Update on Local Representation in Universities and Effectiveness of Universities’ Talent Grooming Schemes

The number of Singaporean academics as a proportion of all faculty members in our autonomous universities (AUs) has remained fairly stable at about 50% over the last 10 years.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) started the Singapore Teaching and Academic Research Talent (START) Scheme to develop Singaporean academics and to supplement existing schemes at the various AUs. Under START, 91 scholarships have been awarded over the past four years. As it is relatively new, most of the scholarship recipients are still studying. Of the 16 who have completed their studies, 13 are holding faculty positions in our AUs, with the rest returning to join the AUs later this year. START recipients have already demonstrated involvement in impactful, locally-relevant projects in areas, such as language and palliative care.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) Presidential Young Professorship (PYP) Scheme and the Nanyang Technological University's (NTU’s) Nanyang Assistant Professorship (NAP) Scheme aim to attract top local and foreign academics to the AUs. Thus far, NUS and NTU have granted a total of 91 awards.

Together, the three schemes provide various forms of support for aspiring and young academics at different stages of their studies and careers. This comes in the form of financing support during Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or post-doctorate stints, mentorship from faculty members and research grants.

On average, MOE and the AUs have invested around $11 million per year on these three schemes since 2015.

We will continue to work with our AUs to build a strong Singaporean Core in our faculty. It is critically important that we have a strong core of local academics in our AUs.

I thank the Minister for the answer. Just a few supplementary questions. I have spoken on this topic in previous sessions. In stating that there is about 50% of local representation in our universities, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any particular faculties where stints are under-represented in terms of the local academics in these faculties.

First, in terms of universities, are there certain schools which are lacking? And then, within the universities, are there certain faculties where the number of local academics is lacking? If so, what are the measures that will be taken to boost these numbers?

When it comes to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), by nature, the research and teaching are international. In fact, the more international inputs you have, the richer the experience in terms of student learning as well as the richer the research outcomes. For arts and social sciences, it is a bit more complex because students and faculty who are here also need to understand the Asian context, the Singapore context, the history, the geography of Singapore that define who we are. So, beyond having diversity in terms of knowledge and background, we particularly need a strong Singapore Core in arts and social sciences. So, my short answer is, that will be our focus.

What measures can we take? We are actively discussing with the autonomous AUs, not just now, but for the past year or two. PYP, NAP and START are such schemes that could help build up arts and social sciences' local faculties in these areas. But there are also other practical steps that we are discussing with all our AUs and we will implement them in time to come.

I thank the Minister for his response. I have two supplementary questions. The first is whether the Minister could share more on the age profile of Singapore versus foreign faculty. This is because, anecdotally, it seems that many Singapore faculty are concentrated in the older side of the profession because they pre-date our opening up of the sector to foreign faculty.

The second supplementary question is if the Minister could share more on the academic ranks and positions held by Singapore versus foreign faculty because there is a difference between holding a tenure track or tenured position, and holding, for example, a teaching position which is much less secure and is less flexible.

The age profile of faculty, I am afraid, I do not have those data with me. We do have those data. If the Member would file a Parliamentary Question, we are happy to answer. But we do watch those data. How is it that we have 50% local academics over the past 10 years? Because we do watch those data and make sure that it is not just the stock that matters but also the flow, which is why we need a START scheme so that we bring in young local academics from young.

The second question is on the positions. Local academics hold a variety of positions. I would not say it is particularly skewed. Fifty percent applies to the whole academic faculty as well as tenured positions. As Members know, it is also important for us, especially in comprehensive universities like NUS and NTU, that we do not just focus on the tenured professorships. It is also very, very important to recognise that the primary mission of our AUs is actually to educate the young and develop them. So, teaching and practice professorships are, in fact, very important, too. And I really hope to see – and that is one point that Mr Seah Kian Peng asked – that we can elevate teaching professorships to be really on par with tenured research professorships.

Speaker, I declare my interest as a faculty member in a local AU. We have two comprehensive universities. Is there an over-emphasis on publication, academic research and university ranking that we compromise the quality of teaching amongst our faculty? Anecdotally, again, when a particular university wanted to chase university rankings, a lot of foreign faculty members were brought in based on their past publication of research and not so much on the quality of teaching, which then has an impact on our students. Could something be done about this?

First of all, we should be clear high ranking is not bad. Actually, to be ranked high internationally is something we should be proud that NUS and NTU have all been ranked high. If you ask most universities or most governments whether they wish to have a university that ranks high, whether it is Quacquarelli Symonds or Times Higher Education, they will say, "I wish we have NUS and NTU". Because when you rank high, you can attract good talent, you can attract good students and there is a whole vibrancy around the whole campus. However, if you also ask most academic leaders around the world, education ministers around the world, not everyone is happy with the ranking system because of the rubrics. It is just a bit too blunt, a bit too focused on research and not so much on teaching. And even within research, too much focus on publications rather than translational research, or the impact of the research. And nobody has really cracked the puzzle how else to measure and to have a robust international ranking system. And we must know these shortcomings and make sure that the Ministry and universities work together, ensure that we know the multifaceted missions of our AUs and make sure we carry out our work in a way that fulfils all these missions and not blindly chase rankings. We are very well aware of that in the Ministry Headquarters and so are the leaders of our AUs.