However, my interest stems from the conspicuous absence of valid replies addressing the allegations originally raised by Dr Michael Heng more than a year ago and recently again regarding the tenure-awarding practices of NTU.

Simply put, all three articles published on The Enquirer have so far been talking past each other.

The real journalism story lies in what the group of 10 whistle-blowing professors felt was wrong with NTU’s policy in the first place.

And did their allegations of bias in the way NTU awards tenures ultimately have an effect on NTU’s dramatic drop in rankings as measured by the new and supposedly more rigorous measure introduced by Times Higher Education this year?

Or was the fall in rankings a true reflection of the lack of integrity in the tenure-awarding process?

If so, Dr Heng’s vindication could be a story.

If not, then the matter can be put to rest once and for all, yes?

Setting record straight on uni rankings

The 2010 Times Higher Education World University Rankings was released recently. The Straits Times carried a story on 17 Sept with the sub-heading: “NTU’s ranking plunges in revamped Times Higher Education list”. The opening paragraph said that Nanyang Technological University had tumbled 101 places.

The story has caused consternation among some students, faculty and alumni. An examination of the methodology behind such rankings would have made it clear there is no cause for alarm.

To begin with, let me state categorically that NTU did not drop 101 places in the global university rankings. The story has done a grave disservice to the university. Clearly, its leadership cannot simply look on with bemusement at the way the rankings were reported. We need to set the record straight.

Since 2004, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education were co-producing the Times Higher Education-Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings. This year, the two organisations went their separate ways.

The QS World University Ranking was released in early Sep 2010. It continued with the same methodology it had used since 2004. The Times Higher Education, however, designed a completely different methodology.

It would be erroneous to compare the two rankings because they are based on entirely different assumptions. Comparing them would be like comparing apples with durians.

The importance of not doing so was stressed by none other than Times Higher Education rankings editor Phil Baty and reported in The Straits Times story: “Any movement up or down the ranking table cannot be seen as a change in performance by an individual country or institution, and it’s not relevant to make comparisons.”

The QS 2010 Ranking is today the most widely-used world university ranking. Nanyang Technological University was placed 74th in the list and the National University of Singapore 31st, both down by one position from last year. The performance of both universities has been consistent over the last four years.

NTU started off as a practice-oriented, teaching university in 1991 and is in fact the youngest university in the Top 100 ranked in the QS 2010.

The Times Higher Education 2010 rankings is entirely new. Its criteria have yet to be accepted by many universities. A detailed analysis reveals it is 88 per cent computed from research-related indicators with unusual normalization of data resulting in some bizarre results. In a joint article in Edmonton Journal, Indira Samarasekera, the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Alberta, and Carl Amrhein, the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) of the same university, wrote that the Times ranking has very peculiar outcomes that do not pass the “reasonableness test”. They advised the public to take the “rankings with a truckload of salt”.

Malcolm Grant, President and Provost of University College London pointed out to The Guardian that research citations, if not intelligently applied, can lead to bizarre results. He cited the example of Egypt’s Alexandria University being ranked above Harvard and Stanford universities in research influence in the Times Higher Education 2010.

The methodology used by Times leans towards classical research parameters that privileges older, more established universities. The citation parameter, for example, measures research papers cited between 2004 and 2008.

From the time a researcher starts on a research project and publishes the findings to the time the citations of that research paper build up, it may take about 10 years, usually more. The effect of this parameter being retrospective is that it is actually a reflection of universities’ performance from as far back as 1995.

For rapidly rising universities, the results of recent world-class research work are not immediately captured in rankings such as the Times.

Universities know well their rankings do not tumble overnight. It takes years to build up a university; its standing will not swing wildly within a year or two.

NTU started off as a practice-oriented, teaching university in 1991 and is in fact the youngest university in the Top 100 ranked in the QS 2010. We ramped up our research intensity more recently, accelerating in 2006. Hence, it will take many years for NTU’s research efforts to make an impact in rankings such as the Times.

NTU is confident that the great strides it has made in the quality of its faculty, staff and facilities, as well as in the partnerships it has established with top institutions worldwide, are transformational in their impact, and are a more accurate reflection of its quality.

For example, Professor Kerry Sieh, a world authority on earthquakes and former Chaired Professor in Caltech who joined NTU’s Earth Observatory of Singapore as its founding director three years ago, has published nearly 100 research papers, some of which have more than 200 citations each.

His first research paper published after he joined NTU appeared in the top journal Science in Dec 2008. It has nine citations so far. This illustrates the fact that even for outstanding researchers, it takes years to build up citations.

For rapidly rising universities, the results of recent world-class research work are not immediately captured in rankings such as the Times. But the reality for NTU students is that the benefits of being taught by world-class faculty such as Professor Sieh are immediate.

Not many Singaporeans realise that in the more established QS World University Rankings, Singapore has two universities in the Top 100 universities worldwide. Aside from Switzerland, Singapore is the only other small country to have achieved this feat. We should be proud of Singaporean universities and cheer them on.

The PDF for the letter in The Straits Times can be found here.

As the president of the 17th Students’ Union, and now president of the i-gave Class Gift 2009, I feel that I am able to share my perspectives on this issue from first-hand experience.

When we participate in the i-gave class giving program, we are investing in our shared future. This is because the value of our degree is indelibly tied to our alma mater’s standing.

Many of my fellow schoolmates—especially final-year students who face the prospect of entering the corporate world or pursuing further studies—are starting to reckon with this fact: the reputation of where we graduate from matters.  In fact some of the most common questions employers or graduate school deans will ask when we knock on their doors are: where we graduated from, how was our university experience, what is the standing of our alma mater, etc.

When we invest in i-gave, it is the participation that matters—not the amount. When corporate foundations and philanthropists see NTU students and alumni give passionately towards our alma mater, they too, will be drawn to our culture of giving.

While it is true that most students cannot afford to give large sums, every single donation—whatever the amount—makes a difference. When the contributions of the entire student population is pooled together with the giving from alumni, faculty, staff, corporations, foundations, and community philanthropists, the impact is multiplied.

Sometimes, our generation is accused of being the “me” generation. We preface everything we do with a question: what’s in it for me? But I believe that this is a cynical view. If we’ve only looked hard enough we would realise that for good or worse, NTU has been an important juncture of our life, and that NTU has provided a great deal to all of us without the skeptical view of “what’s in it for me”.

All of us have a collective stake in the university.

Choudhury Anshuman Das
President, i-gave Class Giving 2009
Final-year Chemical & Biomedical Engineering student

My suggestion for the online newspaper to continue to attract wider readership, you must continue to make an effort to explore the “non-politically correct” issues and investigate what may lie beneath the seemingly closed-minds of our undergraduates and impenetrable university bureaucracy.

Above all, your analysis must be independent, reasoned and critical, not forgetting of course the usual dosage of self-discipline and restraint. The University is an idealistic place, where students should be encouraged to think independently, and you at the Enquirer should aspire to take on this role.

Keep up the excellent work!

Ho Khai Leong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Nanyang Technological University

I concur with the opinions of those interviewed about the ministerial forum (Everyday concerns not addressed at forum, October 18).

It’s a pity that there are bubbling questions on how “ordinary Singaporeans” are defined.

Although globalisation has been termed either a threat or an opportunity to the middle-class and educated Singaporeans, little has been said of the hardworking but neglected men and women on the street.

Perhaps it was because the discourse was set for an audience of tertiary-educated students who already have the potential to seek out the opportunities of globalisation.

But most “ordinary Singaporeans” may have no hope of tapping into this global network—they are too bogged down by family commitments, rising cost of living, perceived competition from foreign labour and talents, and the like to realise such aspirations.

One reason why the forum was somewhat of a letdown was the way the minister tried to politicise the issues presented.

As rightly pointed out by some members of the audience, there is a strong survivalist streak in his words last night that sums up the situation as do-or-die.

When Shan, a second year political science student, asked Dr Balakrishnan about Singaporeans who were affected by the mini-bond fiasco, the minister in turn asked her whether he should approach the problem as an economist or politician.

Her simple reply—to look at the issue from the eyes of an “ordinary Singaporean”—won the applause of the audience.

No doubt many, if not all, of the issues raised during the forum have some impact on the political governance of Singapore, but Shan pointed out the more direct and critical link: the ones affected are ordinary unpoliticised Singaporeans.

Seah Ru Han
Third-year Political Science undergraduate
National University of Singapore

Correction: October 14th, 2008

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

The note at the end of the letter misidentified the position held by the author. Mr Lim Chee Harn is an executive producer at the Spectrum TV, not the Nanyang Spectrum. We are sorry for the error.

While the protesters involved in the “Big Hong Lim Show” have tried to voice out their opinions, I feel obliged as well to provide another perspective to this whole issue.

As part of the team involved in the production of Nanyang Spectrum, I’m in a position to understand the pain involved when our work was censored. But why are the onlookers, people who are outside the production of these articles and news clips, making more noise than us?

The ones who are most affected are those who spent their nights editing the articles and news clips with the hope of getting it published or shown. I certainly do not think that we need the onlookers to show our dismay to the world. Are these protesters trying to represent us, or making use of the opportunity to represent themselves?

There is certainly no point in shouting if they had wanted to voice their opinions. There are certainly smarter ways in making their point. For one, a website like this will have its true voices heard even without making any sound.

The reason I say this is because many people are still ignorant of what really happened, even after the “Big Hong Lim Show”.

It’s really a painful and tiring job to repeatedly explain the situation to others because of the commotion created by these protesters. A rally like that has little long-term effects. Are these protesters going down again this Sunday?

To me, the “Big Hong Lim Show” is but only a show.

Lim Chee Harn
Executive Producer
Spectrum TV

I’ve always felt that university students should be given the opportunities to engage in intellectual banter and be free to come up with their own opinions over the issues that exist in our society. Yet, I’m usually disppointed that many facts are often hidden from plain sight for fear that ‘we may not be able to handle the truth’.

I truly believe that for society to mature, they must be given all the facts and opinions so as to allow them to come to their own judgment. We cannot become mature through ignorance.

I wanted to say how proud I am that people from my university are actually stepping up to the plate.