________________________________________
StraightTalking says:
I can see some differing views about our educational standards, scholastic needs, commercial needs, economic needs, holistic needs of a well-rounded society, and a host of other tangible and intangible issues, all hemmed in on the question of the marketability of our graduates.
I think the key word here is “marketability” as MWS’s article seemed to suggest.
I feel the choice of scholastic pursuit should be left alone to the student. While the economic and material needs of a nation may suggest a shortage of a particular professional discipline to feed its growth, ultimately, it is for the student to evaluate his strengths and options available, personal interest or fulfillment, funds available, etc; etc. Whether he/she decides to choose to become a rocket scientist, an engineer, an artist, a composer, a lawyer, a dentist, or whatever else is entirely up to the student.
The issue of “marketability” leads us to two questions.
Q 1: Why do we have such an alarming number of “unemployable” graduates?
Everything being equal, this leads us to question the quality of our educational system, institutions and federal policies. Is it because of popular assumption that our local university standards are low compared to others? This popular assumption holds a lot of water because we keep hearing that most companies, especially the big ones, prefer foreign-trained graduates. Or is it a very small, yet critical, deficit, in the form of English proficiency? This might be an issue of concern to a company that has business overseas. Employing a staff, especially an executive, might entail a degree of traveling, writing reports, collaborating with foreign parties, training, etc; etc; all of which might require it to be conducted in English. Could it also be that the weak demand for graduates is actually an indication of our nation’s economic health? I hope not, but I think it is. While many cities (not here lah!) are facing a shortage of trained employees and had to import them with multiple carrots such as high salaries and potential PR benefits, here, we have an increasing army of graduates who can’t even find a decent low-paying executive’s job.
Q 2: Why do we need to “retrain” unemployed graduates?
There is no such thing as “guaranteed employment” after you graduate unless the company belongs to your grandfather. Then again, maybe even HE won’t employ you if you’re really incompetent. Look, the job market is only that big in Malaysia, so is it such a big surprise that many graduates are still sitting at home watching TV, or playing husband and wife with their girlfriend, or robbing a bank.
With that in mind, let’s look at those who cannot find work because they have “unusual” degrees and skills that are not commonly found in “profit-minded” companies. Well, as I have said earlier, it is up to the graduate to decide what he/she wants to be. If you have funds to support your “unusual” calling, that’s great. But if you don’t have; don’t blame society for not loving your degree. Already most of your “appropriately” qualified cousins are in the shit pits, so don’t expect simple folks like me to queue up begging for an appointment to meet you.
Do the unemployed ones really need to be retrained? What kind of “new skills” are to be learnt? Learn to speak English? Learn to assimilate into a “I must be hard-working and smart” environment with other races that BTN had told you to stay away from?
You better wake up buddy because THIS is reality, whether you like it or not. We don’t blame you for what you are, so please don’t blame us too!
KoSong Cafe I would like to add something to an already excellent article:
If English language is important, then those living in urban areas and especially with English speaking parents are likely to have an edge. Some teenagers could speak English (even with a foreign accent) by just watching television serials and series!
If English foundation is bad, especially found in students of Chinese, Tamil or even national schools, they tend to avoid reading English newspapers, or even watching English films (unless with Bahasa subtitles). This is like a vicious circle.
I have learned from recent discussions that a selection for an international management trainee involves online applications; online tests; telephone interview; before being shortlisted for a day's mock management seminar involving case studies whereby the applicants are supposed to provide solutions in the form of presentation, in front of a number of interviewers. (Digi's 'Next level' which I happened to watch partly would be a good example of what it was like. Even those who appeared on the programme seem to lack communication as well as presentation skills.)
Now if we were to consider an average student from one of our universities who is likely to be good at 'mugging' to pass an examination and an introvert (unlikely to have good communication skills), can he be selected? I am sure he is likely to be rejected by the telephone interview stage.
Our UUCA is a disgrace in tertiary education. It is meant to ensure students not to think outside the Box!