I, like others, was amazed by the new education law in its outlook on education, and its lack of harmony with modern changes. What's more surprising is that it retained the philosophical and intellectual bases, as stated in the Education Law No. 16 of 1964 and the Education Law No. 3 of 1994, despite the numerous upheavals in the worlds of thought and work, and in life itself!!
(1)
Rely on "connections" to get things done!
I asked a university student: Have you graduated? She said: Yes, a month ago!!
She asked me: What advice do you have for me?
I said: Look for a job, or continue your studies!
She said: How do I look for a job?
Where is the connection? And can you help me with it?
I said: "You need a deputy, or a minister, or a tribal chief, or any influential person"
My question for all of you: What did the university provide for this graduate, and for other graduates?
Skill-wise: They acquired no relevant work skills!
Morally: A belief that connections are the only way to get a job, and the outcome for the graduate: Rely on connections to get your needs met!
As for the public employee, he discovered another way: relying on hypocrisy!!!!
(2)
Degree or skill?
In ordinary and creative work in the private sector, they ask you: What are your skills? And what can you add to us? But in government work, they ask you: Is your degree certified? What is your grade? What's your evaluation?
The new education law for the "included" ministry only addressed the logic and philosophy of degrees. They may not realize that our era is the era of skills!!!
(3)
A practical PhD or a textual one?
As long as a PhD is an academic achievement, why shouldn't this degree be given to someone who offers a practical scientific achievement? For instance, inventing a machine, discovering a fact, developing a tool, anything practically new?
Universities and academia favor a textual PhD that documents references APA-style, formulates hypotheses, and determines sample sizes, etc., and consequently, they are put on shelves or stored in USBs. No one goes back to them!!
What is needed is a practical PhD instead of a textual PhD!!
Is this a strike below the belt of academic decency?
(4)
Clothing of professors and students!
No one demands from university professors who do not know their salaries because they are substantial! We do not demand foreign brand clothes! But the university has the right to demand elegant clothing, a presentable appearance, and hair that is not messy!
As for the students, the university has the right for them to match the elegance of the university environment: "trees, flowers, cleanliness…"
This is not blasphemy! It is the university's right to distinguish the appearance of a university professor
from others with their elegance!!
(5)
Knowledge consumption without production
The university is not distinguished by its budget or its ranking, although that is important! The university is only distinguished by its new and currently non-existent knowledge production, even if just a little!
University professors select a textbook
provided it covers all the curriculum, so that each unit includes test questions!!!
After all this, does any university have the right to say it has achieved!!!!!!
Did you understand me!!
