USM is entering its second phase as an APEX university. We was told from the first APEX phase to submit any proposal that could elevate the university status in terms of research output. However bulky bureaucratic procedures and the lack of information channel have not contributed in making the proposal submission by any poorly-contacted academic staff a task worth trying. At the back of this reluctance is the prototypical opinion that any suggestion will either fall into deaf ears or results in lip service responses. I think I have tried to make a few informal attempts there and then some proposals to improve the academic quality in the university, but I do not register any memory that these attempts ever bear results that make a marked difference. Overall, there has been little change in the way how business is done despite the phrase 'business unusual' was the slogan of the day since the university acquired the APEX status many years ago.
As a researcher in the school's academic team I am free to carry out my own research very freely without interruption from the university. This is taken by me as a deep blessing. The university does provide much freedom to their academics to conduct their own research. But on the other hand the university has never been actively improving the academic environment to makes the university a more conducive place for quality research. The primary root cause of the lack of conducive academic environment is structural: that bureaucrats dominate over academicians (not only in our university but in fact in all our local universities). Whenever anyone has a proposal to implement something new (e.g. a new course, a new way to handling things, a new facility, a new system ...), the first consideration by the people in charge is not to think of how to actualise such proposal. Instead their first thought will be: is this allowed by the existing rules? Such an inappropriate priority has a deep negative impact in creating a top class university and an innovative ambiance.
There is nothing wrong about obeying rules. The main issues is people are deeply mired in the lethargic thinking that we must not change the rule but to follow them. People never ask themselves this question: are not the rules created to make things work better? If these rules become counterproductive, should not they be reconsidered, modified or just discarded? No. People don't ask such question. They just follow the status quo, which is the most comforting thing to do, and also the safest.
Most often rules in the university are used as the most convenient pretext to turn down a innovative proposal. For example, can we hire a half-paid researcher and allow him/her to work as an paid researcher in another university? Not so, I suppose, even if he is the first Malaysia having the potential to win a Nobel prize. How about setting up a new course that is deemed most popular in the market? No, you can't simply do that. It takes at least half a year to go through all the necessary procedures before a new course is approved and launched. Can't we just lunch a new course in two weeks time as long as an expert has made all necessary preparation to teach the course? In principle yes, but never in reality. In some overseas universities, as long as an expert in the field wills, he can at anytime offer a new course teaching the most up-to-date findings in his field. So in this specific case, demanding a new course to fulfill all the bureaucratic procedures of getting approval is actually counterproductive. But yet people keep on insisting that fulfilling the rules is more important that delivering new knowledge. If the people in charge is proactive enough it is possible to place academic priority over bureaucratic consideration. I have not seen such thing happen yet.
Giving priority to the rules rather than real productivity has blocked the way for excellence in our local university. Somewhat pessimistically I do not expect in our life time that such bureaucratic-dominated mentality will see any sea change.
我跟我的老板的对话，如下：
——————————————————————————————————————
老板：到了第三年，我越来越不知道如何考取高分。很多题目都要背了回答长长像写作文这样，很少算的，跟第一年相反。例如今天我拿到atomic and nuclear physics的考卷，我只拿30多分/100，题目要我们写thonsom的experiment，我没有去背，我只读过而已，为什么要问这么不重要的东西。然后又问我们写出De Broglie的hypothesis，50分，我就写我所懂的咯，还加我从feymann lecture读来的和moden physics和quantum mechanics读来的。可是他只给我20分，理由是我写的lecture note没有，他要看到的是从lecture note来的，他说因为如果他给我分会对其他只读lecture note的不公平，他要公平竟争。他还挑战我如果要这样，第二个考试他出他没有教过的，要我读全部xray crystalography的书，第二个考试他出xray crystalography，因为xray crystalography有在atomic的syllybus。这样的讲师也有。。。semiconductor我也只拿16分/100，糟糕，他改的非常严。我懂semicon可是我没有背。请您指点我和辅导我。
我：老板，上次我不是跟你讨论过如何应对这样的问题了吗？怎么又来呱呱吵？可能你真的是马来西亚教育政策下的典型成功人物，很听老师的话，用心听书学习，一旦老师死掉了，或老师乱来，你就象失去救生圈的溺者。所以，老师是你冬天里的咸煎饼油炸鬼，是你冬天里的一把火。有好的老师，公平有效的教学与制度，你这样成功的学生可以升天得救，成龙成凤。
但是，对这些美好的事情最好你别奢望太多。它们基本上这是不存在的。大部分成功的学者，在最根本上都是自学而成功者，老师的教学只是锦上添花罢了。 考高分是每个学生的理想，因种种不平等、不合情理的原因而考不到高分，就垂头丧地，信心受打击，看上去你的不满似乎合情合理。老师要学生死背，背不来的就地枪毙，造成变相鼓励学生不用大脑去创造性地思维学习，打击学生的学习热忱。你很委屈吗？
哈哈。不要不爽，我当然可以笑。你的问题是问题吗？那个学生不是遭受同样的问题？你问我吗？在马来西亚我倒没见过‘好’的老师。从以前到现在都是如此。在马来西亚的大学里，我也没见过真正让人感动的好老师。
但是，为什么我没有象你这样complain?原因之一是：我没你的幸运，我从来就不是马来西亚教育制度下成功的典型学生。我的学习成绩经变换后，与你你中六、大学整体的成绩相比，都远远在你之后。我只能说我的学习成绩中上，不似你总是排在前面。所以我不会有‘越来越不知道如何考取高分’的遗憾。这是我的另类幸福，嘻嘻。但最重要的是，我不必像你那样complain，因为我不需要靠救生圈，不需要靠制度来学习，更不需要靠考高分来满足自己的虚荣。我只老老实实、扎扎实实地自学。成绩好坏是次要，重点是我如何把知识汲取进脑里。
我不会告诉你可以如何去改变客观存在的不公平、不可理喻、甚至鼓励学生变白痴的教学。你由于是自小受宠，成功攀附着制度而成功的经典优秀人物，所以会对这种不合理的情形咬牙切齿，忿忿不平。你有一千万个合情合理的理由不满，但是，请想一想根本的问题。你若不跳出只重成绩、一面倒的等老师和制度庇佑的思维，你永远都会如此这般的活在不满中。根本的解决之道是，你应该靠自学去攀爬成功的高峰，自行提升脑里的高素质知识，而不是一味靠分数的高低来标榜你的学术成就。
我猜你会有一大堆的牢骚要反驳我，就像典型的马来西亚家长那样，‘只给我可以向人炫耀的成绩，其他免谈’，市侩得来又符合适者生存的法则。然而，我要提醒你，你应该做的，不是去惯性的随波逐流，而是跳出思维的框框。切确的说，是得跳出‘只给我可以向人炫耀的成绩，其他免谈’的死板思维。
总结是：要学习，靠自己。所谓人到无求品自高，大概就是有点这样的味道。
——————————————————————————————————————
注：我都‘尊称’我的学生为老板。
04 September 2009 6:48
