Latest news with #publicuniversities
Free Malaysia Today
6 days ago
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
The myth of diversity and inclusivity in Malaysian higher education
By P Ramasamy The recent claim by higher education minister Zambry Abd Kadir that Malaysian institutions of higher learning are 'inclusive and diverse' leaves one wondering whether he was referring to an entirely different country. Even when controversial figures like US president Donald Trump proposed restricting foreign students from studying at institutions like Harvard, those restrictions did not apply to local American students. In Malaysia, however, the reality is far grimmer: discrimination in higher education is institutionalised and, regrettably, widely accepted as the norm. Zambry's assertions about inclusivity are nothing short of hypocritical and misleading. The Malaysian higher education system is deeply racialised, overwhelmingly favouring Malay/Bumiputera students under the guise of affirmative action. Approximately 81% of admissions to public institutions of higher learning are reserved for Malay/Bumiputera students. This figure alone calls into question any genuine commitment to pluralism or inclusiveness. Ethnic restrictions also exist in the allocation of academic disciplines, particularly in high-demand fields with better employment prospects. Many public universities operate with a dominant Malay/Bumiputera student population, leaving limited space for non-Malay students and, ironically, prioritising some foreign students over local non-Malay applicants. In many cases, non-Malay Malaysians face greater difficulty accessing these institutions than international students. Unlike the US, where the judiciary often acts as a check on executive overreach, in Malaysia, discrimination is entrenched in both institutional practice and political policy. The selective application of affirmative action based on race and religion has long excluded non-Malay students – not only from admissions but also from meaningful opportunities within academic institutions. Poor non-Malay students bear the brunt of this system. While their wealthier peers may pursue private or overseas education, those from less privileged backgrounds are left behind, shut out from the public education system that is supposed to serve all Malaysians equally. What Zambry – and by extension, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim – appears to be doing is engaging in a duplicitous exercise: presenting a polished narrative to the international community while sustaining a discriminatory reality at home. Despite rising to power on promises of reform, the Pakatan Harapan-led government has done little to dismantle these entrenched structures. Diversity in Malaysian higher education is, in truth, an illusion. From student intake to faculty appointments, from departmental leadership to vice-chancellorships, representation is glaringly uneven. It is no surprise, then, that an increasing number of Malaysians – especially non-Malays – are seeking education and careers abroad, taking with them the very talent and potential the country so desperately needs. The government is well aware of these problems. The real question is: who among them will have the courage to address them? As for Zambry, perhaps the greater shame lies not in what he said, but in what he chose to leave unsaid. One wonders who wrote his speech – and more importantly, who he thought he was fooling. P Ramasamy is the Urimai chairman The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Wall Street Journal
23-05-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
MBA Loans: How To Finance Your Business School Degree in 2025
Is it common for MBA students to take out loans? Statistics from the Education Data Initiative estimate that 57.8% of MBA graduates have student loan debt. So, if you need to borrow to pay for your degree, you're not alone. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average cost for graduate school tuition and fees at public universities for the 2023-2024 school year was nearly $12,000. However, that doesn't include living expenses and other education expenses like books. The Education Data Initiative estimates the average cost to get an MBA as $60,410, encompassing two years. However, if you choose to go to a private school or a more expensive public university, the cost of getting an MBA could be much higher. When looking at these costs, it's no surprise that MBA students take out loans. What is the average MBA student loan debt? The average MBA graduate has $81,218 in debt, including undergraduate and graduate student loans. Those with only graduate school debt have an average of $63,146 in loans. Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans While there are no official federal MBA loans, you can access the Direct Loan program to pay some of your graduate school bills. You're allowed to borrow up to $20,500 a year for graduate school. These loans are unsubsidized and have an interest rate of 8.08% for the 2024-2025 academic year. Federal Direct Loans come with access to the same benefits for MBA students as for undergraduate borrowers, including: Federal loan consolidation Access to income-driven repayment plans Potential federal student loan forgiveness Access to deferral and forbearance You don't need to worry about credit criteria with a federal loan. As long as you have a Social Security number, haven't reached the aggregate limit and haven't defaulted on previous student loans, you're likely to qualify for the maximum amount each year. Graduate Plus or private MBA loans Because your total cost of attendance for your MBA will likely surpass the federal student loan limits, you might need to supplement your funding with additional loans. The annual limit for Direct Loans for graduate students is $20,500, but the aggregate limit for graduate and undergraduate loans is $138,500. If you need more funding beyond those amounts, consider Graduate Plus or private MBA loans. Graduate Plus loans are part of the Direct Loan program, but their limit is based on the cost of attendance minus other financial aid. For example, if the cost of attendance for your MBA is $30,000 a year, and you get $20,500 as an unsubsidized loan, you might qualify for $9,500 in Graduate Plus loans for that year. The main difference is that your credit is checked for adverse history before you're approved for a Graduate Plus loan. Private MBA loans are available through banks, credit unions and online lenders. They come with differing credit and income requirements, depending on the lender. It's generally harder to qualify for private MBA loans, although interest rates can be lower for those with high credit scores. Private MBA loans don't provide access to the federal loan protections that Graduate Plus loans do. Pros and cons of Graduate Plus loans
Mail & Guardian
15-05-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Prof Linda du Plessis rebukes Dawie Roodt's university closure comments
Prof Linda du Plessis. South Africa has too many public universities and most of them should be closed. Furthermore, only 10% of the population should pursue a university education, 'while there is a big shortage at other skill levels'. These are some of the comments recently made by economist Dawie Roodt, who also labelled South Africa's primary education sector as one of the worst in the world, arguing that the quality of state-owned universities has declined and that universities should be more selective when admitting students. He also proposes that South Africans should receive educational vouchers to spend at whichever institution they want. This begs the question: Do South Africa's 19 public universities and seven universities of technology still have a significant role to play in the country's education sector, or does the future – as Roodt argues – increasingly lie in private universities? According to Prof Linda du Plessis, vice-principal and deputy vice-chancellor for teaching and learning at the North-West University (NWU), Roodt's statements fail to consider all the facts. 'Roodt's argument oversimplifies a complex educational and socio-political landscape. South Africa produces high-quality graduates across numerous fields, and his sweeping statements fail to acknowledge the significant strides made in research, teaching, learning and community engagement. Given a graduate employment rate below 10%, compared to a youth unemployment rate exceeding 40%, a degree remains a sound investment,' she says. According to her, Roodt's focus is almost exclusively on the shortcomings of a handful of public universities, without acknowledging the many achievements in various disciplines. 'These include globally recognised researchers and world-class programmes, substantial high-quality, widely cited research output and critical contributions to public health, science and national policy. His narrative is one-sided and overlooks the essential fields that underpin the country's functioning, such as law, accountancy, engineering, nursing, social work and teaching. Of particular concern is the ongoing underperformance of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sector and the persistently low enrolment numbers. He barely addresses this or the fact that TVET students are part of the post-school education system and receive NSFAS funding. 'Moreover, public universities are not merely educational institutions; they are engines of social mobility, redress and transformation. Suggesting that only 10% of the population should attend university disregards the national imperative to expand access to higher education, as set out in the National Development Plan (NDP).' She also notes that Roodt compares the performance of public and private institutions without providing empirical evidence or comparative data on student outcomes or employment rates. 'Most private universities in South Africa do not engage in significant research, offer limited post-graduate opportunities and cater to a small segment of the population. They also often lack the research infrastructure necessary for impactful academic work. By contrast, public universities, despite their challenges, have made significant progress in establishing research networks, international collaborations and strategic partnerships with national funding bodies such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The proposal to introduce vouchers lacks clarity on how they would make a meaningful difference. Students already have the freedom to choose their institution of study. Roodt overlooks critical issues such as planning, accommodation and transport, which are integral to the student experience. The current NSFAS funding model is determined by government policy, not by public universities. One of its greatest benefits has been the promotion of more equitable access to education. Roodt's argument does not address how a privatised system would avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. It might be more appropriate to explore alternatives, such as converting NSFAS to a partial loan scheme, with repayment linked to academic performance – an idea that could merit further economic analysis. The suggestion to 'level the playing field' between public and private universities assumes that they operate under similar mandates and constraints. They do not. Public universities have a constitutional mandate to serve the public good and advance social justice. These are roles that do not align with the profit-driven models typical of private institutions. Ultimately, Roodt's assertions lack a solid evidentiary foundation. While the public university sector has areas requiring improvement, a blanket call to dismantle it in favour of private alternatives reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the sector's role in society and its broader impact,' Prof du Plessis concludes. To return to the question of whether the country's public universities still have a significant role to play in the country's education sector, the answer seems to be an unequivocal yes. Follow the link to the article here:
Forbes
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Students Don't Want A Romanticized Version Of College—They Want Opportunity
At a time when public trust in higher education is waning, employer confidence is being tested, and political pressure is intensifying, defenders of the ivory tower are retreating to familiar ground: college, they argue, is not primarily about jobs or opportunity. It's about coming of age. About becoming an engaged citizen. About immersing oneself in a forum of ideas. It's a comforting narrative—nostalgic, even—but it's also deeply misleading, and steeped in privilege. It reflects the experience of a small fraction of students who can afford to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of dollars, on an education with intangible outcomes and challenges in converting their investment into opportunity. For most students—including working adults, first-generation students, and those juggling school with other responsibilities—that's a luxury they can't afford. It's also worth remembering that higher education in America was never meant to be an elite pursuit. It was built as a pathway to economic mobility and national progress—an engine of the American Dream. While the early colleges of the 17th and 18th centuries were largely oriented to theology or the professoriate, by the mid-19th century the modern university system had begun to take form. With the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890, Congress created a network of public universities designed to offer practical education aligned with workforce needs—a tradition that ultimately led to the modern bachelor's degree, the credit hour, and the 'four-year' experience. That foundational mission still resonates today. While a privileged few may enroll in postsecondary education purely to expand their intellectual horizons and experience a romanticized, Hollywood version of college, research from Lumina Foundation and Gallup shows that the vast majority do so to get a great job and improve their economic prospects. Our higher education institutions themselves have leaned into that promise, building a model around career pathways, degrees, and credentials. They have launched graduate colleges predominantly focused on professional domains. They linked tuition to future earnings potential (when it suited them). And they marketed their programs on the basis of job placement and return on investment. If that model is now showing cracks—if it's become too expensive, too rigid, or too disconnected from the labor market—then we shouldn't retreat to abstract ideals. Institutions can't have it both ways. I have a simple definition of 'education': the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and ability in order to advance one's life. While education surely has generalized value and is vital to personal development—it improves our understanding, ability to reason, our productive engagement, quality of choices, nurturing of children, etc.—for individuals to thrive, they must also be able to apply what they've learned to a relevant opportunity. It stands to reason, then, that the purpose of higher education–or any structured educational pathway–is to activate talent into opportunity. Or, put differently, to enable social and economic mobility by connecting inherently talented individuals to the abundant opportunity that exists, but is often inaccessible. It's this promise or belief that the government and taxpayers are underwriting, and to which parents and individuals are particularly committed. However, for this promise to be fulfilled, our colleges and universities must do more to prepare students to navigate the complexities of today's job market. A recent report from Hult International Business School highlights what many of us already see: too many graduates leave college unprepared for the demands of the workplace. According to the survey, 98% of employers say they're struggling to find talent, yet 89% actively avoid hiring recent graduates. That disconnect is a clear signal that our institutions need to focus more, not less, on measurable outcomes. How can we justify asking students—and taxpayers—to invest so heavily in education, only to leave them stranded at the threshold of economic opportunity? And that's to say nothing about the 40% of students who aren't reaching graduation within six years due to system barriers we've failed to address. For these students, college isn't just a broken promise; it's a liability, saddling them with debt with little to show for it. And yet, even in the face of these urgent challenges, there are those who still claim that the true purpose of college is something more abstract: the cultivation of character, the shaping of citizens, the appreciation of beauty and debate. They argue that higher education is an intrinsic good—one that shouldn't be measured by job outcomes or economic return. This is a false dichotomy. Our institutions don't need to choose between education as self-enrichment and education as economic empowerment; it's a 'both, and.' Degrees in philosophy and poetry, for example, can equip learners with enduring 'human skills' like critical thinking, communication, and ethical reasoning—skills essential not only to democratic engagement but also to professional success. What matters is whether programs are designed with that objective also in mind—and whether institutions hold themselves accountable to the outcomes students seek. Indeed, many innovative institutions and long-established liberal arts schools are already embracing this approach. They're not just celebrating intellectual growth, but actively designing programs that connect education to tangible, real-world outcomes. That means measuring what matters, removing barriers to completion, and ensuring that every learner—regardless of background, socioeconomic status, or life circumstances—has access to high-quality education and the support they need to succeed. For higher education to regain the public's trust, though, this shift must be more widespread. We can't afford to retreat into nostalgic ideals; we must build a system that delivers on the practical outcomes students and society expect. Advancing equitable outcomes isn't just a moral imperative; it's central to fulfilling higher education's true purpose. Economic relevance and the formation of character and citizenship are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they're most powerful when pursued together. A 21st-century higher education system must recognize that truth—and design for it.
Malay Mail
13-05-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
As Anwar backs varsity freedom, UM pushes ahead with plans to govern without Putrajaya's aid
KUALA LUMPUR, May 13 — Universiti Malaya (UM) is making significant strides toward achieving full autonomy, aiming to govern independently while reducing its reliance on the government. UM vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Seri Dr Noor Azuan Abu Osman said that the pioneering, bold, and radical approach would enable UM to gain full independence in governance, student admissions, finance, and academics, without compromising its corporate social responsibility. 'As an established and mature university, UM should be progressing towards autonomy without being entirely dependent on government assistance. 'Therefore, UM must think creatively about leveraging its existing advantages to achieve autonomy,' he told Bernama after attending a UM media strategic session with senior management from several local media organisations here today. The session was attended by Broadcasting director-general Datuk Suhaimi Sulaiman, Malaysian National News Agency (Bernama) News Services executive editor Mohd Haikal Mohd Isa, and Harian Metro Group editor Hussain Jahit. Noor Azuan said that there were currently around 1.1 to 1.2 million students nationwide, with 600,000 studying in 20 public universities, while the rest were enrolled in over 300 private institutions. UM vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Seri Noor Azuan Abu Osman speaks to reporters in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 2025. — Bernama pic 'In this regard, universities should be creative in obtaining funds without neglecting the quality aspect, and for that, media promotion and advertising are crucial for attracting international students to Malaysia,' he said. He also expressed his appreciation to media practitioners for their continued support and coverage, particularly in conveying the university's messages, initiatives, efforts, and achievements to the public. 'We really appreciate the role of the media, which not only supports UM but also contributes to the development of all universities in Malaysia,' he said. The media had previously reported that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had expressed his view that public universities should be given full authority to decide on their priorities. The matter was mentioned during the opening ceremony of the Ministry of Higher Education's (MOHE) Strategic and Global Thinkers Discourse 2024, where the Prime Minister called on the MOHE to provide more space for universities to implement programmes aimed at improving the quality of education. — Bernama
