A planned change is one that is calculated to bring real benefits that can be quantified either as cost savings or added revenue or both. What possible cost saving or added revenue can the move to transfer the aeronautical engineering degree from Universiti Putra Malaysia to University Kebangsaan Malaysia bring to the nation?

The deputy higher education minister has claimed that the move was motivated by a desire to let universities 'specialise' in a certain area of expertise.

Is this universally practiced? Even in Malaysia we have only partially practiced 'specialisation'. For example Universiti Utara Malaysia is the so-called 'management' university, the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia a technological university, Universiti Sains Malaysia a science varsity, etc.

What are Universiti Teknologi Mara, Universiti Malaya, UKM, Universiti Malaysia Sabah and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak specialising in? Why is UTM also teaching education and management? And why is USM also teaching silat and Malay literature? Why not just teach chemistry, biology and physics?

If universities must 'specialise', why form universities? Why not just set up polytechnics? That would be true specialisation. I can only see huge losses in transferring that much-sought-after aeronautical engineering degree from UPM to UKM.

The major cost item is the training of manpower to teach the required subjects, assuming UKM is not yet equipped to handle it right away; unless, of course, the lecturers teaching these subjects at UPM are 'ordered' to transfer with the programme to UKM.

Are these academics mere 'production factors' that can be shuffled around like files and cabinets? What will happen to the aeronautical labs at UPM? What a sheer waste. And a shame.

I don't think that the Malaysian Cabinet has considered the pros and cons of the change. As I see it, the change was made for the sake of change. There is not going to be a dramatic addition to the value of the graduates by the move, considering that the degree is already recognised by the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM)

A change is made to solve a problem. The problem was never identified in the first place. For the country's sake, think of something substantive to change not just do some reshuffling work. That can be done by people with minimum creativity. Managing real and meaningful change requires ingenuity something we can't expect from the current minister.

To me, the argument that UPM has to specialise in agriculture does not hold water. The university is not making a new proposal to introduce aerospace studies it already had the programme going for ten years besides being accredited by the IEM to boot.

Why are our politicians so shallow-minded - have they not gone overseas? But they have and more than us. Don't they learn anything from their visits? Or were they only shopping while overseas? Universities should expand when they are ready for it, like UPM is.

Don't take UPM back to its pioneering days when its academics were struggling to convince the Public Services Department (PSD) that a university is not like a polytechnic. Texas A&M (Agricultural and Mechanical) University does not just teach agriculture and mechanical engineering. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is not only about technology and it is not an 'institute' as we know it in Malaysia.

If the higher education minister wants to make changes and be remembered for posterity, then let him make significant changes like implementing the much touted 'corporatisation' of universities, not shuffling files.

Let professional academics run universities like they should be run. Retired Malaysian Civil Service (MCS) officers and politicians should not be sent to run universities unless they have teaching and research track records. Only these types can empathise with the academicians. Leave politics out of campuses.