Entrance exam seeks equality

Entrance exam seeks equality

The results of nation wide entrance exams for state
universities were announced recently. How good is today's
entrance exam system?

By Syamsir Alam

JAKARTA (JP): For most Indonesians, going to university is a
way to secure a job and status.

Unsurprisingly, most parents constantly encourage their
children to pursue a university education, often disregarding the
youngsters' true potential and academic performance.

A survey conducted jointly by the Ministry of Education and
the Ministry of Manpower in 1993 showed that 90 percent of high
school graduates wanted to continue their education at the
university level.

Available data also shows that the number of those who took
the state university entrance exam was always large. In 1984, a
total of 483,000 took the test, while the number of available
seats for new students was only 73,625.

The seats were distributed among 43 state universities
throughout the 27 provinces.

In 1991, test takers totaled 470,000 and fought for 67,713
seats at state universities. The figures for this year have not
changed much. Unfortunately, university seats are limited.

Currently we have only one selection method for admitting
students, who meet all the requirements, to state universities.
It is known as the Entrance Test to State Universities (UMPTN).

There used to be a second method, based on continuous tracking
of the academic records of senior high school students but it was
abandoned in 1989. It used to be called the PMDK, JPPB or PMP.

Looking at the results of the nationwide end of study
evaluation, we immediately realize how the performance of our
secondary level education fluctuates significantly from one high
school to another.

In general, the best high schools are located in urban
centers. These above average schools have the necessary learning
infrastructure and means. The picture, however, is much different
at rural high schools.

The availability of teachers for every subject is not a
problem in the more fortunate schools. In case one teacher is
unable to teach, there will be another who can fill in for the
teacher so that the study process will not be disrupted.

Some good schools even have teachers with master's degrees. On
the other hand, some schools, particularly ones in rural areas,
have tremendous difficulty finding well trained teachers.

Research has shown that a lot of teachers teach subjects
outside of their specialization. For example, we still have
Bahasa Indonesia teachers teaching mathematics.

If we take into consideration the availability of
laboratories, libraries, and other teaching necessities, the
disparity between the excellent and the poor schools becomes even
worse.

Such a disparity in the quality of education seems to be a
fact that we must accept, albeit painfully. It is unfortunate
that the UMPTN selection method has not factored in the uneven
quality of education.

As we all know, every student does exactly the same entrance
exam. No provision is made to accommodate those who come from
less than excellent high schools.

The UMPTN test questions have been written based on the
curriculum. The ability of the test takers to give the correct
answers to these problems is, to a large extent, based on how
much of the curriculum they have mastered.

UMPTN, in essence, measures the mastery of study materials
based on the curriculum. Unfortunately, this factor is so
strongly influenced by the learning environment and facilities
that each student has had.

Based on this fact, the recently announced results of this
year's UMPTN was exactly as expected: students of good schools,
which are generally limited to urban centers, dominated the
enrollment at the state universities, especially the top tier.

Formerly, five state universities belonged to this group of
excellent universities. Today, there are ten of them.

Students in small towns or rural areas who went to schools
with minimal facilities had a slim chance in a competition that
is supposed to be fair.

The saddest thing is, these students might prove themselves to
be superior learners if they had the chance to attend the
university.

The Ministry of Education, in this case the Directorate of
Higher Education, seems to be fully aware of this disparity. This
was the reason behind the implementation of the now officially
defunct PMDK method.

The method was first introduced at the Bogor Agriculture
Institute. After its initial, successful implementation, the
model was further developed to include other state universities.
Finally, it was implemented on the national level.

According to the writer's personal experience as a high school
teacher up to 1988, the PMDK selection model had a strong,
positive impact on the students' academic life. Their academic
performance developed in a healthy manner. Scores of students
tried their best to get into the group of the "big five" at their
school.

The PMDK model was also responsible for admitting the best
youths from all over Indonesia into the state universities,
especially the top tier.

Unfortunately, there were those who irresponsibly abused the
system by manipulating their children's report cards. The report
cards sent to the admission committee at the state universities
were not always the original ones. They were illegally altered.
This was the reason the Ministry of Education eventually
abandoned it.

In general, the defunct PMDK is still getting a favorable
evaluation. Studies at several state universities have shown that
PMDK students are able to compete with those admitted through the
written tests. Furthermore, in some departments, their
performance was higher than the UMPTN students.

Based on the results of these studies, the ministry's decision
to pull the plug on PMDK was criticized by many. Like the problem
of a rat-infested house, one should not burn the house to get rid
of the rats.

Fortunately, a certain degree of tolerance has been granted.
In a very limited format, some state universities are still
offering high school graduates the chance to attend without
having to take the entrance tests.

Now, the question is, would it be possible to further develop
the PMDK model to enable students with limited financial
resources who possess the potential to succeed to attend state
universities?

Every decision will entail certain consequences, advantages
and disadvantages. The problem is, who should the government's
policies on higher education benefit more?

These question and expectations will be more meaningful if we
are willing to reflect on the true meaning of equality -free from
political rhetoric full of vested interests.

The writer is a former senior high school teacher now working
at the Research and Development Center of the Ministry of the
Education and Culture.