What went wrong with UNSW Asia?
As I was sifting through the stack of papers this morning, the headlines in Home caught my eye, actually it didn't. I just wanted to pick up Home to read it. There were no glaring headlines, you would not have known what happened if you did not read through it. Just after one semester of operation for its soft launch, when its campus was not even ready, UNSW Asia has pulled out.
The Straits Times doesn't seem to be reporting the main reason why it pulled out, except saying that numbers were not enough to meet the target. Of over 700 applicants only 140 were able to enroll, and of these 140, 100 are Singaporeans, while 40 are foreigners. This effectively breaks the agreement between UNSW and the government, as they had previously agreed to a 30% Singaporeans, 70% international student population if you were to refer to this document:
The current negotiations provided for 30% Singapore National and 70% International students to study at UNSW Asia.
This was part of the republic's plan to become an education hub hosting international students and international schools. Singapore is such a small nation, so small that many Americans, known for having lack of general knowledge, does not even know it exist. For that, how will it be able to fulfill that ridiculous number of international students?
I do not believe that just by basing on the numbers for one semester, UNSW would come to a harsh decision to shut down the campus after huge investments or it may be that the Singapore government had spent even more. UB had even fewer students when it first started out. Numbers would eventually grow as there are many Singaporeans out there who wants to send their children to foreign institutions but are worried about them being overseas alone. I believe that the EDB had a part to play in the decision to close UNSW Asia with pressure of numbers of international students.
I also do not think that high tuition fee charged at UNSW Asia is the main issue. Some people are complaining that the fees are the same here in Singapore and UNSW but hey, we at University at Buffalo (UB) in SIM pay the same as what students pay in UB as well. The advertised 60% less than what international students pay in the states accounts for the other expenses. So if people are willing to pay for a prestigious degree from UB which the usual middle and lower wage earners would not have heard about - including myself - they would be willing to pay for a degree which most people - even primary school children - knows.
The other university to receive invitation by the EDB to set up a campus in Singapore was Warwick. The University of Warwick had declined to set up a campus here citing that besides financial issues there were also issues to deal with academic freedom in the republic. As the fiasco continues with students having to complete their semester within a state of uncertainty, I doubt international acclaimed schools would enter Singapore again if the republic chooses to have its stuck up policies.
Discussion from other blogs:
CNA publishes two versions of UNSW Closure Reports
Questions on the UNSW ASIA debacle
May 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Hiya! Just some of my tots to share.. With regard to academic freedom, I would certainly agreed with SG’s position to not allow foreign companies/institution etc to interfere with SG’s politics. The sch can teach, analyse and discuss SG’s politics, but I felt that it’s a definite ‘no no’ for them to interfere. Else the next thing u know, other countries will want a piece of SG too! But this is jus my view!
Hey I don’t know if the numbers are the only reason or that EDB has a hand in this.. but I think ppl’s conception is that (including mine) given that the cost is way higher than local uni, and given a choice to choose btw studying in Oz and in SG for the same price, I guess the better deal will be to study in Oz (which might possibly be a contribution factor to low numbers). As what Professor Fred Hilmer, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, said: “When a student says he wants an Australian degree, what he really means is, ‘I want the experience of living in Sydney’”.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I agree with your view that foreign institutions should not interfere with the local politics. But I believe that discussion should be free to all.
As a student of a US university, I too think that the experience of living in the states is important when I get that degree. However, as I mentioned, some could not afford the experience, that is the living expenses. Living expenses cover as much as the cost of tuition fees or even more. There are also others who have other difficulties which restricts them from going to the home campus of UNSW.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Ken, with due respect to your views, I’d like to know how you define “interference”? Is it calling protests on streets? Mobilising students to take anti-government positions, say hunger strikes? Or, writing papers criticising/critiquing government policies?
May 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Kevin, sorry*
May 25th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Starting a commotidised education institution with hopes that it will draw in millions of dollars into the economy and attract 150,000 students is plain overambitious. If the admission intake of the other tertiary institutions keeps increasing, will our infrastructure (housing, transport and other living needs) ever be able to accommodate them? Compete with the 5 over million residents, maybe.
Someone could have anticipated the closing of UNSW, so why had anybody not been able to blow the whistle before the plan was realised? I think it’s just the govt. way of saying, “Look. We give you more choices, imported from established schools elsewhere. But if they close, it’s none of (the govt) problem. It’s between you and the school, and (the govt) is not liable for your education even if you are a Singaporean.”
Interfering… you mean like asking students to write to the Straits Times Forum as part of their project?
May 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The fees are a problem in attracting foreign students. Monash University and the University of Nottingham, both of whom have campuses near KL, charge half that amount in Malaysia.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Hi Fox,
Considering the standards of education here, together with the facilities provided, and costs of living, I would not think that 25,000 SGD to 29,000 SGD is a problem for many students. A degree from the University of London (UOL) or the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) at Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) costs about the same price. Yet, students are flooding to sign up. And a degree from the University at Buffalo (UB), costs double, from over 56,000 SGD to 70,000 SGD at SIM as well. Yet, the response has been good.
It is not just local students. There are a lot of foreign students at SIM as well. I think that if the teaching facilities and the teachers are good, the fees are justifiable. And since UNSW is a more prestigious university than the Monash and Nottingham, you will definitely have to pay more, just like in the case of UB versus UOL and RMIT.
I also think that using costs of living as a comparison is not justifiable as safety and security is a concern for most people - costs of living in KL is not that cheap as well.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
How about the possibility that the plan wasn’t so great in the first place? Or that the marketing wasn’t sufficient, that EDB or whoever had the power to bring them into the junior colleges or secondary schools or polytechnics didn’t manage to do so in a way that attract them to the school?
It is strange that they even ran one sem of classes - since enrollment figures are known before the classes started. Now with Warwick and UNSW, EDB has to yet again creatively tweak the message… perhaps education hub that only consists of “Made in Singapore” schools? :S
May 25th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Enrollment had only been a problem because a large number of applicants were rejected. The reason why these people were rejected were not clear. Therefore, I personally think that these people were rejected because they were mainly local Singaporeans. This tilts the balance even more against what the government wants, 30% Singaporeans 70% International students.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
While I do think that UNSW should have at least stuck it out for the sake of their current students, in other words staying for the duration of the enrolled students’ courses instead of pulling the plug when the engine’s barely started, I see their extreme actions as a mark of getting sick and tired of the government’s restrictive policies. Can you really expect a majority of international students to enroll in a brand new campus, or shouldn’t you realize that your citizens, those in closest proximity and exposure to the new university, would make the bulk of the initial enrollment? Is Singapore driving to hard and harsh a bargain?
Nevertheless, I think they have better reasons to pull out than just to spite the government (if that was indeed their intention). Losing millions from student compensation and the incomplete building is no chicken pie, even for a university of their size.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Even though I agree that losing millions for UNSW is no chicken pie as Renhao puts it, I think that UNSW must have worked out that they will lose more by continuing this business with that 3:7 policy. Also, they may have already been prepared to lose this 22 million on a huge project like this as it is a small sum compared to the quarter billion the Singapore government lost.
I think that something should be done about this statutory boards and GLCs which keep losing the millions and billions of taxpayers money.