Entrance exam seeks equality<\/p>\n
The results of nation wide entrance exams for state
\nuniversities were announced recently. How good is today's
\nentrance exam system?<\/p>\n
By Syamsir Alam<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): For most Indonesians, going to university is a
\nway to secure a job and status.<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly, most parents constantly encourage their
\nchildren to pursue a university education, often disregarding the
\nyoungsters' true potential and academic performance.<\/p>\n
A survey conducted jointly by the Ministry of Education and
\nthe Ministry of Manpower in 1993 showed that 90 percent of high
\nschool graduates wanted to continue their education at the
\nuniversity level.<\/p>\n
Available data also shows that the number of those who took
\nthe state university entrance exam was always large. In 1984, a
\ntotal of 483,000 took the test, while the number of available
\nseats for new students was only 73,625.<\/p>\n
The seats were distributed among 43 state universities
\nthroughout the 27 provinces.<\/p>\n
In 1991, test takers totaled 470,000 and fought for 67,713
\nseats at state universities. The figures for this year have not
\nchanged much. Unfortunately, university seats are limited.<\/p>\n
Currently we have only one selection method for admitting
\nstudents, who meet all the requirements, to state universities.
\nIt is known as the Entrance Test to State Universities (UMPTN).<\/p>\n
There used to be a second method, based on continuous tracking
\nof the academic records of senior high school students but it was
\nabandoned in 1989. It used to be called the PMDK, JPPB or PMP.<\/p>\n
Looking at the results of the nationwide end of study
\nevaluation, we immediately realize how the performance of our
\nsecondary level education fluctuates significantly from one high
\nschool to another.<\/p>\n
In general, the best high schools are located in urban
\ncenters. These above average schools have the necessary learning
\ninfrastructure and means. The picture, however, is much different
\nat rural high schools.<\/p>\n
The availability of teachers for every subject is not a
\nproblem in the more fortunate schools. In case one teacher is
\nunable to teach, there will be another who can fill in for the
\nteacher so that the study process will not be disrupted.<\/p>\n
Some good schools even have teachers with master's degrees. On
\nthe other hand, some schools, particularly ones in rural areas,
\nhave tremendous difficulty finding well trained teachers.<\/p>\n
Research has shown that a lot of teachers teach subjects
\noutside of their specialization. For example, we still have
\nBahasa Indonesia teachers teaching mathematics.<\/p>\n
If we take into consideration the availability of
\nlaboratories, libraries, and other teaching necessities, the
\ndisparity between the excellent and the poor schools becomes even
\nworse.<\/p>\n
Such a disparity in the quality of education seems to be a
\nfact that we must accept, albeit painfully. It is unfortunate
\nthat the UMPTN selection method has not factored in the uneven
\nquality of education.<\/p>\n
As we all know, every student does exactly the same entrance
\nexam. No provision is made to accommodate those who come from
\nless than excellent high schools.<\/p>\n
The UMPTN test questions have been written based on the
\ncurriculum. The ability of the test takers to give the correct
\nanswers to these problems is, to a large extent, based on how
\nmuch of the curriculum they have mastered.<\/p>\n
UMPTN, in essence, measures the mastery of study materials
\nbased on the curriculum. Unfortunately, this factor is so
\nstrongly influenced by the learning environment and facilities
\nthat each student has had.<\/p>\n
Based on this fact, the recently announced results of this
\nyear's UMPTN was exactly as expected: students of good schools,
\nwhich are generally limited to urban centers, dominated the
\nenrollment at the state universities, especially the top tier.<\/p>\n
Formerly, five state universities belonged to this group of
\nexcellent universities. Today, there are ten of them.<\/p>\n
Students in small towns or rural areas who went to schools
\nwith minimal facilities had a slim chance in a competition that
\nis supposed to be fair.<\/p>\n
The saddest thing is, these students might prove themselves to
\nbe superior learners if they had the chance to attend the
\nuniversity.<\/p>\n
The Ministry of Education, in this case the Directorate of
\nHigher Education, seems to be fully aware of this disparity. This
\nwas the reason behind the implementation of the now officially
\ndefunct PMDK method.<\/p>\n
The method was first introduced at the Bogor Agriculture
\nInstitute. After its initial, successful implementation, the
\nmodel was further developed to include other state universities.
\nFinally, it was implemented on the national level.<\/p>\n
According to the writer's personal experience as a high school
\nteacher up to 1988, the PMDK selection model had a strong,
\npositive impact on the students' academic life. Their academic
\nperformance developed in a healthy manner. Scores of students
\ntried their best to get into the group of the \"big five\" at their
\nschool.<\/p>\n
The PMDK model was also responsible for admitting the best
\nyouths from all over Indonesia into the state universities,
\nespecially the top tier.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, there were those who irresponsibly abused the
\nsystem by manipulating their children's report cards. The report
\ncards sent to the admission committee at the state universities
\nwere not always the original ones. They were illegally altered.
\nThis was the reason the Ministry of Education eventually
\nabandoned it.<\/p>\n
In general, the defunct PMDK is still getting a favorable
\nevaluation. Studies at several state universities have shown that
\nPMDK students are able to compete with those admitted through the
\nwritten tests. Furthermore, in some departments, their
\nperformance was higher than the UMPTN students.<\/p>\n
Based on the results of these studies, the ministry's decision
\nto pull the plug on PMDK was criticized by many. Like the problem
\nof a rat-infested house, one should not burn the house to get rid
\nof the rats.<\/p>\n
Fortunately, a certain degree of tolerance has been granted.
\nIn a very limited format, some state universities are still
\noffering high school graduates the chance to attend without
\nhaving to take the entrance tests.<\/p>\n
Now, the question is, would it be possible to further develop
\nthe PMDK model to enable students with limited financial
\nresources who possess the potential to succeed to attend state
\nuniversities?<\/p>\n
Every decision will entail certain consequences, advantages
\nand disadvantages. The problem is, who should the government's
\npolicies on higher education benefit more?<\/p>\n
These question and expectations will be more meaningful if we
\nare willing to reflect on the true meaning of equality -free from
\npolitical rhetoric full of vested interests.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former senior high school teacher now working
\nat the Research and Development Center of the Ministry of the
\nEducation and Culture.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/entrance-exam-seeks-equality-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}