting a chunky salary ought to be a peripheral concern. Those who get in for the money are setting themselves up for disillusionment and will try to escape into industry at some point. There is a lot of slogging and hard work involved in getting tenure, i.e. that elusive professor title. In a society like Malaysia's, very few people are willing to pay that kind of price. AND! I can't say I blame them. In most Western nations, at least you get a reasonable paycheck while doing the slogging -- here the disincentive is just so great - a pauper's pay, glass ceilings, large number of incompetent peers, bad weather (totally unconducive to creative work).

Professional exams like CPA, CFA, CA are deemed to be more difficult than PhD. Even the industries appreciates professional qualifications rather PhD in some courses.

I hold a masters degree in Finance and i have to admit that the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) is much tougher and rigorous. Someone with CFA qualification would definitely know more finance than that of someone in Phd finance.

I have not taken the CPA, CFA etc. exams myself, so I am unqualified to comment on those specific exams. But I will say this... It is quite normal for companies (at least in the west) to regard professional qualifications differently from academic ones. Professional qualifications are often more practice-oriented, and is thus frequently more valuable to a profit-making organization. The converse is also true: professional qualifications are generally less valuable if you're applying for a position in a university.

There is a difference between professional and academic qualifications.

For example, an MBA is a professional qualification. An M.A. is not; it is an academic qualification.

An M.Eng. (coursework only) degree is generally considered a professional qualification. An M.Sc. or M.Eng.Sc. (thesis-based) is not.

They focus on different things. Really.

You might say, "But a degree is a degree wat?" Aha... no. People ought to recognize this, and consider talent in the right context. HR people especially.

As is the norm everywhere, private companies value practical experience over theoretical prowess in their employees. The latter inclination is only important if the company participates in activities which require research ability, e.g. doing mathematical modelling, original product development etc. A Ph.D. provides training in exactly those competencies. Sure, Ph.D holders can apply themselves and become successful in non-research oriented pursuits, but their training is specifically meant to prepare them for research careers.

By the way, just a note: do not confuse a Ph.D. with a D.B.A. or other degrees that also allow their holders to use the Dr title. They are not the same. A Ph.D. is purely a research degree (you MUST produce original peer-reviewed research).

(Side note: there are exceptions where originality is concerned. I know an Universiti Malaya physics Ph.D. who did his doctoral thesis on a topic that wasn't original; it had already been investigated by U.S. researchers 20 years earlier. But the examining committee allowed it on the premise that his research was "original" here in Malaysia -- no one here had done it.)

Students (generally) are not willing to pursue Masters and PhD because of the need to get job and support families. This leads to difficulty in recruiting people to teach at universities.

True. Though in most places in North America, graduate degrees in science and engineering come with full or partial funding.

Very few lecturers aspire to become true-blue academician, especially in our society where materialistic attitudes are so pervasive.

From my observations, this is perhaps one of the most compelling reasons as to why we lack good people (apart from the hindrances that I have hinted at above). I have observed that this is true in Singapore too -- they have a meritocratic policy and generous funding by the government (you'd be amazed how sizeable their research funds are), but they are still a ways off from producing world-class research. Over there, there is too much top-down management, obsession with media attention, and very few real thinkers (except for some scholars who come from abroad, e.g. China, Canada and a couple of other places). Many of my friends in Singaporean universities tell me that the hottest topic of discussion in staff lounges: the movement of stocks and investment opportunities.

Have anyone done any survey to show how many percent of the total foreign lecturers in public universities are from Middle East and other Islamic countries? It gives one the impression as though smart ones are only born into Middle East or Islamic countries.

No, I believe there are competent lecturers in other parts of the world too. I just have a feeling that academic positions here are not generally attractive to foreign professors. The level of research activity in this country is abysmal compared to that in developed nations. The remuneration levels are also relatively poor.

The other problem we have in attracting good people is the medium of instruction. In this regard, Singapore has been more successful (and if you read last year's speech by Singapore's minister of education (I can't remember the URL), he unequivocally states that a major part of their success in attracting prominent faculty to their universities is the fact that English is the primary medium of instruction)

Of course, the medium of instruction in India is also English, but that's another kettle of fish, which I won't get into...

In Malaysia, the prevalence of the use of English in universities is ... oh, I don't know.

Majority of people pursuing professional qualifications do fail whereas dropouts from Phd programme is minimal as long as the research supervisor agrees to the effort being carried out and the objectives of it.

Not true in North America. The dropout rate for Ph.D. candidates is about 50%, despite the existence of many capalang colleges in the United States. A Ph.D. degree is not for everyone.

People with low level of education can buy 'doctorate degrees' by the basketful.

Yes, but those are not real degrees. Try getting a job in academia with one of those.

One insure corporate tycoon has eight doctorates to his name although he didn't study beyond form 5! Such cheap doctorate degrees is making the real one embarassed to be called "Dr".

You are referring to honorary doctorates (doctoris honoris causa). And by the way, honorary doctorate holders are not customarily permitted to use the title Dr., except in parentheses. Universities give out honorary degrees for various reasons - some have looser criteria than others...

Even church pastors are called "Dr" now with many shamelessly paying the degree mills to get such doctorates.

That is not a completely fair generalization. Degree mills are degree mills, but why should you single out pastors. Most pastors I know around here actually earned their degrees through hard work.

Thus, i have to admit that the government regulations of insisting Phd among academicians may not necessarily lead to higher quality teaching. Being an exlecturer myself, I am of the view that number of Phd holders are not an indication of quality and even knowledge one possesses.

Correct. As I said, a Ph.D. is a research degree. It does not claim to improve a person's skills with regard to teaching. Of course, most Ph.D. candidates get to practice their skills by teaching undergraduate courses during their time as graduate student, but often it is something one learns by osmosis. There is very little in the manner of formal instruction in pedogical techniques.

Which leads to...

Why does some university ranking methodologies take into consideration the % of doctorate level academic staff? That is one way to gauge the capacity and mass for RESEARCH in the institution, NOT a guarantee of quality pedagogy. With active research, lecturers keep themselves abreast with latest developments in the field and will be able to lead POSTGRADUATE students in the right path.

I think you are mostly correct in this assessment.
Posted by: Richard Lee at March 30, 2004 06:06 PM

Leaving aside issues of quality over quantity and the other problems beside low bodycount of PhD's in local faculties...don't Universities have to ikut the minimum requirement of LAN or MOE or whatever...e.g. 1 Ph.D to X number of grad student or whatever? Is the 20% number prima facie too low when considered against the LAN requirements? Don't we have 200,000 undergrads or something? 1:20 ratio of lecturer to student means there are 10,000 academics of Masters/PhD level. Does that sound right?
Posted by: whothefman at March 30, 2004 06:31 PM

Richard Lee, your views and thoughts are refreshing. Might I also add that UPM and UKM are always sponsoring would be lecturers to do their PhD overseas. The only catch is that, they are contracted to the Uni. for 8 years. Hence, the limited number of applicants.
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 06:37 PM

whothefman, which brings us to the crediblity of the figures issued by MPMUM, or is he just quoting UM only? Fyi, in UITM alone there are 5000 academics nationwide and most of the one that I met are PhD holders.
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 06:40 PM

To attract excellent PhDs to teach in a varsity is not easy. A good cadidate will consider the following before he even applies for the job:

1. Is the Vice-Chancellor world renown?
2. Are research facilities world-class?
3. Is the pay commensurate?
4. What is the opportunity for further one's career?

Can any of our local universities (public & private) satisfy these basic criteria?
Posted by: EX-MU at March 30, 2004 07:08 PM

Attila

those were the days:

www.bombayfirst.org/McKinseyReport.pdf
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 07:44 PM

and another for the MOLE:

http://www.deet.vic.gov.au/deet/resources/docs/BCGreport.doc
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 07:48 PM

A wise man told me long time ago: "PhDs know more and more about less and less."
Is it still true?
Posted by: Primary School Man at March 30, 2004 08:12 PM

Richard Lee,

Thanks for chiming in. You provided a cool perspective. Cool in the traditional connotation that is.

The rest of you - I must say I keep coming back to this virtual site even though I really don't have the time for many practical reasons! Says a lot for the lively guys and gals here! It does enliven intelligence albeit colloquially rather than collegially.

But there are truths and half-truths.

North American PhD programs typically provide 'breadth' by a mandatory core course and electives. Often these are taken across disciplines/departments at the guidance of doctoral adviser before the comprehensive exams. This can be as long as 2 years and the actual research track could be 3-4 in parallel .

The rigorous training in conceptualizing/modeling and testing /reviewing high level involves cognitive processes that enables the 'far transfer' of knowledge and competencies. What this simply means is that the level of thought processing here has both depth and scope so that one can 'transcend' functional domains. This ability is highly valuable when knowledge obsolescence is rapid today. But conceptual thinking especially the process i.e., the ?how? rather than the 'what? has somewhat of a slower turnaround cycle, indeed its more robust and endearing.

In my own research, process appears to transcend functional knowledge of ? what? ? which is what that hampers the key-value -added thinking for both industry and academe in climbing the value chain in this country.

Cognitive learning strategies are part and parcel of this value chain ascent regardless of the domain. True one doesn?t need formal training with a PhD and those that show these competencies are abundant. But my experience (Oops! I nearly revealed our previous tech-shop employer there ?Neilh!) has been that such talent are recognized and rewarded even in global knowledge capital firms in this country. The implementation ethos of ?copy-and-paste and ?time-is-money? overrules. Scalability is extremely profitable so cognitive cloning and cooky-cutter competencies in procedural tasks oft posing as ?best practices? are deemed critical when you need speed to implement at lowest cost.

BTW,Neilh
-it is people like you an others that that make me realise that we have an abundance of talent but don?t recognise it. In fact we may even destroy it in this Macholand of ours. You remind me of the Tao and all that is gracious, good and humble yet ever truly lively in intelligence not just narrow intellectualisms. I wish I can take you with me. Better still why not mobilise the talent we have for the good of this country which we love?
Look towards tomorrow old friend not the past. Let's contact when I come back from o/seas end-of April.

Sincerely,

Attila
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 09:00 PM

Polis, I agree with you. Different people have different goals in life. Unfortunately, the pursuit of wealth is so ingrained in so many of us... especially in the Chinese people of Malaysia. (I wonder if it is because most of us are of southern Chinese heritage, hence the inclination towards enterprise and wealth. The northern Chinese are apparently more scholarly and can better appreciate intellectual pursuits.)

When I first started on my Ph.D., relatives got wind of it and openly wondered why I would spend 6 years getting a degree that would not significantly boost my earnings. To them, the singular object in life is to get educated just enough to earn lots of money and settle down as quickly as possible.

While I appreciate that this sentiment directly contributes to the prosperity of the Chinese people in this country, it also produces a society that is stuck at the stage of being merely functional but lacks real growth.

The Chinese people are survivors, people say. The Chinese have weathered all sorts of hardship over the centuries and will continue to do so. But too often, the Chinese get stuck at the surviving stage and forget to advance. We are practical to the point of sometimes being too practical.

I think there is a place in the world for people who prefer to study elliptic equations as well as those who watch Composite Indices.

Unfortunately, in societies such as ours (and Singapore's and Hong Kong's), the distribution is skewed towards the latter group of people.

I think we need to be impractical sometimes, at least some of us. I'd like to share a little snippet from something I read, which I found to be rather insightful:

"Archimedes prophetically predicted the fall of the Roman empire because they only funded practical mathematics research. The Romans,
lacking any theoretical mathematics to base new ideas on, did in fact decline. Their technology had hit a wall, much the same way that we
have with unification. The mathematical underpinnings of chaos theory languished as an oddity 50 years after being discovered in a dead
mathematician?s mother?s attic, before being used.

If you think about it, the Romans had everything they needed to build steam locomotives. They had advanced road building, knowledge of steam
dynamics, the ability to forge pressure vessels and an unrivaled industrial base. What they lacked was vision and the will to do anything that might seem impractical. "
Posted by: Richard Lee at March 30, 2004 09:04 PM

oos - really not a typist, mind faster than fingers. What I meant to say:
But my experience (Oops! I nearly revealed our previous tech-shop employer there ?Neilh!) has been that such talent are not recognized and rewarded even in global knowledge capital firms in this country. The implementation ethos of ?copy-and-paste and ?time-is-money? overrules. "Not' recognised is operative here. Apologies.
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 09:04 PM

Nice one Richard! As for the classical Chinese cultures still preserved in Taiwan and even i parts of China, check this out in Chinese mathematics:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Chinese_overview.html

and ancient India's:

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Projects/Pearce/Chapters/Ch1.html


Can't account for overall sholastic accuracy here and there but veracity - a resounding yes!

--Attila
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 09:19 PM

It's alright, Attila, you're too generous on me.

I think Malaysia doesn't have a foundation to build knowledge. And you're right, it's just trading. And assembly, if i may add. Except for a handful of MNC plants, there's not much R&D in the private sector, and one suspects, not much earth-shaking R&D in the universities. Add to that situation a short supply of PhDs, and we basically don't have an R&D foundation. So how does one then foster an inventive society which pays premium and creates incentives for engineers and designers they in turn create new products and that motion defines new markets where one can have first-mover advantage? So that there be more re-investment funds which means more jobs which mean more capital to plough back into more R&D and close the loop?

Nowadays the majority of our professionals are highly geared in rather mundane 9-to-5 jobs pushing paper. Even the skyline in Klang Valley shows that the AEC (architects etc) have vamooshed. In the universities, a melange of energy-sapping, mediocrity-promoting, political motions.

So, missing is that market excitement that can race the blood and move wo(men) to excel. Missing is the market demand, too.

Yet we have this MOHE and this MOLE looking at internal readjustments when part of the renewal equation, the external pull factors, are missing. Have been so for a long while.

Education needs holism. Certainly, knowledge is international. That's why people who egg CNN to headline that "Malaysia Plans to Ban Mini-Skirts" may just be unknowing of the perception such irreducible statements cause.

It's like chewing gum, in a world of gum-chewers.
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 09:37 PM

Neilh, speaking of R&D in the Uni., I believe that the Gov. should invest more in here than in industry. In the UK, the Research Councils receives more than ?2 billion annualy from the Gov. to be distributed via proposals and grants. This does not include contribution from industry for industrially collaborated research.

For a Uni. to be capable of attracting 1st class academic/scientist, an attractive research area should be identified first and resources be committed to it. Bear in mind that to most true blue academic, its academic kudos and peer respect that counts the most, money comes after that.

Basically there are no research avenues and opportunity to hone one's knowledge. Only UM and UKM is seen as being research based (to a certain extent) while the rest are taught based.

That is why in Malaysia its so difficult for one to become a full Professor. Most of the local Uni. confers a Professorhip based on seniority and not academic/research excellence (of course politic and backstabbing comes into play as well).
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 10:10 PM

To ex MU,

I concur with your view that malaysia till date has failed to attract the best people let it be acamedicians, scientist or otherwise to work here and ultimately contribute to the malaysian society.

The renumeration scheme for academic staff in public universities is outdated and fail to reflect the current cost of living. My ex colleague from the previous college i lectured, was an ex UM professor in Management. After having worked for more thn 25 years, his last drawn salary was less than RM7,000 as a professor. Subsequently, he was offered a loecturing job in NTU, singapore which pays S$14,000 for an Associate professor position. He took up the offer not minding the fact that he would downgraded from Professor to that of Associate professor.

In Singapore, the salary scale for qualified lecturers with Phd begins at S$6,000 to S$9,000. Senior lecturers are at S$ 9,000 - S$12,000. Associate professor $S 12,000 - S$15,000 and finally, Professors are paid between S$15,000-S$20,000 a month!!! Compared that with our Malaysia university pay. Let's not convert. Let treat it on a 1 to 1 dollar basis as Singapore cost of living is also high. however, it is appaling that lecturers in public university pay starts at about Rm2,500 only.

the point i am trying to highlight here is that, Malaysia do not reward academicians well. In singapore, the government believe in paying top dollars in having the brightest people to teach and also to be part of the civil service. Unfortunately, in Malaysia , we view civil servants as substandards.

The fact is further made worse with Malaysia disriminatory policy of favouring bumiputras. In 1999, Tun Mahathir did once admit that the Govt. promoted a lot bumiputras to professorship not purely based on merits but on race as the factor. Of course, Tun Mahathir remarks drew flak from fellow academicians.

It is indeed dishearthening to see many qualified and bright Malaysians to leave elsewhere. The brain drain among Chinese Malaysians is inevitable as long as these discriminatory policies are in place.

In UK, while i was pursuing my Masters, out of 65 students in my class, only 10 were brits. On Phd level, the percentage of local brits pursuing were even less. One would be surprised that the best of minds are not from rich and developed countries like US or UK but that of third world. In poor and volatile societies like China, India and Russia, the best thinkers, entrepreneurs and scientist are produced.

However, the ultimate beneficiary of those startling discoveries made by these people are not their own but that of UK and US where the universities are.
Posted by: thomas at March 30, 2004 10:20 PM

thanks, polis. been almost six months, huh?

many years back, i was told that the annual IRPA exercise attracted 7 lorry-loads of applications. That seems to be a lot of applicants for what couldn't have been much money for university research. so there's a thin-spreading problem.

certainly one would wish for the horse before the cart, to have research grants in place as advertisable attractor for best brains; however, the mechanism has always been to ask for an indication of project scope and outlay first from the hopeful candidates.

Perhaps a way towards what you suggest is to promote IRPA more widely, even to extent of attracting researchers from overseas, and adding a risk-reward scheme to share findings through joint-royalties.

(for some insights, see: http://www.inna.at/data/SRIpr?sentation.ppt )

however i'm mindful it might not entirely go down well with all locals.

i guess THAT would be one problem the new MOHE will finally have to come to terms with. One thing's for sure..it's not entirely healthy for both individual and nation to live in the present situation.

as an anecdote, some years back i trudged into MIT one weekend and sort-of peered into the year-1 physics tutorial submissions (i was very curious as to what made that institution super)... a good number of the questions were in fact fundamental, i.e. write a NEW equation using known principles for the event described. It wasn't here's the equation, plug and play and find the numerical answer. The closest i can recall locally was you know the chung ling high school (penang) analogy.. when the balloon descends, you differentiate the equation of motion, so when the balloon ascends, you must (...) the equation of motion? [....= integrate]. How much of both the mit (http://ocw.mit.edu) and the chung-ling variation are part and parcel of the thinking corpus in local schools/colleges/universities?

or yeah, the old cambridge question:

on wesak night, look at the moon. explain in physical terms how that magnificently huge (biggest, in fact) halo around the moon is caused.
(5 marks).

Cosmic force is a good answer but they wanted an equation or two.
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 10:38 PM

From a Greek American who fails to point out that Sun, Juniper and Wang were formed by both Indo and Chinese Americans. But overall, I believe he is correct. The US expenditure on R& D is higher than the EU's including Finland where I visited. More important point that's missing here as Americans don't know this becuse it's not in their psychology nor cultural history - industry and university links flow more by happenstance rather quantum mechanically not formal algorithm like progams and relationships. Spontaneity is key here as in all creativity before it is necessarily 'managed'to viable market offering. Note that in East Aisia, the UK and EU are used to i.e, the familiar top-down formal coupling and planeds partnershisp . Is this the secret to commercial success from research?

Note the UK's Cambridge and other science parks have failed dismally. The Brits arrogantly didn't recognize these guys from the IITs and IIMs from India. Thought they were inferior even given their 200 year old history colonizing them and their institutions. The Americans simply did and what's more recruited them.

Chaos is a critical part of the equation of high-end R&D wich is essentially non-monotonic. Now see how culure is a critical variable, not just technology transfer ala Malaysia cognitive abilites.


"'...Unquestionably. America is the world's R&D powerhouse. Overall spending jumped dramatically in the last few years of the 20th century, rising from $169.2 billion to $265 billion, the largest increase for any six-year period in the nation's history. While much of that growth was in industry, Uncle Sam's spending still dwarfs that of any other nation. The EU spends about 1.9% of GDP on R&D, compared with America's 2.7%..."

My comment - its not just the money bozo - but an open, chaotic and individualistic culture.


Now pls go read Businees week March 16, 2004

http://businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040316_2875_tc166.htm
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 10:55 PM

Payscale for public universities is not so bad now.

AP level is from 8,500-13000
Full prof is 11000-17000/18000.Some special categories also go up to 20,000.
Lecturer still underpaid of course.Starts from 2,500.Especially teaching assistants and the like.
Senior lecturers average about 5/6000.
Posted by: whothefman at March 30, 2004 10:56 PM

I'm not a lecturer but I certainly think those figures above are inflated. I can't reveal more.
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 11:04 PM

just a thought for all of you who's reading in:

Year by year, this country is becoming more and more a piece of floatsam in the choppy sea. Grand vision of an ocean liner had given way to leaky sampan for most. But for those who can make a difference, create greats, it's become a floatsam bobbing up and down the water. Now and then, a seagull drops in and sits awhile but its sights are set elsewhere for some yonder horizon which beacons more alluringly.

For all the niceties and comfort zones this country provides, it doesn't seem to provide the attractions for great achievers. Anymore, in any case.

The Kia was almost dead and yet the koreans turned it around in 24 months; the Nissan was almost keeled over, yet the japanese called in some brazilian and he honchoed the name skywards again. Somehow, i don't think we have anything on this floatsam to turn-things-around.

And i don't mean cars only. Goodnight, folks.

i will have time to kill again tomorrow.

Neil
Posted by: neilh at March 30, 2004 11:16 PM

Hey Neil dude,

But its just yawning morning here in Walt Whitman land.
Posted by: Attila the Hun at March 30, 2004 11:19 PM

Whothefman, your figures are grossly out. A professor in a public university is taking home only about RM6,000 per month. Lecturer's starting pay is still below RM2,000.
Posted by: ahbeng at March 30, 2004 11:27 PM

loads of wonderful comments on a topic that is not inclined to politics. Shows that there is still hope in Malaysia.
Posted by: polis at March 30, 2004 11:35 PM

a few days ago i came across a national geographic special on the rise of india in the software world. it was an eyeopener. according to the report, silicion valley could probably come to a standstill without the bangalore workforce. india is No 1 in the world when you mention outsourcing. In fact outsourcing has become an election issue in the US presidential election. i would like to mention that the phenomenon happens only in the south, and not in the north. The report raised the pertinent question. what makes india tick, especially in the south. well to make it simple. english education. In north india, people tend to ignore english. most of the northerners go for hindi. In malaysia, we still regard graduates from india with contempt. i would advise government policy makers to think twice about the prejudices against education in india because in a few years india is going to be an internet superpower. my view of india has changed completely after the report. the point i am trying to stress is very simple - bring back english to the mainstream. treat english as a very important second subject. impress upon the malays that their future lies in learning english. Hisham must have the guts to change things. Hisham should know the importance of english, having been educated in england. i dont think he wants his countrymen to speak rotten english which is happening now (by the way most of his umno youth cohorts speak kampung melayu english). Hisham must have the guts to change things. we have already lost three generations to the stupid language policy. isnt it time for malaysians to say enough is enough. i think its time for malaysians of all races to stand up and say 'bring back english'.
Posted by: chiasai at March 30, 2004 11:53 PM

chiasai, although i totally agree with your views on English, what about the importance of learning BM? A majority of us Malaysians still can't speak proper Malay when its recognise as being "bahasa ibunda". This is the sticking point faced by the Ministry.
Posted by: polis at March 31, 2004 12:02 AM


more.. at the website..

[topdog]

on english, i agree that it is extremely important for malaysians to speak and write good english, but i also think that we are looking at it the wrong way. i do not agree at all that you need perfect english to be good at math and science. perhaps you would not be able to express yourself very well in english, but lousy english is no hindrance to mastering math and science.

which brings me to my point: changing the medium of instruction for math and science in school is a good start, but it will not make students better at english. math and science is the same no matter what language you use. math and science teachers are not going to grade students for grammar/sentence structure/spelling anyway, so what 's the point of learning it in english?

i think the ministry should concentrate more on subjects like history, where students actually need to express their thoughts and write actual essays.

[theT]

on english, i agree that it is extremely important for malaysians to speak and write good english, but i also think that we are looking at it the wrong way. i do not agree at all that you need perfect english to be good at math and science. perhaps you would not be able to express yourself very well in english, but lousy english is no hindrance to mastering math and science.

which brings me to my point: changing the medium of instruction for math and science in school is a good start, but it will not make students better at english. math and science is the same no matter what language you use. math and science teachers are not going to grade students for grammar/sentence structure/spelling anyway, so what 's the point of learning it in english?

i think the ministry should concentrate more on subjects like history, where students actually need to express their thoughts and write actual essays.

oh my god, i'm tottally agree with this. i've been trying to tell others about my this but i just never get to convey it right.

i mean if the goverment (or teachers or education ministry or whoever it may concern) wanna improve the english language skill in malaysian student, they should implement it in art classes instead of science. Subjects that the students are required to read and write such as history or geography or maybe "Agama"

but maybe it's the 1st step. just imagine if they change the the medium of teaching history to english abruptly, guess not many students can survive in the major exams (pmr, spm, stpm). and as we can see, the pattern of student achivement in those major exams is increasing each yeah. thus, if history is to be taught in english they pattern gonna be disturb. i'll let you guys infer anything from what i'm saying.

[chenchow]

Morpheous, thanks for posting in ReCom~! I would suggest that you do not overwhelm most members on the topics. Posting a whole lot will only deter most to read completely. I would suggest that you do a summary of the major points to be debated and possibly and possibly refer to a certain section for everyone to read and discuss on.

While it is definitely better for everyone to have overall view points, I am making this suggestion, because having a very very long posting will deter many from readings. So, perhaps make some summary of the main points and main arguments and lets discuss on it~!

[phantom]

Through Malaysiakini, Muhd Ramadhan Fitri Ellias, the president of Majlis Perwakilan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya (MPMUM, or Universiti Malaya Graduate Representatives Council) reveals that only 20% of the academic staff at tertiary learning centres nationwide possess doctorate in philosophy (Ph.D) qualification.


omagod!!ramadhan was my senior back then at high school...the winner of the national debate,piala perdana menteri for the year 1999 ...kalah MCKK that year..cry of foul mckk!!muahaha..

anyway....i need something to tell UM...you better improve your education's standards..seriously,if i didnt get jpa...UM will be my 1st choice to study at local uni...but alas..alas..and alas...look at UM students..sure they have provided the so-called laser techno boys..but at the same time breed those having s3x on some stairs..(appeared on Edisi siasat..so not another remote case)..crappy urgh?

UM used to be the nation's most respected uni..and i guess,they should work hard to wear back their crowns ...

[el_empty]

what... UM used to be one of the best in asia. so sad to see the breakaway faction, NU of Singapore being wayyyyy ahead. sigh..