The Flaw of APEX

The verdict is out—USM has been awarded the APEX university status that is going to give it the competitive edge that is desired by all universities in Malaysia—the autonomy that is needed to give them the freedom to forge ahead. In obtaining this status, USM is promised autonomy in finance, setting up its own service scheme, running its own management, deciding on student intake, student fees and in determining its own top administrative leadership. This sounds like a winning formula for any institution. As to why USM alone should enjoy this freedom is beyond anyone. The fact that the government itself is emancipating the university is quite telling: it means that the government agrees that universities have not been able to excel thus far because of the control that has been exercised on them. It also means that the government agrees that the stringent controls are in themselves detrimental to growth and has now decided that it is going to conduct its own controlled experiment on USM.

As to whether USM will be able to achieve the expected ranking range that the government has arbitrarily set up remains to be seen, but what is a forgone conclusion is that any university that is given huge financial support and the freedom to chart its own future is going to do well. All nine that vied for this status are quite capable of producing good results if given the opportunity and their eagerness to be selected as the APEX university shows that they desired to be set free from the shackles of bureaucratic control. The thorough evaluation that was made on “each university’s state of readiness, transformation plan and preparedness for change” was what supposedly made the difference, though one could safely assume that all the universities had the necessary tools and qualification, and the decision was made on distinctions of very small degrees.

In giving USM the much coveted title of APEX university, the government has been successful in doing one thing: it has demoralized others. It has only proven that the decision was based on the ability of a university to sell itself on paper well, no doubt based on facts and real achievements. However, most, if not all, the others have equally impressive accomplishments to their name. The Minister of Higher Education said that the exercise was not about ranking, though most universities will read it as that, and the statement that “we are identifying one that can go leaps and bounds into excellence with government help” will not soothe any wounded egos, since all are striving to do the same.

The whole exercise of selecting an APEX university is also one that shows desperation: we want to get into the “good books” of education at all cost—without any serious deliberation over the matter—without fixing the problems that exists today which have contributed to the deterioration of tertiary education in the country or finding out why we have not been doing well. We cannot fault the government in wanting our universities to be amongst the best in the world. (Though the term Ivy League is synonymous with excellence, it is usually misunderstood since it does not include all the best universities in the United States. It refers to a conference of universities in a particular region and hence does not include Stanford or Berkeley and other prestigious universities in that country.) However, why are we obsessed with wanting to be in the top one hundred? There are many excellent universities in the world that do not make the cut, but are known for excelling in selected areas. Can we not be one of them?

The decision to make one university the best in the country by overlooking the strengths of others is downright insulting and shortsighted. The government should give all universities autonomy and give them equal opportunity to compete. Not equal opportunity to compete for labels, but funds, a much needed commodity to get things done. None should be disadvantaged by the government they serve. The answer does not lie in bringing in foreigners to run our universities, to give them administrative posts, under the assumption that the failure of leadership in local universities is the absence of qualified local candidates, especially when blame should be assigned to the political process of appointment. A selection done through a search will yield amazing results.

The present decision will give USM an unfair advantage over all universities in Malaysia in more ways than one: the funding will allow them to afford the very best: this includes students and faculty. This is an unfair advantage that is a recipe for destroying other even more established universities. If I were in the enviable position of USM, I would be extremely happy too with this present recognition, but the university must admit that this lop-sided policy cannot be good for the country. Before running every which way but forward, I suggest that the Ministry take a step back and re-evaluate its decision. This is one of the most disheartening decisions the government have made in the education field in recent times.

Sayyid Al-Aiderus