5/09/2013

NUS ranked Number 8!



The Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking system has ranked NUS as the 8th top best university in the world. NUS, according to this system, is ranked higher than Princeton and Imperial College of London. And since Yale is not in the top 10, Yale must now rank lower than NUS. This is a great honour, said NUS Provost Tan Eng Chye, a recognition of how good NUS is today.

What are the implications? When NUS was ranked much lower and like unknowns, there was a need to boost its credential by cooperating with other higher ranked universities like Yale and Imperial College. NUS is now ranked higher than these two great universities. Would it thus not really necessary to be linked to them, not that it is not good, but in terms of rubbing off some of the glitters? With such a high ranking, there is really no longer any necessity to be have joint campuses with other top universities as only a few are better ranked than NUS, like Cambridge or Harvard.

Looking at it from another angle, all the lesser rank universities will be forming a beeline to be linked to NUS. And this is a great money making opportunity to lend our good repute, the name of NUS, to other lesser known universities, the same formula as Yale NUS. A slight problem is that there may be a need to hire more American and western professors to make it desirable.

Another good repercussion to this high ranking is that employers must also be forming a beeline to hire NUS graduates. True or not? No need to hire foreign graduates from western universities and Third World universities. This high ranking must be added in the testimonials of NUS graduates to prove how good and the type of pedigree they are.

And our students need not have to go overseas to study in lower ranked universities like Yale and Imperial College. NUS is better. Can save a lot of money too. The Govt too can save a lot of money by sending their scholars to NUS now.

This ranking has many good economic implications and savings for the Govt and parents whose children wanted to go overseas. No need to do that anymore. NUS is the place to go, the place to be.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

An April report from consulting firm Booz Allen showed that in 2012,
15 percent of the world’s largest 2,500 companies replaced their CEOs
—the second-highest figure in the 13 years it has compiled the data.

(In 2011 14 percent of this class of executives were replaced.)

The typical tenure of an elite CEO is now about 5.9 years.
“CEOs these days are given one term in office,”

The whole world needs to learn from Singapore gahmen and Temasek management.
No need to change leadership so quickly.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/05/06/why-the-speed-of-business-is-dooming-america-s-ceos.html

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

It depends. Look at how our military chiefs and perm secs are being rotated so regularly?

There is wisdom to rotate CEOs. The reason is obvious, just like changing political leadership. The Americans and the Chinese have a two term office for their presidents. The danger of not doing so is all there to see. It only happens in Third World countries when corruption and nepotism became institutionalised.

Anonymous said...

Since NUS and Singapore are so great and attractive, why on earth subsidize foreigners and foreign students?

Make all foreign students and PRs pay full fees. Singapore NUS Singaporean students $3,000 per year, while PR and foreign students $25,000 a year. Just like many reputed universities around the world.

Hello, hello Pappies.

Anonymous said...

I for one could not believe this. If NUS is so good, why are our graduates not snatch up by coporations? Why the need to employ dubious FTs?

oldhorse42 said...

There was a report about a true blue singaporean student with 8As who failed to get into this top local University to study LAW. To study Law mind you, not medicine which is more difficult to get in.
My fear is that with our local U being rank higher than some famous angmo U, more and more FTs would choose to study here, displacing locals.
In the May Day Rally at Hong Lim Park, I saw a little girl holding a placard which expressed her concern whether there would be a place for her in schools.
This is a real concern of Singapore parents now.Not the ranking of our education instituitions.

Anonymous said...

Wow lau..another JEWEL of stinkapore education system

Anonymous said...

We paid so much, don't know how much, to bring in all the angmoh professors here to boost our ranking. Someone must pay for this right? Where is the money coming from? Not cheap leh.

Anonymous said...

Halo, NUS Ranking is upped only after many years of foreign student intakes. So, it is most likely those foreign students were the ones that brought the honour to NUS hoh.
Use the blain lah.
If we sponsor more bright students from overseas, NUS, NTU and All our tertiary institution could very well take all the Top Spots in rankings.

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

Rankings are invented by some savvy marketing folks to create some arbitrary "hierarchy" which doesn't really exist in nature.

Just like beauty contests lah.

However, we a re a judgmental and competitive species. So as delusional as made-up rankings might be, our emotions get "excited" when encounter rankings.

Anonymous said...

Very true,
the way things are done could very well means that there will be few vacancies for the locals.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The first principle of the govt and our education system is to educate our children, not to game the ranking system, not to provide education places for foreigners.
We can do some charity, but charity has its limits. It is our children first and they need to be educate for their own good and the good of our country.

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

Wah lau. redbean tells the government what to do. Steady lah Joe.

>> the good of our country.

Wah, you still believe you have a cuntree?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Some may think that it has been sold. To believe in that it is as good as sold. Gone.

It is up to the citizens to take back their country and chart it the way they want it to be.

Anonymous said...

Take back 'your' country?

Sell it and give me my share. Dont
pocket the money.

Unfortunately, it is sold and I have
to pay more to stay in the land I am
born.

Ridiculous but a fact of life in Sin.

Ⓜatilah $ingapura⚠️ said...

redbean:

>> It is up to the citizens to take back their country and chart it the way they want it to be.

Good luck. Most of the citizens are too busy doing well for themselves.

These days having yur own "cuntree" is fast becoming irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

RB, I am not convinced with the ranking as I don't see employers rushing to recruit or retain our graduates. I still think India and pinoy universities are better as their graduates are in great demand. If u study the ranking in details may be the quality of the graduates in the ranking is not high and may be the high ranking is due to research etc so the normal under graduates are really not good enough for the employers. The employers demand is the ultimate ranking for the under graduates not the uni ranking.

Anonymous said...

Weight age for employers is 10%

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:34, like sold to AIM and pay more to use.

Anonymous said...

RB, nus is ranked 25, where did u get the 8 ranking?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

In the media yesterday. Think you are referring to the Times Ranking System. This one is Quac symonds.

Edmund Lim said...

@ RB 0956 :
//"The first principle of the govt and our education system is to educate our children, not to game the ranking system, not to provide education places for foreigners.
We can do some charity, but charity has its limits. It is our children first and they need to be educate for their own good and the good of our country"//

Hi RB,

Our nation certainly has been very "generous" in opening our "D-O-O-R-S" very, very "W-I-D-E" to let in "B-I-G" talents to take up precious limited undergraduate vacancies in our publicly funded varsities!

Our nation is "so generous" that we may be giving all the "juicy and meaty parts" to the "talented" foreign students and leaving the local sons and daughters to contend with the remaining "leftovers, crumbs and bones" to satisfy their "hunger" for a basic degree education.

Alas, is this the way forward to instil national pride in our younger generation and forge a sense of national identity in our nation building efforts?

Our country needs to account to the locals by being transparent in the yearly quota and percentage reserved for foreigners in our publicly funded varsities undergraduate courses .

Just as the rationale and need for HDB quota for foreigners and PRs in each block and precinct, the policy of the foreign component intake in our varsities should have clear rationale and reasoning behind the numbers and percentage. It should and must be justifiable!

Our dead forebears might be turning in their graves if they realise that the bulk of their nation building efforts, contributions and sacrifices could have gone to financing and providing a first class university education for some foreigners instead of the local sons and daughters in our midst!

We are NOT AGAINST foreign students in our varsities but there must be a justifiable line drawn.

Failure to provide transparent data and justification in this aspect could seriously undermine our national efforts to forge a strong national identity among Singaporeans especially the young.

I think most Singaporeans can stomach our nation "doing charity" by giving about 500 to 1,000 places to foreign students each year in our varsities. I think that's already very high given our very limited capacity.

Any figure above 1,200 reserved for yearly foreign student intake in our varsities might not go down well with local parents, students and even grandparents who had contributed greatly in our nation building efforts.

Cheers :)

Happy "Blogging",
sgpropertymatters.blogspot.sg

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Edmund, your numbers spread over 4 universities look about right. I will be more comfortable with 10% max for each faculty or university at most for each cohort.

Anonymous said...

RB, I think current policy is 20% foreign intake so each year 12000 vacancies mean 2400 foreign students. Bulk should be scholarship holders.

Edmund Lim said...

Hi RB,

Thanks for your concurrence.

To me, every "drop" counts.

University vacancies are like water in a desert for the sons and daughters in our midst.

Vying for university places basically is a "zero-sum" game for every society.

Every place given to a foreigner is one vacancy less for the local students.

After "slogging" day and night for 12 long years in our "cut-throat" ultra-competitive education system, with the boys still having to sacrifice and be "Ter-Kanned" for 2 years in the National Service and a "Botak" head to boot, our society should empathise with all their exasperations and aspirations.

Recently, heard that some local students with relatively good A Level grades were offered places in "dumping ground" courses. Really "felt a deep sense of indignant" for the sons and daughters in this generation.

If our country does not set a limit to the "flood gate" at the "dam", the number of foreign students potentially coming in is limitless.

Asean has a population of more than 500 million, China 1.4 billion and South Asia including India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka 1.35 billion. That's a total of almost 3.3 billion or near to half of the world's population.

Opening up our local print media to even one more competitor is a “potential threat to our national cohesion and a duplication of service and therefore a wastage of resources” so we only have SPH.

But opening up our university places, rightfully belonging to the sons and daughters in our midst, to competition from potentially a population base of 3.3 billion people probably may not even "elicit" a "bat of the decision makers' eyes"!

How ironical and "cold-hearted"!

Unless there is something "inherently wrong" in the local pre-tertiary education system from Pri 1 to JC 2, how can our local A Level graduates "fare" so badly against their counterparts schooled in 3rd World developing countries?

Somehow, in this aspect, I can never wrap my head around this "incongruity".

Cheers :)

Happy "Blogging",
sgpropertymatters.blogspot.sg

PS: Btw RB, I think you are being too kind and generous with offering 10% university vacancies to foreign students. Based on my understanding of what the sons and daughters in our midst go through nowadays for 12 long years, I think they deserve no less than 93% to 97% of the vacancies available in our varsities. Otherwise, some of the parents may have to break their retirement "piggy banks" or sell away their HDB flats ( given about 83% stay in HDB flats ) to pay for their children's overseas university education. How sad!

Edmund Lim said...

@ anon 5:00 pm

If I am not wrong, a rough estimate for the total vacancies in NUS, NTU, SMU and SUTD for 2013/ 2014 intake is 14,000+ to 15,000.

If the 20% you mentioned is the figure where the current foreign students intake policy stands, that puts it at about 3,000 foreign students or scholars for 2013/ 2014 local varsities intake.

I do not know whether this percentage, if it is correctly mentioned by you, sits well with RB or the parents of the thousands of sons and daughters in our midst each year or the thousands of sons and daughters themselves each year.

Perhaps, philosophically, we can seek the "help" of Utilitarianism masters Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill for their "free" advice on what should be a justifiable and fair line to draw in this instance on the foreign students intake percentage such that the sons and daughters in our midst are not rightfully deprived of a university place deservedly theirs.

Also we should consult them the rationale for setting such a high percentage of foreign student intake if the figure you quoted is correct and what is the justification for doing so to our local students?

Remember, university vacancies are preciously prized aspirations and goals and essentially it is a "ZERO-SUM GAME" in every society!

Oops! I remember reading somewhere mentioned by our founding fathers in the early days of our independence that the Westerners are no smarter than us. So, I think we should heed the advice and give our own fellow country men and country women the opportunity to clarify and justify on their decisions of giving such “high” proportion to foreign students, be it scholars or otherwise.

Anyway, as far as I know, Mr Wee Cho Yeow, Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, Li Ka Shing etc etc are all not scholars. They are not even university graduates but are successful beyond anybody's imagination.

Any compeling reasons we must roll red carpets to welcome 3,000 “foreign scholars” schooled in 3rd world developing countries, pay every single cent for their university education here funded by hard earned tax payers money ( which is you, me, parents of the sons and daughters in our midst, grandparents etc ), punctually giro generous monthly allowances into their bank accounts, courtesy from again our tax payers ( which is you, me, parents of the sons and daughters in our midst, grandparents etc ) and house most of them in our brand new multi-million dollars “glittering” buildings in NUS Town with state of the art facilities predominantly funded and operated with tax payers money which is again you, me, parents of the sons and daughters in our midst, grandparents etc )?

Any assurance that this would not turn out into another “bomb out” investment which could have been better utilised elsewhere?

Any data or statistic to show a cost-benefit analysis?

What is the retention rate for the past 20 years or rather what is the “jump-ship” rate for the past 20 years meaning how big is the proportion who actually end up “gaming” our system here and use Singapore as a “spring board” to move over to countries in the Western world etc?


Cheers :)

Happy "Blogging",
sgpropertymatters.blogspot.sg


PS: This should be my last comment in this post otherwise RB may delete further comments from me as I will be seen "monopolising" the discussion here. :)

For fellow bloggers and readers, drop by NUS Town when you are free any part of the week and hopefully you will see for yourselves what I am trying to feedback here.

Cheers again : )

Anonymous said...

Why do you think our good students are not admitted here, like medicine, law etc and forced to go else where. Then in turn we flood our market with trash from all the shit holes and slums of the world?

Is this crazy, insane or something devious?

Anonymous said...

>>804pm

Papayas are afraid of people contesting for their jobs and that is the reason they do not like locals to be educated and successful. Only those belong to their club can by educated and successful. This is the same as why emperor qing burnt all the books. People must learn to open their eyes to vote properly next GE.

Anonymous said...

If does not matter that much about ranking. The true story is in the details.

NUS has five of the six QS indicator in the top 100. These are based on surveys or dependent on the available of funds.

For research-related Citations, NUS's ranking is 204! Good enough for a 'research university?)

Anonymous said...

When we talk about ranking, we must be clear in our mind what we are ranking about bout.

I we ask academics in Singapore which is the best known U here, they will all say NUS. If you as employers have they employed any NUS graduates, the answer is most likely Yes. These give NUS perfect or near perfect sccres on two indicators.

If we have money (which we have) we can afford to have small class size, better paid professors from over the world, and off many scholarships to young FTS. These ill give NUS good ratings (rankings) on another three indicators.

As for Citation which is independent on social influences and money, NUS has a rank of 204. And, what does this suggest to potential research students?