Students slam feudal practices in education

Students slam feudal practices in education

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): A very small news item in the Kompas daily, on
Nov. 20, '95 reported a big problem in education. It was reported
that university lecturers in Yogyakarta exhibit a feudal
mentality, behave more like bureaucrats, that they are inferior
in their fields of specialization, and lack independence in their
academic outlook.

This was a finding of a survey conducted by two groups in
Yogyakarta, the Kelompok Studi Perspektif (the Perspective Study
Group), and the Paradigma Bulletin. These two groups conducted
their survey from Aug. 1 to Nov. 14, '95.

The survey was designed to poll opinion regarding
characteristics, academic competence, and attitudes of college
and university lecturers in Yogyakarta.

Missing in this particular news item are reports concerning
methodological details of the survey such as reports about
composition of respondents, size of the sample, and methods
employed to collect and analyze data. According to this report,
only 54.9 percent of lecturers in Yogyakarta can be regarded as
possessing academic competence, while 10.4 percent of the
lecturers do not exhibit the right attitude for lecturers.

The survey further concluded that there has been a kind of
crisis in idealism and motivation among university lecturers in
Yogyakarta. The researchers also concluded that as exemplified by
institutions of higher education in Yogyakarta, there seems to be
a crisis of legitimacy among these institutions in fulfilling
their functions as institutions for increasing the nation's
knowledge, and as agencies for controlling and innovating
society's responses to social problems.

As a final conclusion, the study charges Indonesian
institutions of higher education as siding too much with the
establishment, and that they echo too frequently ideas of
developmentalism. It is also stated in this report that the
present pattern of university management in Indonesia puts too
much emphasis on the development of physical infrastructure, and
not enough attention to the problem of increasing quality and
enhancing research capability. I am not quite sure that the
findings of this study warrant such conclusions.

To be able to arrive to such conclusions, I think that very
sophisticated research instruments are needed, and that
sophisticated data analysis is called for. I do not think that a
survey using a simple questionnaire is capable of unearthing such
fundamental findings. And if we consider the fact that the whole
study was completed in such a short time -- the processes of data
collection, data analysis, and report writing were done within
three and a half months -- it is difficult to escape the
impression that this study was done in a rather big rush.

As statements of macro impressions, however, I think that
opinions stated in this study can not just be brushed aside as
invalid. One opinion which in my opinion must be taken seriously
is the one which says that lecturers in Yogyakarta behave more
like bureaucrats (thus less like scholars), are inferior (meaning
that they do not have sufficient mastery of) in their field of
specialization, and lacking independence in their academic
outlook (meaning that they do not have the capability nor the
courage to form independent opinions about matters related to
their field of study).

I think that this kind of situation is not confined to
institutions of higher education in Yogyakarta alone. I think
that throughout the country universities and colleges are facing
the same problems with regard to their teaching staff.

It is not difficult to find reasons for this situation.

First, within most universities and colleges in Indonesia the
majority of the teaching staff have only a first degree (sarjana
or S-I degree as their basic education). It is only in relatively
advanced universities that sufficient number of members of the
teaching staff have earned master and doctoral degrees. It is
this kind of situation which constitutes the source of complaints
regarding the academic quality of the teaching staff. It should
also be noted in this connection that within Indonesian
tradition, the teacher-student relationship has always been
paternalistic.

The word guru (teacher) and guru besar (professors) have very
strong feudal connotations. These are traditionally persons whose
wealth of knowledge and whose wisdom must be taken for granted.
These are persons toward whom students should show their deepest
reverence. Against this kind of background it is quite natural
that most teachers, lecturers, and professors cannot resist the
temptation of adopting an attitude which can be labeled as
bureaucratic. It is only the exceptional few among them who are
willing and capable of treating their students as junior fellows
in the collective search towards knowledge and wisdom.

And why do university lecturers show lack of independence in
forming personal judgments?

In my view it is because most of our colleges and universities
have been managed and run just like ordinary bureaucracies in
which obedience and political conformity are absolute musts. The
fact that universities are institutions which have to advance
knowledge and exist to prepare the young generation for a better
national future has been ignored.

We are constantly reminded that for the sake of promoting
stability and order, and preventing chaos that could disrupt
national development efforts, hierarchical rules must be strictly
observed. But we are not entirely free in voicing the principle
that for the sake of advancing knowledge, freedom in pursuing
inquiry must be jealously guarded. We are also not reminded of
the principle that for the sake of preparing the young generation
for a better way life, a critical attitude towards today's
situation and practices must be encouraged.

In short, we have been led to overlook the basic principle
that for any university to carry out its mission well, freedom
and independence in formulating judgment and opinion must be
guaranteed and indeed encouraged.It is in the light of this
general situation that I believe in the correctness of the basic
assertions of this study. In spite of the methodological
weaknesses that may prevail in it, its findings should not be
taken lightly. This study must be regarded as a guide concerning
ways to bring about improvements into our colleges and
universities in order to enhance their capacity to prepare the
young generation for the future.

The important question that has to be answered at this
juncture is what has to be done to make our lecturers more
democratic and more scholarly in their attitude, more capable in
their academic performance, and more dependent in forming their
judgments and opinions. There is no easy answer to these
questions and there are no short-cuts. But we must realize that
without academic competence, a democratic atmosphere, and
independent spirit, it is impossible to have a healthy and
functioning system of higher education.