Redefining college education<\/p>\n
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): This year nearly 480,000 senior high school
\ngraduates nationwide attended entrance exams to state
\nuniversities, vying for approximately 72,600 seats. Indeed, it is
\nhigh competition for admission to state colleges -- one has to
\noutscore seven others.<\/p>\n
Due to the economic crisis, some parents have foregone sending
\nchildren abroad and sent them to college at home instead. This
\nhas significantly increased the number of applicants by 21.59
\npercent.<\/p>\n
This recurring phenomenon convinces us that higher education
\nis only a beautiful dream for most, if not all, high school
\ngraduates and parents. It is reasonable to ponder whether parents
\nare realistic and informed about sending children to college. A
\nsimple question is, should all high school graduates go to
\ncollege?<\/p>\n
The concept of higher education for all was initially
\nintroduced in the United States in the 1970s. It is a recognition
\nof an American citizen's right to get higher education.<\/p>\n
In the Indonesian context, it is crucial here to state that
\nall citizens have the same right of access to the available
\nresources of higher education.<\/p>\n
It does not suggest, though, that every high school graduate
\nhas to be admitted to college. It is possible to provide them
\nwith postsecondary school education; nonetheless, it is
\nabsolutely erroneous to equate it with higher education -- a
\ncommon attitude among parents.<\/p>\n
Compared to elementary and secondary school education, college
\ndoes not have a universal curriculum. Precollege education --
\nfrom elementary to high school -- is universal in the sense that
\nit provides students with relatively basic and universal
\nknowledge, skills, experiences and values to enable them to
\nfunction socially in the community. The term \"universal higher
\neducation\" is a misnomer, for college education is not and will
\nnever be universal.<\/p>\n
For some parents sending children to college, especially one
\noverseas, this is a great prestige, and obtaining a college
\ndegree is a symbol of social status and a key to a decent
\noccupation. At present, parents tend to underestimate
\npostsecondary school institutions offering training and short-
\nterm courses. This attitude is feudalistic in nature and
\nincongruent with professionalism, essential for survival in
\nglobal competition. It overemphasizes the social function of the
\nuniversity, while ignoring its education hierarchy and
\ndifferentiation.<\/p>\n
It is not easy to convince parents that what matters is
\npostsecondary education, not higher education.<\/p>\n
In an Indonesian context today, \"higher\" is not perceived as
\n\"better\", in the sense of relevance and employability that could
\nlogically contribute significantly to social development. Many
\nare satisfied being college graduates, despite unemployment. As a
\nmatter of fact, such people constitute a social burden rather
\nthan social innovator. Their attempted college background is not
\nmaximally utilized for social development.<\/p>\n
In developed countries, continuing, further and adult
\neducation has long been developed and empowered as alternatives
\nto tertiary education, which is conventionally undertaken by
\nuniversities. This empowerment is designed to provide people with
\nthe opportunity to get \"higher\" education, in the sense of
\nbetter, relevant and marketable education.<\/p>\n
It is estimated that an annual 135,000 to 150,000 new college
\ngraduates are turned out to compete in the job market and only
\n40,000 to 60,000 of them find a job. In the years ahead, the
\nfigures will be even higher due to the economic crisis that has
\ntorn the country.<\/p>\n
This suggests that from year to year, only half of the college
\ngraduates find a job, leaving the other half unemployed. This
\nhalf constitutes a group of people who have invested money, time
\nand energy to get a \"higher\" education, not a \"better and
\nmarketable\" one.<\/p>\n
We also notice many college graduates work in sectors that are
\nnot immediately relevant to their academic specialization. This
\nmismatch between college training and employment is evidence of a
\npublic attitude toward higher education. Most Indonesian parents
\nstill believe that college degrees are more overvalued than
\nprofessionalism.<\/p>\n
It is important that parents realize and convince children
\nthat to successfully compete in the job market, they should have
\nsaleable skills, expertise and professionalism. When \"higher\"
\neducation is perceived as \"better and relevant\" education, more
\nhigh school graduates will turn to institutions offering short
\nprofessional courses, training and continuing education. As a
\nconsequence, colleges or universities will not be perceived at
\nface value as any better than those institutions.<\/p>\n
In the ensuing paragraphs, the mission and function of
\nuniversities will be elaborated. These will help us reposition
\nuniversities in a systemic framework of national education.<\/p>\n
Universities are distinguished from other education
\ninstitutions by scientific orientation. They stand on the front
\nline of exploring and developing science and technology,
\nincluding concepts, methods and values. The curriculum of
\nmedicine, laws, engineering, education and others, for example,
\nare developed with reference to established and autonomous
\nacademic principles.<\/p>\n
Due to specialized academic orientation, not all high school
\ngraduates will benefit from universities. This point should be
\nexplicitly made, especially when we examine the claim that all
\ncitizens have the right to higher education, although rights do
\nnot necessarily imply benefits and advantages.<\/p>\n
Often times, universities are criticized for being removed
\nfrom practice and their 'ivory tower' orientation, as well as
\nconducting highly sophisticated research which absorbs hundreds
\nof millions of rupiah. Many would perceive this as inefficiency
\nor even a waste of resources. This is a paradox inherent in
\nhigher learning institutions. The question now is, is it possible
\nto strike a balance between the ivory tower orientation with a
\ndown-to-earth one?<\/p>\n
It is hypothesized that a change from a knowledge-based to a
\nproblem-oriented and career-oriented curriculum will neutralize
\nthe connotation of higher education, commonly perceived as a
\nprivilege for cream-of-the-crop citizens. Hopefully, people will
\nperceive higher education implies continuing, recurrent and adult
\neducation. It is under this paradigm that the concept of higher
\neducation for all would be justifiable. From the accounts above,
\na guideline is derived as follows:<\/p>\n
* Twelve years of elementary education and secondary education
\nis a solid foundation, upon which vocational and professional
\nskills are built. Elementary, secondary and tertiary education
\nconstitutes a series of mutual inclusion in developing expertise
\nand professionalism.<\/p>\n
* Education, whether good or not, becomes integrated with
\neconomy. Emerging sectors in economy tend to be reliant on
\neducation and training. Postsecondary education should by
\ndefinition create an emerging specialization.<\/p>\n
* Postsecondary education should be made available through
\nnumerous institutions. It would be erroneous to limit higher
\neducation to the education traditionally conducted by
\nuniversities. Justice and equality underlining the concept of
\nhigher education for all should be flexibly interpreted to enable
\nhigh school graduates to enter any form of education of choice.<\/p>\n
* Alternative forms of postsecondary education, such as short
\ncourses and professional training should be given priority,
\nconsidering the paucity of employment. Professionally trained
\ngraduates will not only be absorbed in the job market, but they
\nwill also create employment.<\/p>\n
* Curriculums are designed to help students to survive and
\nself-actualize in society. In other words, contemporary social
\nchanges logically determine college education. Problem-oriented
\nand career-oriented education is relevant to the current social
\nand economic situations.<\/p>\n
* Education in general develops critical-thinking skills and
\nindependence in students. Despite different specializations, all
\ncollege graduates are expected to demonstrate capabilities as
\nagents of social transformation. This necessitates the inclusion
\nof social subjects such as sociology, psychology and education in
\nthe college curriculum.<\/p>\n
As the country is now facing a social and economic crisis, it
\nis essential that our embraced philosophy on education needs to
\nbalance social and economic parameters. With the guideline above
\nin mind, we are assured that in the future, high school graduates
\nwill be realistic in their bid to enter universities and be
\ninformed in choosing professions. After all, their future is in
\ntheir hands.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the graduate school of the
\nTeachers Training College (IKIP) in Bandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/redefining-college-education-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}