I wonder if anyone has cared to study what percentage of unemployed graduates in the country are from local public universities. I venture to suggest that it would be a vast number.

As an employer of half-a-dozen graduates in my firm, the difference in the maturity of thinking between a foreign graduate and the local graduate is patently obvious. Of course, one could say that having had to live abroad and away from one's family for three years tends to make one grow up quicker.

However, I think the fundamental difference is that when abroad, one is left to make decisions for oneself. You are forced to evaluate your choices and decide what is in your best interest.

Foolish spending may end up in you eating instant noodles until the next monthly stipend arrives from home. Not managing your time well to do your laundry results in not having clean underwear!

One learns thrift, time management, prioritising and a whole load of other skills which make the difference in being a mature person or an immature graduate.

Compare this to the situation of the local graduate. Let me first say that I have experienced local public university life during my pre-university and post-graduate years. In local universities, all facets of an undergraduate's life is controlled by the ever powerful Student Affairs Department.

Look at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia's latest ruling that every student has to live on campus. What is the rationale? The deputy vice-chancellor says that it is for their own good. Apparently, it is to protect the Malays from drug abuse, the Chinese from cohabitation and the Indians from gangsterism.

Umm... but I know quite a few Malays who did not live on campus and somehow managed to stay away from drugs. Also a few Chinese who managed to live off-campus without cohabitation and even a few Indians who did not end up as gangsters but instead became distinguished professionals.

First of all its disheartening to hear Prof Dr Prof Dr Alias Mohd Noor make an oversimplified racial categorisation . But more importantly, perhaps Alias is solving one problem and perpetuating another more fundamental problem, which is, preventing undergraduates from learning decision-making skills.

If Alias' intention is truly to save his flock from drug abuse, cohabitation and gangsterism, he should think again. His power over his flock is only for three years. What happens when they graduate and go out into the big, wide world? Will it not be wiser to educate the students on how to stay away from these problems regardless of where they are?

Maybe when we allow our students in public universities to think for themselves, they will truly graduate from university as all-rounded individuals. Which will also make them vastly more employable.