Building autonomy in Indonesia's state universities<\/p>\n
By Iwan Pranoto<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Universities are not merely buildings, but ideas
\nand cultures remaking themselves. A university is not a place
\nwhere professors just lecture on their subjects and present their
\nthoughts, it is a place where learning and criticizing new ideas
\nis actively encouraged. It is about finding alternatives.<\/p>\n
This view has revitalized many modern universities and built
\nstrong links between academic society and the nation's life.<\/p>\n
However, for ideas and cultures to remake themselves,
\nuniversities need to be fully autonomous. It is a necessary
\ncondition for those ideas and cultures to evolve.<\/p>\n
The necessity of university autonomy is highlighted by the
\ndirectorate general of higher education in the new program to
\nimprove the quality of undergraduates in the country. It says
\nthat to improve the quality of services offered by a university,
\none has to increase its autonomy. This condition is grouped with
\nthree other factors which also help to improve quality:
\naccountability, evaluation and sustainability.<\/p>\n
Since private universities are more autonomous than their
\nstate equivalents, this article focuses on the latter.<\/p>\n
To be autonomous, a university must have the freedom to select
\nits own students and staff (teaching and administration), and to
\ndesign and implementation its own curricula and develop and
\nenrich its own academic values.<\/p>\n
Other important aspects of autonomy such as financial
\nmanagement and university strategy are beyond the scope of this
\narticle.<\/p>\n
It is difficult to say whether state universities have
\nautonomy in the selection of students because the entrance test
\n(UMPTN) is not conducted in a transparent manner. Results of the
\ntests have never been publicly announced, despite the fact that
\nstate universities are funded with taxpayers' money.<\/p>\n
The (undoctored) marks of those who sit the test each year
\nshould be announced, as should the minimum score required to
\nenter each program of study.<\/p>\n
Those who mark the test should be made accountable. Every
\nparticipant should have the right to examine her or his answer
\nsheets after the results have been announced to check whether or
\nnot they have been evaluated correctly. If a candidate finds a
\nmistake in the evaluation, examiners should be compelled to mark
\nthat answer sheet again.<\/p>\n
Each state university department should state their minimum
\nentrance requirements. For example, an English department may set
\na score of 85 out of 100 in the English test as a minimum entry
\nrequirement. The same department may place a lesser emphasis on
\nother tests in the entrance exam. Departments should register
\ntheir entrance requirements with the university authorities
\nbefore prospective students sit the entrance exam.<\/p>\n
Ideally, we have to reform the UMPTN. The system we are using
\nnow is unaccountable and prone to abuse. First, the function of
\nUMPTN must be transformed. Examining authorities should be
\nresponsible for holding the exam, marking the papers and
\npublishing the results.<\/p>\n
After that, students should be able to check whether their
\nmarks meet the entrance requirements for the study program of
\ntheir choice.<\/p>\n
Entrance requirements should only be set on the basis of
\nintellectual ability and must not include race, ethnicity,
\nreligion or any other irrelevant facts. If students' marks meet
\nthe entrance requirements for a particular program then their
\napplications have to be accepted by that university.<\/p>\n
Moreover, each candidate must have the right to ask for a copy
\nof his or her answer sheet -- the original is kept by the
\nexamining body -- and a copy of the answers, so the performance
\nof the marker can be double checked, at a small monetary cost to
\nthe candidate.<\/p>\n
A system of this nature would be akin to the TOEFL (Test of
\nEnglish as a Foreign Language) examination.<\/p>\n
The selection of university administrative staff is not that
\ncrucial. However, state universities do not have the full freedom
\nto select their teaching staff. It is true that state
\nuniversities are free to hire whomever they please, but the
\nproblem is that they are then unable to get rid of them.<\/p>\n
A teaching career in the state universities is a job for life.
\nOnce you get the job, it is yours for as long as you want it.
\nEven if you perform poorly, the job is still yours.<\/p>\n
Teaching positions in state universities should be made
\nrenewable every five years. That would make for healthy
\ncompetition for the posts and thereby improve the quality of
\nteaching offered by the universities. Therefore, state
\nuniversities must have autonomy to hire and fire their teaching
\nstaff as they see fit.<\/p>\n
All universities, including private ones, must have full
\nautonomy to designing and implement suitable curricula. More
\nimportantly, curriculum should be designed so that each student
\ncan follow and finish it in a designated time.<\/p>\n
It should not so arduous that only exceptional students are
\nable to follow it and it should include courses which students
\nfeel are necessary for their development.<\/p>\n
Curricula and the way they are implemented should be evaluated
\non a regular basis by universities.<\/p>\n
Finally, state universities must have the autonomy to develop
\nand enrich their academic values. This last element is very
\nimportant, but unfortunately it has often been neglected.<\/p>\n
Two aspect of academic values that every member of the
\nacademic community must work to develop are critical thinking and
\nliving together. These two abilities will help to nurture a
\nhealthy democratic society.<\/p>\n
Universities must do everything possible to enable students to
\ndevelop these abilities through activities inside and outside the
\nclassroom.<\/p>\n
Students should be encouraged to question statements accepted
\nas truths during class time. They must learn to be skeptical,
\nbecause skepticism is an essential characteristic of the critical
\nthinker.<\/p>\n
Moreover, students must have their imaginations challenged.
\nThey should be given enough time to explore their thoughts.<\/p>\n
Problem solving classes should highlight the multitude of
\npossible solutions to any one given difficulty because this will
\nhelp students to learn to explore alternatives and be innovative.
\nThey will then discover how to think independently and will no
\nlonger have to depend on the authorities to learn the \"truth\".<\/p>\n
Students must be enlightened so that they learn how to reason
\nfor themselves. This endeavor must be supported by an atmosphere
\nwhich is neither intimidating nor authoritarian.<\/p>\n
This will help students to learn to listen to their
\nclassmates' points of view, to disagree and to support each
\nother's ideas and will also teach them how to live together.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the opportunity to learn in such an atmosphere
\nis very rare in state universities. It seems that universities
\nstill feel that such an atmosphere is not that critical to the
\nlearning process.<\/p>\n
The motivation and ability of state university lecturers is
\nlow and most have to moonlight to supplement their pitifully low
\nsalaries. This fact excuses the inability of the academic
\ncommunity to create a healthy climate for their students.<\/p>\n
The writer is a maths lecturer at Bandung Institute of
\nTechnology.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/building-autonomy-in-indonesias-state-universities-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}