University rankings

After crying over the latest blow to our academic ego by QS Asian University Rankings, let us look seriously at the top Asian universities and see if we can copy their best practices. Whether or not the rankings are correctly computed, it is clear that the top Asian universities indeed command the respect of academics across the region and all over the world.

These are the top ten Asian universities:

(1) The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

(2) National University of Singapore (NUS)

(3) University of Hong Kong

(4) Seoul National University

(5) The Chinese University of Hong Kong

(6) Peking University

(7) Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST)

(8) The University of Tokyo

(9) Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)

(10) Kyoto University

What do these universities have in common?

Most obvious is their focus on science and technology. Unlike them, our universities tend to focus more on the humanities.

In fact, UP ranks 34th and Ateneo ranks 35th in the world (in the world, not in Asia!) for English. DLSU ranks in the top 51-100 and UST in the top 101-150 in English in the world.

UP ranks in the top 51-100 in Geography and Area Studies and in the top 151-200 in Modern Languages in the world.

We might want to just build on our strengths and forget about science and technology, but we would then never rank among the best universities overall in Asia.

It is not, however, only about ranking. If we do not refocus our attention on science and technology, we will always be consumers and not manufacturers, followers and not leaders. That is unfortunate, because we Filipinos are very intelligent people. There is no reason for us not to be able to come up with better ideas than the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Chinese. What we do not have, however, is the academic infrastructure for science and technology.

I am not talking of huge machines and expensive laboratories. I am talking of the disincentives for scientists and technical people to create new technologies. How can anyone invent the Next Big Thing while teaching algebra to math-challenged students? As I have always said about literature, we cannot produce world-class novels if we have to worry about the dangling participles of students.

In addition to freeing teachers from teaching, we should be willing to let our science faculty spend years doing nothing externally productive (teaching well, writing journal articles, attending committee meetings). At the end of several years, even a decade, one or more of them will suddenly produce the Next Big Thing. Believe me, if anyone on earth can do it, we can do it — provided we are given the time and the freedom to create.

Administrators have to start re-evaluating their retention and promotion criteria. There is something seriously wrong with the way we evaluate teachers and students. Think of why Harvard, NYU, Reed, Ripon, Sacramento State, and Stanford could not keep the world’s most famous dropouts in school — Harrison Ford, Lady Gaga, Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steve Jobs, Tiger Woods, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Second, our strength in English turns out to be a mixed blessing. In the list of the top 50 Asian universities, most excellent universities do not use English as a main medium of instruction. Notable exceptions, of course, are the universities in Hong Kong, India, and Singapore.

In Hong Kong, however, the medium of instruction in most primary and secondary schools is Cantonese Chinese. In India, public primary and secondary education is conducted mainly in the local official language (for example, Tamil, Konkani, Marathi, Telugu). Singapore pre-university schools use English and a mother tongue (Chinese, Malay, or Tamil). What this implies is that there is no impediment for excelling in English-only universities for those educated in their mother tongues. Conversely, it seems to be easier for those educated in their mother tongues to excel in universities.

It might not be coincidental that the top three Philippine schools do not use English exclusively on the tertiary level. UP, Ateneo, and DLSU all have a significant number of courses taught in Filipino. We might say that we are trying to have the best of both worlds — the use of English in Hong Kong, India, and Singapore, and the use of the local languages in all the other countries in Asia.

Third, all (or the vast majority) of the faculty members in the top universities have Ph.Ds. In our universities, there are even teachers that do not have master’s degrees! CHED should really start cracking down on such “college professors.” (Of course, not all tertiary level institutions need teachers with doctorates. What CHED envisions as Professional Institutes need practitioners, who usually do not hold advanced degrees. But universities are not professional institutes.)

Fourth, all the top universities are either state owned or heavily subsidized by the state. In the Philippines, most higher education institutions are privately owned, either by families or religious orders. The doctrine of separation of Church and State has unduly hampered our academic development as a nation. The government must start investing heavily in private education and not be contented with the current assistance rates.

Finally, we must stop comparing our universities with each other and start competing with the top universities in Asia and in the world.