[Bobby]

Hello all,

I was recently asked what makes an international program a good program. The question came from a Thai father who doesn't believe at all that Thai universities can offer good international programs. According to him, it's just making money by higher fees and additional jobs (means: income) for the clique of professors at that university.

I must admit, so far I agree.

After all what I heard, the average international program is 'international' in only one point: it uses US textbooks. Environment is Thai, hierarchy is Thai, behaviour is Thai, and lecturer is Thai who has a big problem to conduct a class in English. The complaints resulting from that are that studying an international program is a complete waste of money and time.

So, how should it be to be a good international program? That's my question to the forum.

Let me start with the lecturers. Nothing is more important for me when I study anywhere than the lecturer. I want lecturers of which each one is really good in his field - the higher tuition fee should make that possible (it can't go only for textbooks, right?).

The best-qualified lecturer is nothing, however, if it's frontal rote learning. My second point is, therefore, student centered learning. Give me a chance to understand and don't try to hammer dry facts into my brain.

I don't know that many Thai lecturers, but I have never seen a Thai professor making an interesting course. Sitting on their a.., ellbows on the desk, speaking into the mike, and watching the wall behind the students.

Therefore (exceptions may confirm the rule), a good program needs a vast majority of international lecturers. Any single Thai lecturer may well be a burden to the program.

So, it's your turn. What else?

Bobby

[Paul]

Well..

You may not agree with me, but... when I think of the word "international", I think of language and culture.

I think every "international" establishment should have a variety of languages available.

This includes Thai as well as Chinese, Japanese, English, German, Russian, and any other language that people like to do business in.

I also think every "international" establishment should have a variety of cultural appeal.

Excursions locally and abroad might help.



In reality, it's never going to happen. So, as we study here, maybe the locals should study elsewhere.

However, I am happy they don't always disappear overseas. At times, I like the experience.

[Bobby]

I think every "international" establishment should have a variety of languages available.

Two scenarios are just fighting against each other in my brain. One appears great, the other bad to me.

The first one is an 'international program' with many curriculum based language courses conducted by Thai professors from behind the desk, and includes a bus trip to Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam, with all students nicely dressed in perfect student uniform.

The second one is an 'international program' where I walk on the floor listening to all these different languages from any corner of the building, where African students joke with Southamerican students about the fat European food, and a Chinese student gives me his email address to stay in touch, and my best friend is a black Canadian originating from Zimbabwe.

I think, one cannot teach (or learn) language or culture when language or culture are only taking part in form of a textbook. One can only learn them when they are actively involved in form of human beings or non-formal representatives, such as fellows in the own class.

The first scenario exhibites the way how civil servants may transform a curriculum into everyday classes. Imagine that with mostly Thai and a few Chinese students and, except the English language and culture courses, only Thai lecturers. I hope, that's not what you mean, Paul.

I don't want a lecturer from Myanmar teaching me why US businesses are dominating. That just lack credibility. I want a US lecturer telling me what she tells her students in the US as well. That's why I've put lecturers first.

Western lecture style involves a lot of project and team work, and there is no better way for an international program than getting this done in international student teams.

Let me sum it up: A good international program needs a mixed international student body. That's much more than just a group of Chinese or German students as an alibi function.

Would you agree on that, or did I miss the point?

Bobby

[Paul]

I don't want a lecturer from Myanmar teaching me why US businesses are dominating.

But I'd like a Myanmar lecturer to tell me about Myanmar.

I'm in Asia.

[orpheus]

Two scenarios are just fighting against each other in my brain. One appears great, the other bad to me.

The first one is an 'international program' with many curriculum based language courses conducted by Thai professors from behind the desk, and includes a bus trip to Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam, with all students nicely dressed in perfect student uniform.

The second one is an 'international program' where I walk on the floor listening to all these different languages from any corner of the building, where African students joke with Southamerican students about the fat European food, and a Chinese student gives me his email address to stay in touch, and my best friend is a black Canadian originating from Zimbabwe.

I think, one cannot teach (or learn) language or culture when language or culture are only taking part in form of a textbook. One can only learn them when they are actively involved in form of human beings or non-formal representatives, such as fellows in the own class.

The first scenario exhibites the way how civil servants may transform a curriculum into everyday classes. Imagine that with mostly Thai and a few Chinese students and, except the English language and culture courses, only Thai lecturers. I hope, that's not what you mean, Paul.

I don't want a lecturer from Myanmar teaching me why US businesses are dominating. That just lack credibility. I want a US lecturer telling me what she tells her students in the US as well. That's why I've put lecturers first.

Western lecture style involves a lot of project and team work, and there is no better way for an international program than getting this done in international student teams.

Let me sum it up: A good international program needs a mixed international student body. That's much more than just a group of Chinese or German students as an alibi function.

Would you agree on that, or did I miss the point?

Bobby

Something tells me you have experienced some bitter disappointment in a Thai international university environment, or you have heard negative things, and this is what you anticipate if
you enroll in one. There are universities here that are very bad, some in between and a few very good. I would be wary of the ones that look great visually with the grand fountains, Roman columns and spectacular buildings (Think about it. Are they putting most of their money into aesthetics, or good professors?). Like you say; look at the professors' credentials and their backgrounds. Even if the student body is not very international, good professors will in time attract a diverse foreign student population. I feel lucky that the first university I chose in Thailand is a good one. It's certainly not perfect. In fact, I have had two or three terrible professors, but the competent, skilled professors that are there out number the bad ones by a large margin. Just one last note. It is unwise to judge professors by where they come from. One of the best professors I have had is originally from Afghanistan; a brilliant teacher with incredible insight and knowledge of the world.

[Uli]

Like you say; look at the professors' credentials and their backgrounds. Even if the student body is not very international, good professors will in time attract a diverse foreign student population.

Even if the divers foreign student population might come too late for you, good professors will always help you to understand, as opposed to memorize. This understanding occurs well also in a group consisting of only one nationality, may it be Thai or Chinese or others.

From my own experiences as a student, I agree with Orpheus. International student body is a plus, certainly, but good professors are crucial.

Uli

[mysterycm]

Hello all,

I was recently asked what makes an international program a good program. The question came from a Thai father who doesn't believe at all that Thai universities can offer good international programs. According to him, it's just making money by higher fees and additional jobs (means: income) for the clique of professors at that university.

I must admit, so far I agree.

After all what I heard, the average international program is 'international' in only one point: it uses US textbooks. Environment is Thai, hierarchy is Thai, behaviour is Thai, and lecturer is Thai who has a big problem to conduct a class in English. The complaints resulting from that are that studying an international program is a complete waste of money and time.

So, how should it be to be a good international program? That's my question to the forum.

Let me start with the lecturers. Nothing is more important for me when I study anywhere than the lecturer. I want lecturers of which each one is really good in his field - the higher tuition fee should make that possible (it can't go only for textbooks, right?).

The best-qualified lecturer is nothing, however, if it's frontal rote learning. My second point is, therefore, student centered learning. Give me a chance to understand and don't try to hammer dry facts into my brain.

I don't know that many Thai lecturers, but I have never seen a Thai professor making an interesting course. Sitting on their a.., ellbows on the desk, speaking into the mike, and watching the wall behind the students.

Therefore (exceptions may confirm the rule), a good program needs a vast majority of international lecturers. Any single Thai lecturer may well be a burden to the program.

So, it's your turn. What else?

Bobby

Sorry, this thread is kind of dead but I just needed to add my opinion here.

I have to agree with you that the lecturers are the backbone of your education, and not the textbooks. When I was in high school I had teachers who never touched the textbooks, and those were usually the ones that were the best teachers.

I'm sure there are a lot of Thais reading this, so please take no offence from what I am about to say here, I mean it in a very respectful way.

The main reason the Thai education system is so bad is because of the lazy attitude from the teachers. They don't want to teach, they just stand there reading out what is in the powerpoint presentation, expecting the students to memorize everything so that they can write a multiple choice test. That way they dont have to read anything and can just use a template to check all the answers. This practice continues in university. Now I have had teachers that take the critical thinking approach, but these are the ones that got PhDs in England and America.

Something tells me you have experienced some bitter disappointment in a Thai international university environment, or you have heard negative things, and this is what you anticipate if
you enroll in one. There are universities here that are very bad, some in between and a few very good. I would be wary of the ones that look great visually with the grand fountains, Roman columns and spectacular buildings (Think about it. Are they putting most of their money into aesthetics, or good professors?). Like you say; look at the professors' credentials and their backgrounds. Even if the student body is not very international, good professors will in time attract a diverse foreign student population. I feel lucky that the first university I chose in Thailand is a good one. It's certainly not perfect. In fact, I have had two or three terrible professors, but the competent, skilled professors that are there out number the bad ones by a large margin. Just one last note. It is unwise to judge professors by where they come from. One of the best professors I have had is originally from Afghanistan; a brilliant teacher with incredible insight and knowledge of the world.

I have to fully agree with you here. I go to the university with the roman columns and the pretty parks. While the facilities are excellent there, the staff is....not.

may i ask what university you attended?

[Uli]

The main reason the Thai education system is so bad is because of the lazy attitude from the teachers. They don't want to teach, they just stand there reading out what is in the powerpoint presentation, expecting the students to memorize everything so that they can write a multiple choice test. That way they dont have to read anything and can just use a template to check all the answers. This practice continues in university. Now I have had teachers that take the critical thinking approach, but these are the ones that got PhDs in England and America.

I absolutely agree. May be, for an understanding of this situation it is helpful to see that it has a long tradition.

First of all, teachers and lecturers are products of the same education system in which they work. With poor salaries, you won't attract the high flyers. In the case of university lecturers, salaries are comparatively poor everywhere, not just in Thailand. But this is balanced by much freedom a university lecturer enjoys in focusing on his (probably changing) fields of interest. This it not in Thailand, however, where university lecturers find their out of class time filled up with bureaucratic work that often could be done by a security guard (in terms of intellectual challenge).

This situation is not a coincidence. Since this educational system was introduced last century (it is much a copy of the European, especially the German education system before end of WWII), education to nationalism is of high priority. If you are a 'good Thai' in these terms, you will find a place in our society and will have a safe life.

Critical thinking, however, is the biggest enemy of nationalism. Since it is not part of school education, most teachers and lecturers don't master it themselves. Critical thinking is nothing one can learn by attending a lecture, it needs to be developed in an environment in which it is prevalent. So it isn't surprising that those who got a degree at a good institution abroad can't teach anymore without it.

Unfortunately, these people are few and far between, and many of them give up when running into the foreseeable trouble with system, superiors, colleagues, and those students who request the more convenient way the know from school.

Changing this will need at least a generation since change has to start on primary school level, finally ending up in a new generation of teachers, lecturers, and administrators (and, of course and hopefully, of civil servants at the Thai ministry of education).

If critical thinking skills development is an issue for you, you can only study where there are almost only foreign lecturers on the one hand, and 'being a good Thai student' is not conservatively enforced on the other. Besides IIS at Ramkhamhaeng (with its 'flying faculty' of western university professors) you will find this here in Thailand only at AIT Asian Institute of Technology for the time being.

There are attempts to go new ways. One of Thailand's largest companies invested about 1 billion Baht (about 200 m Euro) into an educational institute that shall educate its own future managers as an international business needs them. The goal is defined, but the realization still looks very much 'the Thai way' at the moment. Since such companies are under pressure to do something against the wave of 'useless graduates', as many HR people call Thai university graduates, there is some hope that this project will turn into the right direction within the next few years.

As you see, by the way, this thread is not that 'dead'.

[orpheus]

may i ask what university you attended?

Ramkhamhaeng University IIS

[emsfeld]

I have to say that BUIC (Bangkok University) wasnt that bad either - at least during my time there (2001 - 2003). 60 - 70% of the classes were taught by foreign staff back then who were quite good. They had a fair share of young Thai part-time lecturers all educated in the US/UK/OZ who were excellent, too. Assignments, tests, and lecture content were to a great extent to Western standards - that is comparing with my Germany and OZ based studies. I would say that only a very small number of units out of 40 or so were below standard. I have no idea what the standard is at BUIC now - a lot of the teaching staff have left since I had been there.

Sure, the differences between BUIC and their Western counterparts have shown when it came to grading. Simply because it was curve based, people like myself had to put in less effort but still get good marks. However, I always felt that I was learning something of value and put quite some time into assignments and exam prep. Not because I had to, but because I wanted to (had to get off the guilt trip after partying four days in a row ). In terms of the number of hours invested in my studies - I did just as much in Germany and OZ. Funnily enough in terms of my ranking/ performance in the course versus that of my peers', it's been the same for me everywhere.

This post has been edited by emsfeld: 14 June 2009 - 09:28 PM

[weriis.com]

I feel that a good international program needs to qualify itself as a good university first. I also feel that whether a university is good or not is totally dependent upon the administration. It is my opinion that there are direct correlations between good university administrations and good universities and vice versa. There may be some exceptions to the rule but few and far between and I am sure a certain lack of longevity with this exceptions being exceptions.

So, what makes a good university? To me a good university needs ethics, integrity, morals, goals and foresight. In addition, there needs to be a constant improvement in all of these qualities as to progress the university to standards that it creates for itself thus breaking out of the status quo mentality where it’s good enough for them so it’s good enough for us prevails.

The administrators of universities need to be leaders with vision. They need to be respected and not because they hold a gun to your head and demand respect. They need to be able to identify short comings of their university and work at making them better as well as identify strong points of their universities and build on them.

A good university can be measured by how they run their institution. Processes where there are democratic elections of student governmental bodies are a must. Courses that are beneficial for the student first is a must. Advisor services for each and every student are a must. Accountability for their short comings are a must.

Only once the administrators of a university are of quality can the characteristics of these administrators trickle down to all aspects of the teaching staff and finally to the student population. Universities need to fail students that do not met standard levels of ability. Universities need to expel students that cheat, plagiarize, steal, lie and lack the ability to be students. Only then can one be proud of the degrees awarded to them.

One of the most valued traits a university can have is to care about the education their students receive. Going through the motions and getting the job done just does not cut it. Universities are responsible for society’s future doctors, lawyers, engineers, academics, politicians, business leaders and will shape the future for generations to come.

The administration of universities, to me, is the single most important factor that will dictate whether a university is good or inferior. If a university does not respect its students’ education, needs and desires then how would you expect them, the administration to create a useful university?

[Uli]

I think there`s a difference between "administration" and "management". Even the best administration cannot replace the need for a professional management that always has an eye out for ways to improve.

I would like to add two more aspects, job prospects and alumni.

Students usually don't study art for art's sake; they need to get a job afterwards. A good university will be up to date with what is going on in the fields where the future graduates need to be competitive, and they will work closely together with the leading and most modern employers. The education gained should not be short-lived, at least not on undergraduate level.

When in the job for two or three years, alumni know what was helpful and what was missing. It's not enough for a university to lure the own graduates back into class where they pay for a Master degree program, and another time to pay for a Ph.D. program. In terms of quality, the alumni are the most effective source of information how a program can be made better.

University education is not a detergent, packed up for easy consumption. It needs all stakeholders to work together with a shared vision and a common goal: Students, lecturers, administration, employers etc. As more informal learning is integrated into formal university education, as better the effect in terms of learning/understanding. With employed students mixing with school leavers, a university forms new communities of practice with a knowledge transfer from employed to fresh students, which is often far more effective in preparing for a future job world than what the lecturers says might be.

Sadly, no one wants to try such things in Thailand - neither universities nor a large part of Thai students.

[weriis.com]

I fully agree with your ‘management’ and unfortunately I consider them both the same for the most part. If an administration is good, then by that virtue understanding that they do not have a professional management team should require them to go to no ends as to acquire the best management team they can get, and if finances prevent them from achieving this goal then I would foresee the excellent administration bailing ship as well.

You have brought up two great points in regard to job prospects and alumni. It’s quite discerning though that in Thailand there are a lot of businesses that just do not give a damn as they have monopolies, no vision, no goals and no foresight nor do they need them. Such is the Internet provider scene here in Thailand. We are led to believe that we have a choice as to which Internet provider we can use. We see the ads and the packages and services but what you really do not see is the ability for you to choose which provider you are actually allowed to purchase from. This does not exist and the same is true for far too many industries here in Thailand. It is no surprise that the business community is pretty well not involved with academia here in Thailand.

As a westerner I see so many opportunities here in Thailand for Thais and Thailand in general. The possibilities are truly limitless and the overt ability to have world class educational facilities, world class technological facilities and the ability to have institutions that the rest of the world truly envies are real. I sometimes feel that the lack of realized successes bothers me more than most here. So much so, that I wonder if I will ever be able to help effect some tiny insight, if only by one small aspect somehow someday. For the time being, even after being relentlessly bombarded by de-motivating obstacles, I still believe that Thailand is worth expending the effort to help it move forward because of all the wonderful people I have met here.

[emsfeld]

I fully agree with your ‘management’ and unfortunately I consider them both the same for the most part. If an administration is good, then by that virtue understanding that they do not have a professional management team should require them to go to no ends as to acquire the best management team they can get, and if finances prevent them from achieving this goal then I would foresee the excellent administration bailing ship as well.

You have brought up two great points in regard to job prospects and alumni. It’s quite discerning though that in Thailand there are a lot of businesses that just do not give a damn as they have monopolies, no vision, no goals and no foresight nor do they need them. Such is the Internet provider scene here in Thailand. We are led to believe that we have a choice as to which Internet provider we can use. We see the ads and the packages and services but what you really do not see is the ability for you to choose which provider you are actually allowed to purchase from. This does not exist and the same is true for far too many industries here in Thailand. It is no surprise that the business community is pretty well not involved with academia here in Thailand.

As a westerner I see so many opportunities here in Thailand for Thais and Thailand in general. The possibilities are truly limitless and the overt ability to have world class educational facilities, world class technological facilities and the ability to have institutions that the rest of the world truly envies are real. I sometimes feel that the lack of realized successes bothers me more than most here. So much so, that I wonder if I will ever be able to help effect some tiny insight, if only by one small aspect somehow someday. For the time being, even after being relentlessly bombarded by de-motivating obstacles, I still believe that Thailand is worth expending the effort to help it move forward because of all the wonderful people I have met here.

I guess what most unis lack here is consistency. What you achieve with good management/ administration is consistency and quality across programs and classes. I have spent the last 10 years studying either part-time of full-time at various institutions and one thing I've always found outside Thailand is just that - consistency. It didnt matter who taught the course or who attended [as students]. You knew what was expected from you in terms of scope. Also the standards which you had to deliver to were clearly set out from the start.

Business getting involved with academia (or the lack of) is not only a problem in Thailand. From my experience the US seem to be the only place where this relationship is actually being nurtured the way it should be. However, nourishment seems to occur only to the desired extent when we are talking about top-renominated academic institutions - I am certain that a lot of the B to C grade colleges fail to deliver on that as well.

As for teaching quality in Thailand, we all know that it very much depends on the individuals teaching us - hence the inconsistency. Some teachers are great and some arent - which is reflected not only in how they bring the material across, but also in the content of a course they coordinate. As a student, I can always work with/ assimilate to the person teaching. However, it's when the content is simply not to standard in terms of depth or scope you run into problems. This may not concern you immediately, but the lack of the latter two will haunt you later and you end up having to relearn on the job or further studies (been there done that, for some areas).

That's where you get the inconsistencies from - a good teacher will choose relevant material and theories to teach you a worse one might not. That's where good planning and quality assurance processes have to be implemented and continually audited so that overall consistency can be achieved.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I was quite happy with BUIC back then and looking back overall it was a fairly consistent program. But there still were the odd 1-2 out of 6 courses per semester that weren't quite to standard (especially the GenEd ones) which is something that needed be addressed.

[Uli]

Thailand is not the only country with the problem of lacking consistency in it's academic education, but it's one of the worst cases. While in Europe and many other countries worldwide the recognition is already there that a lecturer should at least have a background in the field he teaches, and that this background should meet the requirements of the employability for the students, in Thailand there's nothing.

Thai public universities are closed systems, and foreigners are considered a pimple that comes and (hopefully) goes soon.

It's indeed only private universities, where there are the very first beginnings of understanding that there's a world outside Thailand, which offers many more potential students than Thailand ever will be able to offer.

These students, however, don't automatically come for the "name" this university has in Thailand, and many don't come just to get the degree paper.

If I remember correctly, you studied at BUIC many years ago. Where's the progress since then? Isn't it caught (like the whole developing country named Thailand) in perpetual puberty, hopefully one day understanding that a few good courses is not enough?

In my calendar, we write the year 2009. By now, I would expect more, I think.

The reason why I may sound a bit angry about this standstill is that it's often the challenging students who turn mediocre lecturers into good lecturers. In the state of "self-sufficient" perpetual puberty, getting challenging students is a sheer coincidence.

However, classes should be full of them.

[emsfeld]

Thailand is not the only country with the problem of lacking consistency in it's academic education, but it's one of the worst cases. While in Europe and many other countries worldwide the recognition is already there that a lecturer should at least have a background in the field he teaches, and that this background should meet the requirements of the employability for the students, in Thailand there's nothing.

Surely, there are more. I found the Australian Unis to be extremely consistent in regards to their programs. They cover following very high-level aspects:

- Scope, eg compared with global standards, what are the contents a student is ought to be taught 'under the umbrella' of a course.
- Depth, eg the level of detail to be studied by a student at a certain level (undergrad/postgrad)
- Course goals, eg how do the contents studied translate into practice
- Course objective within the program, eg what does the course contribute to the program the student is enrolled in.

From what I have seen in many Thailand based international programs there is a lack of above structure and individual lecturers tend to determine and implement their own structure on a particular course. Since there is quite a high turnover of lecturers at Thai unis, the above may suffer or improve from year to year. This is inconsistent and is something I have never seen anywhere else but in Thailand (I guess we agree on that )!

If I remember correctly, you studied at BUIC many years ago. Where's the progress since then? Isn't it caught (like the whole developing country named Thailand) in perpetual puberty, hopefully one day understanding that a few good courses is not enough?

In my calendar, we write the year 2009. By now, I would expect more, I think.

The reason why I may sound a bit angry about this standstill is that it's often the challenging students who turn mediocre lecturers into good lecturers. In the state of "self-sufficient" perpetual puberty, getting challenging students is a sheer coincidence.

However, classes should be full of them.

I cannot comment much on the progress BUIC has made since then, as I dont know. I can tell you that some of the individual GenEd units have been improved considerably, as I know the lecturer and have seen the revised scope and depth. I am by no means an expert, but judging from what I do for a living the changes this lecturer has made (and have been adopted as the standard by the Director of the program for the course in question) are practically relevant and at the level of what you'd expect in OZ or Germany.

Back then I was in the lucky position to have been lectured by good teachers (who are long gone) and the majority of higher level units were to the same standard in terms of scope and depth as you would expect in the first world - the grading wasn't of course. From what I have heard, the overall situation has changed for the worse, judging from comments made by current students.

[Uli]

Back then I was in the lucky position to have been lectured by good teachers (who are long gone) and the majority of higher level units were to the same standard in terms of scope and depth as you would expect in the first world - the grading wasn't of course. From what I have heard, the overall situation has changed for the worse, judging from comments made by current students.

With the first part of your reply, we sure agree.

There's a systemic problem with good lecturers: They want to take influence since they take their job seriously. It is this attempt to take influence what brings them quickly in conflict with the administrators at Thai universities.

To simplify a bit, allow me to quote Wikipedia in it's definition of management: Management in all business and human organization activity is simply the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. (source)

That is exactly what - at least at the Thai universities I know, private and public alike - universities try to avoid at any cost since getting people together to accomplish something is not possible without granting them influence.

Therefore, I'm not surprised that the good lecturers you mention are "long gone". You can either love your job or sell your body. For those few who can match both, the world developed a different industry. At least, it's not university education.

The polarization of Thai society is very touchable in university fields. Professors of all ranks are, if compared to international quality levels, of poor quality. They fight for their positions and recognition, tendentiously making them the perfect members of the yellow shirts. When one comes out of a rote learning school system, then attends a rote learning university system, obtains bachelor and master and doctor degrees, then begins to teach while finding the non-teaching time filled up with low-level administration tasks - how can one wonder why Thai professors are not up to international quality standards, avoid publishing in English, and are subject to self-censorship since they have to avoid criticizing the holy cows of national Thai culture? They are made that way, so very few of them can take influence themselves.

Have a look at the billions of Baht now spend on so-called research universities. There's no gain in terms of technology innovation or bringing the economy forward - it all aims to get a better place in international university rankings (they all depend for a large part on the number of publications published by faculty members of the particular university).

Thailand's eye-candy culture at its best.

Even if there are some capable individuals collected in a private university's international program, they will (my subjective prognosis) end up meeting the Ministry of Education, for which nationalism is still the overall priority. Education to nationalism in Thailand means education to believe, as opposed to applying critical thinking. It's education to believe in the trinity of nation, religion and king, and this believe would badly suffer if students would be educated not to believe anything but to challenge everything, to make up their own minds, and then - after they decided by themselves - to believe what they want to believe.

Quality may occur in individual courses. If a lecturer has too many courses where quality occurs, it will not need long until his students say he is "long gone"...

The problems are man made and intentional, just as is national Thai culture.

[emsfeld]

Totally agree with all of the above, but we also have to remember that this is Thailand and generally the interests of society/ public are aligned (well...forced into line) with those of a handful "elites". What you are referring to is a cultural problem rooted so deeply that it will take generations to be in any way tackled. My personal opinion is that this sort of change is not even wanted as it might challenge the positions of those advantaged by the system. What we can see also on a political level is that competition is being avoided at all cost. General opinion is that you are born into a role in society - you do not work for it. So why educating yourself or educate anyone else for that matter other than educating your people to be respectful followers? This reminds of an article of the satire website Not The Nation, particularly the following paragraph,

Communications executive Ruengros Thammasen said the reduction has cost him a promotion. After his family’s rice trading business closed last fall, Ruengros said he was unfairly passed over for a senior vice president position at a state-run corporation in favor of a colleague whose high status was achieved rather than ascribed. “What kind of society is it when somebody gets a promotion just because he has better qualifications and more experience?” Ruengros, 48, asked.

accessible from http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php? id=821. Absolutely hilarious if you ask me, but sadly, so true!!!!

[Uli]

Absolutely hilarious if you ask me, but sadly, so true!!!!

Agreed.

The flip side of the coin is well known in Thailand as well, however. On the one hand, you have a surprisingly high percentage of convenience shop staff who hold a Master degree, while on the other, HR directors throughout the economy complain that they can't find any capable applicants for jobs that are neither assembly line nor other form of routine work.

To make it short: The fish starts smelling at its head. The system is build top-down and can only be adjusted this way (with reference to the "elites" you mentioned). The stupid children of the elite (stupid in the sense that they are useless in their family's business, for army, or for police) become a professor in Thailand, as rumors say. With the corruption everywhere, this way they can at least support their family a bit, and if its with degrees for other "stupid" relatives.

It's not foreigners who can solve the problems of Thailand. These problems are exclusively caused by the Thais, and only they can solve them.

Satisfaction among foreign students sometimes results from surprising perspectives. Several of my students told me that they didn't expect to find any quality here. They just came because of the low cost of living and studying and basically trusted into their own capabilities to catch up with contents later on the job. At least they can get a degree easily for less money than back home (I talk about European students, by the way).

If these students then actually learned something, they were positively surprised. A bit it seems to me, it might have been similar in your case. If so, it's not a basis upon one can build anything. It's a sheer coincidence.

As a result, the marketing claim should be: Come here and get your degree easily and cheaply. You can learn for life later.

There will be enough who come, many more actually than are here already for exactly these reasons.

I think we should not talk nicely on this matter. Not everybody wants to become a Nobel Prize laureate, many just want a degree. You can get this here in Thailand, where failing is not an option once you are admitted, with a lot of fun and in an exotic setting. That's fine for many. Having said it so clearly, this is the transparency that brings market success - it's a clear target group. The rest is quality perception influenced by and born in marketing and public relations. There won't be any difficulties since Thailand is probably the most successful country when it comes to brainwashing by public relations.

At least, this would scare those away who target high quality: It's those who make the trouble, student or lecturer alike.

[emsfeld]

I have to mention Mahidol U here though on a good note! From what I have seen, their programs are excellent (at least on paper) - especially in the Sciences department. If you care to go through their curriculums and course outlines, they cover lots of relevant material as you'd expect from a university anywhere in the world. The feedback I have received from students and lecturers alike (admittedly from a very small sample) has been great. I guess what I am trying to say is that there are exceptions to the rule!

In regards to your comment,

Satisfaction among foreign students sometimes results from surprising perspectives. Several of my students told me that they didn't expect to find any quality here. They just came because of the low cost of living and studying and basically trusted into their own capabilities to catch up with contents later on the job. At least they can get a degree easily for less money than back home (I talk about European students, by the way).

If these students then actually learned something, they were positively surprised. A bit it seems to me, it might have been similar in your case. If so, it's not a basis upon one can build anything. It's a sheer coincidence.

This was indeed the case for me, in addition to studying a lot on my own - mostly on subjects not related to my degree at all. I also did have to relearn a lot after Thailand - not because of the education I received there, but due to a personal change in career aspirations (basically my preferences changed from aspiring to purely commercial roles to scientific roles within a commercial context). Coming from a BBA background, a had to study (and still am studying - you can never know enough!!!) a lot of maths and stats to be competitive for these types of roles. Without the experience in Thailand, I believe I wouldn't be as focused as I am today so I improved a lot in that department !

On another note, I have experienced that studying in Thailand can have very extreme outcomes on a person - it either makes or breaks you. I have seen both cases and I am sure you know what I am referring to. You probably will have seen and also have life examples on your campus fitting into these two categories, Uli. I do hope, however, more of the former than the latter!