亞洲大學榜，台灣不高興 / What pulls down rankings for TW universities

亞洲大學榜，台灣不高興； 排名非主旨，落後有道理 椅子*	What Pulls Down Rankings for Taiwan’s Universities Yi-zi
最近QS公佈亞洲各國大學排名，香港大學高居第一，且前二十名中有四所大學（港大、中大、科大、城大）在香港；在台灣居首的台灣大學，排名僅得第22；台灣其他大學也都顯得落後。台灣各大學不高興，台大尤然。	THE LATEST QS.com Asian University Rankings placed the University of Hong Kong (HKU) highest on the regional list, along with three other universities in Hong Kong (CityU included) sitting among the foremost 20. By contrast, National Taiwan University (NTU), the cream of institutions in Taiwan, received no higher than the 22nd place in Asia, while others in Taiwan ranked even lower. Those universities are not amused. NTU, in particular, is simply annoyed.
QS排名榜無關學生程度	Student quality counts little
台大校友抱怨道，亞洲各地大學中，台大教師發表的論文數量最大，為何排名反而落後？難道台大學生比不上香港學生？	Some NTU alumni I know complain that, for one thing, among Asia’s universities NTU has the largest number of published faculty papers, and yet it ended up so low in the QS rankings. Also, they question whether NTU students are really so inferior to their Hong Kong counterparts.
這樣不高興，似乎不無理由。然而QS排名與不同地區的學生程度無關。從評比操作層面來看，排行榜的名次取決於評比指標，以及各項得分之權重。若以體育競賽為譬，可說是比賽結果反映遊戲規則。若說排名欠客觀，單從台灣本土大學的排名次序看，除交大排名落後令人吃驚外，其他大學的排名前後倒與一般認知相當吻合。	My Taiwanese friends have reasons to feel unhappy. Yet the fact is that the QS rankings have little to do with student quality of the universities assessed. A university’s place or rank depends on – or rather reflects – the indicators of assessment and the weightings carried by the marks scored for those indicators. By analogy, we may say that results of a sports competition reflect the rules of the game. So those rankings are not unfair for Taiwan’s universities in that the results appear pretty in line with the relative levels of quality they are commonly known to hold on the island, except for National Chiao Tung University, which landed in an alarmingly low place.
其實，台大校友的幾點抱怨，都可以從評比指標中得到解釋。位居第一的港大，在「亞洲學術界同行評量」一項取得100分（與其他六所大學並列第一），而該項得分之權重最高（30%），顯然由此得益。其實，台大在這一指標中排名並不低（第九）。雖然台大的論文數量較高，排名第26，高過港大的第51，但該項得分權重較低（15%），結果當然較吃虧。	In reality, the unwelcome place for NTU can find explanations in the indicators of assessment. For example, HKU, which won the top place overall, earned (along with six other universities) the First place – with the highest possible 100 marks – for the indicator of “Asian Academic Peer Review”, which carries the highest weight (30%). Obviously, HKU has benefited greatly from this. For the same indicator, NTU got the Ninth place, which is not bad. Then, for the indicator of “Papers per Faculty”, NTU did win a higher (the 26th) place than HKU (the 51st), but that indicator carries a much lower weight (15%). Naturally, NTU didn’t gain much advantage here.
至於學生的素質，本來就難以比較，更何況QS的亞洲大學排名計分指標中，僅有「僱主對畢業生的評量」略微涉及學生（不是在校生）。但是該項得分的權重低（10%），何況台大畢業生（第二十三名）並不優於港大畢業生（第六名）。另外有一項，台大明顯吃虧，即教學素質指標下「學生與教師的比例」，甚至跌出100名之外，而得分權重佔20%。其餘如論文引用次數、國際化等指標，台大都遠低於港大。	Student quality is, by nature, a factor hard to compare. The latest QS.com Asian University Rankings gave only an oblique treatment to the quality of students (not those still on campus) with its indicator of “Asian Employer Review” under a general criterion of “Graduate Employability”. That indicator carries a pretty low weight (10%) and, unluckily for Taiwan, graduates of NTU actually did get a lower (the 23rd) place than those of HKU (the sixth). NTU suffered an obvious loss when judged by the indicator of “Student Faculty Ratio” under the general criterion of “Teaching Quality”: it landed even lower than the 100th place. Yet, again unluckily for NTU, that indicator carries a pretty high weight (20%). Then, NTU appeared to lag far behind HKU when judged by “Citations per Paper” and by the several indicators under the criterion of “Internationalisation”.
高教資源不足拖累排名	Lacking in resources, low in ranking
台灣的大學排名落後，原因有如下數端。首先是台灣的大學數量大（約為香港的20倍，而人口僅為香港的三倍）而規模小，因此資源因稀釋而變得薄弱，導致設備不足、室內及校園髒亂粗糙（此事表面看來無關宏旨，然而恰恰反映出資源不足的弊端，引人詬病）、教授待遇甚低、行政人手欠缺，教學科硏的環境自然受累。	For the regrettable rankings of Taiwanese universities, causes can be identified as follows. First, the island – with a population about treble that of Hong Kong – boasts roughly 20 times as many tertiary institutions, but each is small-sized. So the thinly spread-out resources have led to poorly equipped universities on messy campuses that are a real eyesore – apparently not a big fault, but a sure sign of more damaging problems hidden behind. Naturally, given the underpaid faculty and understaffed administration, the general milieu there is far from conducive to teaching and research.
其次，台灣各大學的國際化水平偏低，原因是過去數年來台灣社會推行「本土化」政策，造成自身邊緣化，高等教育界首當其衝。台灣各大學與國外院校的學術交流、學生交換都不夠，在各大學任教的外國教師也較少。中央研究院院士固然有不少任教於本地大學，但至今甚少外國院士在台灣各大學正式任教。在香港各大學中，卻不乏中、美、英、法、俄、瑞典、澳洲等國的院士受聘任教，兩地恰成鮮明對比。	Then, the low level of internationalisation among Taiwan’s universities should be blamed on the “nativistic” policies pursued on the island in recent years, which have served to marginalise itself, particularly in the arena of higher education worldwide. Currently, no university in Taiwan keeps on sizeable academic or student exchanges with partner institutions abroad, and not many foreign professors are teaching in local universities. It’s true that Taiwan’s universities have quite a number of Academia Sinica members among their faculty staff, but so far few academicians from other countries are teaching in Taiwan on a regular basis. A striking contrast is seen in Hong Kong, where universities have no lack of academicians from mainland China, the US, Britain, France, Russia, Sweden, Australia and other countries teaching and doing research on campus.
台灣各大學因為這方面存在缺憾，不但在這次亞洲大學排名評比中失利，而且在一般的了解中也頗有落差。「國際化水平」是評比的重點標準之一，下轄的計分指標有「國際教師」、「國際學生」、「外來交換學生」、「出國交換學生」數項，台灣的大學都難得高分。	Thus, the poor performance in internationalisation has pulled Taiwan’s universities down on the scale. “Internationalisation” is one of the major criteria in the QS Rankings, but universities in Taiwan have generally scored low marks for its several component indicators – “International Faculty”, “International Students”, “Inbound Exchange Students”, and “Outbound Exchange Students”.
政治少干涉，教育多開放	Needed: less meddling and more open-up
上述兩項弊端，即大學數量大而規模小、國際化水平偏低，其實都是政治力過分介入教育所致。政府對高等教育指手劃腳，要求多辦大學，現已造成惡果，怨不得人。	And, the many yet small universities with low levels of internationalisation are the result, in turn, of meddling in education by political power. For years the Taiwanese government pushed hard for more universities to be launched, and now it has only itself to blame for the consequences.
嚴格來說，台灣眾多教授勤奮出色，大學管理傑出有效，即使在諸多不利條件下，仍有如此排名，已然令人驚喜。	To be fair, university professors across Taiwan are devoted and hardworking and the administrators efficient. Despite the various disadvantages, they have managed to earn those rankings, which is surprisingly good enough.
然而，台灣的大學資源有限，教授人數不足且待遇甚低，有些因市場機制的自然調整甚至逐漸流失到大陸名校。若繼續抱持閉關自守的政策，在大學過多、報考人數不足的情況下，既無法吸引外國學生就讀，又不肯開放大陸學生來台及不願採認大陸學歷，豈不是將今天的問題加碼留到明天解決？	Yet, Taiwan’s universities are hard hit by tight funding, with faculties short-staffed and professors short-changed. Because of the market mechanism, some prominent academics have moved to work at elite universities in mainland China. If Taiwan sticks to its isolationist policies, with its too many universities unable to enrol enough students and the island unable to attract young people from abroad, rejecting mainland China students and refusing to recognize their academic credentials, things can only go from bad to worse. All the problems besetting them today will be pressing in upon them tomorrow – with even deadlier weight.
見微知著，排名反映的現象不容忽視	Ranking is warning
評比已經過去，抱怨無濟於事。台灣教育界的先進與朋友，如要爭取提升高教素質，宜大量增加資源、重視投資回饋，拒絕政治介入。排名一事，固然不是教研重點，然而見微知著，排名為今日品質受重視的濫觴，其反映的現象甚關宏旨，值得思考。	The exercise of rankings is over, and complaints can serve no purpose now. Instead, I would like to suggest that my Taiwanese friends in the higher education circles, if they desire better-quality universities, try to input greater resources that promise solid returns, and try to ward off political interference in educational affairs. Places – high or low – on the ranking scale are not real goals in academic or research endeavours, but they can make a sobering warning. They help to call for a stringent system of quality control in future, as the problems they have revealed are worth serious reflection on the part of educators.
	(Translated by Allen Zhuang)
[*椅子為郭位教授小名；作者是台灣中央研究院院士、中國工程院外藉院士、美國國家工程院院士；現任香港城市大學校長。源文刊於2009年6月26日台灣《中國時報》，原題為“台大為什麼排名落後?”。/ The source text by Yi-zi, pseudonym of Way Kuo, who is professor and president of City University of Hong Kong, was published in China Times of Taiwan on June 26, 2009.]