Minister Wu Ching has called the education system a "monster." We don't want to kill it, but we do need to tame it. This "monster" refers to the closely linked problems of "promotionism" (seeking only advancement to higher levels, without regard to personal interests or true quality of education) and the joint university entrance exams (JUEE, which have been criticized for being the only channel to university, for emphasizing only rote memorization and grueling cramming, and for placing students into fields of study that they are not really interested in).

"Killing the monster" would mean complete abandonment of the JUEE system. This is impossible in the short term. Of course we want to create a wider variety of opportunities for advanced study, seeing as students have different interests, so that students with different types of qualifications can advance to university. But it cannot be denied that many students in high school still have no clear idea of what they really are interested in studying. Thus there must be a general method for university entrance, and it is still necessary for the JUEE to exist.

After exam results for vocational high school have been posted, parents take their kids to anxiously check out school information. Measuring talent and putting it in the right place is one of the ideals of current education reform.

Expectations mixed with fear

There are still many doubts about changing the JUEE, either by eliminating it or reforming it (including the much-discussed idea of a "diversified entrance plan"-open attendance, a recommendation system, and so on). I think the key problem is that, although everyone wants a reasonably open advancement system, people are worried about how fair any new methods will be.

Moreover, while recognizing that education is not 100% for the purpose of career preparation, everyone must admit that most careers do follow naturally from the end of schooling, and are closely tied into a person's department and course of study. For the individual, these things are extremely important in terms of the development of one's life. Therefore, when a parent thinks of reforms in terms of his or her child, or when the student thinks of him or herself, there is always "fear of getting hurt" mixed in with hope. This is why, despite the fact that everybody has long been saying the JUEE system needs to be reformed, such reform is still moving very slowly.

We can see the problem of "fairness" in the idea for altering the system for advancement into vocational high school. The MoE has proposed that students' grades be taken into account for advancement, but everyone's instinctive reaction to the idea is: Do all schools have identical standards of grading? What about all teachers? If unequal standards of grading are used to determine unequal grades, and then these are used as the criteria for advancement, won't that be "unfair"?

In fact, both overall educational reform and reform of the JUEE system depend on changing the value system in society. If, as at present, people put such strong weight on diplomas, the problem of whether or not these were acquired in a "fair" process will seem that much more important. But if diplomas cease to be the sole criterion for getting ahead in life-if people with different abilities are given different opportunities to show what they can do-then people might not place so much emphasis on diplomas anymore.

It's not that I am placing all my hopes on the transformation of society's values. But I do think the outlook in society as a whole needs to change. Take for example the "credential system" currently being promoted by the MoE. In the future, those with such credentials can move into the civil service, or sign up for the college or university entrance exams. It is to be hoped that this can change society's value system to some extent.

We hope that we can complete detailed planning for the elimination of exams for vocational high school by next May or June. If the current plan is still the one adopted at that time, so that two years of school grades are taken into account, then we should be able to begin implementing the new system two years later.

What will be the impact of today's education reforms on the students of tomorrow?

Too few mechanisms for selection?

I feel that the main reason so many people oppose a lot of the reform ideas of the MoE is simply that they are unaccustomed to them. In our society, there have always been very few "selection mechanisms." In employment or in choosing people, in the absence of other standards, the only thing to do has been to use diplomas and education as the standard. Using the overall mechanism of the education system to "select" people has in fact been going on for a long time. It's just that everybody only looks at the "final" diploma, when they could use the "process" as a criteria for selection.

Some argue that the reason nobody wants to go to vocational high school these days is that the gap in resources with ordinary high schools is too large. How can parents feel at ease sending their children to a vocational high school?

In fact, a major reason why vocational high school has become a less-desired option is that there are fewer opportunities for continuing education after graduation. Our vocational system has always been seen as "terminal"-people expect graduates to move right into the workforce when high school is finished. But the Chinese are a people who love education-no matter what the social stratum, people always want their kids to study further and further onward. Thus we have recently mapped out a plan for expanding the vocational education system. The number of schools-four-year technical colleges, two-year junior colleges, and two-year technical academies-will be raised from nine to 30. This will dovetail with the ideal of "lifetime" education which has been much discussed of late.

Change takes time

Beyond systemic reforms, many things will take time. For example, today many vocational high school students are embarrassed to declare their schooling background, feeling that they got a "second- class" education. In fact, no matter where you look in society there are many examples of successful people who graduated from vocational high school. This is the reason the MoE adopted its "Vocational Education Train" program, which brings successful people who graduated from vocational schools to middle and high schools around Taiwan to demonstrate what is possible with a vocational education.

I feel that the outlook that "the only worthy occupation is being a scholar" is related to the problem of "reputation and fortune." In terms of "fortune," we should let everyone know that sometimes vocational high school grads end up with higher salaries than university graduates. In terms of "reputation," if now we give students a better chance to continue further on in their schooling, then we can expect that the overall impression of vocational education will change.

There are also doubts about the district high school system (in which students will attend high schools by place of residence rather than testing into schools according to exam score). Given inequalities in resource distribution among schools, how can this be implemented? We feel that the most important goal of the district high school system is to smash the old "star school" hierarchy, and by changing the system for advancement, thus rectify the long-standing emphasis on "promotionism." The district high school plan is not aimed at rectifying inequalities in resources.

The appearance of "star schools" was not caused because certain schools were better run, or got more resources from the MoE. It was because, under the examination system of selection for high school, all the best students became concentrated together. We want to use the district high school system to smash this star school hierarchy. But we know that among high schools resources are definitely not equally distributed. There is not only inequality between different counties or cities, but also between public and private schools, and between rural and urban locations. We hope that this problem can gradually be improved.

Balancing supply and demand

As for the relationship between university and manpower quality, some say that the expansion of university access will dilute manpower quality. And from the point of view of overall national manpower planning, should university expansion have a limit? My answer is that it is indeed difficult to weigh whether education planning should aim to meet demand from society, or should channel demand.

If it is aimed at meeting demand, then there must be a clear measure of supply and demand, so they can be connected. Though there are various methods for measuring and estimating manpower change, accuracy has always been a problem. We happen to be in a relatively slow period economically, industry is downsizing, and we are still awaiting a breakthrough in the economy, so this is an opportunity to make innovations in education and rapidly move to transform the system. Of course, transformation will entail a painful phase, but we hope that will quickly pass.

Naturally, we must restrict ourselves to what is necessary. For example, the rate of growth for universities is about 3% a year, and it is 5% for graduate schools. In fact this was mapped out in line with economic development. But there are still arguments about what the ratio should be of university entrants to the total number of 18-year-old youths. Groups promoting education reform say that 18% is too low, while the Council for Economic Planning and Development says it is too high. The MoE and CEPD still need to study the question and make further estimates.

We hope that many of the reforms associated with the JUEE system can encourage students to truly understand their own inclinations. Take for example the idea raised by Minister Wu, shortly after he took office, to have students "choose departments as first priority, schools as second priority" on their exam preference rankings; such ideas are aimed at making students think more about their real interests.

Currently, though it is possible for students to give priority to departments, many students currently simply choose the most famous schools first, accepting a place in some department they care nothing about, thinking that they can transfer to a preferred department later on. Yet they haven't thought that to transfer into a department, some other students must first transfer out. But in the most popular departments few students ever leave, so it is not easy to squeeze in. In this way students end up suffocating their own interests, and wasting their lives. At the same time, they may be taking a spot away from someone who really wants to study their subject. From this point of view, every student taking the JUEE is affected. We hope that everyone will instead think about why they want to go to university, and what they are really interested in.