UNHAPPINESS: How does one explain the failure of top performing students to secure places in universities?
THE public university intake announcement every year is not unlike the birth of a new member of the British royal family. It is breathlessly anticipated and resoundingly welcomed with much revelry and celebration. That is, if one manages to secure a place.
For those who don't, it would be as if the sky had fallen on their heads, crushing not just body and soul, but all hopes and dreams. When the shock ebbs, the grouses and recriminations will start. Like the haze, all this happens without fail every year. Like the haze, too, the only difference from one year to another is how bad it is. In some years, the magnitude of dissent is muted, in others -- this year included -- it verges on hysteria.
This is not unexpected considering the superhuman effort put in by some of these students to get that coveted place in a public institution of higher learning. For those with a perfect cumulative grade point average score of 4.0, they likely felt that a seat in university was a foregone conclusion. And rightly so, as many also had impressive extra-curricular achievements.
The rejection letters they received came as a shock to them. What happened to them recently is, therefore, perplexing, and even that is an understatement.
How does one explain the failure of these top students to secure places in the universities? Every year, there are different explanations.
Much of the blame was pinned on the quota system in the past. But even when meritocracy was introduced for the public university intake in 2002, the then Higher Education director-general Datuk Hassan Said still had to stave off all kinds of complaints during his annual press conference. Almost everything about the intake was subject to debate. So much so that some have commented tongue-in-cheek that the only thing that is fair about the merit system is that everyone -- Malays, Chinese and Indians -- is equally unhappy.
In other years, the unhappiness revolved around another area -- the fact that university intake was not 100 per cent based on academic achievement. While it is a giant step towards making the education system less examination-centric, there were rumblings of discontent as students with an excellent CGPA will not automatically secure the course of their choice if they were not active in co-curricular activities.
And what about this year?
Some quarters have insinuated that it's all about revenge, payback for those who voted the opposition in the recent 13th General Election.
MCA contends that there are fewer seats in critical courses: medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy. "It does not make sense for enrolment in critical courses to be reduced," stresses a stressed-out MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong, who has had to deal with droves of rejected and dejected applicants at the office.
For Deputy Education Minister II P. Kamalanathan, it was the way the students filled up the form.
"There is a question in the form that asks if the students are willing to accept any other course besides their stipulated choices. Some said no, so they were rejected," he explained.
So, which is it? All of the above, some, or none of it? Considering this is not the first time the applications of high achieving students have been rejected, the situation demands immediate attention. The reasons behind the rejection of applications by top performing students should be made public. Details, numbers or statistics would also help assuage suspicions and demonstrate how far the quota system is being adhered to.
At the same time, school leavers should also be made aware that there are other respectable career options besides the ones they are intent on rabidly pursuing every year.
Many blindly chase the same several courses the way zombies would a group of screaming humans, without considering whether other offerings might be even more palatable. Nothing else is notable or interesting except those that have been drummed into their heads by well-meaning parents from childhood.
The nation does not only need doctors, dentists, and pharmacists, but also those with the skills to maintain machines and construct homes. It needs teachers, scientists, and artists. And yes, it also needs lawyers and journalists.
Read more: Varsity intake is like haze issue - Columnist - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/varsity-intake-is-like-haze-issue-1.326038?localLinksEnabled=false#ixzz2a1tsayAY
Post a Comment