Hi all,
Below is the link for the presentation for Business School today. Happy to discuss!
Monthly Archives: March 2017
What’s the side effect? Applying the medical model to education
To complement our class discussion on the effect of standardized testing as evident in the NYC public high school entrance exam, I’d like to present a recent argument by Yong Zhao, a Chinese-born professor of education at the University of Oregon. Basically, Zhao’s argument is as follow:
- There is a systematic negligence from policy makers in considering the side effect (negative effect) of any educational policy. Policy makers usually only look for evidence that supports the positive, intended effect. Even when side effects are discovered, they are “not considered an inherent quality of the product” but rather “unintended or unanticipated consequences or results of poor implementation”. Not all side effects can be forecasted, but that does not mean that policy makers should completely ignore side effect as they are doing now.
- This negligence has lead to the US’ uncritical adoption of the “one size fits all” curriculum ( their “Common Core”) from Asian countries that score high on international standardized tests. Zhao argues that Asian systems (e.g. China, South Korea, Singapore), while producing high PISA scores, somehow also produced low confidence in students as a side effect – 70% students in East Asian countries, despite their high PISA scores, worry that they “will get low grades in math”.
- Zhao’s solution is to adopt a medical model of considering both intended and side effect in designing or implementing any policy. In medicine, a new drug is always introduced with both intended and side effect, as required by law. We should also have laws in education that requires explaining both intended and side effects of new policies, especially to “consumers” (teachers, parents, students and the general public). For example, Zhao cites research showing that a curriculum focusing on test score can come at the expense of curiosity and long-term growth. Teachers should know this information to balance their classroom activities, and parents should know this information to decide whether to enroll their children in alternative systems that do not assess by standardized tests.
Personally, I think Zhao’s argument, while solid, is nothing new under the sun. It is just a different way to ask for a cost-benefit analysis, in a more structured, legal-binding way by making it into a law like in medicine. By likening education to medicine, I think Zhao wants to raise the stake – perhaps people are not taking side effects seriously in education because it is not a matter of imminent “life-and-death” like in medicine, but perhaps it is. Education matters to the psychological and emotional well-being of a person, which I would argue that is as important as physical well-being, and psychological distress can result in physical distress.
His other point about the US emulating Asian education is more interesting given our reading this week on Chinese education, which used to emulate the US system and now is trying to forge its own path. We have touched upon “best practice” in class and that it doesn’t seem to work because each country is different, yet it seems like the countries we covered are all trying to adopt something from models they consider “successful”. What do you think about this “best practice” approach? What is the alternative? Is it inevitable to “learn” from other countries while making your own policy? If so, how do you critically integrate “best practice” to fit your own context?
Source:
“What works may hurt: Side effects in education”, Yong Zhao, Journal of Educational, Volume 18, Issue 1, February 2017. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10833-016-9294-4
Trump’s proposal to defund the NEA: A threat to arts, culture and creativity
On March 16th President Trump announced that he wants to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) along with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) from the Fiscal Year 2018 budget. The NEA was established by Congress in 1965 as an independent federal agency that aims to strengthen the creative capacity of Americans, by providing them the opportunity to participate in the most diverse forms of arts and culture. But they not only fund and support art learning, the NEA also wants to deepen America’s cultural heritage and provide a more equal access to the arts across the country, making sure that all Americans have access to art no matter where they are from.
Congress will decide whether the NEA will be defunded next year or not. If they vote to eliminate the NEA from the FY 2018 budget they would not only be hurting the economy, since the arts and culture sector accounts for $742 billion or 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP and creates many jobs (4.7 millions works in the industry), but they would be also eliminating investment in America’s creativity. The NEA arts education grant program, focused on pre-k to 12th grade students, helps students develop creativity, a really valued skill for employers nowadays. It also helps them become better readers and writers through drama. For example, a student can increase reading readiness in early grades and improve reading comprehension and writing skills in middle and high school. Moreover, defunding the NEA would hurt the underrepresented and low-income communities the most since a significant percent of their grants benefits those who cannot afford the arts; 40% of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty neighborhoods and 36% of NEA grants go to organizations that reach underserved populations such as people with disabilities, people in institutions, and veterans. In their mission of providing equal access to arts across the country, the NEA makes sure to distribute in an equitable way their funds, reaching rural areas, inner-city and underserved communities.
Also, public funding encourages private giving. When the NEA gives money to a nonprofit organization, it gives them credibility and helps them attract more funders. In addition, the NEA’S funding has to be matched with other sources of funding so it’s an investment that can spur public-private partnerships.
In my opinion, the White House’s decision of cutting the funding for the NEA seems unreasonable. The NEA budget corresponded to only 0.004% of the 3.65 trillion federal budget in 2017 and with only 150 million a year ($0.46 per American), the NEA is able to support and boost arts and culture in the country, that translates into more jobs, creativity, better education, public-private partnerships and a social, economic and cultural positive impact in American citizens.
In what other ways does defunding NEA affect US education? This is not the first time that Republicans threaten to eliminate the NEA or other arts, humanities and cultural federal programs, do you think this time they will succeed?
Sources:
https://www.arts.gov/about-nea
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/nea-quick-facts.pdf
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-FAQ-march2017.pdf
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Arts_Education_fact_sheet_nov2016.pdf
http://time.com/money/4639544/trump-nea-sesame-street-budget-cut/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/arts/nea-neh-trump-congress.html?_r=0
Flow of International Students in Asia
Hi Class! This time I present data relevant to our previous classes – flow of international students in Asia.
This excel below shows from which country in Asia to which country (mostly OECD) students are enrolled abroad at a tertiary level. (e.g. 90245: number of Chinese students studying in Australia)
(Reference: OECD Statistics, http://stats.oecd.org/)
And not surprisingly, aside from U.S. and UK, this revealed one important country with regard to international students’ flow, which could be categorized into Asia but had not been covered by this particular class – Australia. I wanna focus on this country in this blog because I believe we cannot discuss students’ flow within Asian countries without referring to Australia.
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article elaborating difficult situation surrounding this country
“In 2015, there were 272,095 higher education international students in Australia who contributed almost A$12.5 billion to the economy.”
“In Australia, however, international students have few scholarship opportunities, and no local jobs specifically waiting for them after graduation.”
“One aspect of this discussion policymakers might want to consider is becoming host to satellite campuses from world-renowned universities. So far only Carnegie Mellon has an offshore campus in Australia. Having such satellite campuses creates not only diversity and internationalisation in the Australian higher education space, but also provides other benefits. These include more competitive choices of institutions on Australian soil, as well as greater opportunities for students to move between countries on exchange. Having top Asian universities set up campuses in Australia promotes increased flows of top students and staff. This would help strengthen Australia’s position in the region as a high-quality education hub.”
So here clearly we can see another type of dilemma – different from Japan (attracting foreign students into homogeneity), South Korea (getting out of brain drain), Hong Kong and Taiwan (aiming to become international hub in Asian HE). Maybe Australia’s situation is somewhat similar to Singapore, but still a lot of differences in terms of country size and its historical context etc.
Let us know any thoughts or comments. Thank you for reading!
(Reference: Rising players in higher education: the countries to watch out for)
http://theconversation.com/rising-players-in-higher-education-the-countries-to-watch-out-for-62964
The Next Higher Education Leader in Asia – Adding Another Indicator to the Discussion.
A recurring question in our course is who the next leader in higher education (in Asia) will be. The World Economic Forum recently released an article on countries with the most doctoral graduates across the world. Unsurprisingly, the current leader in higher education – the US – leaves the rest of the world behind by a wide margin.
Based on this, do you think we should add the number of PHDs a country is producing to our discussion on who the next leader in higher education will be? While you may find shortcomings of using this approach based on our country-level class discussions, do you think it will be useful in combination with other indicators? If yes, which ones?
In your discussion, you can consider that according to this measure, India, followed by Japan and South Korea, are most likely to emerge as leaders.
Read the full article, which includes details on the source countries of PHDs here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/countries-with-most-doctoral-graduates/
Image source – https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/countries-with-most-doctoral-graduates/
The relationship between two countries and its higher education mobility: the recent case of China and South Korea.
This Friday, while passing through China coming back from the Japan trip, I ran into an interesting article on the Global Times about how Chinese students in South Korea where being affected after the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system was deployed. As you may know the US designed an anti-missile system to protect South Korea and Japan from possible attacks from North Korea, which China has seen as a threat to its own military operations. This of course is starting to have implications in the relationship between China and South Korea, but probably no one thought about the effect this would have on Chinese students taking high-education studies at South Korea.
The university students interviewed for the Global Times’ article mentioned they are – for the first time – not feeling welcome in their neighbor country, and even worried about their personal safety. They feel rejected when South Korean people spot they are from China and they have experienced some disrespectful manners from random people in the last weeks. Students are afraid South Korean teachers with a strong opinion about the THAAD will also take a position against them affecting their performance and study in school. This is a situation that was not happening a year or even some months ago.
Currently, around 60% of overseas students in South Korea come from China, but will this situation play against this numbers? As stated in the paper ‘Political and Economic Impacts on Chinese students’ return’, China has been experiencing a brain drain in the last years as having many Chinese students that decide to stay in the country where they are studying instead of returning to their home country. The paper analyzes the possible factors that contribute to students deciding not to go back, and one of the most important ones where the economic situation of the country they are studying (mainly focused in the US, but applicable to other countries as well), and the stimulating policy held by China to return home. Taking into account these factors, it cannot be totally predictable what will happen with Chinese students in South Korea, as this situation may or may not have a strong effect on student mobility.
Moreover, what is also interesting from the Global Times article, is that the students interviewed mention how Chinese people is starting to perceive them negatively as students living in South Korea. Since the THAAD situation they are labeled by many Chinese people as ‘unpatriotic’, almost as if they were playing as part of ‘the enemy’. So it is not only they are feeling unwelcome in their study country, but they are also feeling outsiders in their own country. In line with this perspective, the paper by Wu & Shao, discuss the difficulty Chinese students that have studied abroad have when going back to China. It is mentioned as one of the most painful experiences as trying to adapt again to a country that has probably changed in the years the young Chinese has been living abroad. China is a country that is constantly changing and developing, and many factors become uncertain for young people trying to reinsert in the Chinese society and market. Also, considering the China – South Korea relation, getting a degree from a country like South Korea might be seen as negative and have an impact on the students’ future career and job hunting when graduated. It might be only the image from having studied in the country, but also if the relationship continues to take a negative path, South Korean companies might start to exit the Chinese market reducing the possibilities of these students to be hired by a South Korean company in their home country, affecting their future employment.
Nevertheless, a consultant at the Weilan South Korea study agency mentions that so far, ‘they haven’t seen a decline in students applying for South Korean universities’, and compares it to that even though the relationship between the US and China is not the greatest one, still Chinese students choose to study in the US. But even if the numbers currently are not telling much, the fact is the feeling of Chinese students is still there, they have now started to worry about politics like never before because they are being directly impacted.
Should this be a factor worth considering for South Korean universities in the following years? Maybe it becomes better for China as to avoid brain drain from Chinese students going abroad? How can the relationship between two countries really affect the higher education mobility between them? There are in fact some important social consequences from the countries’ relationship that are starting to get noticed. This does not pretend to be a statement, but more to stir the discussion about other aspects that sometimes are not considered in the higher education mobility equation.
Sources:
- The Global Times (English version). Volume 8. No.2249. Friday, March 24, 2017
- Wu, Harry & Shao, Bin. ‘Political and Economic Impacts on Chinese students’ return’. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies. Volume 9. December 2014. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141963.pdf
Higher Education and Unemployment : East Asia
As we begin to delve deeper into higher education in East Asian countries, our group would like to present some data on an economic aspect that is closely related to higher education, but isn’t always discussed in relation with it: Unemployment among the educated. We came across an interesting article (http://theconversation.com/massive-expansion-of-universities-in-asia-raises-tough-questions-on-social-mobility-54680) which talks about the high growth rate of higher education enrollments in East Asia and the statistics on lack of employment opportunities for those with college degrees. Following is a comparison of statistics from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea in the year 2014. China seems to be an outlier with the highest unemployment rates among recent graduates. The article raises an important question that has been discussed in many forms in our class: What is the point of more higher education when an economy cannot gainfully absorb all the graduates? And what are the consequences if these conditions persist over a long period of time?
Note: The unemployment statistics from the article have not been checked by us. We are assuming that the usual definition of unemployment applies here: The percentage of people in a group (such as undergraduates or graduates) that are looking for employment and are not yet employed.
Taiwan and the “One China” Pledge
Hello!
To compliment this week’s discussion on Taiwan and next week’s discussion on China, I found an article about “One China” agreements between Taiwanese and Chinese universities. Due to various factors that we’ve discussed in class, such as aging populations and low birth rates, universities are relying on international students to stay open. Chinese students have been allowed to study in Taiwan since 2011, and now make up more than a third of Taiwan’s international college students. In order for many Chinese Universities to allow their students to study in Taiwan, Taiwanese universities have made agreements with the Chinese universities to not offer courses that include politically sensitive topics, such as “one China, one Taiwan” or Taiwanese independence.
What are the pros and cons of a policy like this?
Are there comparable policies between other countries’ universities?
Will these “One China” agreements really prevent Chinese students from being exposed to politically sensitive topics while studying in Taiwan?
http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/china-vs-taiwans-academic-freedom/
Artworks from famous Chinese Artist Feng Zikai (丰子恺), on the irony and frustration of the traditional Chinese education system
Feng Zikai (1898-1975) is one of the most gifted political and artistic figures in China in the 1920s and 1930s. The 1920s was an era of deep political and social instability, a time when the future and destiny of China was blurry and uncertain.
Feng was a painter, writer, music educator, translator, calligrapher and art theorist. In fact, Feng is considered to be the founder of modern Chinese cartoon art. His essays and cartoons are still popular among the Chinese public today. Feng’s cartoons seek to furnish his viewer with a degree of critical distance. He injects irony into his paintings, so that his viewer will be prompted to take a step back and examine the social issues in China that are subtly embedded in his work.
The cartoons below reflect Feng’s critical perspective on a gamut of issues with the education system in China, which ranges from the elementary school to university level.
You can find more of his works here: https://www.pinterest.com/mymurmuring/feng-zikai/
“
Imagination”
To Feng, the job of an educator is similar to that of a gardener, who trims and prunes his plants so that they can flourish later. Feng draws his viewer’s attention to the cruel ways in which the education system in China stifles students’ minds and their ability to think for themselves. Feng suggests that the system in China is more interested to standardise students, pressuring them to conform to a certain pattern of thinking.
“Somewhat School”
Schools were part of the problem of perpetuating a vicious cycle of capitalism and standardization in learning. In this cartoon, the monkey on top of the pole is the teacher, the administrators are playing a tune, students are watching, and of course someone is collecting money.
“Somewhat Teacher”
Teachers might try to destroy students’ minds with endless drill and repetition. These teachers do not alter or update their pedagogy. Instead, they behave like a gramophone that is used to play the same old tune for years. Feng criticizes the formalist, stubborn teaching style practiced by some educators today, and he encourages them to innovate and improve themselves instead.
“Somewhat Education”
Figuratively speaking, education can be seen as a process of transforming raw materials into beautiful sculptures. In this cartoon, Feng criticises the Chinese education system that aims to kill the unique characteristic of individual, by shaping everyone using a singular template or model.
“Being educated”
This one follows the previous painting, but it is now from the perspective from the students. It does not seem fun for them to be shaped from this one model.
Questions:
Even though Mr. Feng passed away more than forty years ago, the severe problem of Chinese society and our education system persists. We still have not figured out a way to offer students with special talents another way to grow and the society still pushes young people so hard with mandatory college entrance examinations. I would like to ask your thoughts on the cartoons I posted:
- Do you have thoughts on why China still continues to adopt such a standardised way of assessing its students?
- How do you compare the current Chinese education system and the one Mr. Feng described in his paintings?
- Do you see any progress or regression in China?
UniSIM is now Singapore University of Social Sciences
As a follow-up from my previous post, Singapore’s Ministry of Education has just announced today that the Singapore Institute of Management will be renamed as the Singapore University of Social Sciences — shocking, I know!
SIM used to be Singapore’s only privately funded university, but after this recent rebranding and restructuring, it will become the country’s sixth autonomous (i.e. government run) university. Below are quotations taken from news reports regarding this sea change in Singapore’s HE sector:
“The name was chosen to reflect the university’s mission of “driving lifelong learning anchored in disciplines with a strong social focus”, Minister for Higher Education and Skills Ong Ye Kung said in a press release issued by the school on Friday (Mar 17).
“SUSS is under the ambit of the Ministry of Education and is no longer part of the SIM Group, which comprises SIM Global Education, SIM International Academy, SIM Professional Development and Platform E.”
“Autonomous universities receive government funding and are subject to government oversight, but have the flexibility to set their own direction and differentiate their educational offerings. Currently, National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, Singapore University of Technology and Design and Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) are autonomous universities.”
See more at:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/sim-university-renamed-singapore-university-of-social-sciences/3603440.html
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/unisim-now-singapore-university-social-sciences
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/unisim-renamed-as-singapore-university-of-social-sciences