An update to the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings for 2021 ranked the National University of Singapore (NUS) as the 6th most international university in the world, while Nanyang Technological University (NTU) comes in at 9th.
What does this mean?
Well, according to the THE website, the ranking of the most international universities takes into account a university’s proportions of international students, international staff, journal publications with at least one international co-authors, and a university’s international reputation. All these pillars are given equal weight in the calculation of rankings.
For clarification, a university’s international reputation is the measure of “the proportion of votes from outside the home country that the institution achieved in THE’s annual invitation-only Academic Reputation Survey”, according to the website.
Back in 2019, TOC raised a concern about the ratio of international to local students in autonomous universities—like NUS and NTU. Based on figures from the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) website—a different yet equally respected global ranking—it seemed that about 25 percent of NUS’ spots went to international students. A similar ratio was recorded by QS for NTU.
This year, based on data from THE for 2021, about 26 percent of students at NUS are international students. THE records the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled in NUS at 30,493.
Above is quoted from singaporenewslive.com. Singapore now has the bragging right to be number 6 and number 9 in the world as international universities. So, what is so great about being ranked highly as an international university? Is it the same as useless piece of degree that cannot be eaten? As reported about, the ranking is based on number of international students and international staff. These two criteria means more university places for foreigners instead of Singaporeans, more international academic staff instead of Singaporeans.
We have often heard of the grievances of parents having to empty their life savings to send their childre overseas because they could not get into local universities, ie being deprived of the precious place by foreign students. And many local academics have lost their jobs to foreign academics. In the first case, who pays for the foreign students to study here, the foreign students or Singapore, how much it costs to bring in so many foreign students to steal the place that should rightly be reserved for Singaporeans, the children of tax payers?
Secondly, how many Singaporean academics have lost their jobs to foreign academics and ended up unemployed or underemployed? Why create good paying jobs for foreigners and places for foreign students just to have a fictitious and practically useless reputation of being a top rank international universities? Worth it? How much it cost to Singapore, to parents, how many jobs lost to Singaporeans that needed the jobs?
What is so good or so valuable or so financially rewarding to win such ranks? Is the cost worth it for such superficial glory? Can be eaten or not?
The cost over the years are in hundreds of billions and the pyschological and financial impact of this pro foreigner policy, at the expense of Singaporean students and good jobs for Singaporeans is another Uniquely Singapore Stupidity has no cure policy. Educating foreigners to steal our lunch, providing good jobs to foreigners instead of Singaporeans just for a stupid, meaningless ranking.
What do you think? Should billions of public money be spent on this stupid and useless title of being a top international university at the expense of university places for our tax paying Singaporeans and the loss of good jobs for our own academics?
10 comments:
Redbean,
remember just on september this year, there is one ranking by another group (or is it same group ?) that place ntu and nus above 100th ranking because it mention that university shouldn't reward authoritarian country using shortcut hiring foreigners and to increase rate of research papers to boost up ranking. The ranking should be based on how universities contribute for the betterment of the society and the world (something like that). Incredibly, the article gone for good in search engine. Not a trace to be found in search engine. It is like totally censor off the net. Must be another work of Singapore miracle. That article is much more at ground of what defines the purpose of university rather, than try to game the ranking.
I could be wrong but if someone can point out where is the article , that will be good. Kid you not, the article gone for good base on simple search term.
So is this a case of "hear the right thing", remove the "wrong" thing ?
Look like money speak louder than truth, and truth hurts.
From there, you can see how messup and manipulate the world is.
All this meaningless pursuit of ranking is just nothing but to boost the profitability if that university did not serve their true purpose of existence.
Did Redbean manage to capture that article ?
I missed out on that. Ranked 100th, so did not pay attention to it.
What is sad is that so many university lecturer's jobs and university places could have gone to Singaporeans.
Why waste so much public money to provide jobs and university places to foreigners for something so trivial and meaningless?
The ranking is around 120 to 140, with similar placing of those great universities of China. So embarrassing that it never see the light in the media, but if ranking show good, media immediately show it.
First of all, why Singapore government love foreigners. Because foreigners who come to Singapore only see the form (beauty, stability, orderliness and harmony of the city (no protest, no disruption, no natural disaster, no earthquake , serious flood, everything look like paradise to them), but they are not aware of beneath the form is lack of substance. So these foreigners become the spokesman for the city, attracting more foreigners. But when these foreigners who settle down realize what true blue Singaporeans have being going through, and the flaw of system, they start to ask question the same way. I believe that closure of Yale NUS College with their academic freedom (so naturally they see critical thinking as important) must have something to do with such realization.
Singapore Workers' Party celebrity economist is on the offensive again, this time taking inspiration from the USA, where a tax on unrealized capital gains is being mulled right now.
Jamus Lim is proposing to tax net wealth between 0.5% (above $10 million) and 2% (for fortunes above $1 billion) to create a new stream of "income" to the national budget.
As usual, we could hear a lot about "fairness" and "inequality" that the new tax is supposed to tackle.
�� And, I do have to concede, that on the latter Mr. Lim is perfectly spot on - taxation of wealth would quite instantly reduce inequality.
When Singapore's richest - with fortunes in excess of $20 billion - have a tax bill of $400+ million on their assets (like, let's say, owning shares in a company they founded), they would quite quickly pack their bags and change residence.
And when they are gone, inequality statistics will immediately fall.
If there are no rich people, there is nobody to be unequal against. Clever!
Of course not only would it not improve the situation of everybody else in the society - but it would materially harm the economy and millions of people in it. It's the wealthy who invest and spend the most after all.
�� Earlier I wrote about left-wing hoaxes - and "inequality" is the biggest and worst of them all.
By World Bank's Gini coefficient estimates - so beloved by the "progressives" - Kyrgyzstan and East Timor are more "equal" than Sweden, Austria, France or Germany. Lukashenko's regime in Belarus is among the world's top performers, along with Moldova, Ukraine or Azerbaijan - all leading the pack ahead of the likes of Norway or Iceland.
If you're a resident of Australia, UK or Spain, you should leave to enjoy greater economic justice in Niger, Pakistan or Albania.
I'm sure that even a homeless junkie knows perfectly well which are better - and yet, we keep hearing how "inequality" is one of the biggest problems of the 21st century, so much so, that populist politicians want to tax virtual, paper valuation of stocks.
To add to the irony, wealth tax as such is not a new invention - only it has been phased out in nearly every country in the developed world because it was a pain to calculate and collect, and incentivized tax avoidance, reducing the tax revenues to a trickle not worth bothering about.
Does the academic economist, that Jamus Lim is, not know this?
No, I'm perfectly sure he is well aware.
�� This is little else than a political spin, after rumours emerged from some quarters of the administration that some form of wealth taxation may be considered in the near future (like it was floated by MAS' Ravi Menon a few months ago).
Singaporean opposition wants to seize another opportunity to propose something that may, again, lead them to claim credit if some alternative solution is proposed by the PAP government - just like it recently happened re: the minimum wage.
I think it should become a civilized rule in parliaments all over the world, that politicians be forbidden from proposing any increase to taxation unless they themselves can first propose a way of generating new revenues by the government itself - amounting to at least a half (or more) of the amount they claim is needed.
Anybody can propose taking money from someone who has actually earned it. So, only those who can should be in charge of governance.
Otherwise you end up with the catastrophic mess that national finances are in all over the world.
anon November 03, 2021 11:35 am,
Are you the same guy that keep posing irrelevant and propaganda stuff ? Have you forgotten to take your medicine ?
To slow down inflation and high property prices, Singapore must reintroduce estate duties to pre the last change to remove estate duties.
Singaporeans should only be allowed exemption from estate duties for only one property. Additional properties must pay estate duties like before.
RB,
With the greatest respect, I am just suggesting:
As a general guideline, I think plagiarism should not be allowed at the Comments Section.
However, based on your discretion, exceptions may be made.
Otherwise, this blog will become an extension of the Straits Times, CNA and Today or other News outlets. Or it may become a free advertising platform for glory-seekers to republish Facebook pages here.
On a cautious note, one fine day, somebody may decide to take legal action for copyright infringement.
Though posted by visitors to your blog, and you may disclaim responsibility, but you are ultimately responsible to make sure that your blog is not misused or abused in anyway, by anyone.
Hope you are not offended by my kaypoh suggestion.
SSO.
Why would a government be so stupid to remove the Estate Duties (or any duties and tax)?
There are no good reasons to want to remove the Estate Duties and unnecessarily lost a portion of the government's income. Unless, of course, the Tax Department is too lazy to do the tedious work of going through hundreds and thousands of pages of supporting documents and evidences to scrutinise and verify the Declarations made on behalf of the Deceased?
The official reason that was given for doing away the Estate Duties is that the amount collected from Estate Duties is too small and therefore the government can absorb the loss of this stream of revenue. This is absurdity!
But, but, but, think deeper.
This may not be absurd if the top people in government have something to benefit from it, isn't it?
Or, probably something they wish to hide from public scrutiny?
The removal of the Estate Duties does not only benefits the Millionaire Ministers, Top Millionaire Civil Servants and other filthy rich people in Singapore monetarily. Its removal also, at the same time, in one swift single stroke, did away with the Compulsory Declaration of ALL Assets held in the name of the Deceased and those being held by other people on his behalf, e.g. public or private company's and whatever foundation's assets and profits from which the Deceased could be a beneficiary.
All declarations are to include assets held in foreign land and locally.
By doing away with the Estate Duties, all those millionaires, billionaires and filthy rich people can hide their real worth, past false declarations, discrepancies, self-incriminating evidences, or illegal activities from the Inland Revenues Public Records. In other words, the public will never be able to scrutinise their past illegal actions and sins, if any.
What a masterstroke!
SSO.
Hi SSO, I understand your concern. Normally I would delete copy and paste. Sometimes I made exceptions.
As a comment and not a main article, plagiarism is not an issue unless the article is offensive.
I will remove articles or comments if the reason for objection is reasonable.
Cheers.
The Pathetic And Tragic State Of Singapore Voters
First they came for the Healthcare workers, but I was not a Healthcare worker, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Frontline and Essential workers, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Seniors and Oldies, but I was neither old nor a senior citizen, so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, the Minority group of Unvaccinated, the Majority of the Vaccinated people refused to speak out for me.
Ask yourself, you belong to which group of "I" and who did you voted?
Singaporeans are basically kiasu and kiasi. Such a spineless people cannot stand when there is an invasion by another country. This has already been demonstrated by the CECA invasions over the last 15 years.
Even the Opposition, Workers' Party, is starting to tow the line conscientiously and religiously.
What hope is there, from here forward?
Post a Comment