We, the Group of Concerned Citizens, a network based civil society group, would like to express our concern to Higher Education Minister Shafie Mohd Salleh over the implementation of the new merit system for the admission of students into public universities .

Even though the system has been in place since 2002, the public at large remains skeptical of its objectivity or its claim to meritocracy.

We certainly share the ministry's efforts and commitment to increase the standards of our local public universities so as to put them at least at par with their counterparts abroad. In that sense, a merit-based admission system that admits the most qualified students based on their fitness and ability to follow the course work is a welcomed development.

However, the question of merit, and meritocracy, is a tricky one because it is highly subjective in nature, and, in many ways, as the noted philosopher Ronald Dworkin would put it, is nothing but 'just our convictions, just conventions, just ideology, just badges of power, just the rules of the language games we choose to play.'

Therefore, what is considered as an indication of merit should be carefully, and openly, debated and decided. While examination result is important, it is not a sufficient indicator of merit. Other criteria like leadership qualities, athletic ability, socio-economic situation, ethnic background, and handicaps, if any, should also be properly considered. These considerations are, by no means, novel.

Presently, the new merit system, to our knowledge, takes into account only examination results and extra-curricular activities. Predictably, the outcome is unjust. Furthermore, when the government scurries about inventing stop-gap measures, it gives the impression that the Higher Education Ministry is clueless. We strongly feel, therefore, that the new merit system should be based on a sounder principle of merit tempered with egalitarian ideals.

Following are the problems associated with the new merit system, as we see it, and suggestions on how these could be addressed effectively:

  • Lack of transparency on admission criteria. Presently, the public is not well informed of the criteria that are used during the selection process. As a result, students tend to believe that good grades in STPM or matriculation alone should suffice to secure them a place in the public university. A clear and transparent guideline on the criteria used and the weight given for each is needed.

  • Lack of information on the competitiveness of a course, or university. The students who seek admission into the public universities face the perennial problem of not being offered the course they applied for.

    • It is not uncommon to find students who applied for medicine being offered marine science, or mechanical engineering being offered wood technology. This problem is caused because of the total lack of transparency on the part of Universities Processing Unit (UPU) centre.

    The centre scarcely gives any information on the competitiveness of a course. What it gives is the minimum qualification, which in the present, highly competitive university admission process, is utterly unhelpful.

    The UPU should divulge data on the average score of the students who gain admission into a said course, so that a student who contemplates applying for the same course the following year, would be able to gauge for himself the chances of him securing a place.

    Such is the practice in countries like the US and the UK. (It might be instructive to compare the websites of Universities and Colleges Admissions Service of the UK and the UPU in order to fathom how arcane our institution is.)

    • Lack of a common benchmark on comparing STPM students with those from matriculation. Much has been written on this subject. However, it remains murky. Partly because the justification for limiting the entrance of non-bumi students into matriculation has never been explained.

    If there were little difference in the attainment standards of the students following the two streams, why should there be a limit on the number of non-bumi students allowed to follow matriculation?

    In any event, what benchmark tests did the ministry use to decide that an A in a STPM is equivalent to an A obtained in the matriculation programme? While we agree that students with diverse qualifications - whether STPM, matriculation certificate, other diplomas, foreign qualifications, etc. - should be allowed to further their studies in local varsities, the benchmark that is used to compare the diverse qualifications must be known and transparent.

    In the US, for example, students are admitted into colleges principally based on their term results. However, the Standard Aptitude Test (SAT) scores are commonly used as a supplementary indicator.

    • Lack of reason for maintaining Universiti Institut Technologi Mara (UiTM) as a university exclusively for one ethnic community.

    While there is an ongoing discussion on the admission of students into most public universities, very little is said of the largest public university in our country - namely, the UiTM.

    While, it is true that UiTM (previously Institut Technologi Mara) was founded to help bumiputera students receive a quality higher education, and to right the socio-economic imbalance created by colonial rule, the raison d'etre for maintaining the university exclusively for bumiputeras is weaker now.

    And to shield a large segment of the Malaysian population from market forces, that are often global in nature, does more harm than good to them and to our nation. Moreover, it makes a mockery of our government's claims to meritocracy in our university admission. The government should consider admitting socio-economically disadvantaged non-bumi students.

    We end by wishing the minister much success in devising a more sensible, open, meritocratic and equitable university admission policy.

    S Pasupathi, M Manogaran and K Arumugam