I'd like to offer a dissenting viewpoint to the majority of comments attacking public universities over rankings.

Every year since Malaysian universities first took part in the Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings, there has been a flurry of misinformed comments in the media and political panic over "declining" standards in our seats of higher learning. Every year, Malaysian universities become punching bags for failures that are not necessarily of their own making.

Enough has already been said about weaknesses in the ranking criteria, including the changes in weighting used this year. These complaints, though justified, miss the bigger picture. Enough has also been said about the manifest weaknesses in the system. For a change, let's make a few observations in defence of our public universities.

First, a top-down ministry-driven system leaves little room for manouevre, whilst the requirements of affirmative action and the obligation to focus on a politically-defined concept of nation-building mean that they are both hamstrung and fighting with one arm tied behind their backs. It is never an easy position to defend yourself, let alone win. Such constraints do not, of course, affect developed countries nor are they reflected in ranking indices.

Second, the whole controversy is predicated upon a false premise. We are benchmarking the supposed slide in rankings against Universiti Malaya's startling appearance at number 69 in the 2004 rankings, a result that caused joy amongst administrators and cynical head shaking among academics. With no disrespect to UM, this position has become a hostage to fortune and was never a credible reflection of reality.

Third, are we really to believe that Malaysia has universities that are "better" (whatever that means) than 98% of all US universities, let alone "better" than the vast majority of those in the advanced industrial nations? The US has 3,500 institutions of higher learning. The UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand combined boast a further 300 without even mentioning the rest of Europe, China, India, Korea or Japan with several thousands more.

Time for a reality check: If you are going to put real faith in rankings then any position in the top 500 (or even 1,000) must be considered a remarkable achievement given the constraints under which our universities operate.

Fourth, rankings are beauty contests that provide a very approximate and highly subjective estimate of quality, which obviously depends upon the type of questions asked and the criteria used. They are entertaining and they sell newspapers but if QS (the private company that supplies the Times with the data) were to introduce different categories such as measurements of social impact, contributions to national development, sustainability, student feedback, employability, funding or facilities then the results would look very different.

As with any beauty contest, the result is in the eye of the beholder, which is why they are generally won by Anglo Saxons, Northern Indians or Venezuelans rather than, say, Africans, Eskimos or Mongolians.

Fifth, it is illogical to conclude that a slide in the rankings equates to a drop in standards. Does anyone seriously believe that UM, UKM or USM have deteriorated so significantly over the past 12 months? Of course not. In fact, I suspect that the local universities are beginning to address the slide in quality that has been evident for the past 20 years.

The new higher education strategy paper has, at long last, taken steps to devolve greater autonomy to the universities. There are changes afoot to academic recruitment policy and the new Malaysian Qualification Framework will apply to IPTAs (public educational institutions) as well as IPTSs (private).

Local universities have plenty of challenges ahead without worrying about how they will fare in dubious attempts to rank them. Likewise, our politicians and pundits should be wary of falling into the trap of demanding changes purely for the purpose of boosting their ranking results. Rather than going backwards, we should instead put the horse before the cart by focusing on the necessary changes and implementation mechanisms needed to improve the quality (rather than the ranking) of the IPTAs.

We can all play this game, but to kick off, I offer a few feasible steps to improvement:

1. Mindset changes
   
   This must start at the undergraduate level where restrictive cultural mindsets need shaking up. Postgraduate work, research and development, commercialisation and publication levels all need attention but this is a somewhat separate issue from undergraduate teaching, which has to be a lot livelier and more student-centred.
   
   
2. Recruit the best
   
   Ensure that our top students wish to and are able to enter the IPTAs and that our best brains remain in Malaysia to teach them. This means changes to the current admissions policies based solely on STPM and matriculation � how about A' Levels, UEC, SDAM or SAT? It also means cutting back on the number of government-sponsored overseas students, at least at undergraduate level.
   
   If our brightest and best-connected (calling all politicians, corporate figures and senior civil servants) went to government universities, then standards would have to improve. Currently, everyone bemoans the fact that our universities are race-obsessed but this is only one schism. What people seem to forget is that they are socially and economically divided too, with most well-to-do parents from all races opting for private or foreign universities.
   
   
3. Differentiate
   
   We desperately need centres of excellence that function under a different set of rules from the others. Some should be research-focused, others teaching-centred and others specialist institutions. Admittedly, this is already happening but we need a quantum leap because we can't wait another generation.
   
   
4. Incentives for staff
   
   Top researchers and top teachers should be appropriately rewarded. They also need greater academic freedom or why would the good ones wish to remain? The tendency to treat all academic staff as civil servants with set pay scales, duties and promotion procedures means that you will get a civil service-style mentality and quality. This observation also applies to students. Nobody should be surprised that our graduates seem timid and immature when they are treated like school children at university.

The future is not necessarily grim for public universities despite what you may read or hear. Perhaps an avalanche of constructive suggestions rather than knee-jerk criticisms is the better way to go.