Students slam feudal practices in education<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): A very small news item in the Kompas daily, on
\nNov. 20, '95 reported a big problem in education. It was reported
\nthat university lecturers in Yogyakarta exhibit a feudal
\nmentality, behave more like bureaucrats, that they are inferior
\nin their fields of specialization, and lack independence in their
\nacademic outlook.<\/p>\n
This was a finding of a survey conducted by two groups in
\nYogyakarta, the Kelompok Studi Perspektif (the Perspective Study
\nGroup), and the Paradigma Bulletin. These two groups conducted
\ntheir survey from Aug. 1 to Nov. 14, '95.<\/p>\n
The survey was designed to poll opinion regarding
\ncharacteristics, academic competence, and attitudes of college
\nand university lecturers in Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n
Missing in this particular news item are reports concerning
\nmethodological details of the survey such as reports about
\ncomposition of respondents, size of the sample, and methods
\nemployed to collect and analyze data. According to this report,
\nonly 54.9 percent of lecturers in Yogyakarta can be regarded as
\npossessing academic competence, while 10.4 percent of the
\nlecturers do not exhibit the right attitude for lecturers.<\/p>\n
The survey further concluded that there has been a kind of
\ncrisis in idealism and motivation among university lecturers in
\nYogyakarta. The researchers also concluded that as exemplified by
\ninstitutions of higher education in Yogyakarta, there seems to be
\na crisis of legitimacy among these institutions in fulfilling
\ntheir functions as institutions for increasing the nation's
\nknowledge, and as agencies for controlling and innovating
\nsociety's responses to social problems.<\/p>\n
As a final conclusion, the study charges Indonesian
\ninstitutions of higher education as siding too much with the
\nestablishment, and that they echo too frequently ideas of
\ndevelopmentalism. It is also stated in this report that the
\npresent pattern of university management in Indonesia puts too
\nmuch emphasis on the development of physical infrastructure, and
\nnot enough attention to the problem of increasing quality and
\nenhancing research capability. I am not quite sure that the
\nfindings of this study warrant such conclusions.<\/p>\n
To be able to arrive to such conclusions, I think that very
\nsophisticated research instruments are needed, and that
\nsophisticated data analysis is called for. I do not think that a
\nsurvey using a simple questionnaire is capable of unearthing such
\nfundamental findings. And if we consider the fact that the whole
\nstudy was completed in such a short time -- the processes of data
\ncollection, data analysis, and report writing were done within
\nthree and a half months -- it is difficult to escape the
\nimpression that this study was done in a rather big rush.<\/p>\n
As statements of macro impressions, however, I think that
\nopinions stated in this study can not just be brushed aside as
\ninvalid. One opinion which in my opinion must be taken seriously
\nis the one which says that lecturers in Yogyakarta behave more
\nlike bureaucrats (thus less like scholars), are inferior (meaning
\nthat they do not have sufficient mastery of) in their field of
\nspecialization, and lacking independence in their academic
\noutlook (meaning that they do not have the capability nor the
\ncourage to form independent opinions about matters related to
\ntheir field of study).<\/p>\n
I think that this kind of situation is not confined to
\ninstitutions of higher education in Yogyakarta alone. I think
\nthat throughout the country universities and colleges are facing
\nthe same problems with regard to their teaching staff.<\/p>\n
It is not difficult to find reasons for this situation.<\/p>\n
First, within most universities and colleges in Indonesia the
\nmajority of the teaching staff have only a first degree (sarjana
\nor S-I degree as their basic education). It is only in relatively
\nadvanced universities that sufficient number of members of the
\nteaching staff have earned master and doctoral degrees. It is
\nthis kind of situation which constitutes the source of complaints
\nregarding the academic quality of the teaching staff. It should
\nalso be noted in this connection that within Indonesian
\ntradition, the teacher-student relationship has always been
\npaternalistic.<\/p>\n
The word guru (teacher) and guru besar (professors) have very
\nstrong feudal connotations. These are traditionally persons whose
\nwealth of knowledge and whose wisdom must be taken for granted.
\nThese are persons toward whom students should show their deepest
\nreverence. Against this kind of background it is quite natural
\nthat most teachers, lecturers, and professors cannot resist the
\ntemptation of adopting an attitude which can be labeled as
\nbureaucratic. It is only the exceptional few among them who are
\nwilling and capable of treating their students as junior fellows
\nin the collective search towards knowledge and wisdom.<\/p>\n
And why do university lecturers show lack of independence in
\nforming personal judgments?<\/p>\n
In my view it is because most of our colleges and universities
\nhave been managed and run just like ordinary bureaucracies in
\nwhich obedience and political conformity are absolute musts. The
\nfact that universities are institutions which have to advance
\nknowledge and exist to prepare the young generation for a better
\nnational future has been ignored.<\/p>\n
We are constantly reminded that for the sake of promoting
\nstability and order, and preventing chaos that could disrupt
\nnational development efforts, hierarchical rules must be strictly
\nobserved. But we are not entirely free in voicing the principle
\nthat for the sake of advancing knowledge, freedom in pursuing
\ninquiry must be jealously guarded. We are also not reminded of
\nthe principle that for the sake of preparing the young generation
\nfor a better way life, a critical attitude towards today's
\nsituation and practices must be encouraged.<\/p>\n
In short, we have been led to overlook the basic principle
\nthat for any university to carry out its mission well, freedom
\nand independence in formulating judgment and opinion must be
\nguaranteed and indeed encouraged.It is in the light of this
\ngeneral situation that I believe in the correctness of the basic
\nassertions of this study. In spite of the methodological
\nweaknesses that may prevail in it, its findings should not be
\ntaken lightly. This study must be regarded as a guide concerning
\nways to bring about improvements into our colleges and
\nuniversities in order to enhance their capacity to prepare the
\nyoung generation for the future.<\/p>\n
The important question that has to be answered at this
\njuncture is what has to be done to make our lecturers more
\ndemocratic and more scholarly in their attitude, more capable in
\ntheir academic performance, and more dependent in forming their
\njudgments and opinions. There is no easy answer to these
\nquestions and there are no short-cuts. But we must realize that
\nwithout academic competence, a democratic atmosphere, and
\nindependent spirit, it is impossible to have a healthy and
\nfunctioning system of higher education.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/students-slam-feudal-practices-in-education-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}