The NUS Graduate: Establishing NUS’ Reputation

Since its beginnings in 1905, NUS has undergone phenomenal changes in search of distinction. By actively participating in all these changes, the Government, our visionary and able vice-chancellors, dedicated staff and administrators and all our students have collectively established the excellent reputation that we now have today whereby the NUS degree is well recognised locally and internationally.

As a university is judged by the quality of its graduates (and its faculty), NUS will remain a brand name amidst the many institutions of higher education in the world only if we are able to continue to produce suitably trained graduates who are in high demand because they are able to provide top service. Consequently, the education/training process that we provide for the NUS Student should be examined in greater detail.

Strategically, we must identify the type and quality of graduates whom we want to produce and can produce. Such strategies will govern the calibre of students we deem suitable to educate and also that of faculty who provide the education. Tactically, curricula that stretch the students’ intellectual minds and stimulate their intellectual curiosity, as well as a conducive learning environment are also important factors for attracting quality students and academic staff to join NUS and collectively produce the desired outcomes of NUS. Because the desired outcomes differ with time, we should also constantly review both curricula and environment accordingly.

The NUS Student and Curriculum: Past and Present

For the purpose of this essay, I will highlight two distinct phases of curriculum development in the history of engineering education at NUS. The first phase of development took place from the early 60s to the late 70s when the School of Engineering was established at the then University of Singapore during the launch of Singapore’s industrialisation programme. The aim of engineering education then was to churn out quickly as large a workforce as possible at the professional level. This was a necessary measure, as Singapore’s industries were essentially assembly plants that were labour-intensive. Degree accreditation from UK professional institutions was used to benchmark our engineering curricula.

Until the late 70s, our faculties/schools were located at Bukit Timah, Prince Edward Road, Lady Hill and Sepoy Lines. In 1978, a common campus was founded at Kent Ridge to create an environment that would in future facilitate interdisciplinary activities. The second phase of curriculum development next took place from the early 80s into the 90s as Singapore’s economy boomed. During this period, the focus shifted from promoting labour-intensive towards capital-intensive industries, with the substantial increase in the workforce salary fuelling the change from low to high tech economy. Professional courses such as engineering, accountancy and business administration were heavily subscribed. However, many bright students chose to study humanities and become administrators in both public and private organisations. Engineering and science graduates were also readily absorbed into the administrative and financial sectors.

Two parallel paths of undergraduate engineering education were available from the two universities in Singapore (NUS and Nanyang Technological University) to meet its manpower requirement. With NUS’ emphasis in research, especially collaborative research with industry, the NUS curriculum was re-structured introducing more graduate courses, especially the part-time Masters’ programmes. Many research institutes and research centres were established and hosted by NUS. Immersed in this environment, the NUS student was given ample exposure to key academic issues, entrepreneurship, and understanding of world cultures.

The NUS Graduate of the Future

At the start of this new millennium, not only has its own economy matured, but Singapore must now also confront global competition to survive. ‘Global economy’, ‘knowledge economy’, ‘global knowledge enterprise’, and ‘foreign talent’ are common buzzwords that sum up the demands of the new worldwide, Information Technology-driven economy. To meet such challenges, the strategies and tactics for educating/training the NUS student must necessarily be changed accordingly.

When contemplating curricula reform, two basic questions should be considered among many:

• Why should a prospective student select NUS, and not another university?
  
• Why should the employer select graduates from NUS and not from other universities or polytechnics?

A prospective student will choose the tertiary institution with education programmes that will satisfy their intellectual curiosity and concern for high market value. But if immediate market value is the student’s main consideration, then rapid changes in global demands and shifts in location of employers will result in transient market values of graduates. As a result, over-emphasising market value by prospective students and by faculty/school curriculum committees will be both short-term and imprudent. Instead, a good balance between training the intellect and training for market value is necessary. Therefore, for NUS to attract the best and brightest of students, we must tailor our academic programmes towards developing students’ personal, intellectual, professional and communicative potentials. After completing these programmes, the NUS graduate will be able to continue acquiring further skills independently to sustain his or her market value regardless of the disciplines majored at NUS.

The future NUS graduate will then be one who is, on the one hand, professionally competent within a chosen discipline or disciplines, and on the other hand, intellectually broad-based and highly adaptable to become cosmopolitan men or women with leadership qualities. To achieve these aims, the NUS curricula must strongly emphasise developing the students’ rigorous understanding of fundamental principles and their ability to generate new knowledge through applications of these principles. The NUS curricula must also facilitate breadth of study to satisfy the NUS student’s intellectual curiosity, interests and aspirations. In addition, the NUS curricula must leverage on the expertise of other faculties/schools/institutions, local or overseas, to facilitate cross-pollination of ideas and knowledge to generate new niche areas and territories.

Given NUS’ comprehensive structure as a university and our adoption of the flexible Modular System, we are capable of achieving the above objectives. Yet to further realise the vision of NUS as ‘the intellectual and entrepreneurial pulse of Singapore’, many new multi-disciplinary initiatives have been introduced, such as Minor Programmes, Specialisation Areas, Cross-Faculty Modules, Elective Modules and others that have been jointly proposed by faculties and departments. The implementation of the University Scholars Programme and the General Education Requirement will nurture NUS students to become leaders: these programmes will intensively stretch their intellect as well as enable them to learn the essential modes of inquiry in their quest for knowledge within and outside of their disciplines.

Value-adding vs. Value-creating

When considering curricula development, we should perhaps make another careful distinction between value-adding and value-creating. What I define as value-adding in curriculum development is the process by which we often trim and add topics in existing modules, or we consolidate existing modules, rearranging and expanding existing topics into different modules. In this way, dated materials are weeded out and state-of-the-art materials are covered in order to better prepare the NUS student for the working world. In business language, such a process is driven by market forces and often short-term, requiring frequent reviews.
In contrast, we can radically reform our curricula and this requires both vision and boldness. Successful implementation of such curricula will create value within the NUS student. In business parlance, this means to take the initiative to create demand for new products and stimulate market forces, for instance in the development and marketing of products and services such as SONY Walkman, MacDonald’s fast food and FedEx rapid mail delivery.
So this concept begs the questions: Can we value-create our curricula? How can we achieve this? I have no answer, but I believe that by leveraging on the strengths of NUS’ faculties and schools, we can create new disciplines such as Engineering Science, Engineering Humanities, Engineering Art, etc. For instance, I understand that a well-known US university has offered a degree course in Computer Music. New niche areas can be created through this radical approach, and often the reward and the competitive edge that are derived will last a long time.

Conclusion

NUS now enjoys an excellent reputation. However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We must continue to revisit our modes of education and move forward, for the success factors of the past and present may not guarantee success in the future. By sharing and utilising the rich supply of expertise and resources available within and outside NUS, we can both add and create value in the education programmes we offer our students. In this way, the NUS graduate will have undergone programmes that will enable them to readily crossover into different disciplines and develop new disciplines that will determine his or her market value.