INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor Ml 48106-1346 USA 313 761-4700 800 521-0600 Order Number 9120724

The political determinants of access to higher education in Indonesia

Simpson, Jon Mark, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1991

Copyright ©1991 by Simpson, Jon Mark. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 THE POLITICAL DETERMINANTS OF ACCESS

TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN

INDONESIA

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of the Ohio State University

by

Jon Mark Simpson, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1991

Dissertation Committee: Approved By:

R. William Liddle, Ph.D. Goldie Shabad, Ph.D. Donald G. McCloud, Ph.D. William L. Flinn, Ph.D.

Adviser Department of Political Science Copyright by Jon Mark Simpson 1 9 9 1 DEDICATION

To my Parents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Professor R. William Liddle, for his intellectual guidance and for his willingness to share his vast personal knowledge of Indonesia, which was instrumental in filling the gaps in my understanding of the Indonesian political and educational system. Professor Goldie Shabad’s role in guiding the dissertation and her intellectual stimulation during the early phase of my graduate program at Ohio State deserves special recognition. I especially owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Donald

McCloud for his guidance and insights into Indonesian society, and especially for constant encouragement during my graduate program. In addition, I wish to acknowledge Professor William Flinn for his encouragement and financial support provided by MUCIA. Very special thanks to Professor George E. Simpson for editorial assistance and encouragement. I also wish to thank Professor Frederick H. Buttel of

Cornell University for his theoretical insights during the early phase of the research.

Thanks also to John Bielefeldt for his editorial assistance, and to John Thompson, Ohidul

Siddiqui, and Patti Inman for assistance in the statistical analysis. Thanks to Linda

Curtin, Mitch Lear, and Glenda Rinehart for their assistance in word processing and graphics. I also want to thank Michael Esler and Eric Singer for their friendship and encouragement. In the department office, thanks to Retta Semones for her encouragement and help with the paperwork. At Ohio University, I wish to acknowledge the friendly and able assistance of everyone in the Southeast Asian library. I especially want to thank Edward and Marcia Mazak and the entire Mazak clan for their support and encouragement throughout this long process. Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank Sara, Tillie, and Mr. Hote for their love and support and for making it all worthwhile.

Any errors, omissions or other shortcomings of this dissertation are, of course, my responsibility. VITA

March 16, 1957 ...... Bom-Columbus, Ohio.

June 1980 ...... B.A., Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio.

June-August 1981 ...... Intensive Russian language program, Slavic Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

May 1984 ...... M. A., Political Science, Ohio State University.

September 1985-Present ...... Assistant to the Executive Director, the Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities, Inc.

April-August 1986 ...... Consultant for the United States Agency for International Development in Jakarta, Indonesia.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Political Science

Studies in comparative politics and the politics of the developing world- R. William Liddle, Goldie Shabad, Phillip Stuart; Public policy, with an emphasis on foreign policy-Donald Sylvan.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

VITA ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES...... x

LIST OF M APS ...... xi

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Overview ...... 1 Theoretical Framework...... 4 SIPENMARU: Access Based Solely on Achievement ...... 7 Access to Higher Education and Political Legitimacy ...... 15 Basic Assumptions and Param eters ...... 16 The Data ...... 19 Contributions ...... 20

n . T H E O R Y ...... 22

Indonesia and the Problem of Political Legitim acy ...... 22 Traditional Basis of Legitimacy ...... 33 Political Construction of Educational System s ...... 39 Summary ...... 45 III. EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDONESIA...... 49

Overview of the Education System ...... 49 Primary Education ...... 53 Junior Secondary Education ...... 54 Senior Secondary Education ...... 56 Higher Education ...... 57 Early Colonial Period (1798-1900): The Effects of Dutch Education Policy on the Development of the Education System . . 58 Dutch Colonial Period ...... 61 Pre-Ethical Policy ...... 61 Ethical Policy ...... 64 1900-1942: Impact of the Ethical Policy and the Rapid Expansion of the Educational System ...... 67 Developments Leading to Indonesia’s Dual Educational System . . . 71 Vernacular Primary Education ...... 71 Secondary Education ...... 73 University Education ...... 74 The Japanese Occupation: 1942-45 ...... 79 The Indonesian Revolution and War for Independence 1945-1949 . . 84 The Parliamentary Democracy Period: 1950-59 ...... 89 The Guided Democracy Period: 1959-1965 ...... 93 The Attempted C oup ...... 95 The New Order Period: 1966-1989 ...... 98 Higher Education ...... 101 Governmental Policy and Financial Support for Education in the New Order Period ...... 103

IV. METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS...... 119

Study Design ...... 119 S am p le...... 125 Methodological Issues ...... 126 Dependent & Independent Variables ...... 132 Parent’s Education ...... 137 Parent’s Occupation ...... 137 Ethnic Background ...... 139 M ig ra tio n...... 142 Type of High School Attended ...... 143 Area of Study ...... 144 SIPENMARU Score ...... 145 A n a ly sis ...... 149 Quartile Analysis ...... 149 Analysis of Elite University Applicants ...... 152

vii Logistic Regression Analysis ...... 154 Results of Logistic Regression ...... 158 Case Analysis ...... 164 Summary ...... 175

V. CONCLUSION ...... 178

Results of the 1984 SIPENMARU Data Analysis ...... 178 Conclusions Based on the Analysis Results ...... 179 Dual Legitimacy and the Political Construction of Educational Systems ...... 180 SIPENMARU Since 1984 ...... 182

LIST OF REFERENCES...... 191

APPENDICIES...... 199

viii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Institutions Comprising Indonesia’s Public University System, 1984 ...... 135

2. Frequency and Percentage of Public University Applicants by Parent’s Education, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 138

3. Frequency and Percentage of Public Unviersity Applicants by Parent’s Occupation, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 139

4. Spatial Distribution of Families of Public University Applicants, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 141

5. Frequency and Percentage of Migrant and Resident Groups of Applicants to Public Universities, SIPEMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 143

6. Acceptance by Desired Curriculum Controlling for SIPENMARU Examination Score, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 146

7. Acceptance by Curriculum Choice Controlling for SIPENAMRU Score and Type of University Desired, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 147

8. Frequency Distribution and Cumulative Percentage of SIPENMARU Score by Gender for Public University Applicants, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 148

9. Admission Status of Applicants to Indonesian Public Universities by SIPENMARU Score, Percentaged Across, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 149

10. Admission Status of Applicants to Indonesian Public Universities by SIPENMARU Score, Percentaged Down, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 150 TABLES (Cont’d)

11. Frequency and Percentage Distributions for Key Variables in the Analysis, Elite Public University Applicants, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 153

12. Percentage Differences of Elite vs. All Public University Applicants for Key Variables in the Analysis, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 155

13. Logistic Regression Analysis for All Applicants to Elite Public Universities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 159

14. Logistic Regression Analysis for Applicants to Elite Public Universities Who Scored Below the Median for All Applicants to Elite Public Universities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 161

15. Logistic Regression Analysis for Applicants to Elite Universities who Specified a Natural Science Curriculum for University Study, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 161

16. Logistic Regression Analysis for Applicants to Elite Universities Who Specified a Social Science and Humanities Curriculum for University Study, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 164

17. Frequency Distributions for Applicants Accepted and Not Accepted to Elite Public Universities in the Natural Sciences, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 166

18. Frequency Distributions for Applicants Accepted and Not Accepted to Elite Public Universities in the Social Sciences and Humanities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 167

19. Summary of Case Analysis for Elite Public University Applicants, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 168

20. Occupational Status of Parents of Low Scoring Applicants Accepted to Elite Public Universities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 171

21. Number of Students Accepted and Rejected by University, 1984 ......

22. Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ......

x LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Percentages of Children Entering Primary School in 1972-73 who advanced to Subsequent Educational Levels ...... 13

2. Indonesian Educational System, 1979 ...... 50

3. Dutch View of Social Status, 1940-41 ...... 77

4. Indonesia’s Dual Educational System, 1942 ...... 78

5. Map of Territorial Control, 1948 ...... 85

6. Declining Value of the Indonesian Rupiah, 1969-1989 ...... 108

7. Expected Distribution of SIPENMARU Applicants Based on Hypothesis 1 121

8. Expected Distribution of SIPENMARY Applicants Based on Hypothesis 2 ...... 122

9. Acceptance and Rejection By SIPENMARU Score and Type of University, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 ...... 123

10. Creation of the Dependent Variable for the Logistic Regression and Case Analyses ...... 134

xi LIST OF MAPS

MAP PAGE

1. Indonesia, Provinces and Provincial Capitals ...... xiii

2. Map of Territorial Control, 1948 ...... 85 L L L LX 10 9 B2.+.+^^ WEST SUMATRA (Sunuicra Barn) Barn) DJAMBI (Sunuicra SUMATRA WEST RIAU Uurat (Sumaicra SUMATRA NORTH ATJEH OE TERRITORY SPECIAL SOUTH SUMATRA (Sumaicra Selaun) (Sumaicra SUMATRA SOUTH CENTRAL JAVA (Djawa Tennah) Tennah) (Djawa JAVA CENTRAL W EST JAVA (Djawa Baral) (Djawa W JAVA EST BENGKULU Source: Vreeland, Nena et Nena et Vreeland, Source: OF REGION CAPITAL SPECIAL l.AMPUNG EAST JAVA awa JAVA EAST Tunur) ETUA TENGGARA WESTNUSA BALI JOGJAKARTA OF TERRITORY SPECIAL (N Djakarta) I C (D DJAKARTA um MIES Tenggara Bar at) Tenggara Wsigo: .. oenet rnig fie 1975). Office, Government Printing U.S. (Washington:

al., Djambt Padang Pakanhaxu TandjungkarangTelukbciung Aijch Banda ambang Pakm Medan Bengkulu Semarang Bandung Surabaja Jogjakarta Denpaiar Malar am Malar noei, rvne ad rvnil Capitals Provincial and Provinces Indonesia, ra adok o Indonesia. Handbook for Area a 1 Map CENTRAl KAI IMANTAN IMANTAN KAI CENTRAl CENTRAL SULAWESI CENTRAL SULAWESI THEAST SOU h t u o s FAST KAI IMANTAN IMANTAN KAI FAST K IMANTAN At ESI W SOUTH SUI AWESI AWESI SUI SOUTH h AS I NCSA h NCSA AS I (Kalimantan Tcngjh) Tcngjh) (Kalimantan aiatn Timur) I Kalimantan Rardt) (Kalimjnljn Timui) tenggai.) (Nuij (Sulawesi Tenggara) Tenggara) (Sulawesi Sclalan) (Sulawesi tSclalan) Kalimantan :: i a

mantan a t n a im FMM M IF i ARA

Samarinda in N m A o d a an M Palangkar aja Fnnhanak ai r u p ia ia D Maka'iar11 Pandangj 'djung j'.in iin id iid d H Kendan Kupang CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overview

The focus of this dissertation is political legitimacy in Indonesia. The question this dissertation will examine is: how has the Indonesian government used the educational system to enhance its political legitimacy? In examining the question, this dissertation will explore theories developed by Richard Rubinson, who argued that political systems use education for a variety of legitimacy creating functions, and

Reuven Kahane (1973), who conceptualized Indonesia as a "transitional society" politically, socially and economically, meaning it must seek political legitimacy from conceptually distinct and diametrically opposed segments of society: the traditional and the modem.

In its rhetoric on education, the Indonesian New Order government has been consistent in stressing modem themes. The most frequently cited themes are economic modernization and the development of a strong sense of Indonesian nationalism. Education is crucial in both, providing the highly skilled workers required in modem economies, and a national institution for the political and social indoctrination of present and future generations of Indonesians.

1 2

To insure that the most intellectually capable Indonesians were given the

chance to pursue higher studies, thereby contributing to the development of a

manpower base of technocrats to guide development efforts, the government created a

national entrance examination-the SIPENMARU. The SIPENMARU was a

comprehensive, objective computer scored examination designed by the Ministry of

Education and Culture to evaluate the knowledge base and academic skill levels of test takers. As a tool for impartial, technical and objective evaluation of competence,

SIPENMARU should have signaled a victory of modem over traditional means (such as birth rights, wealth or social position) of entering the Indonesian public university system.

Yet, if Kahane was correct and Indonesia is a transitional society, subject to traditional as well as modem demands, it should be expected that university admissions in Indonesia could not be so objectively determined. Essentially, too many politically influential supporters of the New Order government maintain traditional "rights." With respect to university admission, many loyal high ranking officials would "expect" that their children should gain admission to university by virtue of the loyal service, social status, or other personal attribute of the parent or family, whether or not the student qualified in an academic sense. Indications of traditional means of gaining entrance to the preferred public education system are still evident. The public universities recruitment program called PMDK or "talent scouting," for example, which is a companion program to SIPENMARU, wherein the top ten students (as measured by their academic performance) from every high school in Indonesia are granted admission to one of 43 public universities without taking any kind of an entrance examination has gained a reputation as being corrupted, allowing others to also gain admission without qualifications (Jakarta Post. January 4, 1989).

Some of these deviations in admissions processes may be attributable to simple greed and graft, i.e. underpaid officials using available means to increase their wealth. But in instances where children of government officials and other loyal supporters of the system gain "exceptional admissions" for their children, a more politically relevant payoff is being made. All levels of the educational system are subject to various types of manipulation in the admissions process:

As academic registration period is nearly ended, some schools multiply efforts to harvest their annual "crop" known here as "compulsory donations."...headmasters are publicly "selling seats" to parents of elementary and junior high school graduates who do not meet minimum acceptance requirements.

Another "educational tradition" frequently performed by Jakarta’s high schools is called "personal quota," meaning teachers and administration staff are allowed (by the headmaster) to put their children in school without having to complete the requirements (Jakarta Post. July 6, 1985).

The implementation of a university admissions policy (SIPENMARU and

PMDK) that strives to be modem, i.e. rational and efficient within a cultural context where such values are publicly proclaimed while other more traditional values are practiced, would seem to be tailor-made for an examination of Kahane’s dual legitimacy concept.

The examples of traditional admissions practices cited above also illustrate the need to analyse university admissions from a political perspective using the concept of 4

political legitimacy. Public education in Indonesia is tightly controlled by the

government, and most of the traditional admissions practices involve government

acquiescence. This is the theoretical connection which provides the basis for an

analysis of education and political legitimacy. Government corruption is said to be

pervasive in Indonesian political life, and indeed is a culturally accepted means of

political patronage (McCloud, 1986: 152). Allowing unqualified children of the elite

into public universities through programs like PMDK could be interpreted, vis-a-vis

Kahane’s dual legitimacy concept, as reflecting the political need to provide

traditional avenues of admission when these children fail to score well enough on

entrance examinations, like SIPENMARU. But if it can be shown that the

SIPENMARU-the absolute symbol of the modem approach to university

admission—was subject to manipulation as well, a much more powerful statement of

the strength and potency of traditional values and practices in Indonesia will have been revealed.

Theoretical Framework

The relationship between education and politics, in particular the allocation of education within social systems, has been examined by many scholars (e.g., Collins,

1979; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Weber, 1968). The two explanatory models used most frequently in defining or specifying this relationship are: the status-conflict model and the modernization model. A third model, the political construction of educational systems model, was developed by Richard Rubinson (1974) in response to 5

theoretical inadequacies of the first two models, which neglected the role of the state,

and consequently the political dimension of nation-state behavior in determining the

organization, direction, and overall goals of education in societies.

The previous theories viewed the relationship between education and politics as

either a competition within societies between socio-economic groups, or strata, for

educational opportunities (status-conflict model), or as part of an overall process of

national development—education playing the role of socializing and preparing citizens to take on new roles in modem society (modernization model). Both approaches

minimized the active role of the state in determining the structure, function, and political parameters of education. There was a "clear need to develop a theoretical model to explain the role of the political system in educational organization

(Rubinson, 1974: iv)."

Rubinson hypothesized that education, because it is a highly sought after reward (determining social status, occupation, and income within the social structure), is naturally controlled by the state, which seeks to monopolize its position as the ultimate authority in society. Educational institutions confer political, social, and economic statuses upon citizens. The allocation of status based on level of education is viewed as rational and modem, based on the principle of achievement rather than birth, and to the extent that society values achievement over birth, the process of certification confers legitimacy upon the educational system, and by extension to the state. Access to educational opportunities, then, is one source of political legitimacy for the government. 6

A second component of the theoretical framework will be drawn from work

done by Reuven Kahane (1973), who argued that Indonesia remains predominantly an

agrarian society with a value system based on traditional cultural norms: highly

stratified and elitist in orientation. At the same time, Kahane recognized that

Indonesia was changing rapidly, and increasingly large sectors of the population were

gaining technical skills and modem values--what Pye (1990: 11) calls values of the

world culture. Geertz (1963: 35-36) described this as an emerging "Indonesian

metropolitan superculture."

The prime external symbols of adherence to the superculture are the acquisition of higher education, facility with foreign languages, travel experience abroad, and western luxury goods such as automobiles (Geertz, 1963: 36).

Kahane hypothesized that Indonesia’s commitment to rapid modernization would bring these two opposing segments of the population into conflict with one another: the traditional, agrarian based culture with the modem, western educated, urban-industrial based culture. Any government would have to find ways to serve both constituencies to survive. In other words, it would have to seek legitimacy from its traditional as well as modem constituencies. Furthermore, the opposing value-systems were antithetical to one another, putting the government in a zero-sum situation: to serve the modem sector would be to not serve the traditional, and vice-versa. Although he believed Indonesia would eventually become modem, in the transitional phase, modem and traditional sectors would be roughly equivalent in political strength. Therefore, it would not be possible to simply disregard the traditional sector in favor of the modem without risking political backlash. Any Indonesian government would have to accommodate both constituencies

and cultures simultaneously: it must seek legitimacy from both groups, thus, the dual

legitimacy concept. Dual legitimacy in education can be understood by considering

two concepts used in sociology: "ascription" and "achievement." These concepts are

commonly used in analyses of social structure and mobility within societies. Smelser

and Lipset (1966: 8) explain ascription and achievement in this context as follows:

Societies vary considerably in the degree to which persons are assigned to roles (occupational, religious, political, etc.) on the basis of status ascribed at birth. The basis of ascription may be kinship, age, sex, race or ethnicity, or territorial location. So far as these criteria dominate, the society emphasizes ascription. So far as assignment to roles rests on some sort of behavioral performance, the society emphasizes achievement.

These concepts parallel Kahane’s notions of contradictory principles of legitimacy in a political system. In this study, achievement will be used as a measure of the government’s propensity to support the modernist aspects of legitimacy, while ascriptive factors will be used to measure the government’s tendency to service its more traditional needs in legitimacy.

SIPENMARU: Access Based Solely on Achievement

The New Order government put into practice its rhetoric on modem educational values when the Ministry of Education and Culture created a national entrance examination in 1984. The "SIPENMARU," was designed to identify the best available students in each class based on the concept of achievement. The government also developed other modem programs like the PMDK to further gather 8

the most qualified students. But the SIPENMARU was the quintessential program to

standardize and modernize the admissions system.

These programs were implemented for two principal reasons: 1) to improve

efficiency in the selection of the most qualified students to fill limited seats in the public university system; and 2) to address charges that it was perpetuating a system of higher education, inherited from the Dutch, that served only elite segments of the population (Chai, 1977: 17). A brief news item in an American newspaper summarized the situation, and the government’s commitment to remedying the problem early in the New Order period:

The corruption which is rife in Indonesian politics has had a firm hold on schools, too. It is common knowledge that money, power, or pull can secure a place for a daughter or son in an Indonesian university...But this is no longer the case at the university-level Technical Institute in Bandung. And several of the other institutions of higher learning now are making every effort to clean house. Educators predict that in the near future the larger and more prestigious universities all will have corruption-proof entrance examinations (Christian Science Monitor. March 6, 1968).

The government’s motives were grounded in modem norms: greater efficiency in the selection of individuals who could best help modernize the economy; and equality of opportunity based on merit rather than birth, which corresponds to the government’s mission or obligation as stipulated in the 1945 constitution. However, other factors in university admissions continued to exist between 1968 and 1984, and

SIPENMARU, because it mechanically selected students based on an examination score, should have ended this problem according to the government (Jakarta Post.

July 18, 1984: 4). Admission to all universities, but especially the best universities would be based solely on achievement. 9

Two recent studies on access to higher education in Indonesia suggest

SIPENMARU made access to the public university system contingent on achievement

(as measured by score on the SIPENMARU examination, high school grade point

average and curriculum) rather than ascription (as measured by class background or

socioeconomic characteristics such as parental income, education, and occupation)

(Saleh, 1985; Hansen et al. 1989). Hansen et al. (1989: 332) reported that "the

dominant impact on admission [to the Indonesian public university system] is

associated with entrance examination score." However, they also found that ascriptive factors had "strong effects on exam score, as well as having a strong

influence on who takes the exam (Hansen et al., 1989: 332)." This may be explained by the fact that the SIPENMARU test takers were not representative of the general population (Hansen et al. referred to the SIPENMARU data as a "truncated sample," meaning, as a group, high school graduates are skewed toward upper socioeconomic groups). This conclusion is consistent with the concept of a "winnowing out" of lower socioeconomic groups as age cohorts move up the educational ladder (Beeby,

1979).

It is clear that Saleh (1985), Hansen et al. (1989), and the Indonesian government are firmly grounded in the "modernization" school of thought. Education in this approach is conceptualized as an important ingredient in helping underdeveloped countries become economically, politically and socially "modem."

Newly independent nation-states have sought to broaden access to education for native populations in order to satisfy several needs, including the promotion of greater equality, filling positions left vacant by colonials who returned to their mother countries after independence, and meeting requirements of an expanded, industrial economy. This policy has served to redress inequities that were legacies of the colonial era, while at the same time providing a basis for rapid modernization of the economy and other societal institutions (Hansen et al., 1989: 317)

If it is true that the social, political, and cultural context of Indonesian society

remains essentially unchanged from the post independence early New Order eras, it

seems incongruous to argue that access to higher education was based wholly on

modem achievement measures, as the Indonesian government claimed with the

introduction of SIPENMARU in 1984, and as Saleh (1985) and Hansen et al. (1989)

also believed. Saleh (1985) himself argued that access during the early colonial period was "opened to a few economically better off Chinese and ’well bom’

Indonesians", and during the late colonial period the government was "dedicated to educating a small minority of Indonesian ’aristocrats’ and others who had proven their loyalty to the Dutch" in late colonial times (Saleh, 1985: 14-16). Furthermore, as late as the mid-1980s, one Indonesian scholar argued that Indonesia’s modem educational system was structurally no different than the colonial education system.

To date, the following grim conditions continue to exist:

Ever since the nationalization of the colonial system (flourishing in this region for centuries) the basic structure and organizational pattern remain, practically unchanged. In spite of its note-worthy quantitative expansion, the system continues to be elitist, favoring the privileged (economic, academic, political) layer of society (Surakhmad, 1985:5). 11

Had this long historical tradition simply disappeared with the introduction of

SIPENMARU?

The conclusion that modem factors were better predictors of access than traditional was not supported by earlier studies. Beeby (1979) argued that the importance of traditional criteria existent in colonial times has continued in post-colonial Indonesia, and Thomas (1970) also argued that access to Indonesia’s system of public higher education was largely determined by traditional factors.

More general studies of Indonesian culture, politics and history, have also characterized Indonesian society as highly stratified and elite-dominated (Emmerson,

1976; Crouch, 1978).

In a survey of Indonesian primary and secondary education Beeby (1979) found that class background was increasingly important in determining access to college/preparatory schools as one progressed upward through the school system. For example, he pointed out that "in urban areas, where a choice between schools exists

(vocational/technical vs. academic), the percentage of students from the highest socioeconomic classes continues to be greater in the academic schools than in any other (Beeby, 1979: 165)."

In support of the Hansen et al. (1989) findings, one might argue that substantive differences exist between access to primary and secondary education as opposed to tertiary education. In the first place, most of the channeling out of academic track education at the primary and secondary level occurs through self selection (Beeby 1979). Much of this is attributed to the widespread belief among low income groups that education does not serve their economic needs: the return on

the investment (both monetary and in time spent away from income earning activities)

takes too long (Beeby 1979). Thus, the short-term needs of lower income families

outweigh the long-term potential of greater income. In many cases, children progress

no further than the primary level (see Figure 1).

Furthermore, until the late 1970s the priority of the Indonesian government

was the development of primary and secondary education, not higher education. The

result of this in the 1980s was a severe bottleneck in higher education. In other

words, the most salient issue may not be restricted access based on socioeconomic

status or sociogeographic background, but simply that the tertiary sector has not

caught up with lower levels in terms of overall capacity, despite admirable efforts by

the New Order regime to help it do so. Until expansion of the higher education

system catches up with the tremendous expansion at the lower levels, elite segments

of the population, with greater resources, and closer proximity to the highest quality primary and secondary schools (which are located predominantly in urban areas), will gain access more than the less fortunate segments of the population for limited university seats. 13

1 0 0 % -r'

ao%

P I B 60% -* C I N T A ai

20%

Figure 1

Percentages of Children Entering Primary School in 1972-73 Who Advanced to Subsequent Educational Levels

Sources: BP3K-Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia (1981-a; 1981-b; and 1982). Department of Education and Culture of Indonesia (1984) Notes

1 = Children entering primary school, (3,018,452).

2 = Children of the 1972-1973 first grade who completed primary education in 1977-78: 52% (1,569,950).

3 = Children of the 1972-1973 first grade who completed junior high school in 1980-1981: 27.4 percent (829,086).

4 = Children of the 1972-1973 of the first grade who entered senior secondary school in 1981-1982: 17.26 percent (521,026).

5 = Children of the 1972-1973 first grade who applied for admission to state universities in 1984-1985: 16.14 percent (487,058).

6 = Children of the 1972-1973 first grade who gained admission to state universities in 1984-1985: 2.69 percent (81,284) 14

Thus, the argument might be that just as Indonesia has been firmly committed to economic development and has pursued it vigorously in the New Order era (Booth and McCawley, 1981) so too with higher education, and it is simply too early to pass judgment as to the success or failure of the education system on the question of who receives the chance at a university education. However, it is not the purpose of this dissertation to evaluate Indonesia’s success or failure in providing educational opportunities, but rather how the government uses educational opportunities to meet its needs in terms of political legitimacy.

The Indonesian government, echoing modernization theorists, argues that it must stress quality over quantity in the development of its higher educational system to "meet the demand for skilled and qualified workers (Jakarta Post. May 5, 1985)."

"The government has no plans to build more state universities because the present number of forty six is deemed adequate, a senior education ministry official said

(Jakarta Post. December 21, 1987)."

Whether the New Order government believed its own statements on access to higher education is not the question. It is probably true that with SIPENMARU, the chances for highly talented young people from very limited backgrounds to enter the best universities improved. Yet, to the extent that Indonesia remains a traditional state, it would appear imperative that the New Order continue to provide access to higher education for its traditionalist constituencies, especially the children of its own elite, whether those children qualify through the SIPENMARU or not-but particularly when they do not. By stating that it has no plans to further expand educational 15 opportunities, the government has created a situation in which achievers without political clout must compete with non-achievers with clout for limited university seats.

The government faces a dual legitimacy dilemma on the issue of access to higher education.

Access to Higher Education and Political Legitimacy

Evidence exists to suggest the presence of Kahane’s duality in Indonesia’s system of higher education. The government clearly states that access to higher education is based on achievement, yet doubts are raised as to the validity of this claim by previous analyses of Indonesian society and the educational system. It would appear that Rubinson (1974) is correct in his assertion that politics and the state are important factors shaping educational systems. An accurate assessment of the factors determining access to higher education from the perspective of political legitimacy must include an examination of the political dimensions of educational systems.

The contradictory images of Indonesian education from the more recent findings lend support, at least on the surface, to Kahane’s concept of the fusion of contradictory legitimation principles. This dissertation will attempt to show that access to higher education in Indonesia can be at least partly explained in terms of the need of the Indonesian government to enhance its legitimacy within two very different constituencies. It will show that the government must pursue a policy of access, even in the SIPENMARU, based on both modem and traditional practices. Legitimacy is 16 enhanced with non- elite segments of the population when opportunities are seen to be based on merit, while legitimacy is enhanced among powerful elites (in a highly stratified social system) when traditional factors influence the process of admission, especially at elite institutions.

Basic Assumptions and Parameters of the Dissertation

This dissertation assumes that the Indonesian government is highly committed to economic modernization and development within the general population of a strong sense of nationalism based on the 1945 constitution and Panca Sila, the national philosophy. It is also assumed that the Indonesian government is committed to education, as part of its economic modernization and national socialization plans.

The basis for the commitment to education is the belief, developed and shaped by Indonesia’s colonial and post-independence political experiences, that education serves important political functions: 1) socializing the young in the national ideology, thus inculcating support for the nation and promoting legitimacy for the government; and 2) providing the skilled manpower necessary to run an expanding and increasingly modem economy. Both functions are crucial in promoting political legitimacy for the government. Under the second function, education and modernization are

"functionally" linked in the minds of Indonesian policy makers. Thus, when

Indonesia gained independence in 1945 and stressed economic modernization and social development as its primary goals, education was viewed as a critical component 17 in Indonesia’s development strategy. To create a socially just and modem society required a skilled labor force committed to the principles of Indonesian nationalism.

In light of Indonesia’s commitment to modernization, it is also assumed that they are committed to the transformations theorized to exist in modem societies.

Modem societies are rational (Weber, 1947:328). Occupations within modem societies are based on specific functions that require skills that are learned, not inherited. The commitment to this principle is reinforced by the strong nationalistic desire to remove the yoke of subjugation imposed by the Dutch and create a less hierarchical society. Indonesia, therefore, adopted a modem or rational approach to education based on modem notions of achievement, which in turn are based on the notion of equality.

It is further assumed that education, particularly higher education, is perceived by most classes and segments of Indonesian society as the primary mechanism for upward mobility as well as maintaining position at the top of the social structure. It is recognized that some variability may exist in this context based on the continuing association of some groups, particularly rural villagers, of more traditional and less education oriented values.

Pranarka (1974: 105) takes this concept of the link between education and status further, saying that status, and not the desire for knowledge and self-improvement are the primary motivations behind the desire for education for the

"bulk of the population." 18

Education is blindly identified with schooling strengthening the unpragmatic traditional value of associating schooling with status rather than with the acquisition of knowledge or skills which will have relevance for their lives.

As a corollary to this, employment opportunities are identified with greater levels of education. Van Niel (1960) argued, for example, that education for

Indonesians was becoming important in gaining entrance to coveted civil service jobs as early as 1908, where prior to this, birth was the primary determinant. He wrote:

Educational facilities for Indonesians on Java, once the initial resistance to Western instruction was overcome, grew rapidly and came to affect far more people...Within this educational expansion and development can be found the roots of the social change which affected the Indonesian elite. As Dutch control was extended (in the early 1900s) and as new agencies of government were created, the need for a Western educated Indonesian bureaucracy became even greater. Where previously the prestige posts in the Indonesian hierarchy had been awarded on the basis of birth, the new colonial policy made education supplemental to birth, and in time and in certain instances made education the chief criterion (Van Niel, 1960: 50).

An important association also exists between higher education and government employment. Soemardjan (1973: 44) points out that, "in a developing country like

Indonesia and others in Southeast Asia, the government is not only the principal and largest employer, but also the most prestigious employer." University education is the primary criterion for entering government service, thus, higher education is in high demand.

Based on the assumption that demand for education is high, and recognizing that demand far outstrips supply, it is assumed that access to education is highly competitive. Additionally, given the tremendous expansion in enrollments at the 19 primary and secondary level since 1945, it is assumed that competition increases as

one moves up the educational ladder, i.e., competition is greatest at the tertiary level.

It is assumed that there are wide disparities in quality of institutions within the public university system. The World Bank, for example, stated that a major problem at the tertiary level was "uneconomically small establishments, incapable of providing the necessary standards (World Bank, 1978: 3)."

Finally, it is assumed that competition for education, especially higher education, occurs in a situation of relative inequality because Indonesia remains a highly stratified society. The higher socioeconomic strata of the population have greater access not only to the public university system as a whole, but to "elite" institutions within the system as well, than the lower socioeconomic strata of the population. Elite institutions are identified as: the University of Indonesia (UI); Gajah

Mada University (UGM); Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB); Institut Pertanian Bogor

(IPB); and Airlangga University (World Bank, 1978: 16).

The Data

The primary source used in this study is a data set compiled by the Indonesian

Ministry of Education and Culture in 1984. SIPENMARU required each applicant to answer questions about their parents’ occupational, educational, and economic backgrounds. Each student’s achievement is measured by score on the entrance examination as well as high school grade point average. Personal social, economic, and ethnic data is indicated through family background information. 20

Chapter II will provide a more detailed discussion of the theoretical framework. Chapter III will examine the historical development of Indonesia’s educational system to establish the linkage of education to political legitimacy and determine if dual legitimacy is a useful concept for understanding Indonesian education. Chapter IV will analyze the 1984 SIPENMARU data. Chapter V will discuss the findings of the analysis and review developments in higher education since

1984.

Contributions of the Dissertation

An examination of access to higher education in Indonesia from the perspective of political legitimacy will give us an indication of Indonesia’s position as a transitional state: how far it has progressed toward the modem will be shown by the percentage of the SIPENMARU group that was admitted on the basis of merit alone.

This will assist us in determining the utility of Kahane’s (1973) and Rubinson’s

(1974) theoretical concepts in analyses of concrete political problems-in this case understanding New Order policy on access to higher education. The dissertation will also contribute to a better understanding of educational practices in Indonesia. In this context, this dissertation will provide a more in-depth analysis of the SIPENMARU data and will challenge the conclusions of Saleh (1985) and Hansen et al. (1989) that access to higher education in Indonesia is now determined largely by achievement.

This dissertation will also provide a better understanding of the political role of education in Indonesia and may be suggestive for other post-World War II independent nations. CHAPTER II

THEORY

Indonesia and the Problem of Political Legitimacy

In the immediate post-World War II period, roughly 1945 to 1955, a

proliferation of "New States" exploded in Asia and Africa from territories previously

controlled by European countries. Initial optimism that these new states of Asia and

Africa, now free from the economically exploitative and politically repressive colonial

powers, could develop their economies rapidly and create the foundations for Western

style political democracies was soon dashed. By the late 1960s the economies of this

group (with a few exceptions) were no stronger and in many cases weaker than at

independence, and democratic forms of government, if achieved at all, did not last

long in situations of chronic economic scarcity and underdeveloped political

institutions. By 1967, 70 percent of these new states were under military rule (Lovell and Kim, 1967).

Indonesia was in many respects typical of these countries. It evolved from independence to a weak constitutional government, with power divided among four

major political parties ("Constitutional Period," 1950-57); to an authoritarian civilian government, with power consolidated into three groups-the military, the Indonesian

22 23 communist party (PKI), and President Sukarno ("Guided Democracy Period," 1957-

65); and finally, in March 1966 the military under General Soeharto took control and has remained in power to the present ("New Order Period"). Reuven Kahane (1973:

36-7) described the sociopolitical conditions leading to the collapse of democratic institutions and practices eventually leading to the military takeover of the Indonesian government in 1966:

With the lack of mechanisms of mediation, a cobweb process was developed and the ability of the major groups to achieve compromise and agreement by institutional means was diminished. In this situation, physical power became the chief instrument of bargaining; as a result the most powerful group achieved dominance over the country.

At the conceptual level, Kahane characterized Indonesia as a "transitional state" and focused on how such states enhanced or create legitimacy in a highly polarized political environment. He defined transitional as "a change from traditional hierarchical principles of legitimacy to more egalitarian, universalistic [modem] ones

(37)." Pye (1990: 11) defines this as "a fundamental clash between the culture of modernization (what I have called the world culture) and the various national political cultures. This is always a psychologically disturbing clash because it brings into confrontation universal standards and parochial values.” Pye concludes:

The former are essential for economic performance and effectiveness, and the latter are critical for creating national loyalties and distinctive national political styles.

Parsons (1977) argued that one of the main distinctions between traditional and modem societies was that the latter more easily adapt to changing environments 24 because of a higher level of organizational differentiation. Parsons (1971: 27) also argued that functional differentiation occurred in the process of transforming a traditional into a modem society. Within this process, the values upon which legitimacy is based must also change.

The enhanced complexity of a system undergoing differentiation and upgrading necessarily raises problems of integration. In general, these problems can be met only by the inclusion of the new units, structures, and mechanisms within the normative framework of the societal community...Finally, the foregoing processes must be complemented by value generalization if the various units in the society are to gain appropriate legitimation and modes of orientation for their new patterns of action.

Kahane’s definition incorporates two of Weber’s ideal types of legitimate political authority, emphasizing a transition from the traditional to rational bases of legitimacy, leaving out charismatic (Weber, 1947: 328) despite Sukarno’s very strong charismatic style of leadership during Guided Democracy. "In the transitional stage, many of the new states are in a marginal situation of legitimacy in which old principles are no longer strong enough, while new ones are still not valid (Kahane,

1973: 37)." The question arises, how do transitional states mediate conflict between polarized groups in the absence of agreed upon bases of political legitimacy?

Diamond (1988: 6-7) argued that in a number of Asian countries, Indonesia included, military takeovers were considered legitimate political acts because they deposed ineffective, albeit democratic regimes. His point is that although these regimes were democratic, they were not considered legitimate by the majority of their populations because they could not govern effectively. This would have certainly been the case for Indonesia in the late 1950s. Kahane (1973: 37) adds that despite a 25 high level of support for military takeovers in the short-run, some form of

"val'ie-based" legitimacy (where the ruled give their support freely) must be generated for a regime to hold power in the long run. Migdal (1988: 33) states that this entails much more than mere passive acceptance of state ideology, it requires:

...an acceptance, even approbation, of the state’s rules of the game, its social control, as true and right. It is more than mere compliance and/or participation in state authorized behavior, it indicates people’s approval of the state’s desired social order through their acceptance of the state’s myths.

In the transitional state the foundation upon which political legitimacy is based must itself be in transition.

This was and still is the dilemma for Indonesia. The military took power in

1966 on the grounds that it was the only political force capable of preventing civil war. The military sought legitimacy in a situation where the other two centers of power, President Sukarno and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), were discredited by the assassination of six top generals. The PKI was accused of carrying out the murders, with the support of communist China, and Sukarno was accused, at best, of allowing the PKI to gain too much power and influence during the Guided

Democracy Period, and at worst, of actively supporting the attempted coup.

Most scholars argue that the PKI was behind the attempted coup, citing the fact that all six murdered generals were anti-communists. One scholar, however, believes there was evidence to suggest that United States foreign policy in Southeast Asia dictated a Soeharto led coup to counter the incredible rise of the PKI, which by 1965 26

had grown to become the largest communist party outside of the communist bloc

countries.

In 1965, six generals were murdered in what official doctrine (including much of scholarship) describes as a "Communist coup," which miraculously spared the pro-U.S. General Soeharto while targeting elements of the military considered anti-American. Soeharto then carried out an actual military coup, which led to the slaughter of some half a million people in a few months, mostly landless peasants, and crushed die popular-based Communist Party, at the same time, incidentally, turning the country into a "paradise for investors" (Chomsky, 1987: 304-5).

The question of who was responsible for initiating the coup is beyond the scope

of this dissertation. The coup’s occurrence, however, signaled the collapse of

Indonesia’s second form of government since gaining independence in 1945.

Characterized in terms of Kahane’s dual legitimacy thesis, the pendulum had

swung too far in the direction of modem principles of legitimacy under Parliamentary

Democracy, while under Guided Democracy the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction into Indonesia’s past with Sukarno’s legitimacy seemingly based on principles of Javanese paternalism.

The Parliamentary Democracy Period could be characterized as having been based on the twin principles of popular legitimacy established by Indonesian independence: self-determination and nationalism. Popular legitimacy however decayed into political stalemate over the inability of political leaders to form stable political coalitions with enough popular support to govern effectively. The fall of

Sukarno and end of Guided Democracy, while perhaps explained largely in terms of a backlash against the rapid rise of the PKI, might also be characterized in terms of 27

Sukarno’s almost total disregard of popular demands for economic stability and development-the foundation upon which Indonesia was to build its just and prosperous society. Kahane would classify these demands as based firmly in modem principles of legitimacy.

Thus, Sukarno may have been correct when he stated that, "Indonesia lack[ed] the literacy and prosperity needed for a successful Western style parliamentary democracy (New York Times. January 18, 1957)." However, he failed to recognize that his mandate and legitimacy rested in his ability to provide literacy and prosperity in his role as caretaker of the Indonesian revolution, not as leader of the "New

Emerging Forces" of the worldwide anti-colonial revolution. The Indonesian revolution called for economic modernization and national unity, which are aspects of modem legitimacy, while at the same time, both Sukarno and Soeharto projected the image of traditional leadership based on Javanese cultural norms.

Thus, the military takeover carried with it certain attributes providing a measure of "temporary" legitimacy, particularly in the context of returning the country to some measure of "normalcy" as contrasted to Sukarno’s bombastic politics and wildly inflationary economic practices. In addition, the military regime sought, with some success, to gain legitimacy by resurrecting its image as leader of the revolution

(recalling the conflict with the Dutch) and emphasizing the communist threat to that revolutionary ideal.

In the longer term, the New Order has sought legitimacy largely in economic development terms. The justification used by the government is that Indonesia’s 28 number one priority is development and that development cannot occur without stability. Operationally, however, this has translated into a system where the people have been offered some measure of hope and opportunity for economic improvement as a quid pro quo for leaving the political arena to the military (Liddle, Pacific

Affairs. 1985).

However, in the twenty-three years since taking power, the New Order regime has been only partially successful in providing the economic security upon which its legitimacy was initially based.

Economically, extensive efforts by the Soeharto government to effect rapid economic development have produced impressive results. However, serious problems remain. After the economic disaster of the Sukarno years, the New Order regime has created a stable political environment and actively courted foreign investment.

Investment and increased oil revenues between 1973 and 1985 substantially improved the overall health of the Indonesian economy as demonstrated by the sharp rise in rice production. However, "while Indonesia continues to boast self- sufficiency in rice, it is becoming clear that this will be difficult to maintain and deteriorating terms of trade for rice farmers and the underdevelopment of cooperatives are serious problems in many rural areas (Asia Yearbook 1989: 133)."

Additionally, Indonesia is heavily in debt after receiving large loans from foreign banks to finance its development efforts. Its "good fortune" in oil revenues effectively hardened the terms of many development assistance programs. For example, a large USAID funded project for higher agricultural education was 29 converted from grant funds to loan funds in 1977, halfway through the program

(USAID, 1977). Indonesia’s foreign debt as of June 1987 was U.S. $38 billion, the largest in Asia.

The collapse of world oil prices in 1985 severely limited Indonesia’s ability to service its substantial debt burden (revenues from oil dropped from US$ 12.4 billion in 1985 to 6.5 billion in 1986) and demonstrated the relative weakness of the economy, which is overdependent on the export of petroleum. The government recognized this situation and has made efforts to diversify the overseas export sector by promoting expansion of its production of semi-finished and finished products, such as in the paper and textiles industries. However, the New Order’s record in the textile industry, for example, is inconsistent (Wibisono, 1987). Even so, the government does believe it has made good progress toward overall diversification.

...Indonesia slumped early in this decade when petroleum prices tumbled, but now is coming back vigorously as a result of diversification that has produced more than $700 million a month in non-petroleum exports-and an estimated 4% overall growth rate in 1987 (Diplomatic Digest. Vol.2, No. 2 (May 1989), p.6).

Other economic indicators support this conclusion. Unemployment and underemployment are assumed to be high, although figures are difficult to assess accurately because the government considers a person to be employed if he or she works as little as one hour per week. Officially, the unemployment rate in June 1987 was two percent (FEER. 4 June 1987: 64). Employment figures are not encouraging either. According to government figures for 1985 only 37 percent of Indonesia’s labor force worked an average 2,5-34 hours per week. While in agriculture, fishery and forestry, which employed 55 percent of the labor force that year, the average 30 work week was only 27 hours. In manufacturing, which employed only 9 percent of the labor force in 1985, only 34 percent worked more than 45 hours per week.

Underemployment and unemployment are expected to worsen by 1990 when it is estimated that Indonesia's labor force will be 77 million (FEER. 4 June 1987: 64).

Finally, in 1988 President Soeharto announced that civil servants’ wages would be frozen in FY88-89 for the third consecutive year (Asia Yearbook 1989: 133).

Politically, the New Order government under President Soeharto continues to invest power in the military. Most would argue that the military has consolidated its authority since coming to rule in 1966. Through a two-pronged strategy of gradually eliminating political opposition and internally unifying its own ranks behind President

Soeharto, the military’s position is said to be stronger than at any time since independence (Crouch, 1978; Robison, 1988). The military continues its tight control over all social and political institutions and shows little sign of a willingness to share political power with civilians any time soon.

In short, current political and economic conditions indicate that Indonesia, while able to make some economic gains—thereby satisfying to some extent its claims to political legitimacy, is still relatively nonindustrialized and underdeveloped.

Furthermore, popular aspirations for a more participatory form of government consistent with the ideals of the Indonesian revolution and the 1945 constitution have not been met during the New Order era. Indonesian society remains stratified and the government oligarchic and authoritarian. 31

Pye (1990: 10), using the Soviet Union as an example of an authoritarian political system, argues that these aspirations cannot be permanently forestalled.

Traditional groups in power will, nevertheless, resist because they risk losing power, and the conflict between them and modem groups is inevitable.

[Clearly, Gorbachev faces a basic problem with his perestroika and glasnost efforts]. A significant middle class has emerged, the members of which demand greater intellectual and cultural freedoms and are contemptuous of the poorly educated bureaucrats and party apparatchiks...But there are also vast numbers of people who don’t want to shake things up for fear of losing what they have just gained. These cautious people, combined with the undereducated praktiki of an older generation, constitute major obstacles to truly radical economic reforms (Pye, 1990: 10).

The differences between the Soviet Union and Indonesia are of course more numerous than their similarities. However, on this general concept of political conflict between modernizers or reformers and entrenched bureaucrats, the two countries are similar.

Economic modernization appears to be the New Order’s primary claim to legitimacy. Because the New Order has stressed economic modernization in the absence of the development of political pluralism, its modem bases for political legitimacy remain weak. Furthermore, the potential for some form of class conflict is high in a situation of rising expectations while it is widely perceived that the elite is siphoning off for their own enrichment substantial resources earmarked for development. For example, one observer described the situation in 1979 as, "an urban-based elite scramble[ing] for its share of the new money-much of it borrowed, much of it earned in dubious ways—feathering] its own nest with little if any concern 32 for the mass of the still-ragged poor (Asia Yearbook. 1980: 186)." This situation perhaps explains the sensitivity of the New Order regime to persistent reports of widespread graft and corruption in the government. (For example, in its annual summary of political and social affairs, the Asia Yearbook cites graft and corruption as a major issue with which the Soeharto regime must contend each year. See The

Asia Yearbook. 1969-1989.)

Kahane (1973: 37) argued that the contradictory thrusts of a society based primarily on "primordial relationships"-described by Migdal (1988: 24) as "biological criteria of affinity"—attempting to modernize create forces that cannot be ameliorated during the transitional phase. Kahane summarized this dilemma as follows:

In this situation the formation of legitimate order is faced with two problems:

(1) The government has to give more to the people than it takes from them in order to gain their support, while actually it has only a few items to give.

(2) It needs to be based on two different or even contradictory principles of legitimacy.

It is impossible to neglect the old principles without endangering the whole system, but it is also impossible to establish a unified state without holding new principles. In the transitional phase, it seems that the stability of society (e.g., creating institutional mechanisms aimed at dealing with conflicts) depends on its capacity to combine the different principles rather than differentiate between them.

In other words, neither principle alone is sufficient for stable legitimacy but rather both are necessary; fusion of a legitimation gap is unavoidable.

Kahane’s notion of a fusion of contradictory principles of legitimation is supported by Weber (1947: 125-26): 33

To be sure, when evasion or contravention of the generally understood meaning of an order has become the rule, the order can be said to be ’valid’ only in a limited degree, and in the extreme case, not at all. Thus for sociological purposes there does not exist, as there does for the law, a rigid alternative between the validity and lack of validity of a given order. On the contrary, there is a gradual transition between the two extremes; and also it is possible, as it has been pointed out, for contradictory systems of order to exist at the same time. In that case each is ’valid’ precisely to the extent that there is a probability that action will in fact be oriented to it.

Weber’s "systems of order" is similar to Kahane’s "principles of legitimacy."

Where Weber spoke of validity to the extent that action is oriented to one of several competing systems of order, Kahane spoke of contradictory principles of legitimacy that coexist in an antagonistic society.

What are these traditional bases of legitimacy in Indonesia?

Traditional Basis of Legitimacy in Indonesia

The specific manifestations of traditional versus modem forms of legitimacy in

Indonesia must be understood in order to understand the dual legitimacy concept as it applies to Indonesia.

Political legitimacy has been defined as simply the "justified use of power

(Apter, 1977: 234)." The bases of political legitimacy take different forms in different societies and cultures, as well as different forms over time, as societies and cultures change. Weber (1947) developed a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding different forms of political legitimacy with his "ideal types." His

"ideal types of legitimate authority" establish the conceptual underpinnings of the traditional versus modem dichotomy. "Traditional authority...rest[s) on an established 34 belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them," while "legal/rational authority ["modem"] rest[s] on a belief in the ’legality’ of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands (Weber, 1947:328)."

Thus, for example, one of the characteristics of a society based on traditional authority is that "it is very common for the most important posts to be filled with members of a ruling family or clan (Weber, 1947: 343)," as opposed to those posts being filled through some legal/rational method of selection, such as demonstrated skill or knowledge to perform the duties of the post. The contrast between these forms of legitimacy are illustrated in Indonesia by persistent accusations that the

Soeharto family, along with other powerful government elites, gain lucrative employment opportunities because of the family name and connections-traditional means of advancement~not because they are necessarily the best qualified candidates for the job.

Most of the new states emerging after the Second World War were closer to the traditional ideal type. Indonesia was no exception. Legitimacy before independence and in the precolonial period was based on birth, or the belief that leaders were chosen divinely based on the predominant religious beliefs and mysticism. Mahasin

(1984: 4-5) wrote:

The early Kingdoms, from the Sixth to Sixteenth Centuries, for example, based their legitimacy on the Indianized concept of Dewa-Raja (God-King), the King [being] the only symbol linking the macrocosmic order of gods and the microcosmos of men...The King was the center of the microcosmos of State, the summit of its hierarchy. 35

...the proto-historic Dongson culture of Monsoon Asia failed to facilitate an institutional framework for the development of supra village formations. Their level of socio-cultural organization was characteristic of pre-urban villages marked by kin orientation, ascriptive status, and generally egalitarian human relationships. Those villages were autonomous, politically independent of each other, had their own rudimentary concept of authority, and of course their own mores and rudimentary legal systems. This is what in later days was called the adat law, a customary law confirmed by, and confined to, a particular community.

Multiply these micropolitical systems by the approximately 300 ethnically distinct groups living in present day Indonesia and one can appreciate the difficult task of forging a single, legitimate nation-state.

Darmaputera (1988: 21) collapses the 300 or so ethnic groups into three major cultural/ethnic groups, arguing that "the traditional system of values of Indonesia can be described as structured on three echelons or layers [i.e.] the indigenous, the Indie, and the Islamic." In the early days of the Republic it was very difficult to foster loyalty to a newly created national government because "regional clusters with religious or linguistic affiliations represent[ed] powerful primordial loyalties that denied legitimacy to a central government or countered] it with local attachments

(Apter, 1977: 448)." Thus, Darmaputera (1988:22) writes:

...the major problem with regard to the integration process in Indonesian society is that these three systems are neither fully divided nor totally fused into one unified system. The result is predictable: clusters of contradictory values of the animistic- tribal-kinship orientations of the abangan, the pantheistic hierarchical diversification of the priyayi, and the more theistic universalistic orientations of the santri. 36

The problem for the Indonesian government was that in order to create a strong

national government with popular support, which meant it could not simply force it

upon the archipelago (although in some regions like East Timor, that is exactly what was done), traditional local loyalties would need to be converted to modem national ones.

While oral mechanisms, such as the wayang kulit (shadow puppet plays), and ritual practices played a major role in socialization and legitimacy in the traditional system, these typically differed among various ethnic groups and have not offered valid opportunities for gaining legitimacy for the New Order. McCloud (1986: 137-

38) argued that this was a problem throughout Southeast Asia:

Ethnic, geographic, religious, and economic divisions limited the feeling of commonality among most of the peoples of Southeast Asia. The concepts of ’national’ identity that did emerge were heavily couched in ethnic feelings, and smaller ethnic groups sometimes strongly opposed independence. They fought with colonial armies against independence movements led by different, larger ethnic groups, viewing the colonial authorities as protectors against discrimination or repression by major ethnic groups that would control any independent government.

In Indonesia, this dilemma may have been due to the fact that the modem concepts of state and nation were "completely recent and foreign phenomena...[and]

Indonesia has never been united as a political entity...[nor] has it ever been a nation

(Darmaputera, 1988: 9)." Instead, what existed in precolonial Java, for example, were hundreds, perhaps thousands of "negaras" or states (Geertz, 1980: 4). Negara were defined by Geertz as "independent and semi-independent principalities." Others defined them as, "kingdoms (Krom, 1931)," or "realms of various sorts, descriptions, and degrees of autonomy (Schrieke, 1957)." Thus, "as it now stands, Indonesia is a 37 united state, a ’new united state.’ To this we must immediately add that this new united state consists of a plurality of ’old societies’ (Darmaputera, 1988: 10)."

Apter (1977: 450) argued that the process of forming stable and legitimate national unions from ethnically and linguistically divergent groups requires "the cultivation of primordial loyalties." In Indonesia the dominant ethnic group is the

Javanese. Each government since independence has cultivated Javanese primordial loyalties, as reflected in "the basic philosophy of the Indonesian people: Pancasila

(Five Principles) encompasses belief in One Supreme God, Humanity, the Unity of

Indonesia, Democracy led by the wisdom of deliberations among representatives and

Social Justice for all (Government of Indonesia, 1984: 12)." The religious reference is vague and reflects the influence of abangan and priyayi (corresponding roughly to social distinctions between rural poor Javanese and those belonging to the traditional

Javanese aristocracy, respectively) syncretic religious beliefs, as opposed to the orthodox Islamic beliefs of the santri. The Javanese belief in deference to authority comes through clearly in the phrase "democracy led by the wisdom of deliberations among representatives."

Darmaputera (1988) stated that legitimacy for Indonesia revolves around two very difficult tasks: the first is to create a national Indonesian identity (a nation-building task); the second is to create efficient and modem government institutions to foster growth and support the development of a modem economy

(a state-building task). Both are required to produce a just and prosperous society. 38

The problem is that the Indonesian identity lies in traditional modes of behavior, many of which are antithetical to modem notions of progress.

As Lemer (1958: 47) discovered in the Middle East, many Third World countries want the technology without the excess baggage of western ideology that often accompanies that technology.

Wanted are modem institutions but not modem ideologies, modem power but not modem purposes, modem wealth but not modem wisdom, modem commodities but not modem cant...they want to do it their own way.

The difficulty is that western ideas almost always accompany western hardware.

They are not easily separated. Thus, the question becomes: "how to maintain the

Indonesian identity without inhibiting progress, and how to progress without losing identity (Darmaputera, 1988: 9)."

Any kind of identity that Indonesia tries to find, thus has to take this two-fold reality very seriously. If it only stresses the unity, it will fail to make the people ’emotionally committed.’ But if it emphasizes the plurality too strongly, it will fail to inspire the people to work together for the common goal...The problem becomes more complicated because basically [the government] tries to reconcile two seemingly contradictory elements: the traditional and the modem elements. It is this aspiration for building a modem society and at the same time maintaining the traditional heritage which constitute the main problem [for Indonesia today] (Darmaputera, 1988: 10-11).

Thus, Darmaputera argued that the tension of constructing a modem state on top of a society with strong primordial affiliations requires at least minimal adherence to those affiliations for legitimacy to be maintained.1 Doing so however creates the types of contradictions hypothesized by Kahane (1973).

This is the context in which the problems of dual legitimacy impact Indonesia. 39

To measure Kahane’s dual legitimacy concept, a theoretical connection between the state and educational systems in general must be established. Richard Rubinson

(1974) argued that educational systems are an effective tool in state expansion, control, and legitimacy, a theoretical point that will be developed next.

The Political Construction of Educational Systems

The relationship between higher education and politics has been examined by many scholars (e.g., Collins, 1979; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Weber, 1968). The two explanatory models usually used in defining or specifying this relationship are the status-conflict model or the modernization model. The political construction of educational systems model was developed by Rubinson (1974) in response to perceived inadequacies in the first two models.

The thesis of political construction of educational systems was developed to examine the causes of the tremendous expansion of educational systems throughout the world between 1950 and 1970 (Rubinson, 1974). It attempted to fill a void in existing research on education, on the grounds that previous theories had neglected the role of the state in determining the organization, direction, and overall goals of education in societies. Earlier theories of the relationship between education and politics had focused either on the competition between socioeconomic groups within societies for educational opportunities (status-conflict model), or on the role that education played in socializing and preparing populations to take on new roles in 40 modem polities (modernization model). Both of these approaches neglected the role of the state in education, according to Rubinson (1974: iii):

The little work that has been done in this area has either stressed a functional [modernization] or status conflict perspective on the role of the political system on education. The functionalist perspective stresses economic factors primarily and explains political intervention in education only under the condition that economic requirements for education are somehow not realized. The status conflict perspective stresses group competition for rewards and explains the role of the political system in terms of supporting dominant economic classes. Both of these models view the political system as a rather passive agent in the expansion and organization of education.

Rubinson argued that the notion of the state as a passive agent in organizing education is unrealistic. For example, he points out that, states are quite active in expanding and regulating education or in using the educational system as a mechanism to extend equality, promote national integration, and pursue national goals of economic development. Finally, he notes that "educational systems almost everywhere are controlled and regulated by political agencies."

Underlying Rubinson’s analysis is the assumption that nation-states have, as a primary function, the establishment, maintenance and/or expansion of their authority over a given territory. For Rubinson, this process of expansion and domination is inseparable from the definition of the state. All states, without exception, engage in this activity as part of the larger process of state-building (Tilly, 1975).

It should be noted that state-building is related to but conceptually distinct from nation-building. The nation "connotes the concept of people who are conscious of their common historical and cultural background and who wish to perpetuate this background politically, i.e. within the framework of the state (Dunner, 1964: p. 41

365),H while the state is "an administrative apparatus with sovereign control over

people [not necessarily, of a common historical and cultural background] within a

given territory (Dunner, 1964: p. 498)." A state constructed on top of a people who

do not share a common historical and cultural background is a specific problem for

Indonesia.

Christenson et al. (1975: 24) wrote: "[The] state is primarily a political-legal concept, whereas nation is primarily psycho-cultural." They argued that nation derives from the Latin "nation," which means social grouping based on real or imagined community of birth or race. Nation has come to embrace other concepts such as territory, culture, language, and history. It is important to understand, however, that these concepts may represent ideas that are not fully realized in the concrete world.

It is possible, however, that no nation has ever possessed all of these criteria...As a matter of empirical observation, none of these traits may actually exist; the important point is that a people believe that they do (Christenson et al., 1975: 24).

That the state, by definition, seeks to dominate or control a population within a defined territory through monopolization of the means of legitimate violence (Weber,

1968) is implicit in the concept of sovereignty. That a state would, by definition, continually seek to expand its authority is open to debate. A more realistic model of state behavior would need to specify the conditions under which state authority expands rapidly, as well as the conditions which might retard expansion. An example of how state expansion has been at least resisted, if not retarded, is provided by

Migdal (1988: 14): 42

Some groups have viewed an expansion of state capabilities with grave suspicion, as a process presaging dire threats to their income, their autonomy, even their lives. The Kurds in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, for example, have stood as witnesses during the last generation to the determination of some groups to stop the state from doing what many others assume to be the state’s unquestionable duty.

Indeed, one of the inadequacies of Rubinson’s (1974) model is its extreme generality. It predicts the existence of a strong correlation between state-building and the expansion of educational systems, but cannot predict the impact of this relationship on actors and groups within the system because subsystem actors are not identified: the state is conceptualized as monolithic, which makes analyses of intra- state relationships impossible. Another weakness resulting from the extreme generality of the level of analysis is that if we accept Rubinson’s argument that public educational institutions are quasi-state institutions, then the argument that state expansion leads to educational system expansion is at least in part tautological.

Rubinson (1986) partially addresses the problem of the inapplicability of his political construction of educational systems model. In a comparative analysis of class formation and its affect on education in the United States and Europe, he argued that class formation had a greater impact in the formation of European educational institutions than it had in the formation of U.S. educational institutions because class interests were politically institutionalized in Europe, but filtered out of U.S. politics.

Rubinson argued that the nature of the political system is important in determining the impact of class on the development of educational systems. This is important in the development of class analysis theory. Previous analyses neglected

"the role of the political process in transforming class interests into institutional 43

patterns, and...the process by which political structures themselves become important

determinants of class formation (1986: 519).H

Rubinson (1986) recognized that intrastate political processes have an effect on

the structure of particular state-educational system configurations. Unlike his earlier

analysis, which was limited to general comparisons between countries, his 1986 study

includes an analysis of specific political processes and their effects on class formation

and the development of educational systems in Europe and the United States.

In the case of Indonesian education, combining Kahane’s (1973) dual legitimacy

concept with Rubinson’s (1974) concept of educational systems expanding as a

function of the state- building process should provide a more accurate understanding

of the structural relationship between states and their educational systems, as well as a

better understanding of the political dimension of higher education in Indonesia.

Rubinson argued that the worldwide expansion of educational systems between

1950 and 1970 can be explained as part of the expansion of state authority during the

same period (see Huntington, 1968). The relationship between education and

state-building was hypothesized by Rubinson to be one in which education confers

legitimacy upon the state and allocates rewards within society. Educational

institutions, he believes, are given authority by the state to confer political and economic status upon citizens through the awarding of educational credentials, a process of "certification (see Collins, 1979)." These credentials are the primary

mechanism used in determining the allocation of political and economic statuses within society. In return, the process of certification confers legitimacy upon the 44

educational system, and to the degree that education is organized and controlled by

the state, it also confers legitimacy upon the state.

Rubinson’s work provides a useful theoretical model with which to examine relationships between education and politics, but the level of analysis and

methodology are too general to be useful in understanding the implications and

manifestations of relationships between a particular state and its own educational system. He established a general thesis to explain the global expansion of educational systems. It is equally important, however, to understand how the global expansion affected existing patterns of political and social relationships within educational systems within specific states. Thus, Migdal (1988: 31) writes:

Focusing on [the] struggles within society, between states and other social organizations such as clans, tribes, language groups, and the like, will give new insights into the processes of social and political change. The very purposes for which leaders employ the state in seeking predominance through binding rules automatically thrust it into conflict with other organizations over who has the right and ability to make those rules.

If Lasswell (1958) was correct that politics determines "who gets what, when and how," then the study of education and politics should examine questions of the impact of the state on educational systems as well as on individuals and groups within the systems.

Additionally, Rubinson’s use of a panel design to test a series of hypotheses on the strength of the relationship between the expansion of educational systems and the state- building process is too general for the level of analysis desired in this dissertation. While his data appear to support his hypotheses, his conclusion that educational expansion is largely explained as a function of the expansion of state 45 authority between 1950 and 1970 needs to be examined in specific case study examples.

Rubinson (1974) argued that the role of the state in determining the structure of educational systems had been neglected in the modernization and status-conflict approaches. Having established that the state plays an activist role in education, the next step is to specify what impact this activism will have in different political settings. Expansion of educational systems can be viewed as a corollary to the development of the modem state in many newly independent and developing nations.

This dissertation will look at the implications of the Indonesian government’s nation and state- building efforts from the perspective of higher education, using the concept of dual legitimacy to isolate and predict how the government’s general political goals of modernization and legitimacy were translated into admissions policies.

Summary

This dissertation will examine Indonesia’s system of higher education from the perspective of the state’s hypothesized need to cultivate dual forms of legitimacy in the transitional period.

Indonesia’s educational system is an excellent subject for an analysis of

Kahane’s dual legitimacy concept. The educational system was politicized early in the Indonesian nationalist movement and became one focal point of the transition and conflict between traditional and modem modes of behavior in Indonesia. As Pranarka

(1974: 105) wrote: 46

known that Indonesia has suffered from a continuous inner power struggle. Politics play a predominant role in the country and each political group has been seeking tactical bases from which to attain their goals with education becoming one of the major tactical targets. This has had its consequences in that the world of education soon became involved in politics with all its associated conflicts and tensions...

One possible area of conflict could be in the government’s commitment to achievement as the determining factor in access to higher education to support modernization and bolster legitimacy among the population at large, while also allowing exclusion or ascription in access to higher education to bolster legitimacy among elites to maintain their allegiance in the midst of rapid social change.2 At the lower levels of the system, it conveys the basic socializing material aimed at strengthening Indonesia’s national identity and the New Order’s fundamental legitimacy.

Dawson and Prewitt (1969: 143-46) argued that the use of formal education in this manner is universal. They wrote: "In modem societies a major portion of political learning takes place in the classroom. It is through this agency that the most comprehensive and deliberate efforts are made by modem and modernizing polities to shape the political outlooks of new citizens (146)." At the middle levels, the education system seeks to train large numbers of young people to a level of technical competence so they can participate in and further stimulate the New Order’s economic development strategy. Finally, at the highest level the emerging elite is further socialized and eventually coopted into the New Order system. 47

Conceptually, the focus is Rubinson’s theory of educational systems as

state-authorized allocators of social benefits. An examination of how the Indonesian

state allocates educational benefits through SIPENMARU, given that SIPENMARU

was to eliminate "traditional" means of gaining access-through bribery and corruption-in favor of the "modem" means of achievement, will provide concrete examples with which to examine the dual legitimacy hypothesis of Kahane.

If the state uses the educational system to allocate social benefits (Collins,

1979), it should be an effective vehicle for generating legitimacy for the state

(Rubinson, 1974; 1986). The question remains, however, how and whether educational allocations can be made to fuse the dual forms of legitimacy (traditional precepts and modem) needed to sustain its position.

If the Indonesian government uses access to higher education to fuse these contradictory principles of legitimacy as Kahane (1973) argued they must, one might hypothesize that in order to serve traditional legitimacy needs, children of the elite and other government officials should have the greatest access to the best institutions of higher education. If, on the other hand, the government subscribes to the modernizing approach for access to higher education, admissions to the best institutions of higher education should be talent-based irrespective of social, economic or political background of the candidate. 48

Endnotes

1. Apple (1982: 30-31) discussed the need for the state to mediate various contradictions and how this process affects the state’s legitimacy:

The state itself is a site of conflict among classes and class segments, and among gender and racial groups as well. Because it is the site of such conflict, it must either force everyone to think alike (a rather difficult task that is beyond its power and would destroy legitimacy) or generate consent among a large portion of these contending groups. Thus, to maintain its own legitimacy the state needs gradually and continuously to integrate many of the interests of allied and even opposing groups under its banner.

2. The concept of the necessity of maintaining this balance between upper and lower strata is based on Weber’s theory of the monarchy, which is ultimately grounded in the concept of political legitimacy. Weber (1968) argued that monarchs, "throughout the ages, from ancient Mesopotamia up to imperial Germany, have been welfare minded because they needed the support of the lower strata against the higher; however these higher strata, nobility and priesthood, usually remain important to the maintenance of monarchic power and legitimacy. Hence, the stability of monarchy rests in part on the ruler’s ability to balance the two groups (p. XXXIII)." Or in the case of access to higher education, on the government’s ability to balance the ascription versus achievement groups for access to the best schools.

The attempt to achieve this balance was evident during the "Guided Democracy" period (1959-65) under president Sukarno. Robison (1988: 55-56) writes: "Although Sukarno’s Guided Democracy had been populist in the sense that the policies and rhetoric of Sukarno were designed for a mass audience and the approval of the masses was seen as necessary to the legitimacy of the state, it was at the same time authoritarian."

Finally, it should be noted that most non-elites in Indonesia would subscribe to ascription rather than achievement for gaining access to higher education because it is: 1) the culturally accepted method for gaining personal advantages, and 2) achievement connotes equality, a notion which would be totally alien to many Indonesians who are very status conscious. CHAPTER III

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDONESIA

Overview of the Current Education System

Before tracing the development of Indonesia’s educational system, a brief description of the current system will be provided. Figure 2 shows the structure and composition of the Indonesian educational system. Indonesia’s educational system is a mixture of public and private institutions at its three principal levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary). The Ministries of Education and Culture and Home Affairs control curriculum and the maintenance of physical facilities at all primary and secondary schools (public and private):

The Ministry of Home Affairs, acting through regional governors and local representatives, is responsible for organization, equipment, and facilities; the Directorate General for Primary and Secondary Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible for the curriculum. Generally, little autonomy exists at the local level (Aanenson, 1979: 5).

Islamic religious schools are controlled by the Ministry of Religion. At the primary level, approximately 15 percent of the schools are private, while the figure is

64 percent for the secondary level (Aanenson, 1979: 5). Public secondary schools are controlled by the Ministry of Education and Culture alone.

49 50

Yeon ol Aq« ScSodi 27-n F?2

2 6 - —21 —

2 5 - — 20

2 4 - — 19

2 3 - (—is | B 5 22- U h m w s i t i -17 - > J

— 16 ? 21- i x c 20- «6 - 1 5 ■8 "1 19- o 14 < S3

18 - - 1 3 — Generol Senior Secondary Schools 17- t i -o •“• 1L*S 12 I: S2 Sekolah Menengoti Atasj « - c F I* 22 J *2 f • -I 16- .T -5 _o * * 8 8 * • 5 HI !

15-

General Junior Religion 14- Secondary Schools - 9 Jr Second (Sekoloh Mersengah Perfama) o -2 ary Schools 13- I* - 8 E — u

12 - 7 -

II- —6

10 - Elementary Schools D«pl of Religion — 5 (Sekoioh Dasarj Elementory Schools

9 - (M adrasah) 2 8- h 3 i

7 - -2

6- -I Kindergarten ( l a m o n Ko m A Ita n o k l i§ 5- iX o *3

Figure 2

Indonesian Educational System

Charles Aanenson, Indonesia. 1979 51

A separate educational system under the direction of the Ministry of Religion

provides Islamic education for those who desire it. Before the introduction of

compulsory primary education in the late 1970’s, "these Islamic schools

provided...rural children an opportunity for education which possibly might not [have

been] provided through the Ministry of Education and Culture (Aanenson, 1979: 5)."

The public education system is a 6-3-3 structure: primary schools (SD), grades 1-6; junior secondary schools (SLTP), grades 7-9; and senior secondary schools (SLTA), grades 10- 12. The complete cycle includes three to five years of higher education, or seven for the highest degrees (Beeby, 1979: 30).

Rubinson (1974) argued that the more the educational system was centrally

controlled by the national government, the greater the impact of the educational

system on national political legitimacy. Beeby (1979: 230) argued that Indonesia’s

educational system is highly centralized-so much so that government efforts to

improve educational quality are compromised. According to Beeby, however, some

degree of centralization is necessary given Indonesia’s physical layout and the

government’s need to promote national unity-the primary political legitimacy function

of the educational system for Indonesia. If the government hopes to improve

educational quality, which it constantly stresses it wants to do,1 it must somehow find

the appropriate mixture of centralized control and local autonomy—a tension

corresponding to Kahane’s (1973) argument of traditional versus modem legitimacy.

The traditional need of "elites in the capital cities and towns of premodem kingdoms

(Steinberg, 1987: 9)" to control the hinterland (which incidentally is served by the

modem need to promote national unity) versus the modem need to improve the 52

quality of the educational system, a primary component of which includes

decentralizing control in some functional areas. According to Beeby (1979: 230-31),

this dual legitimacy dilemma can be summarized as follows:

the Indonesian educational system is singularly ill-adapted to the government’s purpose of bringing about rapid improvement in the quality of education on a nation-wide scale. It has almost everything against it. Geographically it is unique: schools scattered over 3,000 islands, and serving peoples of very different cultures, languages and needs; an extreme imbalance of population between the regions; and communications to many islands, and within some regions, slow and uncertain. In spite of this dispersion-or perhaps because of it —the need for a sense of national unity is such that the educational system is highly centralized, with all major decisions, and far too many minor ones, being made in Jakarta. (T)his extreme centralization has tended to sap the initiative of teachers, pupils and supervisors and make them look to Jakarta for a lead, but it has not been efficient enough to let the Education Department give that lead.

Supraptono (1986: 6) argued that Indonesia was a transitional society, and that teachers’ roles in the making of policy needed to increase to create a modem educational system.

Indonesia’s [change] from traditional to modem...[has] affected teachers too. They are demanding greater participation in the formal structure of decision making and control as a logical concomitant of grass-root involvement in curriculum development.

In the section to follow, the structure, control and administrative layout of the

Indonesian education system will be outlined. Sources for this section are taken from the late 1970s and early 1980s to provide a profile of the educational system concurrent with the 1984 SIPENMARU cohort sample. 53

Primary Education

"In 1976, there were 80,261 primary schools with 15,550,124 pupils. Of these primary schools, 85 percent were public, 8 percent subsidized private, and 7 percent fully private. Of all primary school children, 86 percent were in public schools (Aanenson, 1979: 8)." To illustrate the rapid growth of primary schools during the New Order era, the number of primary schools throughout the country in

1972 was 69,569 (Beeby, 1979: 30). Thus, from 1972 to 1976, an average of 2,673 new schools per year were added to the system.

The Ministry of Education and Culture claimed that 91 percent of those desiring primary education in 1976 were enrolled, the other 9 percent were not either because facilities were not available, or the prospective students could not afford the fees. Outside sources have estimated that only 58 percent of children aged 7-12 were attending school in 1976 (Aanenson, 1979: 8). "Legally, children may enter primary school at age six, but most do not do so before 7, and many, because of shortage of places, have to wait until they are 8 (Beeby, 1979: 30)."

In an effort to improve the overall quality of primary education, and address the problem of a very high dropout rate (only 40 to 55 percent of those entering grade

I complete grade VI), the government abolished school fees in 1978. This was followed in 1980 by the government’s decision to make a six year primary education compulsory for all Indonesian children (Aanenson, 1979: 8). Pearse (1979: 1095) argued that in 1971 school fees accounted for 35 percent of the recurrent costs of primary education. However, fees, placed formally on a sliding scale in 1973, and 54 abolished for the first three grades in 1977, are collected "informally" in public schools in the form of uniform, health test, and examination fees, as well as for a variety of other purposes (Jakarta Post. June 25, 1985).

Private schools, particularly ones with the best reputations, demand enormous fees. In one case, the fees were so high as to raise charges that places were being sold for up to Rp 10 million (Jakarta Post. June 29, 1989), while in another, the practice of demanding high fees was so prevalent that it had its own name

(uangpembangunan). "development money" referring to the fact that fees were being used to offset the costs of building the school (Jakarta Post. June 16, 1986).

A small percentage of parents-especially who are Christian and/or can also afford to spend more on education-send their children to better quality private

Christian schools. However, most still prefer the better quality public schools, because the best private schools are few in number, and being Christian, are not a desirable choice for the majority of Indonesians. These facilities, because of their religious affiliation, high fees and limited locations (mostly in large urban areas) are not for the general population (Beeby, 1979:31).

Junior Secondary Education

Of those successfully completing elementary school, approximately 66 percent enter junior secondary schools (Aanenson, 1979: 9). There are four types of junior secondary schools: the academic; vocational technical; vocational commercial; and home economics. In 1976, the academic general junior secondary schools were the most popular, accounting for 82 percent of all entering SLTP students. By 1978,

SMPs accounted for 84 percent of all SLTP students (World Bank. November 1978:

8). The general academic schools are the most popular because they offer the best chance at moving to senior secondary schools (Aanenson, 1979: 9). In 1976, there were 8,265 junior secondary schools with a total of 2,136,067 students enrolled. Of these schools, 36 percent were government run public facilities, 10 percent government subsidized private institutions, and 54 percent independently operated private schools. Most students preferred the public schools, as 52 percent of all students at this level were enrolled in these schools (Aanenson, 1979: 9).

As part of the government’s early efforts to modernize the economy, it stated in the late 1960’s that it would increase the number of vocational and technical schools (Beeby, 1979: 32). Many academic schools were changed, however, Beeby argued the changes were in name only (Ibid). Vocational schools, perhaps because they did not offer a useful alternative by actually providing needed technical training, were not popular. The government has had difficulty generating interest in vocational training.

In 1975 the government responded to the lack of interest in vocational education by consolidating technical, commercial, and home economics schools with the academic schools. Those that were not consolidated became even less popular because they offered no chance of progressing to a higher level, being strictly terminal in character (Aanenson, 1979: 10). 56

However, problems of access to higher education, becoming worse every year, have forced the government to reemphasize a vocational education track. A seminar in January 1987, attended by Minister of Manpower Sudomo, President Soeharto’s long-time security chief, General Soemitro, a prominent retired general outside the

Presidential circle, and the director of the private Institute of Development Studies and leading dissident, Adi Sasono, concluded that "Indonesia should develop more vocational schools and reduce the number of ineffective public schools and universities (Jakarta Post. January 19, 1987)." General Soemitro stated further that:

many of the existing universities are ineffective as they were established mainly on political criteria. Each of the 27 provinces in the country is obliged to have a state-run university. Unfortunately law and political science are the favorite fieldfs] of stud[y] at the universities, and the graduates are eager to talk about politics but not ready for jobs (Ibid).

General Soemitro proposed several policies for correcting this problem:

...increase the current three-year vocational school term to five years, reduce the number of universities, and develop more vocational schools equipped with workshops and training facilities to prepare highly skilled graduates. If [graduates] fail to enter the higher educational level, they are expected to have a skill to fmd jobs (Ibid).

Senior Secondary Education

Schools at this level correspond to the Junior Secondary level, with the addition of a fifth type of school for training primary school teachers. The schools are: general academic; vocational technical; vocational commercial; vocational home economics; and teacher training. In 1973, general academic track schools accounted for 45 percent of all students at this level (Beeby, 1979: 33). This ratio remained 57

unchanged for 1977 (44.7 percent) while total senior secondary enrollment increased

from 687,710 (estimated) to 1,108,079 (World Bank. November 1978: 29).

"Although approximately 90 percent of junior secondary school graduates

apply for senior secondary school, only two thirds are accepted. Most rejections are

due to lack of space (Aanenson, 1979: 10-11)." The attrition rate is high as well,

with 25 to 45 percent of all senior secondary school entrants never graduating

(Aanenson, 1979: 11).

Higher Education

In 1984, Indonesia’s higher education system was composed of 43 public and

455 private colleges and universities. By 1988, the number for private universities

had climbed to 726 (Jakarta Post. January 18, 1988), and is currently close to 900.

Of the private institutions, some are registered and approved by the government, while others are not. The proliferation of the latter has been the subject of great concern, as was the case, for example, to local government officials in Jakarta in

1986 ("Jakarta houses fifty illegal private colleges," Jakarta Post. April 24, 1986).

Many of these private schools have emerged to meet the high demand for university education. Unfortunately, most are low quality and expensive (Jakarta Post. July 23,

1985). An Indonesian scholar stated that, "changes are needed in private schools in order to lift the academic standards of the majority to bring them in line with the

1.37% (18 of 1,308 schools) considered to be of good quality [i.e. equal to government schools] (Supraptono, 1986: 7)." 58

The 43 public universities are a mixture of several prestigious older schools

(all on Java), regional universities established after independence (one in each province), and teachers training colleges. The prestigious schools are typically in highest demand because they are considered to be the best route to coveted government jobs.

The Early Colonial Period (1798-19001: The Effects of Dutch Educational Policy on the Development of the Educational System

Indonesia’s present system of higher education has its historical, political and cultural underpinnings in the Dutch colonial system. The inception of Indonesia’s current education system can be traced to the middle of the nineteenth century. When examining the history of the development of education in Indonesia, important distinctions between the goals, purposes, and support of education by various governments must be considered. There are three main periods, corresponding to the three different governments in power over the course of the historical development of the Indonesian educational system. These were: 1) the Dutch colonial period (circa

1800-1941); 2) Japanese Occupation and post-World War n struggle for Independence period (1942-1949); and 3) the independent Indonesian national government period

(1950-1990).

Comparing the three periods one finds continuity and change. Thematically, much of the change is expected, as for example, the change in the goals and purposes of education between colonial and Indonesian governments. Looking back over the history of the development of the educational system it is clear that Dutch policy was 59 restrictive and inhibitative, based on their overall colonial purpose of extracting wealth and controlling the native population to facilitate that process.

Indonesian goals have been the opposite. Education for the native population was provided sparingly under the Dutch, mainly for the reason stated above: education is costly, and the expense was simply not justified in the minds of Dutch colonial policy makers. Later on, Dutch resistance to the idea of educating the native population took on more political overtones, as they feared it would act as a catalyst for freedom and independence from Dutch rule, which it eventually did. It was wed to nationalist aspirations during the independence movement (or, some might argue was the spark that ignited that movement) and maintained that linkage in the post-independence period. Education was the means by which Indonesia would create a unified, prosperous society. Education should therefore be universal.

However, one finds continuity between periods in the historical development of the Indonesian education system, and because the early period under Dutch rule was so antithetical to the aspirations of the native population, continuity carries negative connotations.

Thus, while the goals of the Indonesian government are certainly different than those of the Dutch, the structure of the educational system inherited from the Dutch continues to exist. This structure for some Indonesian educators is responsible for most of the problems perceived to exist in Indonesian education today.

When the colonial government planned its policy on education it naturally had its own assumptions, however, unfortunately it is that same educational system which has been adapted by the nation, even after gaining its political independence. In fact, the late Ki Hadjar Dewantoro, the first Minister of 60

Education and Culture, from the outset emphatically declared that the colonial system ought to be replaced by a new one, however, twenty-five years have shown only slight alterations and certainly nothing approaching fundamental reform (Pranarka, 1974: 104).

This situation still existed in 1983, according to then Minister of Education

Nugroho Notosusanto, who stated that Indonesia’s "present system of higher education has not changed much since colonial times ("Tinkering with Education,"

Jakarta Post. November 11, 1983)."

Despite the differences in overall intentions between the Dutch, the Japanese and the Indonesians, similarities between periods do exist. For example, the idea that it is the responsibility of government to provide universal public education was bom in Dutch colonial times (see "Ethical Policy" below). Another important theme, while approached from opposite ends of the political spectrum, is the power of education as a political force. The Dutch understood this as well as the Indonesians and the Japanese, the difference between them being that the Dutch resisted the spread of education to dampen the spread of political resistance to Dutch colonial rule, while the Indonesians accelerated the spread of universal education to foster political unity and support for the newly created nation after Independence from the Dutch in 1949.

Finally, a theme that runs consistently throughout the history of the development of the Indonesian educational system, again the result of different policies and circumstances nevertheless producing the same results, is that the demand for education has always been far greater than the supply. 61

Dutch Colonial Period

The establishment of education in Indonesia was intended to serve Dutch, not

Indonesian, needs. This was true of all other colonial powers in Asia as well.

European systems of colonial rule were imposed on Southeast Asian societies with varying degrees of intensity, but most had one common purpose, the organization of the state in such a way as to maximize its potentialities, first as a producer of raw materials and foodstuffs for export to the West, and second as a market for Western manufactures (Steinberg, 1987: 261).

From a political and colonial administrative point of view, the two most pressing needs of the Dutch were: 1) to respond to a growing political and social movement in the Netherlands known as the Ethische Politiek (Ethical Policy) whose purpose was to change colonial policy; and 2) produce minimally trained bureaucrats to fill the lower ranks of the expanding colonial bureaucracy (Zainu’ddin, 1970: 22).

Pre-Ethical Policy

To place important events in their proper perspective, it is necessary to begin at the beginning. Van der Veur (1969: 1) stated that 1816 was the year the "kingdom of the Netherlands...assumed control over Indonesia." However, Djajadiningrat

(1942: 9) wrote:

The Existence of the Dutch East India Company came to an end in 1798 and Indonesia became a colony of Holland; a government was formed in Indonesia with a Governor General at its head, assisted by the Council of the Indies.

The difference in dates is probably because van der Veur uses the date at which the Dutch began their uninterrupted presence as the dominant European power in the Netherlands Indies, until the Japanese evicted them in 1942, after expelling the 62

British, who taking advantage of Napoleon’s occupation of Holland, controlled the

archipelago from 1811 to 1816. Van der Wal (1961: 5), however, countered both,

arguing that the Dutch did not control the entire Indonesian archipelago until the late

1800’s. "Until the turn of the century or thereabouts the government actively ruled

over less than half of the numerous sultanates and states outside Java."2 He added,

nonetheless, that the lack of effective control over the outer areas did not prevent the

Dutch from promoting the development of education in those areas: K4 From 1864 onwards the contracts with the self-governing territories contained where possible the condition that the self-governing authorities should vigorously foster public education (Van der Wal, 1961: 5).

As we shall see, however, this type of effort was popular with the Dutch, but not an effective means of promoting the development of publicly sponsored education.

Without financial backing from the colonial government, these contract stipulations had little impact in the development of educational facilities in the Outer Islands.

Van der Wal ( 1961: 5) stated that the United Dutch East India Company was concerned with the issue of education. However, that concern did not include the indigenous population.

Having come to Indonesia for commercial reasons, the [Dutch] East India Company had no idealistic desire to introduce an educational program to the population in general. Any education sponsored by this group was for its own purposes (Van der Wal, 1961: 9).

Van der Veur (1969: 1) concurred, saying, "except for haphazard support of missionary schools, the United Dutch East India Company did not provide support for native education." 63

Religious schools, both Moslem and Christian, existed prior to the establishment of the Dutch colony, and were the primary means by which Indonesians obtained formal schooling. Van der Wal (1961: 5) wrote that private religious educational institutions were far more active than the Dutch East India Company in providing educational opportunities for the general population of the Netherlands

Indies.

The administrators of the Dutch East India Company had included education among their instructions, but the little that came to fruition in those days was mainly the result of the efforts of the churches.

Aanenson (1979: 2) described the basic aim and content of religious education:

At first its content was largely confined to the Hindu and Buddhist classics; later it focused almost exclusively on Islamic scriptures. The implicit intent of this educational system was to induce piety and submissiveness among the masses, and to cultivate spiritual and political wisdom aimng the aristocratic few.

The beginning of Dutch sponsored Indonesian education is placed at the middle of the nineteenth century with the establishment of a three-year public elementary school in 1849, and the first teacher training school in 1851. At the same time, educational regulations appeared which were quite similar to the Education Article of the Netherlands Constitution of 1848. The "Organic law of 1854" established the colonial government’s responsibility in providing schools for the native population

(van der Veur, 1969: 1). The regulations "imposed on the Governor General [of the colony] the duty of setting up schools for the use of the native population." Future regulations established a separate government department to administer education

(Djajadiningrat, 1942: 10)--the "Department of Public Education and Worship" 64

(1867); instructions from the Minister of the Colonies that "the native population

would have the general opportunity to receive education (1863)"; and, in 1871, the

first regulations governing native education were enacted by Royal Decree (Van der

Wal, 1961: 5).

Thus, early developments in education emphasized the state’s role and

responsibility in providing education for the indigenous population. Through various

decrees and laws, the Dutch appeared to have assumed this responsibility heartily, but, as Van der Wal (1961: 5) pointed out once again, intention was not translated

into action, even by the turn of the century.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century education was recognized as a duty of the government. It is worthy to note that the European schools were immediately thrown open in principle to the natives. However, there were very few such schools, and the missions were practically the only bodies to concern themselves with education of the natives.

Ethical Policy

The Ethical Policy was an outgrowth of the idea promoted by the Dutch

Liberal Democrats, such as van Deventer, who argued that the Netherlands owed a

"debt of honour" to Indonesia for the wealth it provided to the Netherlands.

Zainu’ddin (1970: 17) writes:

[The] Ethical Policy [was] a more generous and emancipationist view of colonial policy. Its exponents, the ’Ethici’...hoped to repay [the debt of honour] by improving conditions and spreading enlightenment. A strong sense of mission, characteristic of the high tide of European imperial expansion, was coupled with a sense of destiny and a belief in the Greater Netherlands which would grow from strength to strength. [The] policy aimed at the formation out there in the Far East of a social entity which [was] indebted to the Netherlands for its prosperity and higher culture and thankfully recognizefd] [that] fact. 65

Providing education to Indonesians was an important component of the Ethical

Policy. Chronologically, the Ethical Policy had its greatest impact on the

development of the educational system after 1900.

This theme would be echoed again and again in later years as the development of Indonesia’s educational system always lagged behind general demands for education.

Ailsa Zainu’ddin (1970: 20) argued that the goals of the Ethical Policy were tied to the vision "Ethici" had of the future of the colony.

The Ethici envisaged a future Netherlands East Indies in which, under their leadership, the people would be assimilated into one social entity, and they saw as the main agents of their policy the spread of irrigation projects to improve rice production, the emigration of surplus population from Java to the Outer Islands to reduce the pressure of population in this area of greatest concentration, and the extension of Western education to spread Western culture--’higher culture’ in van Deventer’s words.

This vision initially received widespread support and was popular with Dutch living in the Netherlands and in the colony, because it reflected accepted economic and social thinking of the day. In the Netherlands, the Ethical Policy was a response to the growing competition with other European colonial powers over the issue of who treated their subject populations best. As one scholar described it, "the international climate of opinion favoured the spread of education on moral and social grounds and colonial powers began to judge each other by the amount of education they provided for their subject people (Zainu’ddin: 21)." In the colony, the Ethical

Policy would promote "the spread of irrigation [and] improve sugar production" 6 6

...while transmigration would "relieve the labor shortage on Dutch plantations in the

Outer Islands (Zainu’ddin: 20-21)." Additionally,

The extension of education, if kept within reasonable limits, [would] help to provide clerks and medical orderlies for the lower ranks of government and business enterprises (Zainu’ddin, 1970: 21).

Scholars agree that this latter benefit, that of providing trained manpower, was the primary aim of the Dutch, at least in the early stages of the development of the educational system.

The primary purpose in establishing these schools [for the native population], however, was not to bring education to the population but to train necessary native officials (Djajadiningrat, 1942: 10).

Van der Wal (1961: 8) wrote:

Western education for the Indonesian population...at first was particularly directed towards the training of civil servants.

Aanenson (1979: 3) added that the indigenous elite were the target of early Dutch educational programs:

[the] small scale secular school system was established to train the indigenous upper classes to serve as low-level clerks, bookkeepers, and officials to assist Dutch supervisors.

Van der Veur (1969: 3), referring to the options Indonesians (and others) had after completing Dutch primary school wrote:

Graduates could proceed to the Dutch High school System, or, after passing the kleinambtenaarsexamen (Lower Civil Service Examination), enter the lower positions in government service. From 1919 on, completion of Dutch primary education was made equivalent to having passed the Kleinambtenaarsexamen. 67

If providing education would assist in accomplishing these goals—and the

Ethici showed considerable savvy in stressing the Ethical Policy’s benefits for

Holland, then it is understandable why it was widely supported, at least in principle.

As the Ethical Policy was implemented around the turn of the century, it did produce major advances for Indonesian education. However, its success also created the seeds of discontent, as Indonesians saw the reforms as not going far enough, while conservative Dutch saw them as going too far.

1900-1942; The Impact of the Ethical Policy and the Rapid Expansion of the Educational System

It soon became apparent (to the Ethici and a handful of leading Indonesian intellectuals) that implementing the Ethical Policy would be extremely difficult. The high-sounding rhetoric soon gave way to the more practical concerns of how the policy goals would be financed. Thomas (1973: 15) provided the best statement of the inherent contradiction between the Ethical Policy and Dutch colonial economic policies:

Like most colonial efforts, the chief purposes of the Netherlands East Indies operation were to bring riches to European colonists and to maintain their favored position at the top of the social structure. The welfare of Europeans, not the native Indonesians, received first attention.

Thus, any given program submitted by the Ethici under the auspices of the

Ethical Policy would most likely run counter to standard colonial practices. For example, when the Ethici submitted "proposals for industrialization and for the protection and encouragement of local traditional industries, both against the 68 economic interests of industrialists in the Netherlands [the result was] the Ethici could not carry their plans far (Zainu’ddin, 1970: 21)."

It was for similar reasons that greater development of the educational system did not occur during this period, even under the banner of the Ethical Policy. In relative terms, there were major developments after 1900, particularly in primary education. However, the Dutch were willing to provide only the bare minimum financial support to develop the educational system. This theme runs consistently throughout the history of education in Indonesia. Ironically, the little that was provided was enough to set in motion a chain of developments that would lead ultimately to the Indonesian drive for political independence from the Dutch and consequently the collapse of Dutch authority. Developments after 1900 would also lead to a seemingly insatiable appetite for, and commitment to continued expansion and development of the educational system on the part of post-independence

Indonesian governments. Djajadiningrat (1942: 11) wrote:

[There was] an increasing recognition among the Indonesians (although at the time only among the higher strata of the population) of the importance of education for the development of the country and its people.

Several additional themes were established at this time. The first, echoed in the above quote, is that Indonesian revolutionaries, or those advocating independence from the Dutch, came from the elite segment of society. Thomas (1973: 15-16) discussed the effect the Ethical Policy had-through the promotion of education-on the awakening nationalist sentiment within elite segments of Indonesian society: 69

In the first two decades of the century, as the ethical policy encouraged more attention to Indonesians and their education, it also unwittingly encouraged the creation of organizations dedicated to cultural goals—organizations of indigenous Indonesians that soon became significant instruments for nationalist and independence movements among the native population. In 1908 three young Javanese intellectuals started a cultural society named Budi Utomo, meaning "high endeavor." Within a year the society had enlisted 10,000 members who organized schools and cultural activities. The nationalist movement which culminated in the Revolution of 1945-1949 is said to have begun with this society.

The way the system of education developed-with access being restricted to those who qualified by virtue of their stature in colonial society--the elite of

Indonesian society were the only ones allowed to attend these schools. The idea that education, especially higher education, is a right only for the elite still has power in

Indonesia today (Beeby, 1979: 165). A companion notion is that the elite have the responsibility to lead the people, to determine what the national goals should be, and how best to achieve those goals. The Indonesian military leadership would use this type of argument to justify taking, and keeping power, after the communist backed coup attempt in October 1965.

A second theme is the belief, held by both the colonial government and by subsequent Indonesian governments, that education is a double-edged sword. It can serve the purposes of government, whether those purposes are to train bureaucrats or foster the development of a national identity, but it can also grow beyond the means of the government to control it. The concept of controlling the outcomes of educating a populace contrasts with the Western notion of liberal education in which the educated individual best serves the needs of society by participating as an 70

"enlightened citizen." When the ultimate aim, however, is the maintenance of control

and social and economic advantage, education can produce dangerous, unintended

consequences. This was the dilemma for the Dutch in Indonesia, as well as for

successive post-independence governments. Zainu’ddin (1970: 21) wrote:

In the case of education the difficulty was in defining ’reasonable limits’ and then imposing any limits once the educational process had been started. Unlike irrigation or even government sponsored emigration, education is self- propagating.

An educated populace-particularly one educated in the Western principles of justice and democracy, is open to demands for more democratic forms of social organization. Such was the case in colonial Indonesia, when an educated elite became the spearhead for the drive to independence. "For a minority of the student body, university life served as a stimulating, arena for political discussion, for oratory, for

tract writing, and for creating ’study clubs’ whose chief concerns were political

(Thomas, 1973: 22)." Thomas later wrote that, "A number of students who attended these institutions in the 1920’s furnished the intellectual element of several of the movements toward nationalism and independence from the Dutch (1973: 28)."

Sukarno, the leading revolutionary and cofounder of the independent

Indonesian Republic, was one of many such individuals attending these schools in the

1920’s. More recent examples support this notion as well: the students who became an influential political force in bringing Sukarno down in 1966; the student riots in

January 1974 protesting general dissatisfaction with the Soeharto regime on the occasion of Japanese Premier Tanaka’s visit to Indonesia (Asia Yearbook, 1975:188); and student protests in Bandung in January 1978, again displaying dissatisfaction over 71 growing disparities between rich and poor, and a "lack of confidence" in President

Soeharto (Asia Yearbook, 1979:201). In other words, within the generally benign concept of the benefits of the spread of education are the seeds of political opposition to the ruling government. In colonial Indonesia, the Dutch equated Indonesian desires for more education to part of the larger independence movement. From the Dutch perspective, this was reason enough not to approve further development of the educational system.

Developments Leading to Indonesia’s Dual Educational System

Vernacular Primary Education

The most sweeping development came in 1907 with the establishment of a nationwide network of Indonesian primary schools.

...finally in 1907 the systematic development of instruction on an oriental basis was initiated with the erection of national schools in the villages (village schools) for the masses of the population, and of continuation schools to continue this teaching. Both were grammar schools and in the following years these schools gradually spread throughout the archipelago (Djajadiningrat, 1942: ll).3

Prior to the establishment of the village schools, primary education consisted of the seven year F.I.S (Dutch elementary school), opened in 1864 to qualified Indonesians; or the Eerste Klasse (First Class) and Tweede Klasse (Second Class) schools established in 1893 for the children of Indonesian aristocrats, and the general population, respectively (van der Veur, 1969: 2). The importance of the village schools was their true availability to the general population. Whereas, "expansion of

[the Eerste and Tweede Klasse] schools was handicapped by cost and lack of qualified 72 teaching staff"...the three-year Village school, "for the first time offered a

Western-type education to the masses [and] since the cost of the schools was small, their establishment was dependent upon the degree of local initiative." (Ibid)

Van der Veur described which segments of the Indonesian population were served under the developing dual system of education. Indonesians in the rural areas utilized the village and continuation schools, "which offered instruction in various local languages or Malay."

For those in the towns, there was the Tweede Klasse schools providing a curriculum ranging from three to five years. In the late twenties, a beginning was made to eliminate the Tweede Klasse schools and absorb their pupils in either the village or continuation schools. Pupils completing these schools could proceed to commercial, technical, or vocational schools which were taught in the vernacular, (van der Veur, 1969: 2)

The Ethical Policy also prompted segments of privileged Indonesian society, namely the Chinese and Eurasians, to demand primary education equivalent to the

Dutch ELS schools. Although each was eligible to attend ELS schools, Dutch

Trekkers (temporary settlers) and Blijvers (permanent settlers) had first preference.

The need for educational opportunities equivalent to the Dutch primary system for privileged non- Europeans are indicated by the fact that Indonesian and Chinese enrollment in ELS schools was only 17.8 percent in 1914-15 and 12.5 percent in

1938-39 (van der Veur, 1969: 2). In 1908, the colonial government established the

Hollandsch-Chineesche School (HCS. Dutch-Chinese School) in response to the:

...Chinese dissatisfaction with the absence of educational provisions for their community. The HCS was soon followed by the Hollansch-Inlandsche School (HIS. Dutch-Indonesian School), which succeeded the Eerste Klasse (First 73

Class) school. Instruction in the HIS was in local dialects or Malay during early grades, but shifted to Dutch in higher grades (van der Veur, 1969: 3).

The curriculum of these schools was similar to the ELS, which made graduates

more competitive for scarce government jobs in the lower civil service, or eligible to enter the Dutch high school system (van der Veur, 1969: 3).

Secondary Education

Provisions for secondary education prior to ethical policy induced changes after 1914 were totally oriented to the Dutch, and as with primary education before the village schools, qualified Indonesians and Chinese. The Hoogere Burger Schools

3 and 5 (HBS 3, HBS 5) and the Lvceum "were identical to high schools in the

Netherlands. The curriculum was elaborate and rigidly prescribed, standards uniformly high, and the failure rate (even among Dutch students) heavy (van der

Veur, 1969: 3- 4).M

The Meer Uitgebreid Lager Onderwijs fMULO. More Comprehensive

Elementary Education) school was established in 1914. Modeled after the lower secondary school in the Netherlands, MULQ schools offered Malay in addition to the required Dutch, German, and English courses (French was optional). Graduates could go to various trade schools or technical schools like the Nederlandsch-Indische

Artsenschool (NIAS. Netherlands Indies’ Medical school). In 1918 the Aleemeene

Middelbare School (AMS. General Middle School) "was created to prepare students from the MULQ for more advanced positions or university entrance (van der Veur,

1969:4).H 74

Despite these developments, the Dutch schools still held an "irresistible attraction because of [their ability to provide] better job opportunities as well as their prestige." Furthermore, until 1921 deserving students from the vernacular educational system had no opportunity to advance to secondary education. This situation was partially rectified with the establishment of the Schakelschool (Link

School) in 1921. The Link School’s five year curriculum prepared village school graduates for the MULQ (van der Veur, 1969: 4). High school education with instruction in Bahasa Indonesia (which is a variation of Malay used by early Dutch and indigenous traders, and would later become the national language of Indonesia) was not available until the late 1930’s "when economic circumstances finally convinced the government that the founding of such schools was the only feasible alternative to the high cost of Dutch education schools (van der Veur, 1969: 6)."

University Education

The first developments in higher education in Indonesia occurred relatively late. In terms of the focus of this dissertation, developments in higher education will be the primary focus from this point on. By the time higher education gained a foothold in the archipelago, the primary and secondary levels had been firmly established. Important developments having a bearing on the entire educational system, or at the lower levels that eventually affect higher education and the question of who gets access, will of course be covered. 75

While the demand for university education was high, no schools for

Indonesians at this level were established until after 1920. Technically, however, one could argue that the School tot Opleiding van Inlandsche Arisen (STQVIA. or doktor-diawa [Javanese doctor] as it was also known) and the Nederlands Indische

Arisen School (NIAS, or Netherlands East Indies Doctors School), while not bonafide colleges, were "advanced secondary schools for training native doctors in western medical practices (Thomas, 1973: 24)." The STQVIA was founded in 1851, in

Batavia (Jakarta), while the NIAS was founded in 1913 in Surabaya. The STQVIA merged with the Geneeskundige Hogeschool (Medical College), which was established in 1927, while the NIAS remained an advanced secondary school.

Included in this group of schools established before 1920 is the Indische

Universiteitsvereeniging (University Association of the Indies), which was the first tertiary level school established in Indonesia (1910). This was a private endeavor by

Dutch settlers and did not receive official government backing, nor do there appear to have been any Indonesians who attended this school.

The reasons for the late development of higher education in Indonesia can be attributed to several factors: 1) graduates of the elite Dutch high school system who wished to continue their studies went to Holland; 2) "the number of secondary school graduates was still too small to justify a university (van der Veur, 1969: 5);" and 3) the continuing policy of controlling the population through limiting access to education. Actual figures of Indonesians graduating from Dutch universities before

1924 are not available. However, an indication of how small the number must have 76 been is provided by van der Wal (1961: 13) who estimated that in the period 1924-40,

344 Indonesians and 360 Chinese graduated from Dutch universities.

Nevertheless, the demand from indigenous graduates, perhaps not wishing or able to spend the tremendous amount of money required to attend university in the

Netherlands,4 led to the establishment in 1920 of the Technische Hoopeschool

(College of Engineering) in Bandung (today known as the "Institut Teknologi

Bandung," ITB). Thomas (1973: 19) argued that the original purpose was to train civil engineers for irrigation and road-construction projects, "because the supply of trained engineers from Europe had dwindled during and after the First World War."

The Rechtshoogeschool (College of Law) and Geneeskundige Hoogeschool

(Medical College) were established in 1924 and 1927, respectively. Finally, "a strong case for a Literaire Facultiet (Faculty of Letters) was made by Director of Education,

J. Hardeman, in 1927, but it was not established until 1940. A Landbouwkundige

Facultiet (Faculty of Agriculture) followed in 1941 (van der Veur, 1969: 5)."

Indonesia’s system of education by 1942 was complicated and dualistic. One scholar characterized it as a microcosm of Indonesian colonial society: pluralistic and designed to maintain the status-quo (Thomas, 1970: 291). Figure 3 is a graphic depiction of Indonesia’s stratified social and educational structure just prior to the

Japanese invasion in 1942. Figure 4 shows the various branches that developed at each level of the educational system, as well as the linkage between the Dutch

(Occidental) and Indonesian (Oriental) branches. INDtatNOUt INOOMIIIANt

liripiu* !■#••• OMilM Okililln M atlta MJatfa

Outate Cfcllla* • ahai DlHk N«ll*« IlkM l

Villas* tahaal

Maatly Data*

Figure 3

Dutch View of Social Status, 1940-41

Source: Djajadiningrat, 1942 78

nrnrv«ui rn*«nm 1

twiMotMc coiica — t AW * ,W0K*l *

Figure 4

Indonesia’s Dual Educational System, 1942

Source: Djajadiningrat, 1942 79

Supraptono summarized the situation as far as university education was

concerned for the majority of Indonesians just before the Japanese invasion in 1942:

[Only] the elite group of Indonesian people and the Europeans (Dutch) were able to move up to university education. The majority of Indonesian children who were only allowed to enter Second Class Schools and Vervolg Schools [Continuation Village Schools] had no opportunity to enter university. By 1939/40 the Dutch Colonial government was educating only 3 percent of the population, whilst 97 percent were illiterate. Thus, from a population of 70,000,000 only 2,050,218 were being given education (Supraptono, 1987: 4).

1942-1945: The Japanese Occupation

With the Japanese invasion of Java in February and March of 1942, "all formal education in Indonesia came to a halt. Before long, most elementary and secondary schools began to reopen. However, all higher education institutions remained closed until April 1943 (Thomas, 1973: 38)."

The Japanese occupation heralded the beginning of changes in many aspects of

Indonesian life, not least of which would be changes in education. The biggest immediate change was that "the dual system of education instituted by the Dutch government was abolished, and only one type of elementary school existed

(Supraptono, 1986: 5)."

In the social sphere, however, the immediate impact of the Japanese occupation was a swift change in the structure of the colonial social stratification system. Thomas (1970: 304-5) wrote of these changes in social stratification:

First, [the Japanese] eliminated the top ethnic layer of colonial society by interning Dutchmen for the duration of the war...Next, they wrenched the Indos from their former favored position in the social structure ...[imprisoning some, and giving others] the choice either of 80

continuing to regard [themselves] as European and thus being imprisoned or of renouncing their European status and becoming Indonesians supporting the Nipponese regime.

The relationship within the social stratification hierarchy between Christians and Moslems also changed. Moslems improved their position relative to Christians because the Japanese hoped to mobilize what they perceived as latent anti-western sentiments among Moslems in their war effort (Thomas, 1970: 306). The long-term impact on the social relations between these two groups was minor: the Japanese were not there long enough to have these changes become more permanent. During the war, however, the changed relationship was evident in minor ways, as for example,

Christians found it more difficult to secure proper education for their children, and

Dutch educators were dismissed and imprisoned, while Moslem leaders were placed

"in highly visible and ostensibly important government posts (Ibid)," unlike during

Dutch rule. The establishment of the Advanced Islamic School one month before the

Japanese surrender was perhaps one of the more important legacies of this Japanese policy.

The Chinese minority suffered the same relative drop in status as Christians and Indos (people of mixed Indonesian and European ancestry) and were considered untrustworthy in Japan’s East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Thomas, 1970: 306). The

Chinese were probably considered to be untrustworthy because of the longstanding rivalry between Japan and China for dominance in Asia, but more importantly, because of Japanese military atrocities inflicted on Chinese civilians when Japan invaded China in 1937. That the Japanese were particularly brutal and somewhat 81

uneasy about the extent of their brutality is recalled in Hsu’s (1975: 703) description of the fall of Nanking.

The fall of Nanking was followed by the indiscriminate massacre of approximately 100,000 civilians, accompanied by innumerable cases of molestation of women. So notorious was ’The Rape of Nanking,’ as it came to be known, that even Japanese militarists concealed it from the public at home. When the facts were finally revealed in the postwar International War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo, the Japanese people were deeply shocked and ashamed of the atrocities.

It is probably safe to say that the extent of Japanese barbarism in Nanking was well known to the Chinese population in Indonesia.

Although Indonesian society changed with the Japanese occupation and removal of Dutch authority, the Japanese were defeated in a very short period of time. Had the outcome of the war been different and the Japanese remained, the future for Indonesian education would probably not have been very different than under Dutch authority if the Japanese hiatus had not occurred. The Japanese, like the

Dutch before them, considered Indonesia a possession to be used exclusively to the benefit of Japan, as Thomas (1970: 304) observed:

Just as the Dutch had organized island life to fulfill the Netherlander’ economic and sociopolitical goals, so the Japanese military reformed the Indies’ economy, political structure, and schools to further Japan’s principal aims. These were to win the war and to train the Indonesians to support a Nipponese-led Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

In higher education, Thomas (1973: 39) argued that, an important reason for the near total stagnation in the growth of higher education during the Japanese occupation was the Japanese belief that the Indonesians should remain subservient, 82

and therefore, apparently regarded higher education as inappropriate for Indonesians

in their subordinate role."

In general terms, the Japanese treated lower levels of the educational system

with the same lack of interest as higher education. After the turmoil of the early

months of the occupation, the Japanese allowed primary and secondary schools to

reopen and operate as they had under Dutch tutelage, only without Dutch teachers and

students, and with other privileged segments of the population (Indos, Chinese, and

Christian) no longer eligible to participate. The educational policy correlates of these

social policies were to create a single primary school system in which a common

language of instruction other than Dutch could be used. Though unintended, these changes had profound effects on the educational and social system in Indonesia.

First, all Indonesians had greater opportunities for access to primary education. The greater opportunities were not due to school openings created by the absence of elite groups, but by Japanese desires to mobilize the indigenous population to support the occupation and Japanese hegemony in Asia under their "East Asian

Co-Prosperity Sphere." Second, the elimination of Dutch and selection of a

Malay-Indonesian dialect "already the lingua franca of the ports of Southeast Asia

(Thomas, 1970: 308)" as the medium of instruction in all schools had several consequences. One was the relative ease, as compared to Dutch (or Japanese), that

Indonesians had in learning this Malay-Indonesian language (van der Veur, 1969: IS).

The use of language [Dutch] as a social control tool-severely restricting those with access to education to those who spoke the language-disappeared. 83

A second important impact of the Malay-Indonesian language was that it had been selected by early Indonesian nationalists as the language of the revolution. Its legitimation by the Japanese and widespread use during the war years had a profound effect on the political perspectives of all Indonesians because it was a class-neutral language between and within Indonesian ethnic groups, as compared to many local languages, Javanese being a primary example (Thomas, 1970: 308). The choice of this language as the medium of instruction in all schools promoted more egalitarianism, according to Thomas (1970: 308):

Malay-Indonesian is a democratic sort of tongue, in that a person speaking it uses a single set of vocabulary words and a single form of grammar whether he is addressing his social betters, his peers, or his inferiors, [while languages] like Javanese or Sundanese force each individual to acknowledge his social barrier to the social leveling process or to upward mobility...If he can use Malay- Indonesian in his verbal intercourse, he is not forced into the admission that he is inferior as he tries to better his lot.

Japanese policies that had the effect of leveling Indonesian society were more popular in the countryside than in the cities, especially as a result of the spread of a common language, and rural youth felt less inferior to urban youth, whereas urbanites felt their privileged status threatened. With the Japanese occupation, everyone was beginning anew (Thomas, 1970: 310).

The final change for Indonesian society came in 1945 with the Japanese surrender. Suddenly, the East Indies was free from a centralized foreign authority.

That freedom was immediately challenged by the Dutch as they quickly mounted an effort to reclaim their lost colony. But, as Thomas (1973: 40) points out, the Dutch were in for a few surprises. 84

Throughout the final months of the Pacific War, Dutch colonial authorities had been situated in Australia, preparing detailed plans for resuming their position in the East Indies. Apparently they had remained oblivious during the war to the changes that occurred in their former colony. They naively expected to relegate the Indonesians again to the same subservient political-social-economic status that the islanders had endured prior to the war. The Dutch failed to realize that most Indonesians regarded the flimsy colonial defense of the islands in early 1942 as a symbol of the end for all time of the Netherlands Indies.

Indonesian Revolution and War for Independence; 1945-1949

The newly established Republican government wasted no time in proclaiming its independence after the Japanese surrender on August 14, 1945. On the morning of

August 17, Sukarno, the "spiritual leader" of Indonesia’s independence movement, announced Indonesia’s independence. On August 18, the provisional constitution was announced, and the Indonesian nation was bom. Many Dutch colonists had been preparing to return to Indonesia from Australia. They were not prepared to accept the Indonesian declaration of independence, and would take the next four years to determine who would prevail in the struggle to control the archipelago.

The war with the Dutch prevented existing educational institutions from returning to normal pre-war operations. Furthermore, few attempts were made during this period to establish new educational facilities, especially higher education facilities. However, after the initial skirmishes between Dutch and Republican forces established the territories each side would control for the remainder of the conflict

(see Map 2), some educational activities resumed. In fact, two of Indonesia’s most prestigious universities-the University of Indonesia, in Jakarta, and Gajah Mada 85

M ap 2

Map of Territorial Control, 1948

Territorial Control - 1948

S i»ow N t6) A LIMANTAN

NEW GUINEA)' |l RIAN BARAT

(io*ciiim<'11

Thomas, 1973: 42 86

University, in Yogyakarta, were established during the 1945 to 1949 era. The

founding of the University of Indonesia (by the Dutch) and Gajah Mada University

(by the Republic of Indonesia) were shaped more by factors related to war and social

revolution than by factors related simply to the continued expansion of the educational

system. Educational development in Indonesia continued to be tied to the

development of Indonesian nationalism.

Educational activities during the Revolutionary period centered on supporting

Dutch and Republican war efforts, both materially and psychologically. Materially,

higher education activities stressed fields directly applicable to the conduct and

consequences of war, i.e. medicine and engineering, etc.

The Dutch, with greater resources available to them, were able to return

schools within Dutch controlled territories to near pre-war operations much more

rapidly than their Republican counterparts. The Indonesians, with few resources

available for education, managed to set-up minimally functioning facilities with

materials (books, laboratory equipment) smuggled out of Dutch controlled territories

(Thomas, 1973).

The psychological effect of the efforts to reopen existing schools as well as establish new ones (neither of which could realistically be expected to operate normally under wartime conditions) was by far greater than the material impact. The fact that both governments gave education high priority under wartime conditions indicated the strong connection between education and politics in Indonesia, and as a consequence the importance of education in constructing political legitimacy. In 87

pursuing educational development, each side tried to convince itself, the general

population, and the outside world that it was the legitimate government in the East

Indies.

In the psychological battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Indonesian

people, as well as for international acceptance and recognition, Republican and Dutch

alike equated the establishment of a more egalitarian educational system with political

legitimacy because the general population now demanded greater educational

opportunities. The main difference between the two sides on this

issue, if we take previous Dutch colonial policy into account, was that the Republican

government was genuinely committed to a more egalitarian educational system—along

with the desire for the propaganda value-whereas the Dutch were mainly interested in

the propaganda value:

In the Dutch-controlled sector, the Netherlands Indies officials tried to reinstate the system of pre-war days, with sufficient alterations to accommodate the demands for greater equality and opportunity which the Japanese interim had stimulated Indonesians to expect. In the sector controlled by the Republic of Indonesia, Sukarno’s government attempted with its meager resources to shape an educational enterprise that would fulfill the ideal voiced in their recently announced constitution, the ideal of education for all (Thomas, 1970: 314).

In both instances, real development of the educational institutions established during the revolutionary period (specifically, the University of Indonesia, and Gajah

Mada University) was delayed until the end of the war. Dutch intentions notwithstanding, the "sufficient alterations" in Dutch educational policy did provide greater opportunities for some Indonesians in higher education. 88

However, general access to higher education remained mostly unchanged during the revolutionary period because the scope of improved opportunities provided by the Dutch were still too small relative to the size of the Indonesian population, and the weakness of Republican efforts in higher education due to the war prevented any real growth in opportunities on its side as well. Although real growth of opportunities for higher education, and of the educational system itself during the revolutionary period were minimal and opportunities for higher education remained greatest within the top layer, or, the elite segment of Indonesian society, the belief that education was the right of every Indonesian, regardless of social status, skyrocketed. The expectation that opportunities for education would be available to all Indonesians became widespread at this time, due primarily to Dutch and

Republican attempts to use education to gain popular legitimacy.

Thus, despite the low level of physical development of the educational system during the revolutionary period, Thomas (1970: 317) argued that a major social-psychological change occurred involving the relationship between education and the system of social stratification in Indonesian society. For the first time in the history of the archipelago, education became equal to or greater than birth as a factor in measuring and determining social status because the leaders of the national revolution were "mostly men with Western educations (Thomas, 1970: 317)."

Soemardjan (1962: 129) explained further that:

When the Indonesian national revolution broke out and ideas of Western democracy and socialism were used to bring about changes in Indonesia’s political and social institutions, the people readily accepted leadership from the intelligentsia. This class differed from the nobility, which it had replaced as 89

the upper class in Jogjakarta, in that it was open and accessible to everyone through the channels of education and party affiliation, whereas the nobility was closed for those who were not of noble birth.

The importance of this change in attitude regarding social mobility and education cannot be under estimated. The difficulty for anyone believing that social mobility was now simply a matter of becoming educated was that, although one now had the right to education, there were no guarantees one could either afford it or compete for limited seats with those who could afford it. Nevertheless, education was established as an important tool of political legitimacy before the end of the Dutch conflict.

The Parliamentary Democracy Period; 1950-1959

With the defeat of the Dutch in 1949, the Indonesian government turned its full attention and resources to the development of the Indonesian nation. True to the

Indonesian revolutionary spirit, education remained a predominant pillar in the government’s overall development plan. Education was an enormous task given the historical lack of real development of the educational system. For example, according to one estimate, at the time Indonesia gained its independence, 95 percent of the population was illiterate (Supraptono, 1986: 24). Moreover, even the physical facilities-school buildings--did not exist in most areas of the country. There were no text books, there was no curriculum, and there were too few teachers.

The government’s immediate concern was with primary education.

The biggest task of the government immediately after independence was to change the Village Schools into six year elementary schools, improve 90

the quality of teaching and education and increase the number of elementary schools to meet the need of the people in education (Supraptono, 1986: 5).

The message from the general populace was clear: provide greater educational opportunities; remove the dual system propagated under Dutch rule; and make basic education accessible to all Indonesians regardless of wealth or social standing. The fulfillment of this desire was accomplished in spirit, if not immediately in reality, through the Education Act of 1950 (supplemented in later acts in 1954, 1961, 1978, and 1984) which was based on the Preamble of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945, and, which stated unequivocally that "education was the right of every citizen."

However, as Jakob Isman pointed out, the period between 1950 and 1966 saw

Indonesian desires for the implementation of this goal thwarted by economic realities and political instability:

Right from the beginning of the independence era there has been a very strong political will to bring the constitutional stipulation [referring to the right of all Indonesians to education] into reality, but between 1945 and 1966 efforts and funds had to be allocated for more pressing matters, especially the struggle to sustain the existence of the new nation-state (1986: 19).

The educational reality faced by Indonesia early in the Parliamentary

Democracy Period, and today, was the constraint on the development of the educational system imposed by the high cost of constructing that system, especially as rapidly as Indonesians wanted it developed.

Cost constraints reinforced the concept that education must serve specific

Indonesian societal needs. An understanding of the current educational system must comprehend the interplay between the strong Indonesian cultqral characteristic of 91 absorbing foreign influences, such as western style education, and creating something acceptable and meaningful by giving it a uniquely Indonesian identity.

Foreign influences are admittedly strong, but they are never strong enough to totally uproot the indigenous cultural layer. The latter is never a passive recipient of foreign elements. On the contrary, the indigenous culture always tries, and is relatively successful, to transform the foreign elements to become integral parts of its own in a creative and syncretistic way. From all foreign elements, only those which were able to strengthen what Indonesian culture already possessed were assimilated (Darmaputera, 1988: 63).

Equity and justice, as embodied in the 1945 constitution, combined with a sense of Indonesian paternalism (the Javanese influence) to produce the philosophical underpinnings of the modem educational system. These conceptions were reinforced by Indonesia’s attempt to define a national identity from its ethnically and culturally diverse population while at the same time searching for its proper place in the larger international community as well.

Thus, while Sukarno was articulating Indonesia’s unique role in the international political arena as an ideological leader of the "New Emerging Forces," educational leaders were attempting to direct the demand for western education into culturally acceptable educational policies. The resulting philosophical approach to the role and function of education was spelled out by Partoatmodjo (1979: 80):

The task of education, including higher education, comprises two main aspects: (1) to educate people and (2) to produce manpower which will benefit the country and the individual. These two aspects are mutually dependent. To realize them resources such as funds and infrastructure are necessary. If there are enough resources, the task of education could stress on the first aspect.

in this case the individual has the freedom to decide the kind of education he desires, though it may not be relevant to the society’s needs. 92

If, on the other hand, resources are limited, the task of education should emphasize the second aspect. In doing so, education directs itself to producing the kind of manpower which is needed by the society.

The requirement that education fit the needs of society was also echoed in a brief report on the number of graduates from the University of Indonesia as of 1968.

Only a handful of Indonesians attended any local institutions of higher education before 1949. For this reason, those who have followed have been expected to take courses to fit them for immediate use in the public good. This explains why more than 5,000 Indonesians have completed medical studies at an Indonesian university, and only 174 with fine arts degrees (Christian Science Monitor. April 20, 1968).

Thus, cost constraints played a role in determining the development of the educational system in the Parliamentary Democracy Period. However, unlike the colonial period, funding for education became a much higher priority under

Indonesian rule. While they had less resources available than the economically powerful Dutch, the Indonesians allocated more to the education sector.

The main emphases for the new nation was primary education and adult anti-illiteracy campaigns. This emphasis is best explained by the fact that Indonesia was literally building an educational system from the ground up-there was less need for secondary schools until there were enough primary school graduates to attend those schools. Thus, funds were made available to address the greatest need at that time, which was to provide basic literacy skills to the majority of the Indonesian population.

By the late 1950’s political stalemate threatened to end Indonesia’s Revolution:

a multiplicity of competing parties had bickered year after year and failed to produce a stable parliamentary government that could conduct the country’s business in a continuous, well patterned manner. In the 93

economic domain, private interests-principally European-had failed to establish a viable system to promote the general welfare of the populace and of the government (Thomas, 1970: 175).

Guided Democracy Period: 1959-1965

Indonesia’s political orientation began to change in the wake of increasing political fragmentation and stalemate. The shift in political orientation was evident in two important areas. The first was Sukarno’s move to consolidate his power and authority by replacing the parliamentary constitution with the original 1945 constitution. This "placed great[er] power in the hands of the president and thus effectively gave Sukarno the personal controls he wanted to order the nation’s affairs as he had not been permitted to do under the parliamentary system (Thomas, 1973:

176)." Sukarno bolstered this institutional change with a political alliance with the growing Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Consistent with that move, Indonesia’s political posture shifted to the left.

As Indonesian political leaders in 1959 looked back at the past ten years, they referred derisively to the first decade of the free Republic as the "liberal period." President Sukarno and his aides saw the ills of the nation seated in liberal viewpoints in politics, economics and education. Liberalism, they said, had permitted too much individual choice of action. The result had been a lack of clear national direction (Thomas, 1973: 175).

The progress made in the development of the educational system of the early

1950’s came to a halt in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Once Sukarno asserted control under Guided Democracy there should have been some return to normalcy in the continued development of the educational system: development of the educational system should have been one area where Indonesians of all political, religious, and ethnic persuasions agreed. However, the government, with tensions between 94

right-wing, pro-western elements led by the military, and left-wing, pro-communist

elements led by the PKI, with Sukarno poised between and above the two, balancing

them against each other, managed a stalemate at best in moving educational

development forward.

Crouch (1988: 44) described the mainstay of political activity under Guided

Democracy as, "a day-to-day conflict between the army and PKI leaders...for the president’s ear," with Sukarno behaving "more like a traditional Javanese sultan than a modem nationalist leader."

Sukarno attempted to legitimize his Guided Democracy strategy by appealing to the desire for national unity.

NASAKOM was coined as a symbol representing the desired unity of Nationalists (Nasional), religious groups (Agama), and communists (Komunis) (Thomas, 1973: 178).

Thomas (1973) argued that the turmoil on the national political scene during the guided democracy period was played out on university campuses as well.

In the nation’s universities and colleges, the reflection of NASAKOM tensions was most readily seen in the activities of student organizations. During the 1950’s most political parties had developed student affiliates that attempted to found chapters on university and college campuses. These groups were of relatively little political significance until the late fifties. By the early 1960’s they had grown in size and activity and soon became highly influential powers...In effect, the student population of higher learning institutions was politicized during the early 1960s more than they had been at any time in the past (Thomas, 1973: 178-79).

Another negative consequence to continued educational development caused by

Indonesia’s political shift to the left was that the western educational model which was the basis of Indonesian educational strategies became politically unacceptable, as did 95

terms of western financial assistance. When Indonesia began equating western development aid as neo-colonial exploitation, educational assistance began to dry up.

To cite one example, Indonesian Minister of Finance Saleh publicly criticized

the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for "meddling in international politics" when the bank denied Indonesia loans because of unsettled

Dutch claims (New York Times. October 3, 1960: 20). This was after Indonesia had requested U.S. and other western nations for assistance in developing a socialist economy in Indonesia, because "capitalist" terms were no longer acceptable (New

York Times. February 12, 1960: 26).

In this political climate of confrontation and stalemate, it is no wonder that progress in educational development would not begin again until General Soeharto assumed power after the failed coup in late September 1965.

The Attempted Coup

On the night of September 30, 1965, six top generals were abducted and murdered. The backlash from this episode was brutal. As many as 500,000 communists and "sympathizers" may have been killed in the aftermath of the attempted coup. The communist party was decimated, leaving the military under

Soeharto in firm control.

The most likely explanation for the severity of the backlash against the

Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) was bom out of fear of its growing strength, its 96 connection to the hated Chinese, and the PKI’s two previous attempts to take over the government: once in 1926, and again in 1948.

Each time the Party rose again, stronger than before. During the period 1950-1965 it grew to its greatest size and power. By the early 1960’s the PKI was the world’s largest communist party outside of those nations under direct communist control. Its membership approached three million, and a network of associated organizations claimed over twelve million followers. By 1965 the Party’s gains on all political fronts seemed so impressive that it appeared inevitable that Indonesia would soon be completely in Communist hands (Thomas, 1981: 370).

Several groups experienced the greatest negative consequences of the failed coup attempt: anyone who could be identified with leftist or communist political affiliations; and ethnic Chinese. Emmerson (1976: 126) pointed out that access to education and government employment were determined by political affiliations after the failed coup attempt:

Left-wing political positions legitimate under the Old Order had become dangerous under the New; the after images of [the] violent transition were still vivid, its repercussions still being felt. ’Communist subversion’ still preoccupied the military and, through them, the media. Letters certifying noninvolvement in the attempted coup of October 1, 1965, were still widely required for entrance into schools and jobs.

Chinese Indonesians still face discrimination in education. Klitgaard (1986) found that the Indonesian government purposely restricts ethnic Chinese enrollment at state-run universities, in one case to no more than 6 percent of total enrollments, adding that if admission was based strictly on achievement, ethnic Chinese would comprise nearly 30 percent of total enrollments annually (Klitgaard, 1986: 122).

Indonesians of Chinese origin are the only ethnic minority required to "identify their race in filling out university entrance examination forms," a policy which one 97

Indonesian sociologist argues has forced many Indonesian Chinese to study abroad

(Jakarta Post. November 29, 1985). Klitgaard (1986: 121) described the procedure for identifying ethnic Chinese.

When students signed up for the PP1 exam, they were asked to indicate their ethnic group. Monitors also examined students’ physical features to confirm their self-identification. Chinese test-takers had a red mark put beside their names; this became an asterisk when the IPA scores were computerized.

A further consequence for the educational system of the aftermath of the coup attempt was that urban-rural inequalities, already present in the system (Beeby, 1979:

27), intensified. This was because the Indonesian Communist Party’s strength was in the countryside (New York Times. March 28, 1965: 5). Thomas (1981: 370) argued that a major component of New Order educational policy is driven by the perceived need to prevent a PKI comeback:

one of the objects of the [New Order] government’s vigilance is the nation’s educational enterprise, because much of the credit for the [Communist] Party’s strength in the 1950’s and early 1960’s goes to the strategies applied by the PKI in educational realms.

It is not just in education, but in all aspects of Indonesian life. The Soeharto government argues that failure to achieve Indonesia’s development goals will precipitate a communist resurgence, and so continually warns people to be vigilant, as for example, Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Moerdani warned Balinese Hindu leaders in 1986:

...failure in the national development programs may cause communistic ideology to resurface, throttling the drive to achieve a prosperous society...Indonesia as a nation should be on the alert against possible penetration or upsurge of the ideology which could endanger state ideology Pancasila and the 1945 constitution (Jakarta Post. February 27, 1986). 98

Thus, the beginning of the New Order era (1966-70) saw the continuation of the political and economic instability of the Guided Democracy period. It took the

New Order government time to consolidate its power and authority and to have its policies, aimed at economic and political stabilization, take effect.

Education in the New Order Period; 1966-1989

One of the principal justifications the military claimed for deposing President:

Sukarno, aside from the immediate threat of a communist takeover of the government, was the need to return political and economic stability to the country. There was a great need to return stability to the educational system and reverse the negative trend which had erased early progress in achieving Indonesia’s educational goals.

To correct these conditions, the New Order Soeharto government after 1968 placed control of economic planning under Indonesian economists educated primarily in the United States. In 1967-68 they scheduled a series of Five-Year National Development Plans that encouraged foreign businesses to invest in Indonesia on a large scale. This scheme of controlled profit-sharing between foreign investors and the government soon carried the economic system toward recovery...In short, Suharto’s government has established a program of economic growth needed to finance the expansion of educational opportunities to which the nation earlier committed itself (Thomas, 1977: 581).

The New Order’s principal focus was on primary education. According to one study, primary education in Indonesia was almost universal (Chemichovsky and

Meesook, undated: 1). Another study has argued that goal has yet to be realized, but that the 1978 policy of Kewaiiban Belaiar (Compulsory Education) would continue to be a priority under Repelita IV (AID/Jakarta, 1982: 2). Thus:

While primary education was allocated only 10 percent of the total education budget in Repelita I (1969-73), it has received almost 50 percent in Repelita II 99

and in. As a result, reported enrollments have jumped from 13,314,000 or 76 percent of the primary school age population in 1974 to 21,165,000 or 94 percent in 1980. (AID/Jakarta, 1982: 2)

According to one Indonesian government official, the goal of universal primary education has been practically achieved. "In the school year 1983/84 the participation rate at the primary school level [was] 97.2 percent. By the end of

Repelita IV in 1989 the participation rate is expected to be 100 percent (Isman, 1986:

19)."

An important consequence of the government’s emphasis on primary, or basic education, is that literacy rates have improved dramatically. It is estimated that at independence only 5 percent of the Indonesian population was literate (Supraptono,

1987: 25). Despite the claims that through a nation-wide literacy campaign begun at independence, "illiteracy was eradicated among both men and women aged 13-45 by

1964 (Supraptono, 1987: 31)," the 1971 Indonesian census indicated that 80 percent of that age group (21 million people) were still illiterate (Supraptono, 1987: 32). If both sources are correct, a major setback occurred in the literacy campaign between

1964 and 1971. Supraptono (1987: 34) argued that the political and economic turmoil of the period caused this situation:

At this time there was stress in every sector, the economy and politics, infrastructures, education and the mental attitude of the people.

Aanenson (1979: 3), citing statistics from a 1975 IBRD "Education Sector Survey

Report," stated that "in 1975, 60 percent of the Indonesian population was literate, 79 percent in the urban areas and 55 percent in the rural areas. Beeby (1979: 27) added that: 100

the rural population (83 percent of the total) had 90 percent of those who never attended school, 75 percent of primary school completers, half of those who finished upper secondary school, and only 12 percent of the nation’s university graduates.

The poorer showing in rural areas was probably the result of fewer educational opportunities after independence. For example, early adult education classes did not include rural residents.

Some grownup Indonesian workers have the opportunity to make up for lack of schooling, as they are given one or two hours free each working day to attend adult classes. This is only for the manual workers on the railways and in factories. A whole section of the farming population still remains untouched by book learning (Christian Science Monitor. May 30, 1950).

The 1975 statistics also showed that the literacy rate for men was given as 71 percent and for women 49 percent. However, by 1986 the New Order regime claimed to have reversed this trend and to have achieved high literacy rates through all segments of the population. As reported by Professor Dr. W.P. Napitupulu of the Department of Education and Culture in August 1986, "about 8.7 million Indonesians between 7 and 44 years of age are illiterate, or 8.1 percent of the 108,269,492 people in that age group (Jakarta Post. August 30, 1986)." Napitupulu reported further that 18.1 percent of all persons over the age of ten were still illiterate, while the largest numbers of illiterates were over 44 years old. He also implied that the greatest number of illiterates were from rural areas:

Despite difficulties, however, efforts are still being made to educate them through special radio broadcasts and the creation of study groups in the more than 66,000 villages throughout the country (Jakarta Post. August 30, 1986).

Higher Education 101

While cost was downplayed as a critical factor in the development of the primary education system, it is critical as a determining factor in shaping the higher education system. Higher education facilities are much more expensive to operate because, 1) administrative and academic teaching staff salaries must be substantially higher than lower level educational salaries, reflecting the higher degree of educational attainment required at the tertiary level.

In 1978, for example, the monthly salary for a university professor was ten times higher than that of a first grade teacher (World Bank, 1978: 19); and 2) operating costs are much higher, especially for engineering, medicine and the hard sciences, which require sophisticated laboratory equipment and up-to-date teaching materials.5 The high cost of tertiary education led the World Bank to conclude that

Indonesia must eliminate or consolidate its more inefficient universities, especially those in the sciences (World Bank, 1978: 3), and is one reason the New Order regime has had to qualify its commitment to the constitutional principle of education for all.

Isman (1986: 19) wrote:

...there has been a strong political will to provide universal education for everyone...The existing facilities, however, can only provide universal education for the primary level. The higher the level beyond primary education, the more limitation exists for the provision of equity...Investment in higher education is very expensive and all facilities should be utilized effectively and efficiently by selecting only deserving candidates.

For example, despite the fact that less than 10 percent (9.053) of 1987 secondary school graduates (67,900 of 750,000, as reported in the Jakarta Post. June

16, 1987) were able to continue their education at public universities due to lack of 102 space, "the government has no plans to build more state universities because the present number of forty-six is deemed adequate (Jakarta Post. December 21, 1987)."

Additionally, the Minister of Education, Fuad Hassan, argued that Indonesia’s inability to provide affordable higher education to the majority of its population is not an unusual situation.

The accommodation capacity for university students all over the country, according to Minister Hassan, is now 62 percent, but the capacity of state-run universities is only 20 percent6...in advanced countries the university capacity is no more than 67 percent (Jakarta Post. July 17, 1986).

Minister Hassan later stated that:

...[Accommodation of) 62 percent of high school graduates...is sufficient for Indonesia (Jakarta Post. January 16, 1987).

The progress Indonesia has made in expanding opportunities for higher education should not be overlooked. For example, "Indonesia has raised its financial commitment to education achieving a relatively higher position compared to other countries in Southeast Asia (World Bank, 1978: 1)."

Furthermore, if we compare the numbers of university seats available early in the New Order period, we can see that Indonesia has made tremendous progress in both relative and absolute terms. In 1968, for example, only 3.75 percent (300) of

8,000 high school students who took university entrance examinations were admitted to one of 24 institutions of higher learning (Christian Science Monitor. March 2,

1968). Compared to the 1968 figure, 10 percent (67,900) of 750,000 in 1987 shows admirable growth. 103

Governmental Policy and Financial Support of Education in the New Order Period

The New Order’s commitment to rapid economic and technological development is reflected in its official pronouncements on education.

Socialization in concepts of Indonesian nationalism can also be seen, as for example in the following excerpt from "Law Number 2, 1989," on education.

Efforts in improving the level and quality of the life of the nation and of the development of national culture, which are expected to advance the dignity and honor of Indonesian people, are carried out continuously. Thus, inherently, it always demands adjustment in education to changing reality. Education must also be adjusted to the demands of the development of education and technology (Government of Indonesia, 1989: 31)

An Indonesian scholar provided his vision of the relationship of higher education to Indonesian development.

The essence of national development is the development of the Indonesian man and the development of society as a whole. The modem Indonesian man, among other things, will have the following characteristics: he will accept and adapt more easily to changes. He is skillful in expressing his opinions, balanced by a feeling of responsibility. He will be more future-oriented, have more consciousness of time, and an understanding of organization, technology and science (Partoatmodjo, 1979: 79).

This emphasis on education serving the needs of Indonesia’s development was also reflected in the New Order’s development plan (REPELITA I: 1969-74), and in subsequent development plans (REPELITA II: 1975-79; IH: 1980-84; IV: 1985-89; and V: 1990- 94). Thomas (1973: 238-39) summarized the New Order’s major goals for higher education in REPELITA I:

The nation’s educational system was viewed as an important instrument for achieving the goals of national development. 104

...The universities, institutes, and academies were given the task of producing top-level planning personnel, administrators, engineers, technologists, and researchers. ...the principal need was threefold: (1) to increase the proportion of students in science, in technology, and in those social sciences that contributed to the national-development program, (2) to reduce the rate at which students dropped out of college before earning a degree, and (3) to improve the quality of instruction.

The Government’s explanation of the purposes for which the education sector was being developed in REPELITA I was that: "The Government of Indonesia has emphasized education as an important factor in social and economic development, particularly as a means of remedying the country’s skilled manpower shortage

(Government of Indonesia, n.d.: 120)." The New Order backed this policy financially through Decree no. XXVII of the People’s Provisional Consultative

Assembly (MPRS), "which in 1968 stated that 25% of the state budget was to be spent for education (Pranarka, 1974: 103)."

However, primary education received the greatest attention in the early years after independence, until the crisis of the Guided Democracy period slowed and in some cases reversed progress in that area. The emphasis on primary education was renewed in the early years of the New Order era, and the government’s efforts did not go unnoticed. The World Bank summarized the progress in 1978:

...the overall picture of educational development in the country is encouraging. Educational development has received high priority in the Government’s development plan. This is illustrated by the high growth rate in primary school enrollment figures, which aim to reach 85 percent (excluding over age students) of the age bracket (7-12 years) in 1979 compared to 59.7 percent in 1974 at the beginning of Repelita H (World Bank, 1978: 1). 105

As of 1978, the government was still concentrating on primary and secondary education.

The tertiary level of education has received a lower proportion of government investment and is one subsector where major reforms are still required (World Bank, 1978: 2).

The New Order government committed 6.8percent (Rp. 83.8billion) of

REPELITA I (1969-74)to the education sector-an amount representing one-half of the total development expenditures for the social sector during this period. In preparing REPELITA II (1975-79), 10percent (Rp. 525.8 billion) of development expenditures were earmarked for the education sector. In real terms, this was a 396 percent increase over REPELITA I (after accounting for a 21 percent drop in the value of the rupiah against major foreign currencies during this period) (Asia

Yearbook. 1969-74).However, the government did not stop there. Increased revenues from rising crude oil prices during this period, which allowed the government to increase by 56 percent the entire REPELITA II budget, made actual spending in the education sector Rp. 785billion by the beginning of REPELITA in

(Government of Indonesia, n.d.). Even after a major devaluation of the rupiah in

1978 (33percent) this was still a 387percent increase over REPELITA I.

By REPELITA HI (1980-84) other concerns regarding the purposes of education were stressed. However, the need to serve development was still prominent among them.

In REPELITA III the objectives of the education sector are (1) improvement of the quality of education; (2) expansion of educational opportunities; (3) increase in the relevance of education to the needs of manpower; (4) preparation of the young generation to assume future responsibilities in 106

development; and (5) increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of educational management. (Government of Indonesia, 1979: 49)

Development Budget projections for education under REPELITA III were set at Rp.

2.3 trillion. Beginning under REPELITA III, and continuing under REPELITA IV,

education was merged with other items in the budget, becoming a single line item called "Education, Youth, Culture, and Belief in the Almighty God." The narrative accompanying REPELITA III did not break down expenditures within the education sector, so it is difficult to determine the breakdown of funding for each education subsector. Fortunately, other sources provide some information on educational development spending. For example, development expenditure figures from annual

Government of Indonesia administrative budgets indicate sustained growth in the education sector, as illustrated in the budget for fiscal year 1982-83 (part of

REPELITA III), which allocated Rp. 1.3 trillion to education. That figure represented 15 percent of all development expenditures for that year (Asia Yearbook.

1983: 164).

Additionally, the budget for the development assistance program in central

Aceh Tengah and North Aceh from 1979 to 1984 indicated funding for the development of primary schools increased from Rp 164,278,600 to Rp 1,188,588,000

(Central Aceh), and from Rp 671,760,000 to Rp 3,185,875,000 (North Aceh) over that period (van den Ham, 1985). The trend established in REPELITAs I and II of increasing total support for education was carried over to REPELITA III as the development budget grew by 71 percent from the end of REPELITA II to the end of

REPELITA III. This sharp increase in the budget however, may be explained by a 107

28% devluation of the Rupiah in March 1983. Thus, while the real increase in the development budget was far less than 71 percent, it was substantial nonetheless and demonstrated the government’s commitment to this sector.

REPELITA IV (1985-89) again stressed the need for education to perform a socialization function, particularly in promoting civic and national consciousness, as well as to promote Indonesia’s development efforts.

In the Indonesian context, universal education has always been regarded as an end in itself as well as a means to improve the quality and productivity of the people. The enhancement of the intellectual capabilities of the nation has always been designated as a national goal. The Guidelines of State Policy stipulated that national education based on Pancasila aims to improve the devotion to the One and only God, the intelligence and skills, enhance good behavior and personality and strengthen the national consciousness and love for the country in order to produce development-oriented individuals who are able to develop themselves and be jointly responsible for nation building. At the same time, the need for educated and skilled manpower is ever increasing with development. Development programs in the field of education are therefore given high priority in the Plan. (Government of Indonesia, 1984: 57)

Funding for "Education, Youth, Culture and Spiritual Development" under

REPELITA IV was set at Rp. 11.54 trillion. Even after the rupiah lost another 45 percent of its value against the dollar (31 percent of the total 45 percent of lost value coming in a major devaluation on September 12, 1986), funding for education in

REPELITA IV increased over REPELITA III. Thus, despite the steady and often dramatic loss in the value of the rupiah between 1969 and 1989-the Rupiah today is worth 18 percent of 1969 rupiah (see figure 6)~the government increased funding for the education sector for each of the four five-year development plans.

In its policies on education, the New Order government has consistently stated that access to higher education, especially public universities, should and will be 108

too

400

400 too R 700 U ♦ 00 p 1000

1100

A 1400 p j 1000

1400

1 700

1100

IfOO 49 70 71 71 7474 74 77 74 79 10 •1 • 4 45 •4 47 44 YEAR

Figure 6

DECLINING VALUE OF THE INDONESIAN RUPIAH 1969-1989 (RUPIAH TO $1 US)

Source: Asia Yearbooks 1969-1989 109

based on achievement. This position is reflected in the government’s emphasis on

improving Indonesia’s "human resource capital" through education to assist in

development, and in its rhetoric on the need to give only the most qualified students

the opportunity to compete for limited number of seats available in higher education.

The argument becomes one of an imperative to have efficiency in the selection

process for the sake of development: Indonesia cannot afford to let undeserving

students occupy limited space at its institutes, colleges and universities.

The creation of a national entrance examination, the "SIPENMARU," was

designed and implemented to do just that: identify the best available students in each class. SIPENMARU was combined with the PDMK "talent scouting" program to

recruit the best high school students to the best universities, again selection being based on achievement as measured by grades and final examination scores. It should be noted that only the top five universities, those labeled "elite" in this study, engaged in recruitment through PMDK in 1984 (Aanenson, 1988:4).

It is not the argument here that highly talented young people from very limited backgrounds never gain access to the public university system, furthermore, this dissertation recognizes that those in major urban centers, particularly Jakarta, have a better chance of entering the best universities because they receive superior educational training and score consistently higher on achievement tests. This phenomenon is supported by research on Indonesian education.For example, a 1976 study of achievement in grade six compared the quality of education across regions concluded: 110

Jakarta children are achieving at much higher levels than children in other provinces. South Sumatra and West Java also show high mean scores, while those areas outside the islands of Java and Sumatra, namely Kalimantan, Sulawesi and East Indonesia show the lowest scores. As one moves away from Jakarta, one finds a general decline in educational achievement levels (Moegiadi et al., 1976: 9).

Top government and business elites reside in Indonesia’s major urban centers,

particularly Jakarta. Because the quality of education is so much better in urban

areas, particularly for those living in economically well-to-do areas of town,

well-to-do urban children and are much more likely than rural children to gain access

to elite universities through the SIPENMARU examination because they receive a better quality education. They are also more likely to gain access than urban dwellers with nonelite backgrounds. An example of less fortunate urban children are the

Betawi people of Jakarta. The indigenous Betawi community makes up 22.3 percent of the city’s population (2.4 million in 1987). Seventy-five percent of the Betawi are said to have a poor education. "The minority group of indigenous Jakartans have achieved a satisfactory standard of living, but their educational level is still below the average of others living in the capital (Jakarta Post. June 26, 1987)." Thus, this dissertation is less concerned with the question of inequity of educational opportunities between rich and poor students and moreconcemed with the government’s handling of the distribution of educational opportunities in a system that distributes benefits based on two competing and contradictory principles. One set of rules argues that the smartest must be given the opportunity for higher education. The other set of rules argues that the interests of the most powerful must be served by government, therefore, their children should be given educational opportunities. I l l

To the extent that Indonesia remains a traditional society, the New Order government must continue to provide access to higher education for the children of its elite constituencies, especially the children of its own elite, whether those children qualify through the SIPENMARU or not— but particularly when they do not.

The focus of the data analysis will be to determine the extent to which the

SIPENMARU examination fulfills the government’s promise of equal access to the public university system, reaffirmed by Minister of Education and Culture Faud

Hassan in 1988, "that the national education system now emphasizes equal opportunity for education (Jakarta Post. July 18, 1988)." Any evidence in the

SIPENMARU data pointing to ascriptive factors as determining access to the system, or to the best schools within the system, will support Kahane’s notion of dual legitimacy influencing Indonesian government policy toward higher education.

We expect to find students with the highest scores gaining access to the best universities. We also expect these individuals to rank higher on an ascriptive measurement scale, based on studies of the lower levels of the educational system

(Beeby, 1979). These students do not violate the "best and brightest" philosophy of the government’s educational policy. What we should not find, according to the government’s modernist, achievement oriented policies, are marginal or low achievers with high ascriptive scores getting into the best universities. To test this question the main hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Where the dependent variable is entrance into the public university system, an analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU data should reveal that some students with relatively low entrance examination test scores and relatively high socioeconomic background characteristics gained admission to 112

the public university system. The hypothesis will also be supported if an analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU data reveals that some students with relatively high entrance examination test scores and relatively low socioeconomic background characteristics were denied admission to the public university system.

SIPENMARU was a national application of an earlier examination system developed and used at the elite universities.

A decade ago, only five state universities, all in Java, were covered under such a joint entrance test. That number was later expanded to 10, most of them in Java, but this year has been drastically increased to 43, and includes many more universities in outlying provinces (Jakarta Post. July 18, 1984: 4).

The PPI examination, as it was called, made "the selection of new students...strictly based on their examination performance, according to S.

Pramoetadi, Head of PPI." Furthermore, according to another Ministry of Education and Culture official, Mr. Drost, "the processing of results is now fully computerized.

The computerized results are final, and cannot be manipulated (Jakarta Post. July 21,

1983: 2)." Hypothesis 1 further predicts that illegitimate admission and rejection will occur more frequently in the five schools that are the elite institutions of public higher education in Indonesia (the University of Gajah Mada; the Institute of Technology in

Bandung; the Institute of Agriculture in Bogor; and Airrlangga University).Thus, the

Indonesian government claimed in 1984 that entrance to state universities would be based solely on achievement.

This year, a new system for testing and selecting high school graduates for entrance into state universities has been put into effect. [SIPENMARU], besides selecting the best minds from among a myriad of applicants...is fairer than any of its predecessors and provides greater opportunities for prospective students (Jakarta Post. July 19, 1984: 4).

Admissions to public universities were to be handled in the following manner: 113

With the new system only those who pass the preselection are allowed to take the examination. Preselection is based not only on the score in the final evaluation, but also on the recorded results in the first and second year of [Senior high school]. The students are thus divided into three groups. Those with the highest score may enter the university without any test (about 10% of university capacity), the second group have to pass the test, while the third group are not permitted to sit for the test but are advised to enter more practical programmes such as polytechnic or diploma courses (Supraptono, 1986: 13).

Additionally, as part of a larger educational reform movement, SIPENMARU

would be an important cornerstone in "the national education system [that would] not

allow discrimination based on sex, religions, race, or social and economic

backgrounds of students (Jakarta Post. April 5, 1984: 3).

Hypothesis 1 stipulated that children of elites would receive preferential

treatment in admissions to the best state universities in Indonesia based on a conspiracy type notion that the educational system in Indonesia was biased toward admissions based on ascription rather than achievement. A second, or alternative

hypothesis based on the government’s stated educational policies is needed as a basis

for comparison.

Hypothesis 2 states that an analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU data should support the Indonesian government’s claim that admission to public universities was based solely on entrance examination score and other achievement criteria, such as high school performance, as measured by high school grade point average.

An underlying assumption of Hypothesis 2 is that the SIPENMARU examination would "mechanically" select the most qualified students using a formula based on the principle of achievement rather than ascription. 114

Hypothesis 2 assumes further that the formula for selecting students, in

addition to being based on achievement, would also be heavily influenced by

government policy regarding national development. Numerous references to the

government’s position that education must serve the needs of Indonesian development

are available. Two representative examples are, Law Number 2 of the Education Act

of 1989 which states: "Education must also be adjusted to the demands of

development . . . (Government of Indonesia, 1989: 31);" and from the fourth

five-year development plan, "national education aims to produce development oriented

individuals who are able to develop themselves and be jointly responsible for nation building (Government of Indonesia, 1984: 57)"

Hypothesis 2 predicts that admissions decisions were based on consideration of

some or all these criteria:

♦ A minimum cumulative score on the SIPENMARU examination

♦ A minimum high school grade point average

♦ Type of curriculum specified by the student

♦ Location of the university to which the student applied as a function of

where the student lived

♦ The number of openings available at the university to which the student

applied.

Each of these factors would be analyzed by admissions decision makers in the

Ministry of Education and Culture in Jakarta. The rationale for centralizing all 115

admissions decisions would be to remove the pressures on individual university

administrators from parents wanting to purchase available openings for their children.

The decision making process would be mechanical. Each student’s credentials

would be evaluated through a series of if-then statements based on admission criteria.

These criteria would be as follows:

If the student scored in the bottom quartile on the SIPENMARU examination, that student was not admitted to any university, regardless of other achievement measures such as high school gradepoint average or high school final examinations.

If the student scored in second quartile on the SIPENMARU examination, then his/her high school grade point average, choice of university and field study desired in college were considered. The student would be admitted if: GPA met minimum standards (C average or above), chose a regional university or Teachers’ Training college, and indicated a desire to study science and technology rather than the humanities or social studies.

If the student scored in the third quartile, admission to a regional university or IKIP was automatic if the student lived near his/her university of first choice. If the student chose one of the five top universities, admission would depend on GPA, curriculum choice (science over social studies), proximity to university of first choice, and number of places open for admission (which was a function of the number who selected that university as their first choice and their relative qualifications.)

If the student scored in the top quartile on the SIPENMARU examination, admission to any school would be automatic.

Hypothesis 2 will be tested using the 1984 SIPENMARU data and interviews conducted in 1990 with key Indonesian officials in the Ministry of Education in 1984.

The interviews will determine which of the criteria in Hypothesis 2 were most important, and to see if additional criteria not anticipated in Hypothesis 2 were operative in 1984. 116

The question under examination will be whether the New Order has used its national university entrance examination as a straightforward measure to identify the best potential candidates, or whether certain "adjustments" were made to accommodate candidates who were sons or daughters of the government elite, without respect to their SIPENMARU scores. 117

Endnotes

1. Articles concerning the issue of the quality of education in Indonesia appear regularly in the Indonesian press. This issue is mentioned often by Minister of Education and Culture Fuad Hassan as vital to Indonesia’s modernization and development goals. For example, the Jakarta Post. December 29, 1986 reported Faud Hassan as saying that "universities should produce both professionals and scientists. This can be achieved only when the university has good quality staff." In the same article, quality, as a guiding principle, was stressed over quantity, or the need to expand educational opportunities, especially at the university level. "State universities should put quality before everything."

2. This may partially explain the high concentration of schools on Java. If the Dutch were limited to Java during the early formative years of the development of the educational system, then government sponsored public education would also be concentrated there. Of course, one could argue that 2/3’s of Indonesia’s population has always been concentrated on Java, making this disparity less salient, in some respects. However, there is general agreement among scholars that the Dutch developed education to serve their own needs, not Indonesian needs, and therefore the distribution of Indonesia’s native population was irrelevant to the early development of the educational system. Thus, the concentration of much of the educational system’s physical facilities on Java, might, at least partially, be explained by the fact that the Dutch and European population, not the Indonesian population, was concentrated on Java. Supporting this assertion, R. Murray Thomas (1973: 10) writes: "Java has traditionally been the center of both political control and educational opportunity for the nation’s peoples."

This was particularly true for higher education. "Prior to 1950, all recognized higher learning institutions had been located on the island of Java, except for a small economics college that Dutch authorities located at Makassar in South Sulawesi as a branch of the University of Indonesia (Thomas, 1973: 172)."

3. An important distinction within the dual structure of the educational system during colonial times is reflected in the name "Village School." That is the notion, common to most modem, urban-industrial societies, that the privileged and powerful are concentrated in urban centers. The dual educational system in Indonesia correlated highly to urban-rural distinctions: the Dutch-European schools were located in urban areas, while the Village, or second class schools were literally located in the countryside.

4. Thomas (1973: 28) supports this when he suggests that one intention of the colonial government in finally providing facilities for higher education in 118

Indonesia was to reward, or, placate the indigenous elite. "[The Dutch wanted] to provide capable youth of high-born native and Chinese families opportunities for higher education without their having to travel to Europe."

5. This is particularly true for Indonesia because it stresses the development of a modem industrial capability. To be competitive internationally (there is not yet enough of a domestic market to support this sector), Indonesia must buy (or be given) the technological know-how from the west. Even when given modem equipment, it is not always possible to utilize it productively, or at all. A recent donation of medical equipment from the Netherlands to three Indonesian universities, for example, could neither be transported from Jakarta, nor installed on the campuses for lack of funds (Jakarta Post. July 15, 1986).

6. The real figure here should be 10 percent. The Minister does not include highschool graduates from previous years who retake the entrance examinations in any given year. Thus, the statement should read that the capacity of state-run universities is 20 percent for each high school class, but each class competes with former graduates making the capacity in any given year closer to 10 percent of total applicants. The government has addressed the problem of the growing number of test takers each year by limiting the number of times students can take and fail the entrance examinations (Jakarta Post. August 4, 1986) CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS

Study Design

This chapter will examine the characteristics of Indonesian high school graduates who applied for admission to public universities through the Indonesian

"SIPENMARU" university entrance examination in 1984. The research question is whether the New Order government utilized the SIPENMARU examination score as the sole criterion to identify the most academically qualified applicants for admission to public universities, or whether certain "adjustments" were made to admit applicants who were sons or daughters of elite segments of society, without regard to their

SIPENMARU scores, to satisfy the Suharto government’s dual legitimacy needs.

Figure 7 shows the expected distribution of admissions based on Hypothesis 1, which argued that elite political status variables affected access to Indonesian public universities in 1984. Figure 8 is a similar table based on Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 argued that admission to the public university system in Indonesia would be based on scores on the SIPENMARU examination and the number of seats available in the department at the university to which the student applied. Figure 9 shows the actual

119 120

distribution of cases in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample by score, type of school

indicated as first choice (elite, regional, or teacher training college), and whether the

applicant was accepted or rejected to the public university system that year. Figure 9

indicates that score could not have been the only determinant of access in 1984

because many students with very high scores were not accepted, while many others

with lower scores were accepted. At this early stage of the analysis, Figure 9 could

support either Hypothesis 1 or 2. The large number rejected with high scores and accepted with relatively low scores could be explained by irregular admissions procedures, as predicted by Hypothesis 1, or by stiff competition for a small number of seats, as predicted by Hypothesis 2. Further examination will determine which hypothesis explains more of the variance. Hypothesis 1 will be tested against the independent variables used as indicators of elite status in Indonesian Society, while

Hypothesis 2 will be tested using a case by case analysis of applicants to specific departments at all five elite universities.

Hypothesis 1 was based on an analysis of the political context within which the

Indonesian educational system operated. In 1984, the government publicly subscribed to the principle of achievement, as measured by its newly implemented national entrance examination (SIPENMARU), in determining access to Indonesia’s public university system. 121

POLITICAL STATUS

Non-Elite Elite

A CL Access Access H 0 Denied (most in elite public I w universities) E V M E N T H Access Access i (most in non­ (all in elite public g elite public universities) h - universities)

♦Those who score low on political status and achievement will be denied access to all schools. Those who score low on political status and high on achievement will gain access to non- elite public universities. Those who score high on political status and low on achievement will gain access to elite public universities in greater numbers than those who are low political status and high on achievement. Finally, those who are high political status and high on achievement will all go to elite public universities.

Figure 7

Expected Distribution of SIPENMARU Applicants* Based on Hypothesis 1 122

POLITICAL STATUS

Non-Elite Elite

A CL Access Access H o Denied Denied I w E V M E N T H Access Access i (School depends on (School depends g choice, on choice, h ranking of score, ranking of score, and available and available seats) seats)

* Under Hypothesis 2, political status variables have no influence in determining access to the public university system. Access and institution to which the applicant was admitted depends on a combination of two factors: score relative to all scores for applicants to the same department, and number of seats available in the department at the university to which the student applied.

Figure 8

Expected Distribution of SIPENMARU Applicants* Based on Hypothesis 2 123

Elite Regional IKIPS

s

c

o

R

E

I i Accepted Rejected Accepted Rejected Accepted Rejected

Figure 9

Acceptance and Rejection by SIPENMARU Score and Type of University, 1984

The educational system, however, was part of the larger sociopolitical system, and, as

such, was subject to pressures from political elites who sought to exert their influence

to gain their children’s admission to the public university system. Hypothesis 1 predicted that the Indonesian government, contrary to its public posture, could not afford to let score on the 1984 SIPENMARU examination be the sole criterion for access to the public university system in 1984 for reasons related to its need to

maintain political legitimacy. 124

Furthermore, there were probably other important constraints on an achievement-only selection process, such as the high cost of obtaining a university degree, for example. As a commodity in high demand, and not affordable to the majority of Indonesians, normal market conditions favored other types of elites in addition to political elites. If education cost nothing, then academic achievement might have sufficed as the sole criterion for access in 1984. However, education was very expensive; therefore, those with greater economic resources had power over those with lesser resources.

Thus, one could argue that SIPENMARU should be viewed as a step in the direction of access based on academic achievement, with other factors still impinging on the effective implementation of an achievement-only access strategy in 1984.

Before proceeding with the analysis, a description of the 1984 SIPENMARU sample and a discussion of methodological issues will be provided.

Sample

The conclusions of Saleh (1986) and Hansen et al. (1989)—that no favoritism was shown toward political elites in gaining access to state controlled higher education—were based on a more simplistic notion of achievement and therefore need to be revisited using the SIPENMARU data.

The SIPENMARU data were compiled by the Indonesian Ministry of

Education and Culture in 1984. The 1984 SIPENMARU examination was a nationwide college entrance examination given to 478,930 applicants to public 125

universities from every district and high school in the country, both public and

private. In addition to taking the examination, applicants were required to answer

questions about their parents’ occupations, education, and economic status. Thus, the

data set includes each student’s score on the entrance examination in addition to

family background information. Some information such as family name or type and location of high school were deleted from the data file for confidentiality. This limited the types of variables that could be analyzed. A sample was drawn from the data set using a computerized version of the random digit technique. This technique assigns identification numbers to cases and generates random digits from one to N in relationship to the permissible degree of sampling error. This sample had a range of error between 1 and 5 percent. The technique generated a sample of 7,279 cases from the total number of applicants in the survey (478,930). Mean values were substituted for missing data, which were less than one percent in all variables.

Methodological Issues

While the 1984 SIPENMARU survey data are by far the most comprehensive data currently available, there are several possible limitations that require comment and explanation.

First, the data are six years old. Are they appropriate for Indonesia today?

The concept of dual political legitimacy does not specify a finite period of time. In

1988 the government announced it would discontinue the SIPENMARU examination; perhaps these data can provide some clues for the government’s decision to do so. 126

Also, data from more recent SIPENMARU surveys (post-1984) are not available, and the Indonesian government is not likely to release these data in the near future.

Confidence in the reliability of the data is high. Questions about place of birth, place of residence, test score, and grade point average are considered reliable and valid because these measures are simple facts, as opposed to more complex feelings or attitudes requiring tests of coder reliability or interpretations of interviewers.

Place of birth and residence were reported by the respondents, while test scores were a direct measure of the survey (students completed the survey and took the examination at the same time). Grade point average was computed by dividing the sum of grades obtained in high school by the number of courses taken. These data were taken from the students’ official transcripts.

There was some evidence to suggest that some official high school transcripts did not accurately reflect a student’s true academic achievement. For example, the

Indonesian press reported that influential parents simply bought high grades for their children at the high school level. These students could then become top candidates for the PMDK program (Jakarta Post. January 4, 1989). The number of students, if any, who gained access to the public university system in 1984 by these means cannot be determined using the SIPENMARU sample. In 1984, however, high school GPA was not considered in admissions decisions (interview with Dr. Sukadji Ranuwihardjo,

Jakarta, Indonesia, June 28, 1990). 127

Other measures, such as years of education and type of occupation of parents, however, have some potential for both random and systematic error in the reporting of this information by the applicant. Random reporting errors--for example, the applicant guessing as opposed to knowing the answer—should have been minimal because applicants were told in advance to bring this information to the examination

(Saleh, 1986). The potential for systematic error or bias in such data might seem great in a society like Indonesia, where social and political status is extremely important. However, the questions asked on the 1984 survey were basic to surveys of this kind. This dissertation therefore assumes the responses were truthful and that the data were not systematically flawed.

The best measures of elite background for testing dual legitimacy are education and occupation. Thomas (1970) argued that family background characteristics were the most important factors determining elite status in 1940. By 1966, level of education had replaced background characteristics as the measure of elite status.

However, since education and occupation are highly correlated, education offers the best single measure of social status:

Education has long been regarded as a good index of what might be called "permanent social position." Once acquired it is never lost. People know and will admit to their educational attainment, and by and large the level of schooling is both determined by and in turn determines a person’s social status (Hull and Sunaryo, 1978: 1).

The exception to this generalization, however, is the political elites from older generations, who may be quite powerful but who did not have educational opportunities in the early Republic. Thus, while education offers the best measure of 128

social status, occupation (such as a military occupation) offers a better measure of

political status. Therefore, both variables will be used in the analysis in order to

identify different types of elite backgrounds.

The question is whether or not the Indonesian government manipulated the

results of the SIPENMARU examination to fulfill its dual legitimacy needs. In other words, did the government, though firmly committed to an academic achievement oriented approach to higher education, allow political elites to influence admissions decisions? The 1984 SIPENMARU data are the only data currently available that can test this proposition.

Turning to a separate issue, there is a question as to the representativeness of the sample, since the population surveyed in 1984 did not include 1) applicants to private Indonesian universities, nor 2) those students recruited into the elite public universities under the ' talent scouting program" begun in the early 1970’s.

Additionally, an undetermined number of students are possibly missing from the survey-the children of the "super- elite" (high ranking government officials) and the ethnic Chinese—both of whom may be under-represented in the sample because they applied for admission to overseas universities.

However, the assumption here is that even the super elite would consider a costly overseas undergraduate education as a second or perhaps even a third option, rather than a primary option, because most Indonesians want a degree for the credential it provides, not for the more normative values Westerners attribute to higher education. Thus, one could argue that many of the super-elite probably 129 participated in the 1984 SIPENMARU national college entrance examination because the elite Indonesian schools were their first choice. Graduate education is a separate issue.

Ethnic Chinese, however, might consider an overseas undergraduate education as a first option because they fear discrimination at the hands of Indonesian officials and, therefore, simply remove themselves from the system. Even without reliable figures on the numbers of ethnic Chinese who opt out of the system, this number is assumed to be statistically insignificant. This is based on the assumption that the total number of all Indonesians, undergraduate and graduate, studying overseas in 1984 was 20,000. This figure is based on a reliable estimate of 10,000 in the U.S. and a less reliable, but generous 10,000 for the rest of the world. A large percentage of these are graduate students-say 75 percent. The remaining 25 percent (about 5,000) are undergraduates. Even if all 5,000 undergraduates were ethnic Chinese, they represent only 1.03 percent of the total number of students who applied to public universities in Indonesia in 1984.

The question of applicants to private universities being excluded from the data is probably moot because the university system in Indonesia is structured such that very few individuals would apply to private schools before applying to state universities. Thus, these applicants would be included in the SIPENMARU pool.

Private universities are very expensive and are usually considered of lesser quality than the state institutions; therefore, applications to private universities are almost always submitted as a "back up" to hedge against failure in gaining admission to a 130

public university. Private universities also recruit heavily at locations where the

results of the annual SIPENMARU test are announced:

. . . the Director of a private computer institute said some 300 students had enrolled in his institute (after they had learned they had failed to enter the public university system), adding that he offered a 50 percent discount of the entrance test fee for those who registered at Senayan (Jakarta Post. August 4, 1986).

While the development of separate religious schools in Indonesia is an

interesting phenomenon, especially in light of recent efforts by Islamic educators to provide "Western quality" education, those schools are not properly within the scope of this dissertation. The focus here is access to public universities. Thus, exclusion of private university applicants does not diminish the representativeness of the sample.

Another group probably missing from the sample is those students entering the military training academies. However, they can be treated the same as those in private universities-a military education is a separate track not properly within the focus of this study.

Finally, one category of university applicants not included in the survey were students recruited through "talent scouting" programs. These students were admitted to state universities without taking the national entrance examination, but their numbers were small in 1984 (1.4 percent of eligible high school graduates and about

10 percent of students admitted to state universities in 1984).

In recent years, however, the percentage of students recruited to the elite public universities through "talent-scouting" has been higher. In 1987, for example, 16 percent of new admissions to state universities were through PMDK (Jakarta Post.

June 15, 1987), while only one year later, the proportion had grown to 25 percent of 131 all admissions to state universities (Jakarta Post. May 3, 1988). A computer specialist involved with the grading of SIPENMARU entrance examinations in 1984 noted that in several faculties of elite universities the number of admissions through talent scouting was much higher than the 10 percent reported for all public universities in 1984. For example, at the Institute of Technology at Bandung (ITB) nearly 50 percent of admissions to math and sciences were through PMDK in 1984, while at the Institute of Agriculture at Bogor (IPB) the figure was nearly 90 percent of all admissions in 1984 (interview with Toemin A. Masoem, Jakarta, Indonesia,

June 30, 1990).

Dependent and Independent Variables

The dependent variable for Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 was admission to one of five elite public universities in 1984 among those applicants who specified an elite public university as their first or second choice in 1984. Figure 10 illustrates the creation of the dependent variable for the analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU data.

The dependent variable was dichotomous. For the purposes of the analysis a student was defined as "not accepted" if he or she was rejected at all public universities, or, accepted to a regional university or teacher training college. A student was defined as

"accepted" only if he or she was accepted at one of five elite public universities.

Admission to all universities through SIPENMARU was determined by Ministry of

Education and Culture officials in Jakarta (Saleh, 1986). There were 43 public 132

Ellta Unlvaralty Not Aaoaptad

Dapandant Varlabla

Aooaplad Applioant’a Raglonal Univaralty Flrat Choloa

Accaptad TaacKar Training Collaga Not Aooaptad

Figure 10

Creation of the Dependent Variable for the Logistic Regression Analysis

institutions of higher education in Indonesia in 1984, divided into three main

categories for the purposes of this analysis. Table 1 provides the breakdown of

university types and universities within each category of Indonesian state universities

in 1984. 133

The first category is the "elite universities." These are the oldest and most

prestigious schools and have been labeled "centers of excellence" by the World Bank

(World Bank, 1978: 16). The second category includes schools established more

recently, some under a government program to assist the development of provincial

universities in an "attempt to close the quality gap between [them] and older,

established universities" (Meow and Pratoatmodjo, 1979: 82). Finally, the third category includes teacher training schools, or IKIPs.

The logic of focusing the analysis on elite public university applicants rather

than the entire sample was based on the premise of Hypothesis 1 that children of elites who did not score well on SIPENMARU in 1984 were nevertheless able to gain access to the public university system. A corollary assumption of Hypothesis 1 was

that elite applicants would have only considered attending elite public universities.

This corollary was based on an evaluation of the Indonesian public higher education

system and on the conclusion that differences in quality, reputation, and status between elite versus regional universities or teacher training colleges were so great in 1984 that elites would not even consider entrance to the non-elite universities. 134

Table 1 Institutions Comprising Indonesia’s Public University System, 1984 Elite Universities 1. University of Indonesia (UI)» Jakarta. 2. Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB), Bogor. 3. Bandung Institute of Technology(IIB), Bandung. 4. Gajah Mada University (UGM), Jogyakarta. 5. Airlangga University (UNAIR), Surabaya. Regional Universities 1. University of North Sumatra (USU), Medan. 2. Andalas University (UNAND), Padang. 3. Pajajaran University (UNPAD), Bandung. 4. University of Diponegoro (UNDIP), Semarang. 5. Brawijaya University (UNIBRAW), Malang. 6. Surabaya Institute of Technology (ITS), Surabaya 7. Udayana University (UNUD), Denpasar. 8. University of Hasanuddin (UNHAS), Ujung Pandang. 9. University of Syiah Kuala (UNSYIAH), Banda Aceh. 10. Riau University (UNRI), Pakanbaru. 11. Jambi University (UNITA), Jambi 12. Sriwijaya University (UNSRI), Palembang. 13. Lampung University (UNILA), Bandar Lampung. 14. University of Jenderal Sudirman (UNSUD), Purwokerto. 15. Jember University (UNEJ), Jember 16. University of Tanjung Pura (UNTAN), Pontianak. 17. University of Palangkaraya (UNPAR), Palangkaraya. 18. Lambung Mangkurat University (UNLAM), Banjarmasin. 19. University of Sam Ratulangi (UNSRAT), Manado. 20. University of Mataram (UNRAM), Ampenan. 21 University of Nusa Cendana (UNDANA), Kupang. 22. University of Cendrawasih (UNCEN), Jayapura. 23. University of Sebelas Maret (USEMAR), Surakarta. 24. University of Bengkulu (UNIB), Bengkulu. 25. University of Halu Oleo (UNHOL), Kendari. 26. University of Tadulako (UNTAD), Palu. 27. University of Mulawarman (UNMUL), Samarinda 28. University of Pattimura (UNPAT), Ambon Teacher Training Colleges 1. IKIP Medan. 2. IKIP Padang. 3. IOP Jakarta. 4. IKIP Bandung. 5. IKIP Semarang. 6. IKIP Yogyakarta. 7. KIP Malang. 8. KIP Surabaya. 9. KIP Ujung Pandang. 10. KIP Manado.

Saleh, 1986: 137-38 135

The independent variables in the analysis were divided into two groups: one

group measured academic achievement, the other measured social and political status.

Academic achievement variables were: 1) score on the 1984 SIPENMARU

examination (the examination was scored by ministry officials and included negative

values for errors to minimize guessing by applicants [Saleh, 1986]); 2) high school

grade-point average; 3) course load taken in high school; and 4) area of study (natural

science versus social science and humanities). Social and political status variables

were: 1) parents’ level of education; 2) type of occupation; 3) ethnic origin; 4)

gender; 5) type of high school attended (public or private); and 6) migration (to or

from Java). A partial listing of data fields in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample is

provided in Appendix I.

For the 1984 SIPENMARU survey, high status is indicated when parents have:

9 or more years of education, military or government occupations, or Javanese origin.

For Hypothesis 1 to be supported, the analysis must show that entrance to an elite

public university occurred in cases where examination score was relatively low, while

measures on social and political status variables were relatively high. Low scores

were defined as those below the median for both the entire sample and the subset of those who applied to elite public universities only. For Hypothesis 2 to be supported, the analysis must show that score alone explained acceptance to elite public universities. 136

Before turning to the analysis of elite public university applicants, some general

characteristics of the entire sample will be provided to serve as a basis for broader

comparison later on.

General Characteristics of the Sample

Parents’ Education

As a subset of the larger Indonesian population, the parents of the 1984

SIPENMARU applicants were highly skewed on the measure of educational attainment. When compared to the general population, the average number of years of education achieved by SIPENMARU parents in the sample was much higher. For example, Table 2 shows that 6.6 percent of fathers and 1.5 percent of mothers in the

1984 SIPENMARU sample had 15 years of education. The figure for the general population was 0.2 percent. (Taylor and Jodice, 1983).1

The major difference between mothers and fathers in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample was the higher percentage of fathers with 12 or more years of education

(fathers = 44.1 percent, mothers = 23.2 percent).

Parents’ Occupation

It is a common belief in Indonesia that children of parents from the military or public sectors receive preference for university admission (Jakarta Post. July 6,

1985). Table 3 shows occupational groups from the 1984 SIPENMARU survey.

The largest occupational grouping for fathers in the sample was the public sector with 137

46.9 percent employed by the government (civil service and military). Only 10 percent of mothers were from these two sectors. Fathers outnumbered mothers three to one in the prestigious public sector. The majority of mothers in the sample (48.1 percent) were out of the labor force. 138

Table 2

Frequency and Percentage of Public University Applicants by Parent’s Education, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Years of Father^ Mother00 Education Freauencv Percentage Freauencv Percentage

Missing Data or Missing Parent 179 2.5 327 4.5

Less Than Six Years 730 10.0 1476 20.3

Six Years 1766 24.3 2217 30.5

Nine Years 1397 19.2 1572 21.6

Twelve Years 2363 32.5 1544 21.2

Fifteen Years 480 6.6 108 1.5

Seventeen Years or More m 25 i5

Total 7279 100.0 7279 100.0

(a) Categorical mean= 3.17, categorical md= 3.00, SD= 1.30

(b) Categorical mean= 2.53, categorical md= 2.00, SD= 1.13 139

Table 3

Frequency and Percentage of Public University Applicants by Parent’s Occupation, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Father Mother Occupation Frequencv Percentage Frequencv Percentage

Missing Data or Missing Parent 28 .4 72 1.0

Farmers/Fishermen 1385 19.0 1301 17.9

Blue Collar 187 2.6 93 1.3

Business/Self-Employed 1278 17.6 1393 19.2

White Collar (Including 644 8.8 95 1.3 Retired)

Teachers (Public 727 10.0 518 7.1 and Private)

Professional 34 .5 35 .5

Military/Civil Servant 2734 37.5 269 3.6 (Including Retired)

Out of Labor Force 262 3503 48.1

Total 7279 100.0 7279 100.0

Ethnic Background

It is generally argued that the ethnic Javanese dominate both the political and cultural milieu of Indonesian society, although not without passive resistance from other minority groups (Liddle, 1989). 140

Furthermore, Javanese cultural norms are thought to dictate the ruling elites’ political perspectives in both the domestic and international arena. These norms are said to be elitist and paternalistic (Lubis, 1979), and "Javanism’s political idea . . . is that leaders should be benevolent and the people should be obedient" (Liddle, 1989: p. 6). Thus, Soenjono Dardjowidjojo (1979) wrote:

In a country where political unity, economic stability and cultural integrity are being sought or reaffirmed, there is a tendency for people to develop an excessive feeling of nationalism which often leads them to think that any view which does not reaffirm the ego, be it that of an individual, an ethnic group, or a nation, is a negative view (Lubis, 1979: vi).

The often subtle and sometimes not so subtle message is that the Javanese believe they are best qualified to lead. This sentiment was echoed by Ismail Marahimin, who wrote, "it is not usually the lower social strata of a culture who maintain traditions that outsiders view as characteristics specific to that culture" (1986: 8). The Javanese see themselves as representative of Indonesian culture and as the legitimate leaders of society and government.

Hypothesis 1 assumed that area of origin, specifically Javanese versus non-Javanese origin, had an effect on admission to the public university system in

1984. Table 4 shows that 58 percent of all applicants in the 1984 SIPENMARU survey were bom on Java. This, of course, does not mean that 58 percent of those surveyed were in fact Javanese. 141

Table 4

Spatial Distribution of Families of Public University Applicants, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Area of Current Origin Residence Migration Island (74=7279! IN=7279! Ratio

Bali 2.6% 2.7% + .015 Nusa Tengara 2.2 2.0 -.089 Sumatra 23.9 21.0 -.122 Kalimantan 2.3 2.0 -.138 Sulawasi 8.0 8.0 + .003 Maluku .6 .5 -.190 Other Islands .3 .2 -.320 Java 58.0 63.1 + .086 Jakarta 8.3 12.3 + .485 West Java 12.3 13.2 + .076 Central Java 16.4 15.8 -.038 Yogyakarta 3.5 5.0 + .352 East Java 17.5 16.8 -.035 Missing Data 2.1 — 5

Total 100.% 100.0%

Missing Observations = 0

The Ministry of Education and Culture did not release family name information from

the survey, which would have provided a more accurate clue to ethnicity. Thus, we cannot precisely determine ethnicity in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample. Place of birth and place of residence, however, yield a rough estimate of ethnic background. 142

Conclusions involving ethnicity, of course, will be tempered by the recognition of the

lower reliability of the measure available for the analysis.

Migration

The migration measure attempted to identify families who moved to or from

Java. Because of the highly skewed pattern of migration to Java, conventional

wisdom indicated that migrants from Java were either occupational transfers (i.e., parents in military or governmental occupations moved to administrative positions in the outer islands) or families resettled in remote areas through Indonesia’s transmigration program. How children of government officials transferred to outer islands fared in gaining access to elite public universiites should help clarify the degree to which political factors were important, and the extent to which higher education merely "certified and legitimated" those with elite family backgrounds.

Hypothesis 1 assumed that these children received preferential treatment in access to public universities in 1984. Table 5 indicates that 56.3 percent of the 1984

SIPENMARU applicants were bom and resided on Java. This table also shows that

1.4 percent of the applicants’ families moved from Java, while 5.5 percent migrated to Java. Of the 1.4 percent (n=102) of applicants whose families left Java in 1984, only 4 individuals were accepted with low scores, and none were accepted to elite universities. For the 1984 SIPENMARU sample, then, the migration variable did not support Hypothesis 1. 143

Type of High School Attended

In the 1984 SIPENMARU sample, 59.1 percent of applicants were public high school graduates and 40.9 percent were private high school graduates. In many countries, applicants who attend private high schools might be expected to come from elite backgrounds. However, this is probably not the case in Indonesia where the majority of private schools are Moslem religious institutes, many of which are located in poorer, rural areas of the country.

Table 5

Frequency and Percentage of Migrant and Resident Groups of Applicants to Public Universities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Migration Frequency Percentage Category

Missing Data 189 2.6

Migrated from Java 102 1.4

Migrated to Java 404 5.5

Resident of Java 4099 56.3

Resident of the Outer Islands 2485 2fL2

TOTAL 7279 100.0

Missing Observations = 0 144

In general, Christian religious schools in Indonesia have good reputations in terms of educational quality. The 1984 SIPENMARU sample, however, did not include data on the religious affiliation of private high schools attended by sample applicants, so it was not possible to determine if these students received a Christian or a Moslem private education. In the absence of this information, distinctions as to elite or non­ elite backgrounds between public and private high school graduates cannot be made.

The variable was, however, included in the regression analysis to determine its significance relative to others in the sample. If significant, one could tentatively conclude that the public/private high school dichotomy required further investigation.

However, that investigation is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

Area of Study

Of the total number of applicants in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample, 47.9 percent applied for a natural science curriculum, while 52.1 percent applied for a social science and humanities curriculum.

The government has consistently emphasized improved science and technology capabilities in its development plans. The last Indonesian government five year development plan (Repelita V) provides a good example of this emphasis on natural science vs. social science and humanities. The official goals for higher education in

Repelita V were:

...to promote responsiveness to changes in society. This implies the capability to adjust capacity and productivity in line with the growth of economic sectors and changes in work opportunities and the labor market; increased quality 145

through improvement of teaching facilities and the development of science, technology and research (Government of Indonesia, 1989: 36).

Curriculum choice in 1984, specifically a choice of natural science, could have been used as a justification for allowing lower scoring applicants into the system over some with higher scores. The SIPENMARU data, however, do not show that this was used by elites as a strategy to get into the elite universities. Table 6 shows that of those accepted to the public university system with relatively low examination scores, 75.7 percent specified a natural science curriculum. However, Table 7, a first order control table controlling for type of university, shows that this group was not admitted to elite public universities, but rather to regional universities and teacher training colleges.

SIPENMARU Score

Table 8 shows the breakdown of the sample by SIPENMARU score. Scores on the SIPENMARU examination ranged from a low of -48 to a high of +451. The mean for this range was 85.7 with a standard deviation of 73.3 and the median was

72. Those who were accepted to the public university system had a mean score of

154.7 with a standard deviation of 83.9, while those rejected had a mean score of

69.9 with a standard deviation of 60.4. 146

Table 6

Acceptance by Desired Curriculum Controlling for Score

Desired Curriculum

Analysis Groups Natural Science Social Science TOTAL

Accepted with 48.8% 51.2% 100% score above median (N=1135) Accepted with 75.7% 24.3% 100% score below median (N=218)

Median = 72

Missing Observations = 0 147

Table 7

Acceptance by Curriculum Choice Controlling for Type of University Desired, in Percentages, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Curriculum Choice Natural Science

Groups Elite Regional I KIP TOTAL Accepted with 37% 54% 9.0% 100.0% score above median (N=553) Accepted with 7.3% 71.3% 21.4% 100.0% score below median (N=164)

Curriculum Choice Social Science

Analysis Elite Regional IKIP TOTAL Groups Accepted with 19.0% 55% 26.0% 100.0% score above median (N=327)

Accepted with 3.8% 62.3% 33.9% 100.0% score below median (N=53)

Median = 72

Missing Observations = 41 148

Table 8

Frequency Distribution and Cumulative Percentage of SIPENMARU Score by Gender, Public University Applicants, 1984

Male* Female 6 Total0 SIPENMARU Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Score Freauencv Percentaee Freauencv Percentaee Freauencv Percentaee

450+ 1 100.0 0 100.0 1 100.0 401 to 450 3 99.9 2 100.0 5 100.0

351 to 400 20 99.8 4 99.9 24 99.9 301 to 350 35 99.3 25 99.8 60 99.6 251 to 300 99 98.5 53 98.9 152 98.8 201 to 250 226 96.3 127 97.0 353 96.7 151 to 200 442 91.2 218 92.5 660 91.8 101 to 150 732 81.2 477 84.8 1209 82.7 51 to 100 1360 64.7 824 68.0 2184 66.1 1 to 50 1223 24.3 854 38.9 2077 36.1

-49 to 0 m &8 247 L 7 547 Z 1 Total 4441 100% 2831 100% 7272 100%

. Range = 505, Mean = 88.7, md = 74.0, SD = 73.9 Kurtosis = 1.332

> Range = 510, Mean = 80.9, md = 68.0, SD = 71.4 Kurtosis = 1.412

Range = -48 to +451, Mean = 85.7, md = 72.0, SD = 73.3, Kurtosis =

Missing Observations = 7 149

Ouartile Analysis

Table 9 shows the breakdown of quartile scores among those accepted or rejected by the public university system in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample. Among those accepted, access seemed to be based mainly on academic achievement, with

83.9 percent of those accepted falling into the two quartiles above the median.

Table 9

Admission Status of Applicants to Indonesian Public Universities by SIPENMARU Score, Percentaged Across SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Score

SIPENMARU Quartiles

University Fourth* Third6 Secondc Firstd TOTAL Admission Status Accepted 58.3% 25.6% 11.7% 4.4% 100% (N=1353) Rejected 17.3% 23.8% 29.0% 29.9% 100% (N=5926) a. Range for fourth quartile = 123 to 451 b. Range for third quartile = 73 to 122 c. Range for second quartile = 33 to 72 d. Range for first quartile = -48 to 32 150

However, Table 9 also shows that 16.1 percent of those accepted scored lower

than 41.1 percent of those rejected, an indication that academic achievement was not an all-determining factor for access to the public university system.

Table 10 shows the breakdown of acceptance and rejection within each quartile of the 1984 SIPENMARU sample. The pattern is the same as in Table 9 with score again asserting its importance as a predictor for acceptance in the public university system.

Table 10

Admission Status of Applicants to Indonesian Public Universities by SIPENMARU Score, Percentaged Down, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Score SIPENMARU Quartiles

University Fourth* Thirdb Second0 First*1 Admission Status

Accepted 43.4% 19.7% 8.4% 3.3% (N=1353) Rejected 56.6% 80.3% 91.6% 96.7% (N=5926) Total 100% 100% 100% 100% (N=7279) a Range for fourth quartile = 123 to 451 b Range for third quartile = 73 to 122 c Range for second quartile = 33 to 72 d Range for first quartile = -48 to 32 151

However, score does not account for all of the variance; therefore other factors must

be explored.

Thus, Tables 9 and 10 indicate there were significant deviations from the

pattern predicted by Hypothesis 2. If acceptance or rejection was based on score

alone, no one from the first and second quartiles should have been accepted for

admission. The data show, however, that 8.4 percent from the second quartile and

3.3 percent from the first quartile gained admission. Conversely, 56.6 percent of the

applicants in the fourth quartile were rejected. Hypothesis 2 argued that the number

of seats available within particular departments was also a factor in the 1984

admissions. That argument will be tested later in the analysis. It is possible that seat

availability could explain the pattern revealed in the quartile analysis. However,

Hypothesis 1—that admission to public universities was not solely determined by an applicant’s SIPENMARU score-was also supported by the quartile analysis.

Analysis of Elite Public University Applicants

The analysis next focused on those who specified one of the five elite public universities as their first choice. As stated earlier, the World Bank (1978: 16) has identified the top five public universities in 1984 as the University of Indonesia in

Jakarta (UI); Gajah Mada University in Yogyakarta (UGM); the Institute of

Technology in Bandung (ITB); the Institute of Agriculture in Bogor (IPB); and

Airlangga University in Surabaya (UNAIR). The median score of elite university applicants was 179. The sample produced 1,883 cases, of which 198 were accepted 152 to elite public universities, 126 were accepted to regional universities or teacher training colleges, and 1559 were rejected.

Table 11 shows frequency distributions for the variables in the analysis of elite public university applicants. Table 12 compares these distributions to those of the entire sample. Table 12 shows there were slight differences between the groups in the direction predicted by Hypothesis 1. For example, fathers of applicants to elite public universities in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample had achieved slightly higher levels of formal education than those in the sample as a whole. For mothers of applicants to elite public universities, the difference was slightly greater, and in the direction predicted by Hypothesis 1. A similar relationship was observed when the two groups were compared by parents’ occupations. There was a higher percentage of parents of elite public university applicants clustered in the more prestigious occupations than parents from the entire sample. Table 11 Frequency and Percentage Distributions, for Key Variables in the Analysis Elite University Applicants, 1984 (N = 1883)

Variables Frequencv Percent Gender Female 631 33.5 Male 1252 66.5 Type of High School Public 1225 65.1 Private 658 34.9 Curriculum Choice -- High School Natural Science 1503 79.8 Social Science & Humanities 380 20.2 Curriculum Choice -- University Natural Science 1053 55.9 Social Science & Humanities 830 44.1 Father’s Occupation Missing Data or Parent 94 .2 Farmer/Fishermen 135 7.2 Blue Collar 45 2.4 Business/Self Employed 360 19.1 White Collar (Including Retired) 250 13.3 Teachers (Public and Private) 183 9.7 Professional 10 .5 Military/Civil Service (Including 805 4.28 Retired Out of the Labor Force 91 4.8

Mother’s Occupation Missing Data or Parent 10 .5 Farmer/Fishermen/Homemaker 144 7.6 Blue Collar 25 1.3 Business/Self Employed 400 21.2 White Collar (Including Retired) 39 2.1 Teacher (Public and Private) 144 7.6 Professional 12 .6 Military/Civil Service (Including 78 4.1 Retired) Out if the Labor Force 1031 55.0 Father's Education Missing Data or Parent 55 2.9 Less than six years 108 5.7 Six years 295 15.7 Nine years 309 16.4 Twelve years 732 38.9 Fifteen years 199 10.6 Seventeen years or more 185 9.8 154

Table 11 (continued) Frequencv and Percentage Distributions. Elite University Applicants. 1984 fN = 18831

Variables Frequency Percent

Mother’s Education Missing Data or Parent 107 5.6 Less than six years 232 12.3 Six years 406 21.6 Nine years 459 24.4 Twelve years 596 31.7 Fifteen years 59 3.1 Seventeen years or more 24 1.3 Accented to all Universities Not accepted 1559 82.8 Accepted 324 17.2 Accented to Elite oublic universities Not accepted 1685 89.5 Accepted 198 10.5

Table 12 shows that the two primary measures of elite political status were consistent with Hypothesis 1 when parents of elite public university applicants were compared to all public university applicants using simple frequency distributions.

More students from elite political backgrounds selected an elite public university as their first choice than students from the sample as a whole.

Logistic Regression Analysis

In the next phase of the analysis, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested using a nonlinear regression analysis based on the logistic regression model. Table 12

Percentage Difference* of Elite

VI.

All Univeriity Applicant! for Key Variables

in the Analysis, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Variables Elite All Universities

(N= 1883) (N = 7279)

Gender Female 33.5 38.9 Male 66.5 61.1

Type of High School Public 65.1 59.1 Private 34.9 40.9

Curriculum Choice — High School Natural Science 79.8 Social Science & Humanities 20.2

Curriculum Choice — University Natural Science 55.9 47.9 Social Science & Humanities 44.1 52.1

Fathers Occupation Missing Data or Parent .2 .4 Farmer/Fisherman 7.2 19.0 Blue Collar 2.4 2.6 Business/Self employed 19.1 17.6 White collar (incl. retired) 13.3 8.8 Teachers (Public and Private) 9.7 10.0 Professional 0.5 0.5 Military/Civil Service 42.8 37.5 (including retired) Out of the Labor Force 4.8 3.6

Mother’s Occupation Missing data or parent .5 1.0 Farmer/Fisherman 7.6 17.9 Blue Collar 1.3 1.3 Business/self-employed 21.2 19.2 White collar (including retired) 2.1 1.3 Teachers (Public dt Private) 7.6 7.1 Professional .6 .5 Military/Civil Service 4.1 3.6 (Including retired) Out of the Labor Force 55.0 48.1

Father’s Education 156

Variable! Elite All Univenitiea

(N = 1883) (N = 7279)

Miuing Data or Parent 2.9 2.5 Leal than lix yean 5.7 10.0 Six yean 15.7 24.3 Nine Yean 16.4 19.2 Twelve Yean 38.9 32.5 Fifteen Yean 10.6 6.6 Seventeen Yean or more 9.8 5.0

Mother’a Education Miaaing Data or Parent 5.6 4.5 L eu than aix yean 12.3 20.3 Six yean 21.6 30.5 Nine Yean 24.4 21.6 Twelve Yean 31.7 21.2 Fifteen Yean 3.1 1.5 Seventeen Yean or more 1.3 0.5

Accepted to All Public Univenitics

Not Accepted 82.8 81.4 Accepted 17.2 18.6

Accepted to Elite Public Universities Milling Data Not Accepted 89.5 97.3 Accepted 10.5 2.7

Logistic regression, or logit, is a nonlinear regression model that provides a more accurate estimate of the relationship between dependent and independent variables when the dependent variable is qualitative, as opposed to a quantitative, continuous, interval measure. Logit then provides a more "reasonable" estimate of the relationship between dependent and independent variables (Aldrich and Nelson,

1984: 9).

An example of a qualitative variable is party affiliation. Party affiliation cannot be scaled such that one’s party choice is determined by having more or less of a particular quality. It is not possible to specify the quantity nor the "distance" between, for example, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. In other words, it 157

is not possible to order party affiliation such that one moves from being Republican to

Democrat to Independent as one acquires more (or less) of a particular characteristic,

such as political awareness.

Nonlinear regression models, of which logistic regression is the most widely

used, are also more accurate when the dependent variable is dichotomous (Theil,

1970; Aldrich and Nelson, 1984): "In the standard regression model an R2 of 1

indicates a perfect fit—the dependent variable is explained exactly by the regression

equation. But, when (the dependent variable) can assume only two values, such a

perfect fit is essentially impossible" (Aldrich and Nelson, 1984: 29). A dichotomous

dependent variable is one in which there is either the total absence or the total

presence of a characteristic.

The dependent variable in this analysis is dichotomous. This dissertation seeks

to determine which factors contributed to students being either admitted to or rejected

from elite public universities in Indonesia in 1984. Logistic regression will specify which of the independent variables available in the SIPENMARU data were most significant in determining acceptance and rejection in 1984.

In summary, the logistic regression analysis will focus only on those students who specified one of the five elite public universities as their first choice. Hypothesis

1 assumed that the vast majority of elite applicants would choose to attend one of the top five public universities. Table 12 provided support for that assumption as parents of elite public university applicants measured higher on educational attainment and were slightly more concentrated in elite occupations. Hypothesis 1 specified that the 158

children of Indonesian elites who did not score well on SIPENMARU would

nevertheless gain access to the public university system. This would occur by virtue of the government’s need to allow traditional forms of access to continue for

Indonesian elites in order to maintain its dual legitimacy requirement. The analysis will focus on the subset of the SIPENMARU data that corresponds to these parameters: all applicants to elite public universities who scored below the median on the 1984 SIPENMARU entrance examination.

Results of the Logistic Regression Analysis

The analysis was conducted in three stages - stages two and three isolating factors that were statistically significant in the first stage — to determine which independent variables explained more of the variance when the dependent variable was acceptance to one of five elite public universities in 1984. After completing all runs, the regression analysis showed that score on the SIPENMARU examination was the most significant variable in determining access to elite public universities in 1984.

Table 13 reports the results of the first stage of the analysis, which looked at all applicants to elite public universities in 1984.

In addition to score on the SIPENMARU examination, gender, college curriculum desired (natural science vs. social science & humanities) and high school attended (public or private) were also significant. The gender variable was probably significant in the logistic regression analysis because males outnumbered females two to one in the group that applied to elite public universities in 1984. This tells us that 159 a higher percentage of males than females were accepted to the elite public universities in 1984.

Table 13 Logistic Regression for all Applicants Elite public universities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 (N=1883; Dependent Variable = Accepted)

Variable Beta Std. Error Chi-Square P Major Desired -2.615 0.307 72.33 0.0000 High School -1.041 0.265 15.37 0.0001 (Public/Private) High School Major -0.466 0.474 0.97 0.3246 (Natural Science/ Social Science) Fathers Occupation 0.050 0.060 0.70 0.4028 Mother’ Occupation -0.021 0.061 0.12 0.7310 Father’s Education -0.153 0.091 2.81 0.0934 Mother’s Education 0.028 0.091 0.09 0.7587 Gender 0.696 0.225 9.57 0.0020 SIPENMARU Score 0.029 0.002 206.40 0.0000 High School Course 0.082 0.071 1.35 0.2457 Load High School GPA -0.002 0.007 0.12 0.7335

Model Chi-square = 500.25 with 11 D.F. Significance level = 0.0

Missing Observations = 81 160

The logistic regression analysis next looked at all those who applied to elite public universities while controlling for their SIPENMARU examination scores.

Table 14 shows that there were 1445 applicants to elite public universities who scored below 179, the median for all elite public university applicants. Score and curriculum choice were the most significant variables followed by gender and father’s education. 161

High school type (public or private) became less significant when controlling for score.

Table 14

Logistic Regression for Applicants to Elite Universities Who Scored Below the Median for All Applicants to Elite Public Universities, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 (N = 1445; Dependent Variable = Accepted) Variable Beta Std. Error Chi-Square P

Major Desired -3.955 1.000 15.63 0.000 High School Type -0.527 0.406 1.68 0.195 (Public/Private) High School Major 0.316 1.348 0.06 0.814 (Natural Science/Social Science) Father’s Occupation -0.040 0.094 0.18 0.674 Mother’s Occupation -0.170 0.116 2.14 0.143 Father’s Education 0.297 0.145 4.17 0.041 Mother’s Education 0.038 0.142 0.07 0.791 Gender 0.977 0.358 7.44 0.006 SIPENMARU Score 0.042 0.006 54.45 0.000 High School Course 0.117 0.096 1.49 0.222 Load High School GPA -0.011 0.011 1.14 0.287

Model Chi-square = 127.13 with 11 D.F. Significance level = 0.0

Missing Observations = 81

Median =179 162

Table 15 reports the next phase of the logistic regression analysis. It examined all applicants to elite public universities controlling for a curriculum choice of natural science. SIPENMARU score was again the most significant variable, with gender and mother’s occupation indicating some significance as well. As Table 15 shows, none of the other elite political status variables were significant.

Table 15

Logistic Regression Analysis for Applicants to Elite public universities Who Specified a Natural Science Curriculum for University Study, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 (N = 842; Dependent Variable = Accepted)

Variable Beta Std. Error Chi-Square P

High School Type -0.262 0.453 0.34 0.562 (Public/Private) High School Major -4.054 35.245 0.02 0.898 (Natural Science/Social Science) Father’s Occupation 0.031 0.119 0.07 0.797 Mother’s Occupation -0.316 0.158 4.00 0.045 Father’s Education 0.297 0.179 2.74 0.098 Mother’s Education 0.024 0.174 0.02 0.892 Gender 1.089 0.425 6.56 0.010 SIPENMARU Score 0.043 0.007 34.74 0.000 High School Course 0.218 0.202 1.17 0.280 Load High School GPA -0.008 0.015 0.26 0.610

Model Chi-square = 72.64 with 10 D.F. Significance level = 0.0

Missing Observations = 48 163

Table 16 reports the last of the logistic regression analyses. It examined applicants to elite public universities who specified a social science and humanities curriculum for university study. Again, score was the most significant variable with type of high school alsow showing some significance. Thus, the logistic regression did not appear to provide much support for Hypothesis 1. The conclusions of Saleh

(1986) and Hansen et al. (1989), who stated that score was the most significant variable in determining acceptance to the public university system in Indonesia in

1984 were supported by this phase of the analysis. Even when controlling for elite background — the group hypothesized to be the most likely to circumvent formal admissions procedures — score accounted for acceptance to elite public univerisites more than any other variable or combination of variables in 1984. However, before we can conclude that SIPENMARU score was the only factor (in combination with the number of seats available in each department) in determining acceptance to elite public universities in 1984, Hypothesis 2 must be tested. 164

Table 16

Logistic Regression Analysis for Applicants to Elite public universities Who Specified a Social Science and Humanities Curriculum for University Study, SIPENMARU Survey, 1984 (N = 693; dependent variable = accepted)

Variable Beta Std. Error Chi-Square P

High School Type -2.111 1.125 3.52 0.061 (Public/Private) High School Major 0.137 0.761 0.03 0.857 (Natural Science/Social Science) Father’s Occupation 0.141 0.172 0.67 0.413 Mother’s Occupation 0.219 0.164 1.78 0.182 Father’s Education -0.198 0.246 0.65 0.420 Mother’s Education -0.072 0.239 0.09 0.764 Gender 0.504 0.625 0.65 0.421 SIPENMARU Score 0.042 0.010 16.52 0.000 High School Course Load -0.103 0.176 0.34 0.559 High School GPA 0.016 0.025 0.41 0.520

Model Chi-square = 40.56 with 10 D.F. Significance level = 0.0000.

Missing Observations = 37

Case Analysis In the final part of the data analysis, Hypothesis 2 will be examined.

Hypothesis 2 stated that admission to all universities was mechanical, based on highest scores and number of seats open in the department to which the student applied. The rationale for this hypothesis was based upon the official pronouncements 165 applied. The rationale for this hypothesis was based upon the official pronouncements of the Ministry of Education and Culture, such as Director General for Higher

Education Sukadji Ranuwihardjo’s statement that admission to the public university system in 1984 was determined by the highest score/seats available formula

(interview, Jakarta, Indonesia, June 28, 1990).

Table 17 shows the number of students who applied and the number accepted to natural sciences at elite public universities in 1984. It also gives the number of departments within the university in 1984. Table 18 provides the same information for the social sciences and humanities. Appendix II provides this information for all

43 public universities and colleges in Indonesia in 1984. 166

Table 17

Frequency Distributions for Applicants Accepted and Not Accepted to Elite public universities in the Natural Sciences, 1984

University No. No. Applied No. Accepted % Admitted Departments University of 13 27,095 643 2.4 Indonesia (UI) Agriculture 1 6,255 350 5.6 Institute-Bogor (IPB) Institute of 21 24,972 1,195 4.8 Technology- Bandung (ITB) Gajah Mada 22 30,243 1,849 6.1 Univ. (UGM) Airlangga 8 9,041 527 5.8 University (UNAIR)

Source; Computer Center, University of Indonesia, 1990 (unpublished). Data for Table 17 was acquired during an interview with Toemin Masoem, Computer Specialist, University of Indonesia, June 30, 1990.

Unfortunately, data on the number of applicants to specific departments and the number of seats available in each department in 1984 were not available. However,

Hypothesis 2 can still be tested by looking at the 1984 SIPENMARU data, which included a student’s score, department and university to which the student applied, and whether the student was accepted to that department, another department at the

same university, another university, or not accepted to any department at any university. 167

Table 18

Frequency Distributions for Applicants Accepted and Not Accepted to Elite public universities in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 1984

University No. No. No. % Departments Applied Accepted Accepted University of Indonesia (UI) 23 47,109 1,123 2.4

Agriculture Institute—Bogor -- -- (IPB)

Institute of Technology- - - - - Bandung (ITB) Gajah Mada University (UGM) 18 32,954 1,363 4.1 Airlangga University (UNAIR) 5 18,455 595 3.2

Source: Computer Center, University of Indonesia, 1990 (unpublished). Data for Tables 18 and 19 was acquired during interview with Toemin A. Masoem, Computer Specialist, University of Indonesia, June 30, 1990.

Table 19 summarizes the findings of the case analysis. Appendix III contains

the data from which Table 19 was derived. Appendix III lists all applicants to elite

public universities in the SIPENMARU sample in 1984 by university, department to

which the student applied as his or her first choice, score on the SIPENMARU examination, and university and department to which the student was accepted. The

numbers in Table 19 represent acceptance to one of the five elite public universities.

The number accepted column represents those who applied to and were accepted to

the university and department of first choice. The next column reports those who applied to and were accepted to that elite public university as a second choice. The 168

Table 19

Summary of Case Analysis Elite public university Applicants, SIPENMARU Sample 1984

Elite public No. Number Number Total Total1 university Applied Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejections as Second with Choice Higher Scores Agricultural 66 2 6 8 8 Institute-Bogor (IPB) Airlangga 263 20 12 32 42 University (UNAIR) Gajah Mada 548 36 41 77 146 University (UGM) Institute of 265 23 10 33 76 Technology Bandung (ITB)

The University of 741 m 22 42 305 Indonesia (UI) TOTAL 1883 107 91 198 577

1 The column represents the number of times someone with a lower score was accepted over someone with a higher score. It reflects the occurrence of multiple acceptances over one or more individuals with higher scores. For example, if two individuals were accepted with lower scores over one with a higher score, that was counted as two rejections even though only one individual was actually rejected. 169 total accepted column is the total of columns one and two, and represents all those accepted to elite public universities.

The last column, total rejections with higher scores, does not represent a cumulative total of all those rejected with higher scores, because there were many instances in which more than one applicant was accepted into a particular department over one or more applicants with higher scores. Thus, these numbers are not a raw count, but a rough measure of the magnitude of the occurrence of admissions out of sequence according to SIPENMARU score and Hypothesis 2.

Of the 1883 who applied, 198 (10.5%) were accepted to elite public universities, 126 (6.7%) were accepted to regional universities or teacher training colleges, and 1559 (82.8%) were not accepted anywhere in the Indonesian public university system. As in the logistic regression, the case analysis was only interested in those accepted to elite public universities. Hypothesis 2 stated that students would be accepted to specific departments depending on their score and the number of seats available for admission to that department in 1984. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the case analysis. Of the 198 students accepted to elite public universities, 72

(36.4%) were accepted over others with higher scores who were either accepted to regional universities and teacher training colleges, or rejected totally. This percentage is significant because admission to all public universities in 1984 was supposed to have been mechanical by computer tabulation (Jakarta Post. July 21, 1983:2).

There were many instances in which applicants were accepted with lower scores over others with higher scores who were rejected even though they applied to the 170 same department. Furthermore, many applicants with lower scores were accepted to their second choice over others with higher scores rejected to the department of their first choice. When combined, these numbers indicated that acceptance by department for those with the highest scores did not occur in a significant number of cases in the

1984 SIPENMARU sample.

The most significant finding, however, was that 37 of the 72 (51.4%) applicants who were accepted out of sequence to elite public universities had scores below the median. Furthermore, of those 37, 36 (97.3%) had at least one parent whose occupation was either as a public school teacher or with the military. Thus, 18.2%

(36 of 198) of all admissions to elite public universities in the 1984 SIPENMARU sample conform to Hypothesis 1. Table 20 reports these findings. Both occupations were defined as politically elite in Hypothesis 1. It was predicted that in cases whose score was relatively low, elite political background would explain acceptance to elite public universities. Hypothesis 1 was therefore supported by Table 20.

In addition to the pattern seen in Table 20, several other patterns emerged from the case analysis of applicants to elite public universities in 1984. One was a concentration of abnormal acceptances in the faculties of economics at the University of Indonesia and Gajah Mada University. Both departments accounted for a large percentage of second choice admissions, where individuals with higher scores who had indicated those departments as their first choice were either rejected, or accepted to non-elite public universities. (See Appendix III for departmental breakdowns of admissions for the SIPENMARU Sample, 1984) Table 20

Occupational Status of Parents of Low Scoring Applicants Accepted to Elite Public Universities, SIPENMARU Sample, 1984 (N=37)

UNIVERSITY SCORE EDUCATIONEDUCATIONOCCUPATIONOCCUPATION (median (Father) (Mother) (Father) (Mother) = 179) (In Years) (In Years) Agriculture 172 6 6 Professional Military Institute-Bogor 141 15 9 White Collar Teacher (Public) (IPB) 130 > 6 > 6 Military Military Airlangga 167 12 12 Military Teacher (Public) University 158 17 12 Professional Teacher (Public) (UNAIR) 153 17 12 Professional Military Table 20 (Continued)

UNIVERSITY SCORE EDUCATIONEDUCATION OCCUPATIONOCCUPATION (median (Father) (Mother) (Father) (Mother) = 179) (In Years) (In Years) Gajah Mada 171 12 6 White Collar Military University 170 unspecified unspecified Teacher (public) Teacher (Public) (UGM) 164 9 6 Professional Teacher (Public) 164 12 12 White collar Teacher (Public) 160 6 6 Farmer/Fisherman Teacher (Public) 146 17 or more 12 Professional Teacher (Public) 115 6 9 Unspecified Military 108 12 12 Professional Teacher (Public) 104 12 12 Teacher (Private) Military 103 os 9 Professional Teacher (Public) 84 9 9 Teacher (Private) Teacher (Public) 47 12 9 Teacher (Private) Teacher (Public)

Institute of 168 unspecified unspecified Military Teacher (Public) Technology — 157 12 12 Military White Collar Bandung (ITB) 124 15 unspecified Professional Teacher (Public) 119 12 12 Military Military 96 15 12 Professional Teacher (Public) Table 20 (Continued)

UNIVERSITYSCORE EDUCATION EDUCATION OCCUPATION OCCUPATION (median (Father) (Mother) (Father) (Mother) = 179) (In Years) (In Years)

University of 160 12 9 Professional Teacher (Public) Indonesia (UI) 154 12 > 6 Military Teacher (Public) 151 15 15 Professional Teacher (Public) 147 15 15 Military Teacher (Public) 143 17 or more 15 Professional Teacher (Public) 140 15 9 White Collar Teacher (Public) 135 17 or more 12 Professional Teacher (Public) 135 12 6 Professional Teacher (Public) 129 17 or more 12 White Collar Teacher (Public) 128 12 12 Professional Teacher (Public) 121 12 12 Professional Teacher (Public) 115 unspecified 12 Professional Teacher (Public) 102 12 9 Professional Teacher (Public) 68 12 6 White Collar Teacher (Public) 174

A second phenomenon was the rejection of individuals with extremely high

scores. In many cases, these were some of the highest scores in the entire

SIPENMARU sample, not just the highest scores in any given department. A

possible explanation of this occurrence may be that these individuals were ethnic

Chinese and were rejected to meet the government’s strict three percent limit on

admissions for this group (Klitgaard, 1986).

Another interesting pattern occurred in which high scoring applicants to social

science and humanities departments at the University of Indonesia and Gajah Mada

University were accepted to natural science programs at those universities or the

Institute of Technology at Bandung as second choice admissions. This seems to

correspond to the government’s emphasis on the hard sciences but not necessarily to

the logic of the SIPENMARU examination which should have given these students

their first choice. The government may have simply decided that the very brightest

students would be channeled into these fields according to the government’s natural

science emphasis.

This last finding raises several issues related to admissions policies in 1984.

The first is that academic departments within these universities may not have had a fixed number of seats available for admission in the 1984-85 academic year. They

may have had the flexibility to fill a range of seats depending on the overall performance of the 1984 SIPENMARU examination takers. This seems especially likely if it was true that some departments were said to have filled 80-90 percent of 175

their available seats through PMDK (interview with Toemin Masoem, June 30, 1990).

Further research is required to investigate this possibility.

A second possible explanation for the rejection of very high scoring students to

their first choice was that some departments, like economics and law at the University

of Indonesia, were filled by talent scouting or possibly by illegal admissions. Very

high scoring applicants, unless Chinese, would have to be given admissions in other

departments at the same or other elite public universities or the government would

have serious credibility problems with its new examination, which was supposed to

accept only the highest academic achievers.

Summary

The analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU sample employed two techniques. The

first was a statistical test of significance of the variables in the SIPENMARU sample

using the logistic regression model. The logistic regression focused more narrowly on a subset of the SIPENMARU data, namely, all those who applied to elite public universities, than had Saleh (1986) and Hansen et al. (1989) in their analyses of the

same data. This part of the analysis found that score on the 1984 SIPENMARU examination was the most significant variable in determining acceptance to elite public universities. Two of the elite political status variables, father’s education and mother’s occupation, registered as slightly significant in the logistic regression analysis. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was generally not supported by the logistic regression analysis. 176

In the second stage of the analysis, all 1883 applicants in the 1984

SIPENMARU survey who applied to elite public universities were examined according to the admissions formula established by Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 was based on interviews with Ministry of Education and Culture officials who stated that admission in 1984 was determined by an applicant’s score and the number of openings available in the department to which the student applied. The case analysis did not support Hypothesis 2 as 36.4% of admissions to the five elite public universities did not conform to this formula. Thus, even though a majority of those accepted to elite public universities conformed to Hypothesis 2, the formula should have been mechanical, and there should have been no instances of lower scoring applicants being accepted over others with higher scores to the same department.

In the final analysis, the two elite political status variables that were only slightly significant in the logistic regression analysis, turned out to be highly significant in the case analysis for the dependent variable when score was below the median for the subsample. Thus, the most significant finding of this dissertation was the pattern that emerged among those who were accepted to elite public universities while scoring below the median for the elite public university applicants subsample.

Nearly all had one or more parents with either a public teacher or military occupation. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported and Hypothesis 2 was not, as 36.4% of those accepted to specific departments at elite public universities in 1984 had lower scores than many other applicants with higher scores rejected from those same departments. ENDNOTES

Calculated from university enrollment as a percentage of total population 1975. Population was 136,044,00 and enrollment was 278,106 that year. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

This dissertation sought to examine the concept of dual political legitimacy

through an analysis of access to elite public universities in Indonesia in 1984. The analysis used data from the 1984 SIPENMARU examination because this data set is the most comprehensive data available for addressing the significance of access to higher education in satisfying Indonesia’s dual legitimacy needs. The value of the data is its comprehensiveness in terms of the portion of the incoming university group taking the examination. Although tests were given in subsequent years, the government has turned away from SIPENMARU as the single most important variable in selections for admission to university. Thus, although the data set is six years old, its comprehensiveness makes it valuable for an analysis of political legitimacy in determining educational policies of the Indonesian government. The issue here is the impact on university admissions of Indonesia’s need to maintain dual legitimacy, and the 1984 SIPENMARU data is uniquely suited to address these issues.

178

« 179

Results of the 1984 SIPENMARU Data Analysis

At the macro level, the logistic regression analysis showed that score was the most salient factor in determining access to elite public universities in 1984, which appears to refute Hypothesis 1 that elite political status variables would explain acceptance to these universities when score was relatively low. Father’s education and mother’s occupation were the only elite political status variables that were significant in the regression analysis, and they were only marginally significant.

However, the more detailed case analysis of all elite public university applicants found a significant pattern to support Hypothesis 1. Additionally, the case analysis found that more than one-third (36.4%) of those accepted to elite public universities had lower scores than other higher scoring individuals who were rejected. Hypothesis

2 argued that stiff competition for limited seats in several of the most popular departments, such as engineering and economics, would explain the rejection of high scoring applicants. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was disconfirmed as those who were accepted with lower scores were admitted over others with higher scores who had applied to the same department. The evidence in support of Hypothesis 1 was that more than half of the 36.4 % of out of sequence acceptances had scores below the median score for the elite public university applicants’ subsample. Nearly all of these low scoring applicants (97.3%) had at least one parent who was either a public teacher or in the military (see Table 21) making them clearly part of Indonesia’s political elite. 180

Conclusions Based on the Analysis Results

In general, the case analysis showed that in 1984 the SIPENMARU examination, while reflecting a public commitment by the government to the popular demand for an end to traditional means of access to higher education, was not as effective or efficient as the government claimed it would be in selecting the most academically qualified students to fill the limited seats available in the public university system. It is entirely likely that SIPENMARU, as administered in 1984, was the best effort to that date on the part of the government to devise a system and deliver on its oft stated policies of providing access for its best and the brightest students. Their best effort, however, fell short as the evidence here suggests that substantial deviations occurred, and the government found it necessary to once again meet the demands of traditionalist elements among its political constituencies.

Too many applicants with extremely high scores were not accepted anywhere, or were accepted to public universities that could offer only lower quality training.

At the same time, too many other applicants with relatively low scores were accepted to the best schools. Some of those rejected with high scores in the 1984

SIPENMARU sample were undoubtedly Chinese (Klitgaard, 1986), but this cannot be a satisfactory explanation for all of the irregularities. Moreover, when it is recognized that of the entire test group (N=478,930), more than 2,300 were admitted to the five elite public universities with very low scores the practices must have been at least tacitly condoned by the government. 181

While we are forced to recognize the reality and political expediency of institutionalized discrimination against Chinese throughout most of Southeast Asia

(because of the perceived need to prevent Chinese domination of national economies, and the political instability that would result if traditional ethnic rivalries are not kept in check1), such discrimination must be recognized and included in assessments of determinants of access to higher education in Indonesia. The fact of quotas for ethnic

Chinese alone establishes that political considerations are important in determining access to higher education in Indonesia. The findings of this dissertation confirm that politics are important in determining access to higher education in Indonesia for other groups as well.

The problem still remains, however, that although this dissertation found some evidence that could be used to support Hypothesis 1 and the notion that access to higher education in Indonesia affects and is affected by political factors, namely, the government’s need for political legitimacy, the question is whether the concepts of dual legitimacy and political construction of educational systems best explain the results of analyzing the 1984 SIPENMARU sample?

Dual Legitimacy and Political Construction of Educational Systems

Kahane’s (1973) concepts of a transitional society and dual political legitimacy in the analysis of higher education in Indonesia were useful heuristic devices rather than unified theoretical models. Both were useful concepts for identifying specific research questions upon which the concept of political legitimacy in Indonesia could 182

be investigated. The weakness of both concepts, however, was their reliance on key

assumptions of modernization theory that have been called into question (Furtado,

1958; Portes: 1973). The main weakness of the assumptions of Kahane’s concepts for

this dissertation were their extreme level of generality. The analysis of the

SIPENMARU data cannot prove that the findings were causally linked to the concept

of the need to promote dual legitimacy in a transitional society. However the

evidence strongly suggests that this hypothesis is viable, and appears to be the best

explanation of the deviation from the strict admissions policy based on score.

Secondary evidence clearly supports the government’s commitment to the objective, "modernist" approach to admissions based on test scores. To assert that admissions in 1984 were at least partially explained by the dual legitimacy concept, it

is not necessary to know that the government actively allowed low scoring children of politically elite parents to be admitted to elite public universities contrary to stated public policy. Dual legitimacy gains its validity as a plausible explanation based on the findings. The circumstantial evidence of support on the part of the government is sufficient because of the extent of the irregular entries and their virtual uniformity in support of children of the elite. Table 21 gives the total number of students accepted to elite public universities in 1984 (N=7645). If we apply the percentage of 1984

SIPENMARU sample irregular entries uncovered in this dissertation (18 percent) to this total, we get the following numbers: University of Indonesia, 318; Agricultural

Institute at Bogor, 63; Institute of Technology at Bandung, 215; the University of

Gajah Mada, 578; and the University of Airlangga, 202, for a total of 1,376 183

admissions to elite public universities in 1984 in support of traditionalist elements of

Indonesia’s political elite. Moreover, I*ubinson (1974) would argue that it could be assumed that this was a conscious policy, given his conclusion that the greater the degree of governmental control over the educational system, the stronger the relationship between the government and the educational system in terms of political legitimacy.

Thus, this conclusion has validity without specific evidence that irregular admissions were a conscious policy at the highest levels of government. For example, a rival explanation to Hypothesis 1 could assert that the findings here only support the conclusion that irregular admissions were merely part of the pattern of corruption permeating much of the government and culture in Indonesia in 1984, and since the irregular admissions occurred without explicit government approval, one could not say that the occurrence was in any way related to the government’s need to satisfy its dual legitimacy requirements in 1984. While that is possible, the general corruption hypothesis should have produced greater variability in parental occupational backgrounds among the irregular admissions group. The fact that the data revealed a virtual perfect correlation between political elite status and irregular admissions makes the dual legitimacy hypothesis a more likely explanation.

Thus, this analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU data leads to the conclusion that the need to satisfy dual legitimacy appears to have been an important factor determining access to the Indonesian public university system in 1984. 184

The implications of these findings for Indonesia’s development efforts are significant. While the government’s policy rhetoric in support of "modernist" use of the admissions scores was consistent (and my interviews with Indonesian officials leads me to believe they were sincere), the fact that they could not implement such a program without acceding to traditionalist pressures is a measure of the frailty of

Indonesia’s transitional political system. Not only were valuable human resources wasted because the government did not mechanically select all of the best academically qualified applicants, but had these findings been widely known in

Indonesia at the time, the government’s credibility and possibly political legitimacy would have been damaged because of its repeated claims to fairness and equality in access to higher education with the SIPENMARU examination. The pressures of maintaining dual legitimacy undoubtedly impact in many areas of the political system in Indonesia. So long as the system remains vulnerable to pressures from traditionalist elements, the government will continue to face the risk of espousing modernist policies while at the same time circumventing its own policies and goals to meet the demands of its more traditionalist constituents.

SIPENMARU Since 1984

In July 1987, the Ministry of Education and Culture announced that public university entrance testing would be decentralized. SIPENMARU had been eliminated as the government’s method for selecting university students.

Responsibility for the administration of entrance examinations would be returned to 185

the individual universities, as it had been under PP1 and PP2 before the

implementation of SIPENMARU in 1984 (Jakarta Post. July 16, 1987).

SIPENMARU was never directly criticized as being corrupt; however, reports of

fraud and influence peddling in admissions to all levels of the educational system were

being regularly reported in the press. These events and the findings of this

dissertation suggest that admissions irregularities may have been at least partially

responsible for the demise of SIPENMARU.

In addition to the decision to end SIPENMARU, the government announced it

planned to discontinue the PMDK talent scouting program in early 1989 because of

reports of corruption (Jakarta Post. January 4, 1989). The typical way talent scouting

was subverted was by parents bribing teachers and educational administrators at the

high school level to give their children the highest possible grades, regardless of

academic performance (Jakarta Post. December 30, 1988). These students would then become prime candidates for gaining admission to elite public universities through the

PMDK talent scouting program, because elite public universities were the only

schools allowed to recruit through PMDK. Chances of gaining entrance to elite public universities in this manner would be even greater if parents purchased grades for students enrolled at one of a small number of quality high schools targeted by university talent scouting administrators as being more likely to produce academically qualified college students. The better quality high schools were concentrated in major urban centers on Java, most notably Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta, and Bogor. 186

The official explanation from Minister of Education Fuad Hassan for ending

SIPENMARU was that the national testing procedure was too complex and problem ridden: "the current system putting all school examinations under authority of the central government is ’a herculean job full of severe problems’ (Jakarta Post. July 3,

1987)."

Specific shortcomings of the SIPENMARU examination system revolved around problems of confusion on the part of students who successfully passed the examination, not that the system failed to select the best qualified students, or that admission procedures had been corrupted. For example, Director General for Higher

Education Sukadji Ranuwihardjo stated that "the old system [did] not enable prospective students to choose the field of study they want[ed] to major in (Jakarta

Post. December 30, 1988)," while a student who passed the exam in 1986 did not know whether she had been accepted to her first or second choice university (Jakarta

Post. August 4, 1986).

There were indications in the press that a sizable number of students who passed the SIPENMARU examination each year failed to enroll. For example, 3.5 percent of high school students accepted in 1986 through the PMDK talent scouting program failed to enroll (Jakarta Post. June 21, 1986). Like the official explanation for problems with SIPENMARU, the government argued that students were confused by the admissions process and about what they wanted.

Sukadji explained that one of the reasons for this is because students were not really sure of their choice. A high school student might have chosen biology when enrolling, but after being accepted, would decide to try medical school, and take the university entrance test (Jakarta Post. June 21, 1986). 187

Several explanations are possible. One might be that these students were

accepted to a regional university or teacher training college through talent scouting,

but would only attend an elite public university, so decided to opt out of the talent

scouting program. This explanation fits Hypothesis 1 and the general literature that

suggested children of elites wanted only elite public universities. Unfortunately, the elite status backgrounds of the 3.5 percent who failed to register in 1984 cannot be determined here, because those data were was not included in the sample.

Other possible explanations were that 3.5 percent of students accepted through talent scouting simply could not afford to pay the expenses for school, despite the fact that the Indonesian government subsidized university education. These students might also have been disqualified on other grounds after acceptance into the public university system. This would be consistent with later official pronouncements in the press regarding SIPENMARU qualifiers in subsequent years who also failed to register. For example, of those passing the SIPENMARU examination and accepted into one of 16 of the 43 total public universities in 1986, 3,071 (out of a total of

42,833), or 7.2 percent never registered. The press reported that "it was widely believed that higher tuition fees [had] forced the students to give up their chance for a university education (Jakarta Post. August 23, 1986)."

Another explanation for some students could have been that they were disqualified due to poor health after being accepted. In the instructions for the 1984

SIPENMARU examination test makers were informed that upon passing the examination, students would be required to take a physical examination, which if not 188

passed, would disqualify the student’s admission (see Appendix I, Section D.b.3.:

"Health Requirements").

In light of the findings in the analysis of the 1984 SIPENMARU data, it is not

surprising that the government decided to drop the SIPENMARU format in 1988.

The data indicated that many of the best qualified students did not get into elite public

universities, while a significant number of students with lower academic qualifications

did. Revelations of corruption in the talent scouting program after 1984 were

probably also why the Suharto government could not justify continued silence on

school entry irregularities, first, because the cases were widely reported in the press,

and second, because the government stood so firmly on modernist rhetoric of equality

of access to higher education. If it had remained silent or had been seen as tacitly accepting the irregularities, and Rubinson (1974) was correct, the Suharto

government’s political legitimacy would have been damaged. This dissertation has

shown that it is at least plausible to argue that political considerations, such as the possibility of needing to maintain dual legitimacy, were important in determining access to higher education and Indonesian government policies regarding

SIPENMARU in 1984.

SIPENMARU may also have simply been vulnerable in 1987 to the will of the

Indonesian people who were not ready to accept academic achievement as the primary determinant of access to the public university system. It was in 1987 that

SIPENMARU was to be fully implemented, which meant by law, a whole class of 189 high school students would not even be allowed to compete for a public university education.

With the new system [SIPENMARU] only those who pass the preselection are allowed to take the examination. Preselection is based not only on the score in the final evaluation, but also on the recorded results in the 1st and 2nd year of [senior secondary school]. The students are thus divided into three groups. Those with the highest score may enter university without any test (about 10% of university capacity), the second group have to pass the test, while the third group are not permitted to sit for the test but are advised to enter more practical programmes such as polytechnic or diploma courses...Those students in their final year of Junior High School [in 1984] will be subject to the new system totally for the first time in 1987 (Supraptono, 1986: 14-15). Endnotes

This is based on Samuel Huntington’s (1968) argument that political stability imposed from above by authoritarian regimes was possibly a necessary evil to allow economic development measures to take hold when the attempt to initiate more political freedoms and a representative democracy prevented the establishment of lasting, effective government. A healthy, stable economy was the basis for more political freedom. References

Adelman, Irma, Theories of Economic Growth and Development. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961).

Aanenson, Charles R., Indonesia: A Study of the Educational System of the Republic of Indonesia and a Guide to the Academic Placement of Students from the Republic of Indonesia in Educational Institutions in the United States. (Washington, D.C.: AACRAO, 1979).

Aanenson, Charles R., "Indonesian Educational Systems." Paper presented at the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (NAFSA) Conference, Washington, D.C., June 1988

Apple, Michael W. Education and Power. (Boston: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1982).

Apple, Michael W. and Joel Taxel, "Ideology and the Curriculum," in Anthony Hartnett (ed.), Educational Studies and Social Science. (London: Heinemann, 1981).

Apter, David E., Introduction to Political Analysis. (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers, Inc., 1977) pp 455-527

Atmakusuma, Achjani, "Problems of University Growth in Indonesia." In Amnuay Tapingkae (ed), The Growth of Southeast Asian Universities: Expansion versus Consolidation. (Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development, April 1974), 1-10.

Beeby, C. E., Assessment of Indonesian Education: A Guide in Planning. (Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research and Oxford University Press, 1979).

Booth, Anne and Peter McCawley (eds.), The Indonesian Economy During the Soeharto Era. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).

Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. (New York: Basic Books, 1976).

191 192

Chai, Hon-Chan, "New Approaches to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.” In Wirasa Banphot, Development of Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Challenges for Tomorrow. (Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development, 1977), 17-26.

Chemichovsky, Dov and Ocy Astra Meesook, "School Enrollment in Indonesia," World Bank Staff Working Papers, Number 746, undated.

Chomsky, Noam, The Chomsky Reader. Edited by James Peck. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1987).

Christenson, Reo M., et al. Ideologies and Modem Politics. (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1975).

Collins, Randall, The Credential Society: A Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. (Orlando: Academic Press, 1979).

Crouch, Harold, The Armv and Politics in Indonesia. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978).

Darmaputera, Eka, Pancasila and the Search for Identity and Modernity in Indonesian Society: A Cultural and Ethical Analysis. (Lieden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988).

Dawson, Richard E. and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969).

Diamond, Larry, Juan Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.). Democracy in Developing Countries. (Boulder, Colorado: Lynn Rienner, 1988).

Djajadiningrat, Raden Loekman, From Illiteracy to University: Educational Development in the Netherlands Indies. (New York: Educational Development in the Netherlands Indies, Bulletin of the Netherlands and Netherlands Indies Council of Pacific Relations, No. 3, 1942).

Dunner, Joseph (ed.), Dictionary of Political Science. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1964).

Emmerson, Donald K., Indonesia’s Elite: Political Culture and Cultural Politics. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1976).

FEER. "Asia Yearbook 1989." (Hong Kong: Review Publishing Company, Ltd. 1989). 193

FEER. "Asia Yearbook 1983." (Hong Kong: Review Publishing Company, Ltd. 1983).

FEER. "Indonesia: The Debt Trap," June 4, 1987, Volume 136, No. 23. Pages 64-65.

Frank, Andre Gunter, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967).

Furtado, Celso, "Capital Formation and Economic Development." In A.N. Agarwala and S.P. Singh (eds.), The Economics of Underdevelopment. (London: Oxford University Press, 1958).

Furtado, Celso, Development and Underdevelopment: A Structural View of the Problems of Developed and Underdeveloped Countries. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964).

Geertz, Clifford, Negara: The Theater State in Nineteenth Century Bali. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980).

Geertz, Hildred, "Indonesian Cultures and Communities." In Ruth T. McVey (ed.), Indonesia. (New Haven: Hraf Press, 1963), 24-96.

Government of Indonesia, Indonesia Development Plans: REPELITA III and III. 1969-1983. (Jakarta: Ministry of Information, n.d.).

Government of Indonesia, National Educational System Law No. 2. 1989. (Jakarta: Ministry of Information, 1989).

Government of Indonesia, The Third Five-Year Development Plan: 1979-1984 (Summary). (Jakarta: Ministry of Information, 1979).

Government of Indonesia, Policies and Prospects for Sustained Development Under Challenging Conditions: REPELITA IV. The Fourth Five Year Development Plan of Indonesia. 1984/85- 1988-89 (A Summary). (Jakarta: Ministry of Information, 1984).

Government of Indonesia, Repelita V: Indonesia Fifth Five-Year Development Plan. 1989/90-1993/94. (Jakarta: BAPPENAS, 1989).

Hansen, David O., Aziz Saleh, William Flinn, and Lawrence Hotchkiss, "Determinants of Access to Higher Education in Indonesia." Comparative Education Review, vol. 33, no. 3 (August 1989): 317-33 194

Hayden, Howard, Higher Education and Development in Southeast Asia: Volume 1. Director’s Report. (Paris: UNESCO, 1967).

Hsu. Immanuel C.Y.. The Rise of Modem China. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975).

Hull, Terence H. and Sunaryo, "Was the Education Question on the 1971 Census Wrong or has Indonesia been Deschooling Society?" (Yogyakarta: Lembaga Kependudukan, Universitas Gajah Mada, October 1978).

Huntington. Samuel P.. Political Order in Changing Societies. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).

Isman, Jakub, "Indonesian Education in Brief: Recent Trends and Issues." Focus on Indonesia. (Washington, D.C.: Information Division, Embassy of Indonesia, Summer 1986), pp. 18-22

Kahane, Reuven, The Problem of Political Legitimacy in an Antagonistic Society: The Indonesian Case. (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1973).

Klitgaard, Robert. Elitism and Meritocracy in Developing Countries: Selection Policies for Higher Education. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).

Krom, N.J. Hindoe-Javaansche geschiedenis. (’s-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1931).

Lasswell, Harold, Politics: Who Gets What. When. How. (New York: Meridian Books, 1958).

Lemer, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. (New York: The Free Press of Glenco, 1958).

Liddle, R. William. "Soeharto’s Indonesia: Personal Rule and Political Institutions." Pacific Affairs. V58, No. 1 (Spring 1985) pp. 68-90.

Liddle, R. William, "Politics and Culture in Indonesia." Unpublished paper, 1989.

Lovell, J. P. and C. I. E. Kim, "The military and political change in Asia." Pacific Affairs, vol. 40. nos. 1 and 2 (Spring and Summer 1967): 113-132.

Lubis, Mochtar, (translated by Florence Lamoureux), The Indonesian Dilemma. (Singapore: Graham Brash (Pte) Ltd, 1983).

Mahasin, Aswab, "State, People, and Problems of Legitimacy." PRISMA, no. 34 195

(December 1984), 3-12.

Marahimin, Ismail, translated by John H. McGlynn, And the War is Over. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986).

McCloud, Donald G. System and Process in Southeast Asia: The Evolution of a Region. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986).

Meyer, John W., "The Charter: Conditions of Diffuse Socialization in Schools." In W. R. Scott (Ed.), Social Processes and Social Structures. (New York: Holt Publishers, 1970).

Meyer, John W., "The Effects of the Institutionalization of Colleges in Society." In K. A. Feldman (Ed.), College and Student: Selected Readings in the Social Psychology of Higher Education. (New York: Pergamom Press, 1972).

Migdal, Joel S., Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Societv Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Moegiadi, Christina S. Mangindaan and Warwick B. Elley, National Assessment of the Quality of Indonesian Education: Survey of Achievement in Grade 6. (Jakarta: Office of Educational and Cultural Research and Development, Ministry of Education and Culture, in association with The New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1976).

Parsons, Talcott. The Evolution of Societies. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977).

Parsons, Talcott. The System of Modem Societies. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19710.

Partoatmodjo, Soeratno, "Indonesia." In Seah Chee Meow and Soeratno Partoatmodjo, Higher Education in the Changing Environment: Case Studies of Singapore and Indonesia. (Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development, 1979), 77-109.

Pearse, Richard, "The Quantity of Education Demanded in a Developing Peasant Society: The Case of East Java." Asian Survey. Vol. XIX, No. 11, (November 1979), pp. 1093-1109.

Pearse, Richard. "Higher Education in Indonesia." Mimeograph (Jakarta: BPP, March 1973). 196

Polomka, Peter, Indonesia Since Sukarno. (Victoria: Penguin Books, 1971).

Portes, Alejandro, "Modernity and Development: A Critique." Studies in Comparative International Development. Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring), 1973.

Pranarka, A.M.W. "Critical Analysis of the Process of Educational Reform in Indonesia." In Indonesian Quarterly Volume II, no. 2 (January 1974), 96-112.

Pye, Lucian W., "Political Science and the Crisis of Authoritarianism." American Political Science Review. Volume 84, No. 1 (March 1990), 3-19.

Robison, Richard, "The Transformation of the State in Indonesia," in John G. Taylor and Andrew Turton (eds.), Southeast Asia: Sociology of Developing Societies. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1988), pp. 48-68.

Rostow, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).

Rubinson, Richard B., The Political Construction of Educational Systems. (Stanford University, Ph.D. 1974).

Rubinson, Richard B., "Class Formation, Politics, and Institutions: Schooling in the United States," AJS 92:3 (November 1986), 519-48.

Saleh, Aziz, Determinants of Access to Higher Education in Indonesia. (The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1985).

Schrieke, Bernhard. Ruler and Realm in Early Java. (The Hague and Bandung: W. van Hoeve, 1957).

Simandjuntak, I.P. "Selection and Social Mobility in Indonesia," in World Year Book of Education. (New York: Nichols, 1969), 310-18.

Smelser, Neil J. and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1966).

Soedjatmoko, "Some Thoughts on Higher Education." (Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development Reprint Series No. 27, no date).

Soemardjan, Selo, Social Changes in Jogjakarta. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962). 197

Soemardjan, Selo. "General Problems and Issues of Higher Education and Development in Indonesia." In Yip Yat Hoong (ed), Development of Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Problems and Issues. (Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development, 1973), 41-56.

Steinberg, Joel David (ed.), In Search of Southeast Asia: A Modem History. (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987).

Stoler, Ann. "Rice Harvesting in Kali Loro: A Study of Class and Labor Relations in Rural Java." In John G. Taylor and Andrew Turton (eds.), Sociology of Developing Societies in Southeast Asia. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1988), pp. 111-122.

Supraptono, Seha, "Current Issues in Indonesian Education." Southeast Asian Journal of Educational Studies. Volume 23, 1986 (published in 1987).

Surakhmad, Winamo, "Educational Reform the Melioristic Way: A Dead-End Approach." Prisma. Number 38 (December 1985), 3-7.

Taylor, Charles Lewis and David Jodice, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

"The Indonesian University Situation." Minerva. 4, no. 3, Spring 1966, 433-441.

Thomas, R. Murray, "Who Shall Be Educated: The Indonesian Case." In Joseph Fischer (ed.), The Social Sciences and the Comparative Study of Educational Systems. (Scranton, PA: International Textbook Company, 1970).

Thomas, R. Murray, A Chronicle of Indonesian Higher Education: The First Half Century. 1920-1970. (Singapore: Chopmen Enterprises, 1973).

Thomas, R. Murray, "Indonesia: Four Educational Development Problems in the 1970’s." In Asian Profile. Volume 5, no. 6 (December 1977), 579-90.

Thomas, R. Murray, "Indonesian Education: Communist Strategies (1950-1965) and Governmental Counter Strategies (1966- 1980), Asian Survey. Vol. XXI, No. 3, March 1981.

Tilly, Charles (ed.), The Formation of States in Western Europe. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975).

United States Agency for International Development (USAID), "Higher Agricultural Education Project." (U.S. Government Contract No. AID/ea-176 with the Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities, Inc., 1977). 198 van den Ham, "Results of Research into the Allocation of Inpres Funds in Aceh Utara and Aceh Tengah." (Banda Aceh: IDAP- BAPPEDA, May 1985). van der Veur, Paul W ., Education and Social Change in Colonial Indonesia. (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies, 1969).

Van Der Wal, S. L., Some Information on Education in Indonesia up to 1942. (The Hague: Netherlands Universities Foundation for International Co-operation, 1961).

Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modem World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. (New York: Academic Press, 1974).

Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. (New York: The Free Press, 1947).

Weber, Max, Economy and Society. (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968).

Wibisono, Makarim, The Political Economy of the Indonesian Textile Industry Under the New Order Government. (The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1987).

World Bank, "Indonesia: The Education Sector." Report No. 2364-IN, November 1978.

Zainu’ddin, Ailsa, "Education in the Netherlands East Indies and the Republic of Indonesia.” In R. J. W. Selleck (ed.), Melbourne Studies in Education. 1970. (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1970). APPENDIX A

199 200

DIRECTORAT GENERAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE

INFORMATION BULLETIN :

STATE UNIVERSITY ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 1984 201

CONTENTS

Page

THE CRITERIA OF ENTRANCE SELECTION TO STATE UNIVERSITY 4

A. Objective of the selection ...... 4

B. Regions ...... 4

C. State Universities ...... 4

1. Region A...... 4 2. Region B...... 5 3. Region C...... 5

D. The Selection Patterns ...... 5

1. Transcript evaluation ...... 5 2. Entrance exams ...... -5

a. Areas of the examination ...... 6 b. General requirements ...... 6 c. Schedule of the exams ...... 7 d. Locations of the exams ...... 7

REGISTRATION FORM ...... 9

A. General information ...... 9

B. Filling out the registration form ...... 10

K-01 Number ...... 10 K-02 Official use column ...... 11 K-03 Name ...... 11 K-04 Address ...... 11 K-05 Code of location ...... 12 K-06 Status of house ownership ...... 18 K-07 Program of study preferred ...... 18 K-08 Citizenship ...... 53 K-09 Sex ...... 53 K-10 Date of birth ...... 53 K-ll Place of birth ...... 53 K-12 Number of brothers and sisters ...... 53 K-13 Religion ...... 54 K-14 Marital status ...... 54 K-15 Hobby ...... 54 K- 1 6 Scholarship ...... 54 K-17 Educational background of parents ...... 54 202

K-18 Occupation ...... 5 in in K-19 Income ...... 5 K-20 Name of High School ...... K-21 Registered High School ...... K-22 High School transfers ...... K-23 Field of study ...... K-24 Parallel class system ...... K-25 Diplome/certificate ...... K-26 Open University ...... K-27 Statement ......

Sample of registration form (page 1) ......

Sample of registration (page 2) ......

Attendance and identification ......

PROCEDURES OF THE REGISTRATION

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXAMS . .

FILLING OUT ANSWER SHEET ......

SAMPLE OF ANSHER SHEET ENTRANCE SELECTION TO STATE UNIVERSITY

OBJECTIVE OF THE SELECTION

To select prospective students who have academic capability so that they will be able to complete their education in state university in due time.

REGIONS

The Department of Education and Culture coordinates and divides the administration of the state university entrance selection into three regions as follows :

1. Region A. includes Sumatera, West Jawa and Jakarta.

2. Region B. consists of Central Jawa, Yogyakarta and Kalimantan.

3. Region C. comprises East Jawa, Bali, Nusa Tenggara, East Timor, Sulawesi and Irian Jaya.

STATE UNIVERSITIES

The State Universities which are included in each of the three regions are as follows :

1. REGION A :

University of Syah Kuala, Banda Aceh IKIP (Institute of Teacher Training and Education) Medan University of North Sumatera, Medan IKIP Padang, Padang University of Andalas, Padang University of Riau, Pakanbaru University of Jambi, Jambi University of Sriwijaya, Palembang University of Bengkulu, Bengkulu University of Lampung, Tanjung Karang IKIP Jakarta, Jakarta University of Indonesia, Jakarta ■Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB), Bogor IKIP Bandung, Bandung Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Bandung University of Padjadjaran, Bandung 204

2. REGION B :

University of General Soedirman, Purwokerto IKIP Semarang, Semarang University of Diponegoro, Semarang University of Sebelas Maret, Surakarta IKIP Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta University of Tanjungpura, Pontianak University of Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya University of Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin University of Mulawarman, Samarinda

3. REGION C :

IKIP Surabaya, Surabaya Surabaya Institute of Technology, Surabaya University of Airlangga, Surabaya IKIP Malang, Malang University of Brawijaya, Malang University of Jember, Jember University of Udayana, Denpasar University of Mataram, Mataram University of Nusa Cendana, Kupang IKIP Ujung Pandang, Ujung Pandang University of Hasanuddin, Ujung Pandang University of Tadulako, Palu University of Halu-Oleo, Kendari IKIP Menado, Manado University of Sam Ratulangi, Manado U n i v e r s i t y o f P a ttim u r a , Ambon University of Cenderawasih, Jayapura

D. THE SELECTION PATTERN

There are two sorts of selection pattern implemented by the Department of Education and Culture.

1. Transcript Evaluation

Through this selection pattern, the admission of the prospective students is based upon their achievement rates in Senior High School (transcript evaluation). This pattern has been implemented since December, 1983.

2. Entrance Examination

In this pattern, the admission of the prospective students is determined by their scores of the written entrance exams conducted by the Committee for The State 205

University Entrance Examination. The following are the administration procedures of the exam .

a. Areas of study

The areas of study covered by the exam are divided into two groups : IPA (Mathematics and Natural Science) and IPS (Humanities and Social Sciences).

1. IPA group includes :

Mathematics B io lo g y P h y sic s C h e m istry I n t e g r a t e d IPA

2. IPS group consists of :

Indonesian Language Social Sciences Mathematics for IPS E n g lis h Integrated IPS b . General Requirements

The porspective students are eligible to take the entrance exams if they fulfill several requirements as follows : 1. Citizenship

-Native-born Indonesian citizen -Non-native Indonesian citizen should submit a proof of citizenship -Non Indonesian citizen (International students) should have a permit from the Directorate General of Higher Education, Department of Education and C u ltu r e .

2. Diplome

-All Senior High School (SMTA) graduates either majoring in IPA, IPS or in Language & Literature, may take the IPA or IPS exams.

-Vocational High School graduates are only eligible to take one of the two exams (IPA or IPS) which corresponds to their previous field of study. In addition they are required to have a minimum 6.50 206

of their grade score average, or they have work experience for at least two years in the field related to their study.

-There is no limitation about the year when the diplome is obtained.

3. H e a lth

The prospective students should have no physical defect that may affect their study. Health examination will be conducted only after the students are officially admitted.

c. schedule of the exams

The administration of the State University Entrance Exams in all of the three regions will be conducted at the same time . The schedule of the exams is as fo llo w s :

(1) IPS group

-Monday, May 21, 1984

0 8 .0 0 - 08. 30 WIB* -| 09.00 - 09.30 WITA* E x e r c is e 10.00 - •'0.30 WIT*

WIB* : Waktu Indonesian Barat (Western Indonesian Time) WITA*: Waktu In d o n e sia T engah ( C e n tr a l In d o n e s ia n Time) WIT* : Waktu Indonesia Timur (Eastern Indonesian Time)

08.30 - 11.30 WIB —i Indonesian Language 09.30 - 12.30 WITA IPS 10.30 - 13.30 WIT J Integrated IPS

-Tuesday, May 22, 1984

08.00 - 11.00 WIB ~ Mathematics for IPS 09.00 - 12.00 WITA E n g lis h 10.00 - 13.00 WIT _ Integrated IPS 207

(2) IPA group

-Wednesday, May 23, 1984

08.00 - 08.30 WIB " 09.00 - 09.30 WITA - E x e r c is e 10.00 - 10.30 WIT _

08.30 - 11.30 WIB “ 'Mathematics fo r 09.30 - 12.30 WITA Biology 10.30 - 13.30 WIT _ .Integrated IPA

-Thursday, May 24, 1984

08.00 - 11.00 WIB ~ 'Physics 09.00 - 12.00 WITA C h e m istry 10.00 - 13.00 WIT . .Integrated IPA d. Locations of the exam

The entrance exams will be administered in the cities where the state universities are located. GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR FILLING OUT THE REGISTRATION FORM

General Information

1. All of the completed registration forms and ansher sheets will be processed by computer. Therefore, read carefully the directions so that you will not make mistakes.

2. The registration forms and anser sheets should not be dirty, torn, damaged, folded, or wet.

3. Use only a soft black lead pencil (Pencil No.2B)

4. If you make mistake or you want to change an answer, erase the old answer completely before marking the new answ er.

5. Print clearly your answer in the available boxes, and then mark the ovals corresponding to the numbers or letters you printed.

exam ple

must exactly match

m * 6. If there is no box available, mark an oval corresponding to the correct information about your self.

exam ple :

K-09 JENIS KELAMIN O P r ia Wanita If you are a female mark this oval.

7. If you mark two or more ovals in one column, your answer will automatically be judged incorrect.

Example :

’I n c o r r e c t answ er 209

8. Although you have printed your answer in the boxes, but if you do not mark the corresponding ovals your answer will be judged incorrect.

Example :

Incorrect answer because the ovals are not marked

9. When you mark your answer in an oval, be sure that it is dark enaugh so that you cannot see the letter inside the o v a l .

Example : 0 ^Correct

10. Attention : - Do not mark or write something on the section or space if you are not instructed to do so. - Do not erase the available black lines and ovals that are already printed in the form.

11. This Instructional Book is the only legitimate source that you should refer to in filling out both the answer sheet and the registration form. All other information and instructions that are contrary to this book are f a l s e .

B. FILLING OUT THE COLUMNS

1. Fill in all of the columns from K-03 to K-27

2. For each column follow the following directions :

K-01 NUMBER OF EXAM PARTICIPANT

In column K-01 you will find numbers (ten digits) that are already printed. This is your personal number as the exam participant. Promptly report to the exam officials if you do not find your number. 210

K-02 THIS COLUMN IS FOR OFFICIAL USE. DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE.

K-0 3 NAME OF PARTICIPANT

Print your full name clearly in the available spaces. Your name must be exactly sim ilar to the one that is printed on your diplome.

Example : Name : SRI HARTATI WAHYUNINGSIH If the available spaces are not enaugh you can write :

SRI H. WAHYUNINGSIH o r SRI HARTATI W

See the attached sample !

K-04 HOME ADDRESS

Print your complete address in the available spaces. If these spaces are not enough to write your address you can make th e common a b b r e v i a t i o n s . You do n o t need to write the names of regency, municipality or p r o v in c e .

Exam ple : (a) J a l a n P r o f e s o r Mohammad Yamin SH VI Nomor 49 Tanjung Pinang, Kepulauan Riau You may w r i t e a s f o llo w s :

JL M YAMIN 6/49 TG PINANG

(b) Kelurahan Cipete Selatan Rt 0011 Rw 05 nomor 1 Cilandak, Jakarta Selatan You may w r i t e a s fo llo w s :

CIPETE SEL RT 11/5 NO 1

(c) Desa Setrojenar Kecamatan Buluspesantren Kabupaten Kebumen

You may w r i t e :

SETROJENAR BULUSPESANTREN

SEE THE ENCLOSED SAMPLE ! 211

K-05 CODES OF REGENCY, MUNICIPALITY AND PROVINCE

The following are the codes for regency, municipality and province.

Note : Kab stands for Kabupaten (Regency) Kodya stands for Kotamadya (Municipality)

Code P ro v in c e Code Regency/Municipality

11 D .I. Aceh 013 Kab. Aceh Selatan 021 Kab. Aceh Tenggara 03 6 Kab. Aceh Timur 04 4 Kab. Aceh Tengah 052 Kab. Aceh Barat 067 Kab. Aceh Besar 075 Kab. Piedi 08 3 Kab. Aceh U ta ra 713 Kodya Banda Aceh 721 Kodya Sabang

12 North Sumatra 016 Kab. Nias 024 Kab. Tapanuli Selatan 032 Kab. Tapanuli Tengah 047 Kab. Tapanuli Utara 055 Kab. Labuhan Ratu 063 Kab. Asahan 071 Kab. Simalungun 086 Kab. Dairi 094 Kab. Karo 105 Kab. Deli Serdang 113 Kab. L angk at 716 Kodya Sibolga 724 Kodya Tanjung Balai 732 Kodya P. Siantar 747 Kodya Tebingtinggi 755 Kodya Medan 763 Kodya Binjai

13 West Sumatra 012 Kab. Pesisir Selatan 027 Kab. Solok 03 5 Kab. Sawah Lunto 043 Kab. Tanah Datar 051 Kab. Pariaman 066 Kab. Agam 074 Kab. Limapuluhkota 082 Kab. Pasaman 712 Kodya Padang 727 Kodya Solok 73 5 Kodya Sawah Lunto 74 3 Kodya Padang Panjang 751 Kodya Bukit Tinggi 766 Kodya Payakumbuh Riau 015 Kab. Indragiri Hulu 023 Kab. Indragiri H ilir 031 Kab. Kepulauan Riau 046 Kab. Kampar 054 Kab. Bengkalis 715 Kodya Pakan Baru 723 Kodya Batam

Jam bi 011 Kab. Kerinci 026 Kab. B. Sarolangun 031 Kab. Batanghari 042 Kab. Tanjung Jabung 057 Kab. M Bungo Tebo 065 Kab. Jambi 711 Kodya Jambi

South Sumatra 014 Kab. Ogan K Hulu 022 Kab. Ogan K H ilir 037 Kab. Muara Enim/Liot 045 Kab. Lahat 053 Kab. Musi Rawas 061 Kab. Musi Banyuasin 076 Kab. Bangka 084 Kab. Belitung 714 Kodya Palembang 722 Kodya Pangkal Pinang

B engkulu 017 Kab. Bengkulu Selatan 025 Kab. Rejanglebong 033 Kab. Bengkulu Utara 717 Kodya Bengkulu

Lampung 013 Kab. Lampung Selatan 021 Kab. Lampung Tengah 036 Kab. Lampung Utara 713 Kodya Bandar Lampung

DKI Jakarta 717 Jakarta Selatan 725 Jakarta Timur 733 Jakarta Pusat 741 Jakarta Barat 756 Jakarta Utara

W est Jawa 013 Kab. Pandeglang 021 Kab. Lebak 036 Kab. Bogor 044 Kab. Sukabumi 052 Kab. Cianjur 067 Kab. Bandung 075 Kab. Garut 083 Kab. Tasikmalaya 091 Kab. Ciamis 102 Kab. Kuningan 213

117 Kab. Cirebon 125 Kab. M ajalengka 133 Kab. Sumedang 141 Kab. Indram ayu 156 Kab. Subang 164 Kab. P urw ak arta 172 Kab. Karawang 187 Kab. B ekasi 195 Kab. T angerang 206 Kab. S erang 713 Kodya Bogor 721 Kodya Sukabumi 736 Kodya Bandung 744 Kodya Cirebon

016 Kab. C ila c a p 024 Kab. Banyumas 032 Kab. Purbalingga 047 Kab. Banjarnegara 055 Kab. Kebumen 063 Kab. P urw orejo 071 Kab. Wonosobo 086 Kab. Magelang 094 Kab. Boyolali 105 Kab. K la te n 113 Kab. S u k o h arjo 121 Kab. Wonogiri 136 Kab. Karanganyar 144 Kab. S rag en 152 Kab. Grobogan 167 Kab. B lo ra 175 Kab. Rembang 183 Kab. P a ti 191 Kab. Kudus 202 Kab. J e p a r a 217 Kab. Demak 225 Kab. Semarang 233 Kab. Temanggung 241 Kab. K endal 256 Kab. B atang 264 Kab. P ekalon gan 272 Kab. Pem alang 287 Kab. T egal 295 Kab. B rebes 716 Kodya Magelang 724 Kodya Surakarta 732 Kodya Salatiga 747 Kodya Semarang 755 Kodya Pekalongan 763 Kodya Tegal Y ogyakarta 012 Kab. Kulonprogo 027 Kab. Bantul 035 Kab. Gunung Kidul 043 Kab. Sleman 712 Kodya Yogyakarta

Jawa 015 Kab. Pacitan 023 Kab. Ponorogo 031 Kab. Trenggalek 046 Kab. Tulungagung 054 Kab. Blitar 062 Kab. Kediri 077 Kab. Malang 085 Kab. Lumaj ang 093 Kab. Jember 104 Kab. Banyuwangi 112 Kab. Bondowoso 127 Kab. Panarukan 135 Kab. Probolinggo 143 Kab. Pasuruan 151 Kab. Sidoarjo 166 Kab. Mojokerto 174 Kab. Jombang 182 Kab. Nganjuk 197 Kab. Madiun 201 Kab. Magetan 216 Kab. Ngawi 224 Kab. Bojonegoro 232 Kab. Tuban 247 Kab. Lamongan 255 Kab. Gresik 263 Kab. Bangkalan 271 Kab. Sampang 286 Kab. Pamekasan 294 Kab. Sumenep 715 Kodya Kediri 723 Kodya B litar 731 Kodya Malang 746 Kodya Probolinggo 754 Kodya Pasuruan 762 Kodya Mojokerto 777 Kodya Madiun 785 Kodya Surabaya

014 Kab. Jembrana 022 Kab. Tabanan 037 Kab. Badung 045 Kab. Gianyar 053 Kab. Klungkung 061 Kab. Bangli 076 Kab. Karangasem 084 Kab. Buleleng West Nusa Tenggara 017 Kab. Lombok Barat 025 Kab. Lombok Tengah 033 Kab. Lombok Timur 041 Kab. Sumbava 056 Kab. Dompu 064 Kab. Bima

East Nusa Tenggara 013 Kab. Sumba B a ra t 021 Kab. Sumba Timur 036 Kab. Kupang 044 Kab. Timor Tengah Selatan 052 Kab. Timor Tengah Utara 067 Kab. B elu 075 Kab. A lo r 083 Kab. Flores Timur 091 Kab. Sikka 102 Kab. Ende 117 Kab. Ngade 125 Kab. Manggarai

West Kalimantan 016 Kab. Sambas 024 Kab. Pontianak 032 Kab. Sanggau 047 Kab. Ketapang 055 Kab. Sintang 063 Kab. Kapuas Hulu 716 Kodya Pontianak

Central Kalimantan 012 Kab. K Waringin Barat 027 Kab. K Waringin Timur 035 Kab. K atin g an 043 Kab. Kapuas 051 Kab. Barito Selatan 066 Kab. Barito Timur 074 Kab. Barito Utara 082 Kab. Gunung Mas 097 Kab. Murung Raya 101 Kab. Seruyan 712 Kodya Palangkaraya

South Kalimantan 015 Kab. Tanah L aut 023 Kab. Kota Baru 031 Kab. B a n ja r 046 Kab. Barito Kuala 054 Kab. Tapin/Tapian 062 Kab. Hulu Sei Selatan 077 Kab. Hulu Sei Tengah 085 Kab. Hulu Sei Utara 093 Kab. Tabalong 715 Kodya Banjarmasin East Kalimantan 015 Kab. Pasir 026 Kab. Kutai 034 Kab. Berau 042 Kab. Bulungan 711 Kodya Balikpapan 726 Kodya Samarinda

North Sulawesi Oil Kab. Gorontalo 026 Kab. Bolaang Mongondow 034 Kab. Minahasa 042 Kab. Sangihe Talaud 711 Kodya Gorontalo 726 Kodya Manado

Central Sulawesi 014 Kab. Luwuk/Banggai 022 Kab. Poso 037 Kab. Donggala 045 Kab. Bual Toli-Toli

South Sulawesi 017 Kab. Selayar 025 Kab. Bulukumba 033 Kab. Bantaeng 041 Kab. Janeponto 056 Kab. Takalar 064 Kab. Gowa 072 Kab. Sinjai 087 Kab. Bone 095 Kab. Maros 106 Kab. Pangkajene 114 Kab. B arru

South-East Sulawesi 013 Kab. Buton 021 Kab. Muna 036 Kab. Kendari 044 Kab. Kolaka

Maluku 013 Kab. Maluku Tenggara 021 Kab. Maluku Tengah 036 Kab. Halmahera Tengah 044 Kab. Maluku Utara 713 Kodya Ambon

I r i a n Ja y a 016 Kab. Merauke 024 Kab. Peg. Jayawijaya 032 Kab. Jayapura 047 Kab. Panisi/Nabire 055 Kab. Fakfak 063 Kab. Sorong 071 Kab. Manokwari 086 Kab. Yapon Waropen 094 Kab. Teluk Cendrawasih 217

83 E a st Timor 012 Kab. D ili 027 Kab. Baucau 035 Kab. Mamaturo 043 Kab. Lautem 051 Kab. V iqueque 066 Kab. Aimaro 074 Kab. M anufahi 082 Kab. Cova Lima 097 Kab. Ambeno 101 Kab. B obonaro 116 Kab. Liquica 124 Kab. Erm era 132 Kab. A ile u

99 Foreign Country 999 Foreign Country

K-06 STATUS OF HOUSE OWNERSHIP

Mark an oval which corresponds to your current house ownership status.

K-07 PROGRAM OF STUDY PREFERRED

Fill in the available spaces with code of the program of study that you select based on the list of codes on pages 9-16. You may have 2 (two) choices (First and Second Choice).

Before you fill in the study program preferred, pay attention to the following things :

—If you take IPA exams group, vou are only requested to choose the study programs ategorized under the IPA gro u p .

—If you take IPS exams group, you are only requested to choose the study programs categorized under the IPS gro u p .

—For each group of the exams you may have a maximum of two study program preferences. One of the two study programs which you select should be derived from the university or Institute located in the region where your exam is administered.

The order of your choices indicates your p r i o r i t y .

First Priority : First Choice Second Priority : Second Choice

This means that if you pass the exams and fulfill the admission criteria, you will firstly be considered to be accepted at the study program that corresponds to your first choice. But, if there is no more space available in the university that you select (e.g. the available spaces have been occupied by candidates who have better score than you), you will automatically be considered to be accepted at your second study program preference.

If you have no second study program preference, fill in the available spaces with 000000

Detailed informations concerning admission requirements can be seen on page 4.

If you make incorrect codes, you will be judged as having no preference.

If you have no intention to choose a certain study program, you are requested not to write the code of that study program, although it is as your second choice. -- Example

Exam L o c a tio n Study program preferred Code g ro u p o f exam

IPA Aceh UNSYIAH : Agriculture 110645 UNSYIAH : M edicine 111045

IPA J a k a r t a UI : Mathematics 220343 UN AND : Chemistry 150445

IPA S olo USU : Civil Engineering 130344 UNSOED : B io lo g y 410246

IPA Ambon UNPATTI : F is h e ry 860641 No secon d o p tio n 000000

IPS Bandung UNHAS :Literature 818142 IKIP Padang: D3 Cooperative 143631

IPS P alu UNCEN : Law 873541 UNRI : Economics 163144

IPS Kupang UNIBRAW : Public Administra­ 753342 t i o n No second o p tio n 000000

Keep in mind that : You are requested not only to fill in the code of program study, but also to mark an oval which is corresponding to your priority.

You should follow the following rules, if you take both IPA and IPS exams :

- If IPA is your first priority, then the order of your choices should be made as follows :

F i r s t First choice of IPA Second Second choice of IPA T h ird Third choice of IPS F o rth Forth choice of IPS

If IPS is your first priority, then the order of your choices should be made as follows :

F i r s t First choice of IPS Second Second choice of IPS T h ird Third choice of IPA F o rth Forth choice of IPA If you do not indicate your priority, then the order of your preferences will be determined by the exam committee based upon your scores.

Right now, fill in the available spaces with codes of the study program that you prefer based on the following list. 221

LIST OF STUDY PROGRAMS FOR IPA GROUP

Code Program of study

UNIVERSITY OF SYIAH KUALA (UNSYIAH)

110146 Veterinary Medicine 110347 Civil Engineering 110444 Mechanical Engineering 110541 Chemical Engineering 110645 Agriculture 111045 M ed icin e 112041 Biology Education 112114 Mathematics Education : D1 (Diplome 112122 Mathematics Education : D2 (Diplome 112137 Methematics Education : D3 (Diplome 112145 Mathematics Education 112234 Physics Education : D3 112242 Physics Education 112331 Chemistry Education : D3 112346 Chemistry Education

IKIP (INSTITUTE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

120125 Mathematics : D2 120133 Mathematics : D3 120141 Mathematics 120237 Biology : D3 120245 B io lo g y 120334 Physics : D3 120342 P h y s ic s 120431 Chemistry : D3 120446 C h e m istry 120535 Civil Engineering : D3 120543 Civil Engineering 120632 Mechanical Engineering : D3 120647 Mechanical Engineering 120736 Electrical Engineering : D3 120744 Electrical Engineering 120825 Vocational-Technical Education : D2 120937 Vocational-Technical Education : D3 121024 Mathematics : D2 (IKIP Sidempuan) UNIVERSITY OF NORTH SUMATRA (USU)

130143 M edicine 130247 Agriculture 130344 Civil Engineering 130441 Mechanical Engineering 130545 Electrical Engineering 130642 Industrial Engineering 130746 Chemical Engineering 130843 D e n ti s tr y 130947 Mathematics 131042 Chemistry 131146 Pharmacy 131243 Physics 131332 Civil Polytechnics 131436 Mechanical Polytechnics 131533 Electrical Polytechnics 131637 Electronical Polytechnics

IK IP PADANG

140122 Mathematics : D2 140137 Mathematics : D3 140145 Mathematics 140331 Biology : D3 140346 Biology 140435 Physics : D3 140443 Physics 140532 Chemistry : D3 140547 C h e m istry 140644 Civil Engineering 140741 Electronical Engineering 140845 Electrical Engineering 140942 Mechanical Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF AMDALAS (UNAND)

150147 M ed icin e 150244 Agriculture 150341 Biology 150542 Chemistry 150646 Pharmacy 150646 Animal Husbandry

UNIVERSITY OF RIAU 160142 Mathematics 160246 P h y s ic s 160343 Chemistry 160447 F is h e r y 162013 Mathematics Education : D1 162021 Mathematics Education : D2 162036 Mathematics Education : D3 162044 Mathematics Education 162141 Biology Education 223

UNIVERSITY OF JAMBI

170144 Agriculture 1702 41 Animal Husbandry 172112 Mathematics Education D1 172127 Mathematics Education D2 172135 Mathematics Education D3 172247 Chemistry Education

UNIVERSITY OF SRIWIJAYA

180146 Civil Engineering 180243 Mining Engineering 180347 Chemical Engineering 180444 Mechanical Engineering 180541 Electrical Engineering 180645 Medicine 180742 Agriculture 182017 Mathematics Education : D1 182025 Mathematics Education : D2 182033 Mathematics Education : D3 182041 Mathematics Education 182137 Biology Education : D3 182145 Biology Education 182234 Chemistry Education : D3 182242 Chemistry Education 182331 Physics Education : D3 182443 Mechanical Education

UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU

190141 Agriculture 192012 Mathematics Education : D1 192132 Biology Education : D3

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

200145 Agriculture 202016 Mathematics Education : D1 202024 Mathematics Education : D2 202032 Mathematics Education : D3

IK IP JAKARTA

210132 Physics : D3 210147 Rhysycs 210236 Chemistry : D3 210244 Chemistry 210333 Biology : D3 210341 Biology 210422 Mathematics : 02 210437 Mathematics : D3 210445 Mathematics 224

210631 Electronical Engineering : D3 210646 Electronical Engineering 210832 Civil Engineering : D3 210847 Civil Engineering 210944 Mechanical Engineering 211031 Automotive Engineering :D3 211127 Vocational-Technical Education : D2 211135 Vocational-Technical Education : D3 211232 Electrical Engineering : D3

UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA

220142 M edicine 220246 Dentistry 220343 Mathematics 220447 P h y sic s 220544 C h e m istry 220641 B io lo g y 220745 Pharmacy 220842 Geography 220946 Civil Engineering 221041 Mechanical Engineering 221145 Electrical Engineering 221242 M etallurgical Engineering 221346 Architecture

BOGOR INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE (IPB)

230144 All study programs in IPB

IK IP BANDUNG

240123 Mathematics : D2 240131 Mathematics : D3 240146 Mathematics 240235 Physics : D3 240243 P h y s ic s 240332 Chemistry : D3 240347 Chemistry 240533 Biology : D3 240541 B io lo g y 240734 Mechanical Engineering : D3 240742 Mechanical Engineering 240831 Civil Engineering : D3 240846 Civil Engineering 241037 Electrical Engineering : D3 241045 Electrical Engineering 241134 Automotive Engineering : D3 241223 Vocational-Technical Education : D2 241231 Vocational-Technical Education : D3 BANDUNG INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ( ITB)

250141 Astronomy 250245 B iology 250342 Geophysics and Meteorology 250446 Pharmacy 250543 Chemistry 250647 Physics 250744 Mathematics 250841 Electrical Engineering 250945 Physics Engineering 251047 Geological Engineering 251144 Informations Technology 251241 Mechanical Engineering 251345 Mining Engineering 251442 Industrial Engineering 251546 Oil Engineering 251643 Chemical Engineering 251747 Architecture 251844 Geodetic Science 251941 Regional Planning Science 252043 Civil Engineering 252147 Environmental Hygiene & Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF PADJADJARAN

260143 M edicine 260247 Denttistry 260344 Agriculture 260441 Animal Husbandry 260545 Mathematics 260642 S t a t i s t i c s 260746 C h em istry 260843 P h y sic s 260947 B io lo g y 261042 G eology 261146 Pharmacy 261243 P sy cho logy 261347 F is h e r y

UNIVERSITY OF GENERAL SOEDIRMAN (UNSOED)

410142 Agriculture 410246 Biology 410343 Animal Husbandry

IK IP SEMARANG

420121 Mathematics : D2 420136 Mathematics : D3 420144 Mathematics 420233 Physics : D3 226

42024 1 Physics 420337 Chemistry : D3 420345 C h em istry 420434 Biology : D3 420442 Biology 420635 Civil Engineering : D3 420643 Civil Engineering 420732 Mechanical Engineering : D3 420747 Mechanical Engineering 420836 Electrical Engineering : D3 420844 Electrical Engineering 420925 Vocational-Technical Education 420933 Vocational-Technical Education 421035 Automotive Engineering : D3 421132 Electronics : D3

UNIVERSITY OF DIPONEGORO (UNDIP)

430146 Medicine 430243 Civil Engineering 430347 Architecture 430444 Chemical Engineering 430541 Mathematics 430742 Fishery 430846 Animal Food Science and Nutrition

UNIVERSITY OF "SEBELAS MARET" (UNS)

440141 Medicine 440245 Agriculture 440342 Civil Engineering 440446 Architecture 442035 Physics Education : D3 442043 Physics Education 442132 Chemistry Education : D3 442147 Chemistry Education 442236 Biology Education : D3 442244 Biology Education 442325 Mathematics Education : D2 442 3 33 Mathematics Education : D3 442341 Mathematics Education 442437 Mechanical Education : D3 442445 Mechanical Education 442534 Civil Engineering Education : D3 442542 Civil Engineering Education 442727 Vocational-Technical Education : D2 442735 Vocational-Technical Education : D3 442832 Automotive Technology Education : D3 442936 Electrical Education : D3 IK IP YOGYAKARTA

450127 Mathematics : D2 450135 Mathematics : D3 450143 Mathematics 450232 Physics : D3 450247 Physics 450336 Chemistry : D3 450344 C h e m istry 450433 Biology : D3 450441 B io lo g y 450642 Electronics 450746 A uto m o tiv e 450843 Mechanical Engineering 450947 Electrical Engineering 451042 Civil Engineering

UNIVERSITY OF GADJAH MADA (GAMA)

460145 B io lo g y 460242 Pharm acy 460346 Physics 460443 C h e m istry 460547 Mathematics 460644 M ed icin e 460741 D e n t i s t r y 460845 Veterinary Medicine 460942 F o r e s tr y 461044 Agriculture 461141 Animal Husbandry 461245 Architecture 461342 Geodetic Science 461446 G eology 461543 Chemical Engineering 461647 Electrical Engineering 461744 Mechanical Engineering 461841 Civil Engineering 461945 Nuclear Science 462047 Agricultural Engineering 462144 Agricultural Products Processing Technology 462241 G eography

UNIVERSITY OF TANJUNG PURA

470147 Agriculture 470244 Civil Engineering 470341 Electrical Engineering 472011 Mathematics Education : D1 472026 Mathematics Education : D2 472034 Mathematics Education : D3 228

UNIVERSITY CF PALANGKA RAYA

482013 Mathematics Education : D1 482021 Mathematics Education : D2

UNIVERSITY OF LAMBUNG MANGKURAT

490144 Agriculture 490241 Forestry 490345 F is h e ry 490442 Engineering 492015 Mathematics Education : D1 492023 Mathematics Education : D2 492031 Mathematics Education : D3 492046 Mathematics Education 492135 Biology Education : D3 492143 Biology Education 492247 Chemistry Education

UNIVERSITY OF MULAWARMAN

500141 Forest Management 500245 Forest Engineering 500647 Soil Science 500744 Agricultural Economics 500841 F is h e r y 501144 Forest Harvesting & Processing 502043 Biology Education

IKIP SURABAYA

710122 Mathematics : D2 710137 Mathematics : D3 710145 Mathematics 710234 Physics : D3 710242 P h y s ic s 710331 Chemistry : D3 710346 C h e m istry 710435 Biology : D3 710443 B io lo g y 710636 Electrical Engineering : D3 710644 Electrical Engineering 710733 Mechanical Engineering : D3 710741 Mechanical Engineering 710837 Civil Engineering : D3 710845 Civil Engineering 710934 Electronics : D3 711036 Automotive : D3 711125 Vocational-Technical Education : D2 711135 Vocational-Technical Education : D3 SURABAYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IT S)

720147 Civil Engineering 720244 Mechanical Engineering 720341 Electrical Engineering 720445 Chemical Engineering 720542 Naval Engineering 720646 Architecture 720743 Physics Engineering 720847 Environmental Hygiene & Engineering 720944 Oceanic Engineering 721046 Naval-Mechanical Engineering 721143 Mathematics 721247 P h y sic s 721344 C h em istry 721441 Statistics

UNIVERSITY OF AIRLANGGA

730142 M edicine 730246 D e n ti s tr y 730343 Pharmacy 730447 Veterinary medicine 730544 Mathematics 730641 B io logy 730745 P h y sic s 730842 C h e m istry

IKIP MALANG

740121 Mathematics : D2 740136 Mathematics : D3 740144 Mathematics 740233 Physics : D3 740241 P h y sic s 740337 Chemistry : D3 740345 C h em istry 740434 Biology : D3 740442 B iolog y 740635 Mechanical Engineering : D3 740643 Mechanical Engineering 740732 Civil Engineering : D3 740747 Civil Engineering 740836 Electronics : D3 740925 Vocational-Technical Education D2 740933 Vocational-Technical Education D3 741035 Automotive : D3

UNIVERSITY OF BRAWIJAYA

750146 Agriculture 750243 Animal Husbandry ' 5 C 3 4 7 F is h e ry 750444 Civil Engineering '50541 Mechanical Engineering 750645 Electrical Engineering 750846 Architecture 750943 Irrigation Engineering 751045 Medicine 751142 Food Science 751246 Industrial Engineering 751343 Agricultural Mechanization

UNIVERSITY OF JEMBER

760141 Agriculture 762035 Mathematics Education : D3 762043 Mathematics Education 762147 Physics Education 762244 Biology Education

UNIVERSITY OF UDAYANA

770143 Medicine 770247 Veterinary Medicine 770344 Architecture 770441 Cicil Engineering 770545 Agriculture 772037 Chemistry Education : D3 772045 Chemistry Education 772142 Physics Education 772231 Biology Education : D3 772246 Biology Education 772312 Mathematics Education : D1 772327 Mathematics Education : D2 772343 Mathematics Education

UNIVERSITY OF MATARAM

780145 Agriculture 780242 Animal Husbandry 782113 Mathematics Education : D1 782121 Mathematics Education : D2 782233 Biology Education : D3

UNIVERSITY OF NUSA CENDANA

790147 Agronomy 790244 Agricultural Social & Economics 790341 Animal Production and Management 790445 Nutrition and Animal Food Science 792011 Mathematics Education : D1 792026 Mathematics Education : D2 792042 Mathematics Education 792131 Biology Education : D3 792146 Biology Education 792235 Physics Education : D3

IKIP UJUNG PANDANG

800113 Mathematics : D1 800121 Mathematics : D2 800136 Mathematics : D3 800144 Mathematics 800233 Physics : D3 800241 Physics 800337 Chemistry : D3 800345 Chemistry 800434 Biology : D3 800442 B io lo g y 800531 Civil Engineering : D3 800546 Civil Engineering 800643 Electrical Engineering 800836 Automotive Engineering D3 800844 Automotive Engineering 801124 Vocational-Technical Education

UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN

810146 Mathematics and Natural Science 810742 Medicine "10846 Agriculture 811246 Animal Husbandry 811447 Engineering 811946 Dentistry

UNIVERSITY OF TADULAKO

820141 Agriculture 822012 Mathematics Education : D1 822027 Mathematics Education : D2 822035 Mathematics Education : D3 822132 Biology Education : D3 822147 Biology Education

UNIVERSITY OF HALU OLEO

830143 Agriculture 832014 Mathematics Education : D1 832045 Mathematics Education

IKIP MANADO

840145 Mathematics 840242 P h y s ic s 840346 Chemistry 840443 B io lo g y 840644 Civil Engineering 840741 Electrical Engineering 840845 Mechanical Engineering UNIVERSITY OF SAM RATULANGI

850147 Medicine 850244 Civil Engineering 850341 Agriculture 850445 Animal Husbandry 850542 Fishery 850646 Architecture 852115 Mathematics Education : D1 (Gorontalo) 852146 Mathematics Education (Gorontalo) 852243 Biology Education (Gorontalo) 852347 Physics Education (Gorontalo) 852444 Chemistry Education ( Gorontalo)

UNIVERSITY OF PATTIMURA

860142 Ship-Building 860246 Ship Mechanical Engineering 860343 Agriculture 860447 Forestry 860544 Animal Husbandry 860641 Fishery 862013 Mathematics Education : D1 862044 Mathematics Education 862141 Biology Education 862222 Physics Education : D2

UNIVERSITY OF CENDERAWASIH

870144 Agriculture 870241 Animal Husbandry 870345 Forestry 872015 Mathematics Education : D1 872023 Mathematics Education : D2 872046 Mathematics Education

Note : D1 : one-year non-degree educational program (Diplome 1) D2 : two-year non-degree educational program (Diplome 2) D3 : three-year non-degree educational program (Diplome3) LIST OF STUDY PROGRAMS FOR IPS GROUP

Code Program of Study

UNIVERSITY OF SYAH KUALA

113141 Economics 113647 Law 116046 Education : Cooperative Economics 116143 Education : Accounting 116313 Education : Civics (Dl) 116344 Education : Civics 116545 Education : Guidance & Councelling 116642 Education : Educational Administration 116746 Education : Non-formal Education 116827 Vocational Education : Home Economics 116947 Vocational Education : Cooking 117227 Physical Education : D2 117235 Physical Education : D3 117421 Vocational Education : Service (D2) 117436 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 119025 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (D2 119033 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (D3 119041 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 119122 Education : English (D2) 119137 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D3) 119145 Education : English

IKIP MEDAN

123143 Vocational Education : Sewing & Designing 123247 Vocational Education : Cooking 123321 Vocational Education : Home Economics (02) 123336 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D3) 123425 Accounting : D2 123441 A c c o u n tin g 123537 Cooperative : D3 123634 Office Administration :: D3 123642 Office Administration 123723 Vocational Education : Service (D2) 123731 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 123835 History : D3 123843 History 123916 Civics Education : Dl 123924 Civics Education : D2 123947 Civics Education 124034 Geography : D3 124042 Geography 124123 Physical Education : D2 234

124131 Physical Education : D3 124146 Physical Education 124243 Physical Education : Health and Recreation 124347 Physical Education : Coaching 124444 Educational Administration 124533 Guidance & Councelling : D3 124541 Guidance & Councelling 124622 Non Formal Education : D2 124645 Non Formal E d u ca tio n 124742 Curriculum Development 124823 Civics Education : D2 (IKIP Sidempuan) 124935 Business Administration : D3 (IKIP Sidempuan) 125037 History : D3 (IKIP Sidempuan) 125142 Anthropology 125231 Business Administration : D3 125246 Business Administration 128113 Indonesian Language & Literature : Dl 128121 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 128136 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 128144 Indonesian Language & Literature 128225 English : D2 128233 English : D3 128241 E n g lish 128337 French : D3 128434 German : D3 128523 A rt : D2 128531 Art : D3 128546 A rt 128627 M usic : D2 128635 Music : D3 128724 Handicraft : D2 128821 Indonesian Languages Literature:D2 (IKIP Sidempuan 128925 English : D2 (IKIP Sidempuan)

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH SUMATERA

133145 Law 133242 Econom ics 133346 Indonesian History 133443 Social and Political Sciences 133547 Anthropology 138146 Indonesian Language & Literature 138347 E n g lis h 138541 "Batak" Language & Literature 138742 Ethnomusicology

IK IP PADANG

143132 Guidance and Counselling : D3 143147 Guidance and Counselling 143244 Educational Administration 143341 Vocational Education : Cooking 143422 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D2) 143534 Non-formal Education : D3 143542 Non-formal Education 143631 Cooperative : D3 143646 Cooperative 143735 Business Administration : D3 143743 Business Administration 143824 Vocational Education : Service (D2) 143832 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 143921 Civics Education : D2 143936 Civics Education : D3 143944 Civics Education 144031 Geography : D3 144046 G eography 144135 H is to r y :D3 144143 H is to r y 144425 Physical Education : D2 144433 Physical Education : D3 144441 Physical Education 144545 Physical Education : Coaching 144642 Physical Education : Health & Recreat 144947 Educational Philosophy and Sociology 145042 Educational Psychology 145146 Educational Technology Curriculum 145235 Accounting : D3 145243 A c c o u n tin g 145332 Office Administration : D3 145347 Office Administration 148125 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 148133 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 148141 Indonesian Language & Literature 148222 English : D2 148237 English : D3 148245 E n g lis h 148342 A rt 148423 Music : D2 148431 Music : D3 148527 Handicraft : D2 148535 Handicraft : D3

UNIVERSITY OF ANDALAS

153142 E conom ics 153246 Law 153343 Indonesian History 153447 S o c io lo g y 153544 Anthropology 158143 Indonesian Language & Literature 158247 E n g lis h

UNIVERSITY OF RIAU

163144 E conom ics 163241 Social and Political Sciences 166146 E d u c a tio n Educational Administration 166235 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling (D3) 166243 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling 166413 Education Civics (Dl) 166444 E d u c a tio n C iv ic s 166541 Education History 166742 E d u c a tio n Business Administration £. Management 166823 V o c a tio n a l Education : Service (D2) 169021 Education English (D2) 169036 Education English (D3) 169044 Education English 169125 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature (02) 169133 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 169141 Education Indonesian Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF JAMBI

173146 Econom ics 173243 Law 176013 Education Civics (Dl) 176141 E d u c a tio n Guidance & Counselling 176245 E d u c a tio n Cooperative 179015 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 179023 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 179046 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF SRIWIJAYA

183141 Development Economics 183245 Law 183342 Management 183446 A c c o u n tin g 183543 Social and Political Sciences 186046 Education C iv ic s 186143 Education Accounting 186247 Education History 186441 Education Non-formal Education 186545 Education : Guidance & Counselling 189017 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 189025 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 189033 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 189041 Education Indonesian Language & Literature 189122 Education English (D2) 189137 E d u c a tio n English (D3) 189145 Education English 189226 V o c a tio n a l Education : Service (D2) 189234 Vocational Education : Service (D3)

UNIVERSITY OF BENGKULU

193143 Econom ics 193247 Law 193344 Social and Political Sciences 237

19604 1 Educational Administration 199035 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 199043 E d u ca tio n Indonesian Language & Literature 199124 E d u ca tio n English (D2) 199132 E d u c a tio n E n g lis h (D3)

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

203147 Econom ics 203244 Law 206045 Education : Educational Administration 206142 Education : Guidance & Counselling 206246 Non-formal Education 206343 Education : Accounting 206416 Education : Civics (Dl) 206447 Education : Civics 206544 Education : History 206641 Education : Geography 206722 Vocational Education : S e r v ic e (D2) 209016 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 209024 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 209032 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 209047 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 209121 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D2) 209136 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D3)

IKIP JAKARTA

213142 Educational Administration 213246 Pre-school and Elementary Education 213343 Guidance and Counselling 213447 Special Education : Mental Retardation 213544 Educational Psychology 213641 Educational Technology 213737 Home Economics Cooking (D3) 213745 Home Economics : C ooking 213834 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing (D3) 213842 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing 213931 Home Economics : A rt o f m ake-up (D3) 213946 Home Economics : Art of make-up 214025 Home Economics (D2) 214033 Home Economics (D3) 214137 Civics Education D3 214145 Civics Education 214234 Cooperative : D3 214242 Cooperative 214331 Geography : D3 214346 G eography 214435 History : D3 214443 H is to r y 214532 Business Administration : D3 214547 Business Administration 214621 Non-formal Education : D2 214644 Non-formal Education 214837 Office Administration : D3 214845 Office Administration 214926 Physical Education : D2 214934 Physical Education : D3 214942 Physical Education 215044 Physical Education : Coaching 215141 Physical Education : Health and Recreation 215334 Accounting : D3 215342 Accounting 215446 Curriculum Development 215543 Educational Planning 215647 Special Education : Educational Therapy 218127 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 218135 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 218143 Indonesian Language & Literature 218247 A ra b ic 218321 English : D2 218336 English : D3 218344 E n g lis h 218441 German 218545 F re n ch 218626 Dance : D2 218634 Dance : D3 218642 Dance 218723 A rt : D2 218746 A rt 218827 Handicraft : D2

UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA

223144 Law (Morning Section) 224341 Law (A fte rn o o n S e c tio n ) 223241 E conom ics 223345 Archeology 223442 H is to r y 223546 Psychology 223643 Communication 223747 Political Science 223844 Public 6 Business Administration 223941 Criminology 224043 S o c io lo g y 224147 Social Work 224244 Anthropology 228145 Indonesian Language 4 Literature 228242 Javanese Language & L i t e r a t u r e 228346 Japanese Language & L i t e r a t u r e 228443 Chinese Language & Literature 228547 Arabic Language & Literature 228644 French Language & Literature 228741 English Language & Literature 228845 German Language & Literature 228942 Dutch Language & Literature 229044 Russian Language & Literature 239

IKIP BANDUNG

243141 Non-formal Education 243222 Vocational Education : Home Economics 243237 Vocational Education : Home Economics 243334 Special Education : D3 243342 Special Education 243446 Educational Administration 243543 Curriculum Development 243632 Guidance and Counselling : D3 243647 Guidance and Counselling 243744 Educational Philosophy and Sociology 243841 Civics Education 243937 History : D3 243945 H is to r y 244032 Geography : D3 244047 G eography 244136 Cooperative : D3 244144 Cooperative 244225 Vocational Education : Service (D2) 244233 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 244337 Business Administration : D3 244345 Business Administration 244523 Physical Education : D2 244531 Physical Education : D3 244546 Physical Education 244643 Physical Education : Health & Recreat 244747 Physical Education : Coaching 244836 Accounting : D3 244844 A cco u n tin g 244933 Office Administration : D3 244941 Office Administration 245043 Home Economics : Cooking 245147 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing 248126 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 248134 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 248142 Indonesian Language & Literature 248246 Sundanese Language 248327 English : D2 248335 English : D3 248343 E n g lis h 248447 German 248544 Japanese Language 248641 Arabic 248745 F rench 248826 A rt : D2 248834 A rt : D3 248842 A rt 248923 Dance : D2 248931 Dance : D3 249025 M usic : D2 249033 M usic : D3 249122 Handicraft : D2 249137 Handicraft : D3 240

UNIVERSITY OF PADJADJARAN

263145 Law 263346 E conom ics 263443 Indonesian History 263547 Anthropology 263644 Communication 263741 Public Administration 263845 International Relation 263942 Social Work 264044 Governmental System 264141 Journalism 264245 Public Relations 268146 Indonesian Language & Literature 268243 Sundanese Language & Literature 268347 Arabic Language & Literature 268444 Japanese Language & Literature 268541 English Language & Literature 268645 French Language & Literature 268742 German Language & Literature 268846 Russian Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF GENERAL SOEDIRMAN

413144 E conom ics 413241 Law

IK IP SEMARANG

423131 Guidance and Counselling : D3 423146 Guidance and Counselling 423243 Curriculum Development 423347 Non-formal Education 423436 Handicraft : D3 423525 Civics Education : D2 423541 Civics Education 423637 Cooperative : D3 423645 Cooperative 423734 Office Administration : D3 423742 Office Administration 423831 Business Administration : D3 423846 Business Administration 423935 Accounting : D3 423943 A c c o u n tin g 424223 Vocational Education : Service 424231 Vocational Education : Service 424335 Geography : D3 424343 Geography 424432 History : D3 424447 H is to r y 424521 Physical Education : D2 424536 Physical Education : D3 424544 Physical Education : Health & Recreation 424745 Physical Education : Coaching 424923 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D2 424931 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D3 425033 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing (D3) 425041 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing 425145 Home Economics : Cooking 428124 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 428132 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 428147 Indonesian Language & Literature 428221 English : D2 428236 English : D3 428244 English 428341 French 428445 A rt 428526 Music : D2 428534 Music : D3 428623 Dance : D2 428631 Dance : D3

UNIVERSITY OF DIPONEGORO

433141 Law 433342 Public Administration 433446 Business Administration 433543 Governmental System 433647 Commun ic a t ion 433744 Indonesian History 433841 Management 433945 Accounting 434047 Development Economics 438142 Indonesian Language & Literature 438246 English Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF "SEBELAS MARET"

443143 Public Administration 443247 Mass Communication 443344 Law 443441 Econom ics 443545 Indonesian History 446033 E d u c a tio n B u sin e ss A d m in is tr a tio n (D3) 446041 E d u c a tio n Business Administration 446137 E d u c a tio n Accounting (D3) 446145 E d u c a tio n A ccoun ting 446234 E d u c a tio n O f f ic e A d m in is tr a tio n (D3) 446242 E d u c a tio n Offuce Administration 446331 E d u c a tio n H is to r y (D3) 446346 E d u c a tio n H is to r y 446435 E d u c a tio n Geography (D3) 446443 E d u c a tio n Geography 446547 E d u c a tio n C iv ic s 446644 E d u c a tio n Curriculum Development 446845 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling 446942 Education : Non-formal Education 447044 Education : Special Education 447125 Education : Physical Education (D2) 447133 Education : Physical Education (D3) 447141 Education : Physical Education 447334 Education : Cooperative (D3) 447431 Vocational Education : Cooking (D3) 447527 Vocational Education : Service (D2) 447535 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 447624 Vocational Education : Home Economics (02) 447632 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D3) 448144 Indonesian Language & Literature 448241 English Language & Literature 448345 Javanese Language & Literature 449027 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 449035 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 449043 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 449124 Education : English (D2) 449132 Education : English (D3) 449147 Education : English 449221 Education : Javanese Language (D2) 449325 E d u c a tio n : A rt (D2) 449333 E d u c a tio n : A rt (D3) 449341 Education : Art 449422 Education : Dance (D2) 449437 Education : Dance (D3) 449526 Education : Music (D2)

IKIP YOGYAKARTA

453145 Educational Administration 453234 Guidance and Counselling : D3 453242 Guidance and Counselling 453346 Curriculum Development 453443 Educational Technology 453524 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D2) 453532 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D3) 453636 Special Education : D3 453644 Special Education 453741 Educational Philosophy and Sociology 453845 Non-formal Education 454036 Office Admninistration : D3 454044 Office Administration 454133 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 454245 Civics Education 454334 Accounting : D3 454342 A c c o u n tin g 454431 History : D3 454446 History 454535 Geography : D3 454543 G eography 454647 Cooperative 454721 Physical Education : D2 454736 Physical Education : D3 454744 Physical Education 454841 Physical Education : Health and Recreation 454945 Physical Education : C oaching 455047 Home Economics : Cooking 455144 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing 455233 Business Administr ion 458123 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 458131 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 458146 Indonesian language & Literature 458227 English : D2 458235 English : D3 458243 E n g lish 458324 Javanese Language & Literature : D2 458347 Javanese Language & L i t e r a t u r e 458444 German 458541 French 458622 Music : D2 458637 M usic : D3 458645 M usic 458726 Art : D2 458734 Art : D3 458742 A rt 458823 Dance : D2 458831 Dance : D3 458846 Dance -

UNIVERSITY OF GADJAH MADA

463147 Economics 463244 P hylosophy 463341 Law 463445 P sychology 463542 Anthropology 463646 A rcheology 463743 Indonesian History 463847 Public Administration 463944 International Relation 464046 Governmental System 464143 Social Work 464247 Mass Communication 464344 S o c io lo g y 468141 Arabic Language & Literature 468245 Indonesian Language & Literature 468342 English Language & Literature 468446 Javanese Language & Literature 468543 French Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF TANJUNG PURA

473142 Law 473246 Econom ics 473343 Public Administration 473447 S o c io lo g y 476047 Education: Educational Administration 244

4 7 6 14 4 Education Curriculum Development 476241 E d u c a tio n A ccounting 476345 Education Cooperative 476411 Education Civics (Dl) 476426 Education Civics (D2) 479026 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 479034 Education Indonesian Language & Literature ( D 3 ) 479042 Education Indonesian Language & Literature 479123 Education English (02) 479131 E d u c a tio n E n g lish (D3) 479146 Education English

UNIVERSITY OF PALANGKA RAYA

483144 Economics 486146 E d u c a tio n Non-formal Education 486316 Education Civics (Dl) 486436 E d u c a tio n Cooperative (D3) 486525 Vocational E d u c a tio n : S e r v ic e (D2) 486533 V o c a tio n a l E d u c a tio n : S e r v ic e (D3) 486637 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling (D3) 486645 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling 486742 Education A ccou nting 489021 Education E n g lish (D2) 489044 E d u c a tio n E n g lish 489133 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF LAMBUNG MANGKURAT

493146 Law 493243 Economics 493347 S o c ia l and Political Sciences 496036 Education H is to r y (D3) 496044 Education History 496133 Education C o o p e ra tiv e (D3) 496141 Education Cooperative 496214 Education Civics (Dl) 496222 Education C iv ic s (D2) 496245 Education C iv ic s 496446 Education Guidance and Counselling 496543 Education Physical Education 496647 Education Educational Administration 496744 Education Non-formal Education 496825 E d u c a tio n B u sin e ss A d m in is tr a tio n (D2) 496833 Education Business Administration (D3) 496922 E d u c a tio n F in an c e (D2) 499015 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 499023 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 499031 Education Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 499046 E d u c a tio n Indonesian Language & Literature 499127 Education E n g lis h (D2) 499135 E d u c a tio n E n g lis h (D3) 499143 Education English 245

UNIVERSITY OF MULAWARMAN

503143 Development Economics 503642 Management 504146 Public Administration 506041 Education : Guidance & Counselling 506145 Education : Cooperative 506211 Education : Civics (Dl) 506242 Education : Civics 509027 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 509035 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 509043 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 509124 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D2) 509132 Education : English (D3) 509147 Education : English

IK IP SURABAYA

713147 Educational Administration 713236 Guidance and Counselling : D3 713244 Guidance and Counselling 713341 Non-formal Education 713542 Educational Technology 713631 Geography : D3 713646 G eography 713735 History : D3 713743 H is to r y 713832 Cooperative : D3 713847 Cooperative 713936 Accounting : D3 713944 Accounting 714127 Civics Education : D2 714143 Civics Education 714224 Vocational Education : Service (D2) 714232 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 714321 Physical Education : D2 714336 Physical Education : D3 714344 Physical Education 714441 Physical Education : Coaching 714545 Physical Education : Health & Recreation 714626 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D2) 714634 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D3) 714642 Vocational Education : Home Economics 714731 Business Administration : D3 714835 Office Administration : D3 714932 Home Econom ics : Cooking (D3) 715034 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing (D3) 718125 Indonesian Language & Literature : D2 718133 Indonesian Language & Literature : D3 718141 Indonesian Language & Literature 718222 English : D2 718237 English : D3 718245 E n g lis h 246

718342 Javanese Language 718446 German 718543 Ja p a n e s e

UNIVERSITY OF AIRLANGGA

733144 Law 733241 Economics 733442 Psychology 733546 Sociology 733643 Political Science

IKIP MALANG

743146 Curriculum Development 743243 Educational Administration 743332 Guidance & Counselling : D3 743347 Guidance & Counselling 743444 Non-formal Education 743533 Cooperative : D3 743541 Cooperative 743637 Business Administration : D3 743645 Business Administration 743734 History : D3 743742 H is to r y 743846 Civics Education 743935 Geography : D3 743943 G eography 744022 Vocational Education : Service (D2 744037 Vocational Education : Service (D3 744231 Office Administration : D3 744246 Office Administration 744343 Physical Education 744424 Vocational Education : Handicraft 744432 Vocational Education : Handicraft 744536 Accounting : D3 744544 Accounting 744641 Educational Psychology 748124 Indonesian Language & Literature : 748132 Indonesian Language & Literature : 748147 Indonesian Language & Literature 748221 English : D2 748236 English : D3 748244 English 748341 A ra b ic 748422 Art : D2 748437 A rt : D3 748445 A rt

UNIVERSITY OF BRAWIJAYA

753141 Law 753245 Econom ics 753342 Public Administration 247

753446 Business Administration

UNIVERSITY OF JEMBER

763143 Law 763247 Social and Political Sciences 763344 Indonesian History 763441 Economics 766041 Education : Non-formal Education 766145 Education : Guidance and Counselling 766346 Education : Educational Administration 766443 Education : Cooperative 766741 Education : History 768144 E n g lis h 768241 Indonesian Language & Literature 769027 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D2) 769035 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D3) 769043 Education : English 769124 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature

UNIVERSITY OF UDAYANA

773145 Archeology 773242 Anthropology 773346 Indonesian History 773443 Law 773547 Econom ics 776043 E d u c a tio n H is to r y 776116 E d u c a tio n Civics (Dl) 776147 E d u c a tio n C iv ic s 776244 E d u c a tio n Cooperative 776341 E d u c a tio n G eography 776445 E d u c a tio n Non-formal Education 776534 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling (03 ] 776542 E d u c a tio n Guidance and Counselling 778131 E d u c a tio n A rt (D3) 778146 E d u c a tio n A rt 778243 Indonesian Language & Literature 778347 English Language & Literature 778444 Javanese Language & Literature 778541 Balinese Language & Literature 778622 E d u c a tio n : Dance (D2) 778637 E d u c a tio n : Dance (D3) 779014 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 779022 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 779037 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 779045 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 779126 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D2) 779134 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D3) 779142 Education : English

UNIVERSITY OF MATARAM

783147 Law 248

783244 Econom cs 786111 E ducat ion Civics (Dl) 786142 E ducat on C iv ic s 786246 E ducat on Educational Administration 789016 E d u c a ti on Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 789024 E ducat ion Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 789032 E ducat ion Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 789047 E ducat ion Indonesian Language & Literature 789121 E ducat ion English (D2) 789136 E ducat ion English (D3) 789144 E du cat ion E n g lis h

UNIVERSITY OF NUSA CENDANA

793142 Law 793447 Public Administration 793544 Business Administration 793633 Education : Cooperative (D3) 796016 Education : Civics (Dl) 796047 Education : Civics 796144 Education : Office Administration 796233 E d u c a tio n : G eography (D3) 796241 Education : Geography 796531 Education : Guidance & Counselling (D3) 796546 Education : Guidance & Counselling 796643 Education : Educational Administration 796836 Vocational Education : Service (D3 ) 796941 Education : History 799011 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature (Dl) 799026 Education : Indonesian Language & L i t e r a t u r e (D2) 799042 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 799123 Education : English (D2) 799146 Education : English

IKIP UJUNG PANDANG

803146 Educational Administration 803243 Educational Technology 803332 Guidance & Counselling (D3 803347 Guidance & Counselling 803421 Non-formal Education (D2) 803444 Non-formal Education 803541 Home Economics : Cooking 803645 History 803734 Office Administration (D3) 803742 Office Administration 803831 G eography (D3) 803846 G eography 803912 Civics Education (Dl) 803943 Civics Education 804037 Cooperative (D3) 804045 Cooperative 804134 A c c o u n tin g (D3) 249

804142 A cco u n tin g 804223 P h y s ic a l E d u c a tio n (D2) 804231 P h y s ic a l E d u c a tio n (D3) 804246 Physical Education 804343 Physical Education : Coaching 804447 Physical Education : Health & Recreation 804544 Home Economics : Sewing & Designing 804625 Vocational E d u c a tio n : H a n d ic r a f t (D2) 804722 Vocational Education : Home Economics (D2) 804737 V o c a tio n a l Education : Home Economics (D3) 804834 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 804931 B u s in e s s A d m in is tr a tio n (D3) 808124 Indonesian Language & Literature (D2) 808132 Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 808147 In d o n e s ia n Language & Literature 808221 E n g lis h (D2) 808236 E n g lis h (D3) 808244 English 808341 German 808422 A rt (D2) 808445 A rt 808526 Dance (D2)

UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN

813141 Economics 813342 Law 813945 Social and Political Sciences 818142 Literature

UNIVERSITY OF TADULAKO

823143 Social and Political Sciences 823344 Economics 823545 Law 823746 Education : H is to r y 826041 Education : Curriculum Development 826211 Education : Civics (Dl) 826242 Education : C iv ic s 826532 Education : G uidance and C o u n s e llin g (D3) 829012 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 829027 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 829035 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 829043 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 829124 Education : E n g lis h (D2) 829132 Education : E n g lis h (D3)

UNIVERSITY OF HALU OLEO

833145 Economics 833242 S o c ia l and Political Sciences 836147 Education : Educational Administration 836213 Education : Civics (Dl) 839022 E d u c a tio n : E n g lis h (D2) 250

IKIP MANADO

843147 Curriculum Development 843244 Educational Philosophy and Sociology 843341 Guidance and Counselling 843445 Special Education 843542 Educational Administration 843743 Non-formal Education 843847 Office Administration 843936 Accounting (D3) 843944 Accounting 844031 C o o p e ra tiv e (D3) 844046 Cooperative 844112 Civics Education (Dl) 844143 Civics Education 844247 History 844433 G eography (D3) 844441 Geography 844634 Vocational Education : Service (D3) 844843 Physical Education 845243 Educational Psychology 845347 Home Economics : Cooking 845444 Home Economics : Sewing and Designing 848133 Indonesian Language & Literature (D3) 848141 Indonesian Language & Literature 848222 E n g lis h (D2) 848237 E n g lis h (D3) 848245 E n g lis h 848431 German (D3) 848647 A rt 848744 M usic

UNIVERSITY OF SAM RATULANGI

853142 Econom ics 853246 Law 853343 Social and Political Sciences 853447 Indonesian History 856047 Education : Guidance & Counselling (Gorontalo) 856144 Education : Non-formal Education ( Gorontalo) 856241 Education : Cooperative (Gorontalo) 856345 Education : History (Gorontalo) 856111 Education : Civics Dl (Gorontalo) 856643 Education : Office Administration (Gorontalo) 856747 Education : Educational Administration (Gorontalo) 858247 Indonesian Language & Literature 858344 E n g lis h 858441 German 858514 Education : Indonesian Language Dl (Gorontalo) 858522 Education : Indonesian Language D2 (Gorontalo) 858545 Education : Indonesian Language (Gorontalo) 858626 Education : English D2 (Gorontalo) 858642 Education : English (Gorontalo) UNIVERSITY OF PATTIMURA

863144 Law 863241 Econom ics 863345 Public Administration 863442 S o c io lo g y 866042 Education : Cooperative 866115 Education : Civics (Dl) 866146 Education : C iv ic s 866243 Education : History 866347 Education : Geography 866436 Education : Guidance and Counselling (D3) 866444 Education : Guidance and Counselling 866541 Education : Non-formal Education 866645 Education : Educational Administration 869044 Education : English 869141 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 869245 Education : German

UNIVERSITY OF CENDERAWASIH

873243 Development Econom ics 873347 Public Administration 873444 Linguistic Anthropology 873541 Law 876044 Education : Curriculum Development 876133 Education : Guidance and Counselling (D3) 876141 Education : Guidance and Counselling 876245 Education : Non-formal Education 876334 Education : Geography (D3) 876342 Education : G eography 876431 Education : History (D3) 876446 Education : History 876527 Education : Physical Education (D2) 876616 Education : Civics (Dl) 879023 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 879031 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 879046 Education : Indonesian Language & Literature 879143 Education : English

Note : Dl : One-year Non Degree Educational Program (Diplome 1) D2 : Two-year Non Degree Educational Program (Diplome 2) D3 : Three-year Non Degree Educational Program (Diplome 3) 252

K-08 CITIZENSHIP

Mark an oval which is corresponding to your current citizenship status. Your citizenship status is determined based on the patrilineal sy stem .

Definitions :

1. Native Indonesian (no need further explanation) 2. Australoid includes aborigine in Australia, Vedda in Sri Lanka, Dravidian in South India, etc. 3. Caucasoid includes native citizens in Europe, Arab Peninsula, and West Asia. 4. Negroid includes black in America, native African, etc. 5. Mongoloid includes Chinese, Japanese, etc. 6. Melanesoid includes native Melanesian. 7. Non Indonesian Citizen (no need further explanation)

K-09 SEX

See example on page 9 : A.6

K-10 BIRTH DATE

Fill in the available spaces with date, month and year of your birth.

Example : If you were born on August 17, 1967

write : 170867

See the enclosed sample !

K - l l PLACE OF BIRTH

Fill in the available spaces with code of your birth location based upon the list on K-05.

K-12 NUMBER OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS

Write the number of your brothers and sisters in the available spaces.

Example : If your parent has three children, and you are the oldest one, write :

Younger brothers/sisters : 02 Older brothers/sisters : 00 See the attached sample ! 253

K-13 RELIGION

Hark an oval which is corresponding to your current religion.

K-14 MARITAL STATUS

Mark an oval which is corresponding to your marital status.

K-15 HOBBY

Mark an oval which is corresponding to the hobby category that you like most.

K-16 SCHOLARSHIP

In this section you are requested to inform whether or not you have received scholarship. Indicate where did you get that scholarship, and if you receive the scholarship from more than two sources, mention the one that you consider very im p o r ta n t.

K-17 EDUCATION OF PARENTS

In this section you are requested to indicate the educational background of both your father and mother.

Example : If Your father has baccalaureate degree from a College/Academy, while your mother is Senior High School (SMA) graduate, th e n :

- under column "father", mark an oval printed in front of "baccalaureate" c a te g o r y

- under column "mother", mark an oval printed in front of "Senior High School graduate" category

See the enclosed sample ! 254

K -18 OCCUPATION

In this section you are requested to indicate the main occupation of your father, mother and yourself by marking the appropriate ovals printed in front of "father", "mother", and "candidate" columns. If you or your parents have more than two occupations, pick one you consider as the most important. If no occupation mark "others" category.

Exam ple :

If your father is a Senior High School Teacher, your mother is a merchant, and you, yourself don't have any job yet, then :

-under column "father", mark an oval in front of "Teacher/Lecturer" category -under column "mother", mark the oval in front of "merchant" category -under column "candidate", mark the oval in front of "others" category

See the attached sample !

K-19 INCOME

Mark an oval which is corresponding to the monthly income category of your parent. If your parent has no regular income, you may make a calculation based on the average monthly income within the last year. And, if your parent income is not in cash but in the forms of agricultural products, fish, etc., you may make an estimation of the current selling values.

Exam ple :

The salary of your father as a Senior High School Teacher is Rp. 68,000 per month, and the average income of your mother from her small-shop is Rp. 47,500 per month. In addition, your parent's farm yields 50 kilograms of clove per year. If the selling price of clove is Rp.7,200/kg, then your parent will have an additional income : Rp. 7,200 x 50 : 12 * Rp.30,000 per month. Thus, the total income of both your father and mother is : Rp.68,000 + Rp.47,500 + Rp.30,000 = Rp.145,500/month Therefore, mark an oval in front of "100,000 - 150,000" category.

See the attached sample ! APPENDIX B

255 256

T a b le 21

NUMBER OF STUDENTS ACCEPTED AND REJECTED BY UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE SIPENMARU EXAMINATION. 1984

i SOCIAL SCIENCE AND UNIVERSITY NATURALSCIENCES HUMANITIES Code Abbreviation Number Number Number Number Number Number of Applied Accepted of Applied Accepted Depts. Depts. 11 UNSYIAH 15 11 260 949 22 17,601 1,634 12 IKIP MDN 19 5 182 635 53 16, 184 2, 196 13 USU 16 20 329 1, 085 11 21,821 530 14 IKIP FDG 14 6 012 472 43 18, 192 1,961 15 UN AND 6 9 013 476 7 12,791 694 16 UNRI 10 2 803 459 17 7,220 856 17 UNJAM 6 2 093 365 9 3 , 547 594 18 UNSRI 17 8 879 786 19 10,164 843 19 UNIB 3 1 559 158 8 3 , 988 472 20 UNILA 7 4 707 510 17 11,493 1, 148 21 IKIP JKT 18 6 064 583 53 17,395 2, 127 22 01 13 27 095 643 23 47,109 1,123 23 IPB 1 6 255 350 24 IKIP BDG 18 9 425 878 52 28,390 2 , 447 25 ITB 21 24 972 1, 195 26 UNPAD 13 22 602 689 19 35,894 1, 118 41 UNSUD 3 6 054 543 2 7, 391 544 42 IKIP SMR 19 8 034 605 43 19,315 1, 667 43 UNDIP 8 11 887 673 11 17,517 938 44 UNS 21 15 681 1, 073 45 34,559 2,757 45 IKIP '/GY 14 8 371 466 51 23,384 2,249 46 OGM 22 30 243 1,849 IS 32,954 1,3*3 47 UNTAN 7 1 551 375 16 4,527 1,223 48 UNPAR 3 83 54 16 1,872 758 49 UN LAM 11 2 942 579 24 6, 319 1,091 50 UNMUL 3 1 079 193 12 2,337 504 71 IKIP SBY 19 9 351 734 44 21,645 1, 512 72 ITS 14 12 973 740 73 UNAIR • 9 041 527 5 18,455 595 74 IKIP MLG 17 7 400 686 34 17,319 1,460 75 UNIBRAW 12 20 256 771 4 14,863 717 76 UNED 5 4 900 329 15 13,038 1,321 77 UNUD 14 9 230 787 28 16,110 1,534 78 UNRAM 6 4 069 508 10 7,594 737 79 UNDANA 10 1 370 319 19 3,945 933 80 IKIP UJP 16 3 632 576 39 15,779 1,837 81 UNHAS 6 15 290 956 4 15,416 1,334 82 UNTAD 7 1 258 355 16 2,963 849 83 UNHOL 3 1 223 240 7 3 , 360 741 84 IKIP MND 7 1 023 226 30 3,309 990 85 UNSRAT 11 3 996 792 19 4,770 1,296 86 UNPATTI 11 1 722 419 18 2,877 647 87 UNCEN 8 706 201 17 1,488 474

TOTAL 482 361 615 25,809 900 564,895 47,814 APPENDIX C

257 T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Agricultural Institute— Bogor

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

General Admission1 205 U. Diponegoro - Accounting

(N=66) *200 IPB - General Admission

191 Not Accepted

178 Not Accepted

168 Not Accepted

142 Not Accepted

141 Not Accepted

*141 IPB - General Admission

136 Not Accepted

135 Not Accepted

127 Not Accepted

127 IKIP - Jakarta - Geography

117 Not Accepted

113 Not Accepted

109 Not Accepted

1 Students applying to IPB were not required to specify a department. Application was for general admission regardless of area of study desired. •Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Agricultural Institute— Bogor

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

General Admission (cont.) 107 Not Accepted

(N=66) 101 U. Padjadjaran - Economics

98 Not Accepted

I A (5)

79 Not Accepted

77 U. Lampung - Economics

77 Not Accepted

II (9)

59 Not Accepted

58 U. Lampung - Mathematics Education

57 Not Accepted

I 1 (4)

53 Not Accepted

49 U. Sebelas Maret - Law

47 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 9 5 2 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Agricultural Institute— Bogor

Department Score University/Department Accepted Co—ents

General Admission (cont.) 1 I (1 3)

(N=66) 19 Not Accepted

18 U. Jambi - Law

17 Not Accepted

1 I (4)

- 1 8 Not Accepted

*Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Biology 180 Not Accepted

(N=6) 109 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted

74 IKIP - Surabaya - Japanese

54 Not Accepted

-2 6 Not Accepted

cheaistry 244 Airlangga - Chemistry

(N=l)

Dentistry 325 Airlangga - Dentistry

(N=29) 289 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

*271 Airlangga - Dentistry

*258 Airlangga - Dentistry

*215 Airlangga - Dentistry

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Dentistry (cont.) *199 Airlangga - Dentistry

(N=29) *194 Airlangga - Dentistry

*178 Airlangga - Dentistry

159 Airlangga - Veterinary Medicine

153 Airlangga - Law Accepted over 9 others with higher scores.

144 Not Accepted

131 Not Accepted

120 Not Accepted

118 Not Accepted

99 U. Jember - Economics

87 Not Accepted

1 A (7)

33 Not Accepted

24 IKIP - Surabaya - Vocational Education/Home Economics

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 262 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Dentistry (cont.) 23 Not Accepted

(N=29) 22 Not Accepted

-4 Not Accepted

-2 7 Not Accepted

Matheaatics 239 Airlangga - Mathematics

(N=7) 94 Not Accepted

I A (4)

7 Not Accepted

Medicine 348 Airlangga - Medicine

(N=41) 260 U. Brawijaya - Medicine

*259 Airlangga - Medicine

242 Airlangga - Dentistry Accepted over 1 other with a higher score.

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 3 6 2 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted cn—wts

Medicine (cont.) 236 Not Accepted

(N=41) 228 U. Brawijaya - Agriculture

207 Not Accepted

196 Not Accepted

189 Airlangga - Economics Accepted over 16 others with higher scores.

178 Not Accepted

178 Not Accepted

167 Airlangga - Dentistry Accepted over 1 other with a higher score.

158 Airlangga - Dentistry Accepted over 2 others with higher scores.

128 Not Accepted

113 Not Accepted

110 IKIP - Surabaya - Vocational Education/Home Economics

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Natural Science

Departsient Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Pharaacy 105 Not Accepted

(N=l1) 1 I (2 3)

-2 7 Not Accepted

350 Airlangga - Pharmacy

233 IKIP - Malang - Chemistry

194 Not Accepted

*193 Airlangga - Pharmacy

56 Not Accepted

I 1 (5)

2 Not Accepted

Veterinary Medicine 166 A irlangga - V eterinary M edicine

(N=12) 152 Airlangga - Veterinary Medicine

Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. T a b le 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted cr»»»ents

Veterinary Medicine 134 Airlangga - Veterinary Medicine (cont.)

(N=12) 118 Airlangga - Veterinary Medicine

106 Not Accepted

i 1 (6 )

-2 7 Not Accepted

Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Social Science & Huaanities

Departaent Score 1 Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Econoaics 312 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

(N=68) *311 Airlangga - Economics

*300 Airlangga - Economics

292 U. Sebelas Maret - Education/Accounting

271 U. Brawijaya - Agriculture

250 Airlangga - Dentistry

242 Airlangga - Physics

242 Not Accepted

240 Not Accepted

*238 Airlangga - Economics

234 Airlangga - Veterinary Medicine

230 Not Accepted

227 U. Brawijaya - Mechanical Engineering

222 Not Accepted

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 7 6 2 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Economics (cont.) 4 4 (5 3 )

(N=68) - 2 7 Not Accepted

Law 311 Airlangga - Veterinary Medicine

238 IKIP - Surabaya - Education Administration

222 Not Accepted

192 Not Accepted

164 Not Accepted

162 Not Accepted

161 IKIP - Surabaya - Civics Education

154 Not Accepted

4 4 (3 1)

2 Not Accepted

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 268 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Political Science 115 Not Accepted

(N=9) 74 Not Accepted

1 A (6)

-2 7 Not Accepted

Psychology 345 Airlangga - Sociology

(N=23) 274 U. Brawijaya - Electrical Engineering

228 U. Brawijaya - Animal Husbandry

217 Not Accepted

217 Not Accepted

207 U. Brawijaya - Business Administration

202 Not Accepted

191 U. Brawijaya - Business Administration

185 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Airlangga University

Social Science & Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted rn«ent»

Psychology (cont.) A A (13 )

S o c io lo g y 258 Airlangga - Dentistry

(N=15) 232 Not Accepted

1 A (4)

134 Not Accepted

112 IKIP Semarang - Music

87 Not Accepted

A A (5)

17 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Hada University

Natural Science

Departsient Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Agricultural Engineering 174 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Biology

(N=5) 158 Not Accepted

135 U. Diponegoro - Civil Engineering

110 Not Accepted

20 Not Accepted

Agricultural Products 251 UGM - International Relations Accepted over 2 Processing Technology others with higher s c o r e s .

(N=19) *234 UGM - Agricultural Products Processing T e c h n o lo g y

227 U. Sebelas Maret - Public Administration

*219 UGM - A gricultural Products Processing T e c h n o lo g y

210 Not Accepted

205 UGM - Geography

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 271 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Qajab Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted C o m e n ts

Agricultural Products *198 UGM - A gricultural Products Processing Processing Technology T e c h n o lo g y (cont.)

(N=19) 147 Not Accepted

115 UGM - Veterinary Medicine Accepted over 1 other with a higher score.

102 Not Accepted

1 1 (8 )

-1 1 Not Accepted

Agriculture 210 UGM - A griculture

(N=29) 190 UGM - French Language and L iterature - r

*170 UGM - A griculture

156 Not Accepted

156 Not Accepted

134 U. D ip o n e g o ro - C o m m u n ic atio n

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajab Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Pepartaent Accepted Coaaents

Agriculture (cont.) 130 U. Padjadjaran - Communication

(N=29) 124 Not Accepted

120 Not Accepted

105 Not Accepted

88 Not Accepted

84 UGM - Economics Accepted over 62 others with higher s c o r e s .

84 Not Accepted

i I (15 )

- 1 4 Not Accepted

Aniaal Husbandry 224 UGM - Animal Husbandry

(N=21) 213 UGM - Animal Husbandry

195 UGM - Animal Husbandry

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 3 7 2 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Aniaal Husbandry (cont.) 177 U. General Soedirman - Economics

161 Not Accepted

151 Not Accepted

116 Not Accepted

111 U. Diponegoro - Governmental Systems

103 UGM - Law Accepted over 12 others with higher s c o r e s .

103 Not Accepted

i i (9)

16 Not Accepted

Architecture 202 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

(N=20) *188 UGM - Architecture

•Admitted to department with lower score than otherB rejected to the same department. 4 7 2 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Mada University

Natural Science

Department Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Architecture (cont.) 164 UGM - Psychology Accepted over 13 others with higher s c o r e s .

(N=20) 157 U. Sebelas Maret - Agriculture

156 U. Jember - Agriculture

148 U. Diponegoro - Fishery

148 Not Accepted

130 Not Accepted

124 Not Accepted

117 U. Lambung Mangkurat - Engineering

107 Not Accepted

92 Not Accepted

72 Not Accepted

71 Not Accepted

68 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 275 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Architecture (cont.) 66 IKIP - Semarang - Civil Engineering

(N=20) 65 Not Accepted

58 Not Accepted

57 Not Accepted

54 Not Accepted

Biology 210 UGM - B io lo g y

(N=15) 123 Not Accepted

99 Not Accepted

1 I (11)

1 Not Accepted

Cheaical Engineering 226 UGM - C h e m is try

(N=9) 199 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the Bame department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Cheaical Engineering (cont.) 151 Not Accepted

(N=9) 111 Not Accepted

10 Not Accepted

93 Not Accepted

66 Not Accepted

52 Not Accepted

31 Not Accepted

Cheaistry 316 UGM - Chemistry

(N=l)

Civil Engineering 327 UGM - Civil Engineering

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 7 7 2 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Natural Science

Pepartsient Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Civil Engineering (cont.) 209 UGM - Sociology

194 IPB Accepted over 1 other with higher score.

175 UGM - Mathematics

146 Not Accepted

108 Not Accepted

105 U. General Soedirman - Agriculture

95 Not Accepted

i I (4 )

37 Not Accepted

Dentistry 186 U. Sebelas Maret - Agriculture

(N=10) 143 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 278 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Natural Science

Department Score Universitv/Departeent Accepted Co—ents

Dentistry (cont.) 113 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Physics

(N=10) 105 Not Accepted

I 1 (5)

3 Not Accepted

Electrical Engineering 213 Not Accepted

(N=12) 205 Not Accepted

155 Not Accepted

142 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Mathematics

114 Not Accepted

I i (6 )

20 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 279 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Mada U niversity

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Forestry 202 UGM - Forestry

(N=32) 198 UGM - Forestry

195 U. Sebelas Maret - Vocational Technical E d u c a tio n

194 IKIP - Malang - Mathematics

171 Not Accepted

1 A (25)

-15 Not Accepted

-17 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Vocational Education/Home Economics

Geodetic Science 184 UGM - Geodetic Science

(N=5) 160 UGM - Archeology Accepted over 3 others with higher s c o r e s .

152 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Indonesian Language and Literature

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 280 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajab Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Geodetic Science (cont.) 32 Not Accepted

(N=5) 23 Not Accepted

G eo g rap h y 158 UGM - Geography

146 UGM - English Language and Literature Accepted over 6 others with higher s c o r e s .

121 Not Accepted

120 U. General Soedirman - Animal Husbandry

87 IKIP Yogyakarta - Geography

40 Not Accepted

34 Not Accepted

34 Not Accepted

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Oeology 276 U. Sebelas Maret - Economics

(N=17) 154 Not Accepted

137 Not Accepted

117 Not Accepted

102 Not Accepted

102 Not Accepted

100 Not Accepted

100 Not Accepted

92 IKIP Yogyakarta - History

91 Not Accepted

85 IKIP Semarang - Geography

80 Not Accepted

60 Not Accepted

56 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score University/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Geology (cont.) 35 U. Lambung Mangkurat - Engineering ......

13 Not Accepted

Matbeaatics 218 UGM - Mathematics

(N=2) 100 Not Accepted

Mechanical Engineering 254 UGM - A gricultural Products Processing T e c h n o lo g y

(N=12) 184 Not Accepted

119 Not Accepted

111 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted

95 Not Accepted 283 •Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Mechanical Engineering 1 A (5 ) (cont.)

(N=12) 7 Not Accepted

Medicine 265 UGM - Medicine

(**=37 ) 232 UGM - Medicine

222 IKIP - Surabaya - Accounting

*221 UGM - Medicine

*214 UGM - M edicine

211 UGM - International Relations Accepted over 9 others with higher s c o r e s .

*200 UGM - M edicine

200 U. General Soedirman - Agriculture

*183 UGM - Medicine

183 UGM - Geodetic Science

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Oepartaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Co aments

Medicine (cont.) 177 IKIP - Bandung - French

(N=37) 169 Not Accepted

1 I (2 4 )

-1 2 Not Accepted

Nuclear Science 270 UGM - Nuclear Science

(N=6) 155 U. Diponegoro - Law

65 Not Accepted

45 Not Accepted

37 Not Accepted

31 Not Accepted

Pharmacy 208 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

(N=15) 193 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 285 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Mada University

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Pharmacy (cont.) *188 UGM - Pharmacy

(N=15) *179 UGM - Pharmacy

159 Not Accepted

140 Not Accepted

139 Not Accepted

136 Not Accepted

95 Not Accepted

1 A (5 )

14 Not Accepted

Veterinary Medicine 166 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

108 Not Accepted

57 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Veterinary Medicine (cont.) 47 UGM - Law Accepted over 26 others with higher s c o r e s .

(N=10) 45 Not Accepted

24 Not Accepted

19 Not Accepted

15 Not Accepted

12 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Anthropology 194 Not Accepted

(11=7) 190 IKIP - Semarang - Physics

177 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Special Education

151 Not Accepted

145 Not Accepted

104 Not Accepted

38 Not Accepted

Arabic Language & 108 Not Accepted Literature

87 Not Accepted

78 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 288 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Archeology 242 Not Accepted

(N=6) 211 Not Accepted

208 IKIP Yogyakarta - History

114 Not Accepted

111 Not Accepted

67 Not Accepted

Economics 397 UGM - Civil Engineering

(N=74) 384 UGM - Mechanical Engineering

382 UGM - Medicine

371 UGM - Geology

347 UGM - A rchitecture

328 UGM - Civil Engineering

324 UGM - Social Work

Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance S1PENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Economics (cont.) 320 U. General Soedirman - Economics

(N=74) 318 Not Accepted

318 UGM - Mechanical Engineering

311 U. Sebelas Maret - Economics

307 UGM - Public Administration

292 U. Sebelas Maret - Law

284 Not Accepted

280 UGM - Civil Engineering

275 UGM - M edicine

275 U. Sebelas Maret - Economics

*262 UGM - Economics

258 UGM - Geography

257 Not Accepted

251 ITB - Industrial Engineering

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 290 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPEMMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Economics (cont.) 248 Not Accepted

(**=74) 248 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Education Technology

244 Not Accepted

228 Not Accepted

228 U. Sebelas Maret - Law

225 Not Accepted

218 Not Accepted

208 Not Accepted

*202 UGM - Economics

200 UGM - Philosophy

194 Not Accepted

192 Not Accepted

180 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Economics (cont.) 171 UGM - Animal Husbandry Accepted over 1 other with a (N=74) higher score.

170 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Indonesian Language & L i t e r a t u r e

168 Not Accepted

164 Not Accepted

161 Not Accepted

160 Not Accepted

157 Not Accepted

154 Not Accepted

152 Not Accepted

151 Not Accepted

150 U. General Soedirman - Agriculture

150 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicant* by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Nada University

Social Science A Humanities

Departeent Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Economics (cont.) 1 I (1 7 )

(N=74) 85 U. Palangkaraya - Economics

81 Not Accepted

II (8 )

-14 Not Accepted

English Language A 275 Not Accepted Literature

231 Not Accepted

181 Not Accepted

180 Not Accepted

160 Not Accepted

134 Not Accepted

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 293 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajab Mada University

Social Science A Humanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Comments

French Language A 267 UGM - French Language A Literature Literature

Governmental Systems 191 IK IP - Yogyakarta - Geography

171 Not Accepted

I i (1 0 )

24 Not Accepted

Indonesian History 141 Not Accepted

81 Not Accepted

68 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 294 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Social Science £ Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

International Relations 282 ITB - Mining Engineering

(N=22) 268 IKIP - Yogyakarta - German

237 Not Accepted

232 Not Accepted

225 Not Accepted

225 Not Accepted

220 Not Accepted

217 Not Accepted

214 Not Accepted

208 UGM - Biology

207 U.I. - Archeology

195 Not Accepted

I I (9)

68 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 295 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Social Science £ Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Cowants

Law 228 UGM - Law

(N=33) 215 UGM - D entistry

207 Not Accepted

II (29)

10 Not Accepted

Mass Cosuaunication 297 UGM - Mass Communication

(N=9) 281 UGM - A griculture

218 Not Accepted

I 1 (5)

70 Not Accepted

Philosophy 304 UGM - Philosophy

(N=3) 244 UGM - Philosophy

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajah Mada University

Social Science t Humanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Comments

Philosophy (cont.) 157 Not Accepted (N=3)

Psychology 332 UGM - Pharmacy

(N=29) 275 UGM - M edicine

271 U. Padjadjaran - Psychology

267 Not Accepted

254 IKIP - Semarang - Geography

250 Not Accepted

237 Not Accepted

220 Not Accepted

201 Not Accepted

182 Not Accepted

175 IKIP - Yogyakarta - Education Philosophy 297 ♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Departaent Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Psychology (cont.) 171 Not Accepted

(N=29) 167 U. Sebelas Maret - Mechanical Education

162 Not Accepted

A A (14 )

58 Not Accepted

Public Administration 284 UGM - Forestry

(N=16) 220 Not Accepted

187 Not Accepted

174 Not Accepted

150 Not Accepted

147 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted

105 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 298 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Gajah Mada University

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Public Administration I 1 (7) ( c o n t .)

(N=16) -2 Not Accepted

Social Work 255 Not Accepted

(N=9) 221 UGM - Animal Husbandry

195 Not Accepted

150 Not Accepted

90 Not Accepted

I i (3)

81 Not Accepted

S o c io lo g y 165 Not Accepted

(N=9) 152 Not Accepted

145 Not Accepted

“Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 299 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Oajab Mada University

Social Science t Humanities

Departaent Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Sociology (cont.) 137 Not Accepted

(N=9) 90 Not Accepted

I i (3 )

20 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 300 T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Cosusents

Architecture 178 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

•1 2 4 ITB - Architecture

120 Not Accepted

103 Not Accepted

95 Not Accepted

81 IKIP Bandung - Electrical Engineering

68 Not Accepted

I I (7)

14 Not Accepted

Astronoay 225 UGM - Archeology

60 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departsient, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Departsient Scor£ Universitv/Departeent Accepted rn.««nf«

Ast ronosiy (cont.) 17 * Not Accepted

(N=5) -12 Not Accepted

Biology 104 U. Padjadjaran - Law

Chemistry 84 Not Accepted (N=l)

Chemical Engineering 219 Not Accepted

(N*13) 168 ITB - Chemistry

163 Not Accepted

158 Not Accepted

149 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Cheaical Engineering (cont.) 136 U. Padjadjaran - Chemistry

119 ITB - Regional Planning Science

93 U. Padjadjaran - Economics

86 Not Accepted

63 Not Accepted

48 Not Accepted

- 1 0 Not Accepted

Civil Engineering 215 ITB - Civil Engineering

(N=26) 208 U. Padjadjaran - Economics

166 U. General Soedirman - Animal H u sb a n d ry

164 Not Accepted

138 Not Accepted

130 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 303 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Departaent Score Unlversitv/Departaent Accepted Coaanti

Civil Engineering (cont.) 118 U. Lampung - A griculture

(N=26> 117 Not Accepted

115 Not Accepted

94 Not Accepted

81 IKIP Jakarta - Geography

79 Not Accepted

1 I (13 )

6 Not Accepted

Electrical Engineering 418 ITB - Electrical Engineerirj

(N-37) 406 ITB - Electrical Engineering

353 ITB - Electrical Engineering

215 U. Padjadjaran - Economics

171 Not Accepted

171 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 304 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted r<->— «»n»«

Electrical Engineering (cont.) 165 Not Accepted

155 Not Accepted

142 U. Padjadjaran - Agriculture

132 Not Accepted

127 Not Accepted

126 U. Padjadjaran - Mathematics

118 Not Accepted

117 Not Accepted

104 IKIP - Bandung - Electrical Engineering

103 Not Accepted

101 Not Accepted

96 Not Accepted

95 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 305 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Electrical Engineering (cont.) 94 Not Accepted

(N=37) 94 Not Accepted

89 Not Accepted

83 IKIP - Padang - Accounting

82 Not Accepted

I A (1 1)

0 Not Accepted

Environaental Science 275 ITB - Environmental Science

(N=16) 254 ITB - Environmental Science

195 ITB - Environmental Science

148 U. Udayana - Economics

145 Not Accepted

135 U.I. - Economics Accepted over 75 others with higher s c o r e s .

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score Unlversity/Deparfaaent Accepted Coasients

Environaiental Science (cont.) 126 Not Accepted

(N=16) I A (8)

7 Not Accepted

Geodetic Science 157 IKIP Bandung - Electrical Engineering

66 Not Accepted

52 Not Accepted

34 Not Accepted

11 Not Accepted

Geological Engineering 326 ITB - Geological Engineering

(N«7) 231 ITB - Geological Engineering

73 Not Accepted

66 Not Accepted

51 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Geological Engineering (cont.) 30 Not Accepted

(N=7) 24 Not Accepted

Geophysics A Meteorology 177 Not Accepted

- 3 1 Not Accepted

Industrial Engineering 250 ITB - Industrial Engineering

(N=20) 145 Not Accepted

124 Not Accepted

118 Not Accepted

111 Not Accepted

108 UGM - International Relations

92 Not Accepted

1 1 (12)

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 308 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Industrial Engineering (cont.) -18 Not Accepted (N=20)

Information Technology 360 ITB - Mechanical Engineering

(N=22) 353 Not Accepted

207 Not Accepted

143 Not Accepted

139 Not Accepted

130 Not Accepted

104 Not Accepted

103 Not Accepted

101 Not Accepted

83 IKIP - Bandung - Automotive Engineering

• 74 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Information Technology (cont.) 1 1 (1 0)

(N=22) -3 Not Accepted

Mathematics 36 Not Accepted

0 Not Accepted

Mechanical Engineering 278 UGM - Economics Accepted over 15 others with higher (N=25) s c o r e s .

*249 ITB - Mechanical Engineering

248 Surabaya Institute of Technology - Mechanical Engineering

*233 ITB - Mechanical Engineering

218 ITB - Geological Engineering

197 Not Accepted

174 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Mechanical Engineering (cont.) 167 U. Padjadjaran - Agriculture

138 Not Accepted

130 Not Accepted

77 Not Accepted

70 Not Accepted

69 Not Accepted

68 IKIP - Bandung - Indonesian Language and Literature

47 Not Accepted

I 1 (8)

-11 Not Accepted

Mining Engineering 229 ITB - Mining Engineering

206 Not Accepted

Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Mining Engineering (cont.) *179 ITB - Mining Engineering

(N=16) 157 Not Accepted

154 Not Accepted

137 U. Padjadjaran - Animal Husbandry

115 Not Accepted

II (7)

24 Not Accepted

Oil Engineering 290 ITB - Oil Engineering

(N=24) 223 U. North Sumatra - Chemical Engineering

172 Not Accepted

155 Not Accepted

154 Not Accepted

130 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Oil Engineering (cont.) 104 U. Padjadjaran - Journalism

(N=24) 98 Not Accepted

95 Not Accepted

91 Not Accepted

80 Not Accepted

66 Not Accepted

66 U. Mataram - Economics

61 Not Accepted

i I (9 )

-1 6 Not Accepted

Pharmacy 128 Not Accepted

88 Not Accepted

85 Not Accepted 3 1 3 *Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Physics 344 ITB - Physics

(N=5) 248 ITB - Physics

143 ITB - Physics

135 ITB - Physics

50 Not Accepted -

Physics Engineering 143 U.I. - Mathematics Accepted over 2 others with higher

114 Not Accepted

62 Not Accepted

54 Not Accepted

Regional Planning Science 287 ITB - Regional Planning Science

113 U. Diponegoro - Indonesian History

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department- Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

Institute of Technology— Bandung

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Regional Planning Science (cont.) 109 Not Accepted

(N=12) 1 A (7) 3 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Departaient, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score Universitv/Peparteent Accepted Co—ents

Architecture 242 U.I. - Architecture

*188 U.I. - Architecture

181 Not Accepted

*179 U.I. - Architecture

147 U.I. - Economics Accepted over 73 others with higher s c o r e s

132 Not Accepted

A A (21)

30 Not Accepted

28 U. Syah Kuala - Accounting Education

26 Not Accepted

A A (15)

- 3 0 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Biology 140 U.I. - Economics Accepted over 75 others with higher (N=21) s c o r e s .

138 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted

102 U .I . - Law Accepted over 15 others with higher s c o r e s .

85 Not Accepted

i I (1 5 )

-2 7 Not Accepted

Chemistry 199 Not Accepted

(N=6) 74 Not Accepted

49 Not Accepted

49 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Chemistry (cont. ) 19 Not Accepted

(N=6) 14 Not Accepted

Civil Engineering 255 Not Accepted

(N=45) 175 Not Accepted

173 Not Accepted

148 Not Accepted

146 Not Accepted

144 Not Accepted

141 Not Accepted

131 U. Diponegoro - Civil Engineering

130 Not Accepted

125 Surabaya Inst. Tech. - Physics

125 IKIP - Jakarta - Civil Engineering

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The U niversity of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted rn—ants

Civil Engineering (cont.) 123 Not Accepted

-3 Not Accepted

Dentistry 163 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

*151 U.I. - Dentistry

138 Not Accepted

134 Not Accepted

105 IKIP - Jakarta - Biology

96 Not Accepted -

I 1 (2 0)

-22 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Depart went Score University/Departeent Accepted Comments

Electrical Engineering 247 Not Accepted

(N=32) 175 Not Accepted

161 Not Accepted

160 U.I. - P h y s ic s Accepted over 1 o t h e r with a higher score.

139 Not Accepted

1 I (26)

-6 Not Accepted

Geography 177 U.I. - E co n o m ics Accepted over 51 others with higher (N=7 ) s c o r e s .

130 Not Accepted

1 1 (4)

7 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Mathematics 355 Not Accepted Probably Chinese ;

("=13) 149 U. Padjadjaran - Journalism

*129 U.I. - Mathematics

123 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted

104 UGM - Pharmacy Accepted over 6 others with higher scores.

98 Not Accepted

I 1 (5)

-1 1 Not Accepted

Mechanical Engineering 189 U.I. - Mechanical Engineering

(N=19) 189 U.I. - Mechanical Engineering

109 Not Accepted

104 U. Sam Ratulangi - Architecture

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Dapartaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted rn— gnts

Mechanical Engineering 98 Not Accepted (cont.)

(N=19) 97 Not Accepted

68 U.I. - Law Accepted over 54 others with higher s c o r e s .

60 Not Accepted

I I (10 )

-14 Not Accepted

Medicine 330 U.I. - Medicine

(N=64) 291 U.I. - Medicine

262 Not Accepted

238 Not Accepted

189 U. Padjadjaran - Medicine

166 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Medicine (cont.) 157 ITB - Physics

(N=64) 157 Not Accepted

156 Not Accepted

141 Not Accepted

136 Not Accepted

133 U. Sriwijaya - Medicine

130 IPB Accepted over 8 others with higher scores.

129 U.N. Sumatra - Agriculture

128 U.I. - Political Science Accepted over 6 others with higher scores.

123 Not Accepted

I 1 (5)

98 Not Accepted

97 IKIP - Jakarta - Education Technology

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Co— ents

Medicine (cont.) 95 Not Accepted

(N=64) I 4 (3 9 )

-17 Not Accepted

Metallurgical Engineering 248 U.I. - M etallurgical Engineering

(N=13) 214 U.I. - M etallurgical Engineering

191 U.I. - M etallurgical Engineering

164 Not Accepted

130 Not Accepted

117 Not Accepted

84 IKIP - Jakarta - Mechanical Engineering

84 Not Accepted

56 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments ------(------Metallurgical Engineering 50 IKIP - Jakarta - Indonesian Language I (cont.) and Literature 1

(N=13) 42 Not Accepted

- 1 Not Accepted

-36 Not Accepted

Pharmacy 209 U.I. - Pharmacy

(N=17) 172 U.I. - Pharmacy

168 U.I. - Pharmacy

151 IKIP - Jakarta - Mathematics

136 Not Accepted

1 I (11 )

- 1 1 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 325 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Natural Science

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

P h y s ic s 185 IKIP - Jakarta - Physics

(N=4) *135 U.I. - P h y s ic s

115 U.I. - Javanese Language and L i t e r a t u r e

25 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 326 T a b le 22

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Anthropology 111 Not Accepted

(N=l)

Arabic Language & Literature 87 Not Accepted

(N=3) 57 Not Accepted

-4 7 Not Accepted

Archeology 177 Not Accepted

(N=5 ) 172 Not Accepted

155 Not Accepted

128 Not Accepted

101 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Chinese Language & Literature 135 Not Accepted

(N=2) 127 Not Accepted

Communication 431 U.I. Communication

177 Not Accepted

171 Not Accepted

167 Not Accepted

122 Not Accepted

97 Not Accepted

1 I (4)

-4 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Criainology 134 Not Accepted

(N=6) 101 Not Accepted

4. 1 (3 )

17 Not Accepted

Dutch Language A Literature 207 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

(N=4) *154 U.I. - Dutch Language and L i t e r a t u r e

137 Not Accepted

-8 Not Accepted

Econoaics 344 U.I. - Public Business and Administration

(N=150) 342 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

337 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted rni—nt«

Econoaics (cont.) 335 U. A i r la n g g a - Law

(N=150) 327 Not Accepted Probably Chinese

*321 U.I. - Economics

311 Not Accepted

305 IPB

302 Not Accepted

300 U.I. - English Language and L i t e r a t u r e

298 Not Accepted

298 Not Accepted

*294 U.I. - Economics

292 U. SEBELAS MARET - Economics

291 U.I. - Archeology

291 U.I. - Public and Business Administration

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 330 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Denartaent Accepted Coaaents

Econoaics (cont.) 291 ITB - Information Technology Admitted over 1 other with a higher score.

(N=150) 285 Not Accepted

282 U.I. - Medicine

282 U.I. - Political Science

281 Not Accepted

281 ITB - Civil Engineering

264 Not Accepted

*262 U.I. - Economics

262 Not Accepted

257 Not Accepted

257 U. Diponegoro - Accounting

247 U. General Soedirman - Economics ■ ! 247 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science A Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted rv>««»n» ■

Econoaics (cont.) 244 Not Accepted

(N=150) 238 Not Accepted

232 Not Accepted

231 Andalas - Law

228 Not Accepted

227 Not Accepted

222 U. Padjadjaran - Economics

222 Not Accepted

221 Not Accepted

218 Not Accepted

217 Not Accepted

217 Not Accepted

214 Not Accepted

214 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Departaent Accepted Coaaents

Econoaics (cont.) 200 Not Accepted

(N=150) 198 Not Accepted

197 Not Accepted

192 Not Accepted

192 IKIP - Jakarta - History

188 Not Accepted

187 Not Accepted

187 Not Accepted

184 Not Accepted

182 Not Accepted

178 Not Accepted

175 Not Accepted

175 Not Accepted

175 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Departaent, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science A Huaanities

Departaent Score Universitv/Pepartaent Accepted

Econoaic s (cont.) 172 IPB Accepted over 3 others with higher scores.

(N=150) 172 Not Accepted

4 4 (90)

-8 Not Accepted

English Language A Literature 337 U.I. - English Language and L i t e r a t u r e

(N=16) 275 Not Accepted

232 Not Accepted

197 U.I. - A rc h e o lo g y

172 Not Accepted

4 4 (10)

-5 Not Accepted

♦Admitted to department with lower Bcore than others rejected to the same department. 334 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

French Language A Literature 178 Not Accepted

(N=5) 177 Not Accepted

104 Not Accepted

84 Not Accepted

28 Not Accepted

German Language A Literature 217 Not Accepted

(N=4> 182 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted

72 Not Accepted

History 107 Not Accepted (N=l) 335 •Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Indonesian Language & 181 Not Accepted Literature

122 IKIP - Jakarta - Business Administration

32 Not Accepted

28 Not Accepted

Japanese Language & Literature 418 Not Accepted

(N=5) 108 IKIP - Jakarta - Arabic Language & L i t e r a t u r e

71 Not Accepted

12 Not Accepted

2 Not Accepted

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. 6 3 3 Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science £ Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Javanese Language & Literature 147 Not Accepted

(N=2) 121 Not Accepted

Law (Morning Section) 357 U.I. - Law

(H=35) 224 Not Accepted

221 Not Accepted

187 Not Accepted

187 IKIP - Jakarta - Civics Education

185 Not Accepted

I 1 (28)

-18 Not Accepted

Law (Afternoon Section) 194 Not Accepted

(N=52) 182 Not Accepted 337 •Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Law (Afternoon Section) (cont.) 177 Not Accepted

172 Not Accepted

162 Not Accepted

160 Not Accepted

152 Not Accepted

147 Not Accepted

132 Not Accepted

132 Not Accepted

132 Not Accepted

128 Not Accepted

127 Not Accepted

118 Not Accepted

107 Not Accepted 338 •Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Depart*ant, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Law (Afternoon Section) (cont.) I 1 (24)

(N=52) 38 IKIP - Jakarta - Biology

38 Not Accepted

i I (9 )

-8 Not Accepted

Political Science 247 U.I. - Political Science

(N=27) 217 Not Accepted

190 Not Accepted

187 Not Accepted

162 Not Accepted

154 Not Accepted

131 Not Accepted

122 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science £ Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted rn m m m n t- ■

Political Science (cont.) 112 Not Accepted

(N=26) 107 Not Accepted

4. I (16)

22 Not Accepted

Psychology 451 U.N. Sumatra - Civil Polytechnics

(N=50) 450 IPB

331 U.I. - Mechanical Engineering

312 ITB - Geodetic Science

298 U.I. - Mathematics

280 U.I. - Medicine

264 IPB

264 Not Accepted

262 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science fc Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Psychology (cont.) 258 Not Accepted

(N=50) 255 Not Accepted

242 Not Accepted

235 Not Accepted

222 Not Accepted

218 U. Padjadjaran - Psychology

217 Not Accepted

I I (33)

2 Not Accepted

Public & Business 274 U.I. - Public and Business Administration Administration

235 Not Accepted

230 U.I. - Electrical Engineering Accepted over 1 other w ith a higher score.

‘Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Public & Business 205 Not Accepted Administration (cont.)

(**=24) 178 Not Accepted

122 Not Accepted

117 Not Accepted

114 Not Accepted

92 IK IP - J a k a r t a - Home Economics/Cooking

92 Not Accepted

I X (13)

-4 Not Accepted

Russian Language & Literature 168 Not Accepted (N=l)

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department. Table 22 (Continued)

Elite University Applicants by Department, Score, and Acceptance SIPENMARU Survey, 1984

The University of Indonesia

Social Science & Humanities

Department Score University/Department Accepted Comments

Social Work 237 U.I. - Social Work

72 IKIP - Bandung - German Language & L i t e r a t u r e

57 Not Accepted

42 Not Accepted

S o c io lo g y 230 Not Accepted

177 Not Accepted

105 Not Accepted

I I (6 )

47 Not Accepted

•Admitted to department with lower score than others rejected to the same department.