Nilai Ijazah Dulu Dan Sekarang

IN the good old days, finding a place in the country's three government universities was the case of being "among the best". First, there was the Senior Cambridge examination and finishing with good grades to find a place in a government school to finish the Higher School Certificate (HSC).
Those who did not make the cut, had to go to private schools or the Further Education Class to complete the HSC. Even then, a place in university was not guaranteed.
The crème de la crème in the science stream ended up doing medicine or engineering while the lesser qualified found themselves in courses like Botany, Zoology and Bio-Chemistry.
In the Arts Stream, the best went to the Law Faculty while the next tier did Geography, Literature and related courses.
Of course, those from wealthy families were sent overseas.
In short, the entry requirements brought about the best talents available who were bi-lingual and competent to pursue tertiary education. Hence the quality of graduates, many of whom went to hold high office in both the public and private sector.
These days, entry qualifications have been lowered for political expediency. A minimum of four credits at the Senior Cambridge equivalent of Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, jettisons one into a "university" where he or she is able to pursue a degree course.
The word university is used in inverted commas because the qualities of many of its graduates come under a cloud. Not many years ago, the senior partner of a law firm showed me a "joint application" to do chambering – two different photographs and CVs enclosed in one letter!
A veteran of the advertising industry went into academia after retirement only to quit in a huff after a stint in a private university which boasts of students from dozens of countries.
"I was told that all the students had to be 'passed'. My conscience wouldn't allow me to do that. So, I did the next best thing. Under the pretext of revising for the exams, the class discussed seven questions a week before the exams proper.
"All seven questions appeared in their question paper and students had to answer only three. Even then, many failed and were marked accordingly. The grades were "revised" by the head of department who said they needed a high pass rate to get more students," said the veteran.
At the end of it all, it's money for many of the scores of private universities and colleges. And many of them are drawn by the "PTPTN loan" mantra which is seen as a cash-cow. The money comes upfront and there is no urgency for meritocracy.
Therefore, the prime minister's announcement last week that one in every four Malaysians, aged between 18 and 24, is pursuing higher learning thanks to the nation's improved access to education is correct. However, the quality of these young men and women is highly suspect and many of them can hardly hold a decent conversation on issues in the news.
Many have shut themselves up in their own world and have little knowledge of what's happening around the globe. The case of the locally-qualified law graduate who did not know cardiology was related to the heart in a live TV quiz show illustrates this point.
Yes, young people are ending up in universities but what are they learning? And it's not surprising that thousands of them have been unable to land jobs. Is there anything more to be said of their quality?

ALL Malaysians who have been affected by the surge in the cost of essential goods will certainly welcome the deputy prime minister's emphasis that the government will not tolerate any profiteering by traders who breach business regulations.
"The government always monitored the actions of traders who used various methods to manipulate the cost and prices of goods in the market, including anti-competition activities such as the monopoly and cartel which contributed to the price hike and burdened the people," he was quoted as saying last week.
And the Domestic Affairs and Consumer Affairs Ministry says it will prosecute traders who do not display price tags which it argues will allow consumers to compare prices before making their purchase.
Shouldn't the government practise what it preaches?
Shouldn't it list out the prices it is paying for goods and services?
How about the negotiated tenders, public-private partnerships and land sales undertaken by the government?
Aren't we as taxpayers entitled to know if the government paid a fair and reasonable price for its purchases? If we as taxpayers get the market rate for sale of land we own, why is the government not getting fair value on the sale of government land?
In the same breath, the government has entered into several contracts with third parties and shouldn't we as taxpayers be able to state our opinions if such deals are lopsided?
That's food for thought for those who preach about consumer protection.
R. Nadeswaran is editor (special and investigative reporting) at theSun.