National University of Singapore's increased rankings

In the future, when Singaporeans are introducing their nation to tourists, they may have one more place to recommend as a must-visit: it is the National University of Singapore (NUS). The tertiary education provider has been rapidly climbing the global education ladder, with the most recent evaluation done by the Times Higher Education (THE) placing it at the 29^th in global university ranking. The recent releasing of Asian University Ranking, much to the pride of the nation, places NUS at the second position, after Tokyo University in Japan. It is definitely something Singapore should celebrate, as it is an indication that the nation has done well in education sector and is well under its way in making the tiny country a hub for education in the region. However, at the end of the day, cool-headed analysis of the implications of the global ranking may serve the university and the nation better than mere words of praises.

First, it is without doubt that the consistently high ranking of NUS in the global education scene is a strong testimonial of the strength of the institution. The rapid development of the university can even be seen from casual observation without the in-depth evaluation by THE. In terms of research, the NUS medical school has forged alliance with the Duke Medical School, one of the best in the United States. The joint program encourages collaboration in research as well as student exchange.

 In terms of student development, the University Scholars Program and the U-town residential system have added much diversity into students’ academic life, ushering in western education style in a liberal arts environment. Therefore, it is not surprising to see the ranking of NUS rise fast, along with its reputation in Singapore and the world, a reputation that is critical to attract the best students and professors, whose influx contributes to a virtuous cycle of the institution’s development.

However, there are potential downsides to the obsession with ranking by university and the general society as a whole. The present methodology in evaluating university is far from perfect and often open to criticism. Weight given to different areas, no matter how carefully considered, is essentially arbitrary. One big area of controversy lies with the balance between research and teaching. A professor has to devote time in teaching undergraduates and doing research for publications. The former is taken as the primary aim of building a university while the latter is often taken as a stronger criterion when evaluating the standing of a university.

If too much focus is on how many quality papers a university has published in the first-tier international journals, for example, such an evaluation bias will be translated into pressure for professors to publish. Some universities, like Hong Kong University, have even placed a minimum quota on the number of papers to be published everything. Even in the absence of an explicit quota, as in the case of NUS, implicit pressure of linking publication to tenure review is enough to nail the idea of “publish or perish” in the heads of academicians. The cost of putting more time in research is usually less time or attention spent on undergraduate teaching. This is often observed in lack of enthusiasm from lecturers or low availability of tutors who seem always busy. At the end of the day, what does society stand to gain if higher university ranking mainly reflects higher quality research that is largely irrelevant to students?

Moreover, some important aspects of higher education may be underrepresented in evaluation of universities. Despite the high ranking of NUS, one issue remains unresolved by the institution: academic freedom or autonomy. University as a concept represents freedom of thinking and expression that are engine of intellectual progress of society. However, NUS and many other Asian universities embarrassingly do not get high credit for that aspect. In fact, NUS president, Professor Tan Chorh Chuan said after the release of ranking that NUS continued progress is a result of consistent support from the Singapore government. 

This is already an indication of the close tie between NUS and the government. In fact, most of the university funding comes from the government. The compromise in academic autonomy is best seen in the political science department of NUS that has come under scrutiny for its apparent lack of critical voices. The department has been described as “docile”, unwilling to assert itself as an independent voice in the political discussion. In contrast, majority of the reputable universities overseas are private and they enjoy much greater freedom of intellectual inquiry that ultimately benefits the whole society. In fact, the establishment of Yale-NUS Liberal Arts College a few years back caused much dissatisfaction over the move from the Yale community that considers the Singapore political environment as not conducive for liberal arts education. It is suffice to say that besides improving university ranking, the institution also needs to fulfill its social expectation by finding a fine line between receiving government funding and remaining politically neutral.

As can see things, there are many more challenges for NUS to surmount in the future. The great institution of Singapore definitely should not rest on its laureate. But rather, it should rely on more criteria besides the global ranking in assessing its performance. Probably before it makes THE happy , it should please Singapore students, social observers and educators first,  who are the true stakeholders of the education of the nation.