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.