LETTERS: Recent controversies over university admissions in Malaysia reveal a troubling paradox: while we meticulously calculate CGPA cutoffs and university rankings, we may have created a system where the mathematics of merit has been overshadowed by the mathematics of financial survival.
The issue runs deeper than privileged access. It highlights how financial pressures distort educational metrics.
As government funding steadily declines and bound by the University and University Colleges Act (1971), public institutions face extensive bureaucratic hurdles from multiple ministries regarding budget allocations.
This creates a simple but disturbing calculus: reduced public funding equals increased pressure compelling them to operate more like businesses to generate income.
T20 and international students, with their ability to pay full fees, become attractive solutions to budget shortfalls.
Meanwhile, B40 students face a cruel numbers game. Despite exceeding admission requirements, they must compete for limited subsidised spots against equally qualified peers from similar economic backgrounds.
Brilliant minds who might bring unique perspectives on social justice, community resilience, or ethical leadership are reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet.
Private education offers no relief. Tuition fees in Malaysian private universities have reached 27 per cent of average household income, far exceeding rates in Australia (14 per cent) and Canada (nine per cent).
Graduates face student loan repayments equivalent to 1.33 years' salary, surpassing both Singapore (1.10) and the UK (1.18). For B40 families, private university remains a dream.
Our education system worships at the altar of numbers - test scores, research outputs, rankings - yet fails to capture fundamental metrics of genuine social mobility.
When wealth becomes a metric for university admission, we're following the same flawed logic that reduces education to numerical scores.
Just as employment rates and research citations fail to reflect educational quality, family income is a poor predictor of academic potential or societal contribution.
Ironically, while universities calculate potential revenue from full-fee-paying students, they struggle to measure what truly matters - the value of socioeconomic diversity in fostering intellectual civility, cross-cultural dialogue, and innovation that emerges from diverse perspectives.
The solution requires honest policy discussions about university funding models.
Instead of forcing universities to choose between financial sustainability and educational equity, we need innovative funding approaches that:
* Restore adequate funding for public higher education;
* Transition from the current public/private fee-based PTPTN loan system to a more sophisticated income contingent repayment scheme;
* Establish cross-subsidisation mechanisms where full-fee-paying students support those who cannot afford tuition.
The emphasis must shift from mere numbers to educational quality and societal impact. International students should be valued for cultural exchange and global-networking potential, not just as revenue sources.
Until we address the underlying financial mathematics forcing universities into these choices, no amount of admission policy refinement will solve the fundamental inequities in our system.
In the end, the costliest mathematics in education is the talent we leave uncounted.
DR SYED ALWEE ALSAGOFF
Kajang, Selangor
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times