In Jun, Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings released its annual university rankings showing that National University of Singapore (NUS) continues to hold its top spot in Asia. Overall in the world, NUS ranked 11th, just after University College London. Nanyang Technological University (NTU) was ranked 2nd in Asia and 13th in the world.

The top 15 universities ranked by QS World University Rankings:

  1. MIT, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States
  3. Harvard University, United States
  4. Caltech, United States
  5. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  6. ETH Zurich, Switzerland
  7. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  8. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  9. University of Chicago, United States
  10. University College London, United Kingdom
  11. NUS, Singapore
  12. Princeton University, United States
  13. NTU, Singapore
  14. EPFL, Switzerland
  15. Tsinghua University, China

Top university in US and UK was MIT and University of Oxford respectively. Singapore did well for having 2 of its universities ranked in the top-15, considering its small population size compared with those of US and UK.

Mr Ben Sowter, director of research at QS, said, “The (Singapore) local universities have contributed to such extraordinary achievement by boosting the innovation capability of the city state and by educating a large proportion of its highly skilled workforce.”

“NUS continues to lead nationally and regionally, followed closely by NTU. The latter, despite a small drop, continues to improve in our research impact indicator, rising 11 places year on year,” said Mr Sowter. He added that the ranking is dynamic and extremely competitive. This is especially true of universities in the top echelon.

QS uses six indicators to compile the ranking, including research impact, faculty-student ratio and how the university is regarded by other academics and employers, as well as proportion of international students and faculty.

No Indian universities among top 100

Meanwhile, after the release of QS World Rankings, the Indian media lamented that none of the Indian universities have made it to the top-100 in the rankings. Indian media is asking what India has done wrong with its university education (‘No Indian institute among top 100 in QS World University Rankings 2021: What is India doing wrong?‘, 11 Jun).

India Today wrote, “India’s performance wasn’t all that good. No Indian institute secured a position among the top 100 universities of the world.”

Only a total of 21 Indian institutes made it to the top 1,000 in the QS World Rankings. Do note that India has over 1000 universities in the country.

The top 3 Indian universities did rank in the top-200 of QS World Rankings:

  • 172 – IIT Bombay (dropped 20 spots from last year’s 152)
  • 185 – IISC Bengaluru (dropped 1 spot from last year’s 184)
  • 193 – IIT Delhi (dropped 11 spots from last year’s 182)

“IITs and Indian universities seem to have scored poorly in these QS Ranking parameters – Academic Reputation, Employer Reputation, International Faculty, and International Students,” explains TG Sitharaman, Director at IIT Guwahati.

Vice-chairman of University Grants Commission of India (UGC) Bhushan Patwardhan attributed the drop in rankings of Indian institutes to the quality of education and research. “We need to focus on quality and relevance over quantity and degrees. Even the central government’s centre of excellence initiative did not salvage the institutes in the ranking. A more detailed study is needed to know what happened to centres of excellence,” he said.

UGC is a statutory body under India’s Ministry of Education, and is charged with coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of higher education in India.

Replying to Indian media, Mr Sowter from QS attributed the overall ranking drop in Indian universities to also other universities in the world making efforts to improve themselves. He said, “Though India’s universities have dropped as a group this year, this is because of other universities across the world making increasingly intense efforts to enhance their educational offerings.”

Companies prefer to hire Indian nationals

Despite the poorer rankings of Indian universities, many companies in Singapore appear to prefer to hire Indian nationals, on doubt mostly were graduates from their universities. This is especially so for firms in the financial and professional services.

Early last month (5 Aug), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) announced that another 47 companies with suspected discriminatory hiring practices have been placed on its Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watchlist (‘MOM places firms with “high concentration of PMETs from single nationalities” in FCF watchlist‘).

This is on top of the 1,000 firms in the watchlist as announced by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo in Parliament earlier this year – an increase of about 400 more firms than what was on the watchlist a year ago.

The latest announcement came after the recent General Election which saw the ruling PAP government lose another GRC and perform worse than it had anticipated.

Of the said 47 companies, 30 are in the financial and professional service sectors. They include banks, fund management firms, management consulting companies, as well as firms that provide project management and engineering services.

MOM said that all the 30 firms have had a “high concentration of PMETs from single nationalities”. In one financial institution, almost three-quarters of their PMETs are of the same nationality and in another bank, almost two-thirds of the PMETs are also of the same nationality, MOM revealed.

MOM did not name the companies nor the “single nationalities” involved but on social media, most netizens are pointing to Indian nationals. Even PAP MP Ang Wei Neng recently commented in Parliament that he felt like a foreigner in his own country when he visited the Changi Business Park, a place dominated by Indian nationals working there (‘MP Ang Wei Neng takes 9 yrs to feel like a foreigner in own country when visiting Changi Business Park‘).

In their defence, some of the the firms accused of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices said that Singaporeans lacked the “global exposure” necessary to function effectively across the multiple countries that they operate in.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
97 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

印尼巴淡岛吁居民暂停访新行程 防止病毒传染

自我国颁布新的边境限制后,印尼廖内群岛的巴淡岛政府也要求居民暂停前往我国,以防止病毒传染。 《雅加达邮报》报道,巴淡市副市长阿姆萨卡尔(Amsakar)表示,“我们将发布一份通告,建议居民在未来两周内暂停出国旅游,尤其是新加坡。” 他表示,他一直在与新加坡驻巴淡总领事官员商讨旅行限制一事。 他也补充,该新令并不适用于全印尼人民,然而他也提醒,若印尼人想要在此刻入境新加坡,可能会花上很长的时间,因为在他们入境那一刻将会被隔离两周。 阿姆萨卡尔也说明,他能够理解部分印尼人会前往新加坡寻求医疗资源,但他们也不希望印尼人因为新加坡的检疫政策而在新加坡逗留太久。 而他也补充道,当地政府无法在技术上限制新加坡人入境巴淡岛,因为外国人的健康检测是由港口卫生办公室(KKP)负责,而该办事处隶属卫生部。 “虽然新加坡也在试图阻止民众出国,但入境我国的新加坡人也会接受严格的检查。” 我国早前是宣布从16日起,过去14天曾去过东盟(ASEAN)国家、瑞士、英国、日本等地的旅客、本地居民和长期准证持有者,都需要遵守14天的居家通知(Stay-Home Notice)。 不过,国家发展部长黄循财表示,以上措施不会针对每日从海路或陆路出入境的我国或马国人士。“这是有鉴于两国由很高程度的相互依赖关系,因此需单独作出考量,双方官员正通过两国的疫情对策小组商讨,另作安排。”

泛岛快速公路高架桥坍塌事件 集团董事经理三指控被撤销

因2017年泛岛快速公路(PIE)高架桥坍塌事件,而面对法庭诉讼案的主要承包商董事经理,其指控于今日(7月31日)被撤销,惟不构成无罪释放。 人力部(MOM)和新加坡建设局(BCA)于审判的前一天,对胡金标建筑私人有限公司(Or Kim Peow Contractors (Pte) Ltd)发出有条件警告。 51岁的集团总经理胡土发(Or Toh Wa)在依据《建筑管制法令》下的两项指控,以及据《工作场所安全与卫生法令》下的一项指控都被撤销了。 他因执行了未经批准的建筑工程,因失误导致一名员工死亡和10人受伤,才被指控上庭。 接到二部门发出有条件警告…

两船相撞事件“疑被安排” 海港局驳斥指控列事故始末证清白

有网络报导指出,希腊的比雷埃夫斯(Piraeus)货船和马来西亚的北极星号(Polaris)浮标船相撞事故,疑是新加坡政府所为,目的是把马国船只赶离争议海域。针对这项指控,新加坡海事及港务管理局(MPA)于2月11日在其脸书专页上强烈反驳,指这是“虚假指控”,并列明事故发生始末,强调没有幕后指使一事。 当局也表示正在调查有关的船只相撞事故,并强烈要求网民不要散播有关的假消息。 希腊的比雷埃夫斯散货船和马来西亚的北极星号浮标船是于2月9日,在备受争议的新柔海峡水域相撞。两船碰撞并没有引起伤亡或漏油事件,却让新柔海域争议浮上台面。 网指希腊“假造案真还债?” 有关网络报导来自Singapore Herald,指根据船运业的消息来源,初步调查显示可能是有预谋的,并指出希腊国家是个破产国家,其国内生产总值的178.6巴仙都是政府债务, 有可能这场意外是刻意制造的,以作为希腊偿还债务的方式之一。 Singapore Herald也指控,事故后我国国有媒体率先反应,例如《海峡时报》,事故发生在下午2时26分,但该报几乎马上就上载了有关事故视频。而官方也发布了不确实的文告,指事发事件是下午2时28分,似乎是新加坡和其 根据船只速度调查显示,希腊比雷埃夫斯散货船在同北极星号商议后,同意让道马来西亚船只。希腊船员在事发前50分钟放缓船速,但是并没有改变航线,表面看似尽量在减低两船故意相碰后的伤害。 Singapore Herald声称,新加坡官方媒体发布了一项记录了错误时间的官方文告,说明有关事故的事发时间落在下午2时28分,因此质疑“这是新加坡与其债务人所“指定”的预计到达时间(ETA…