Why Japan's Professors Fear Evaluation

correspondence Why Japan’s professors fear evaluation Sir — You pointed out the necessity of Table 1 Comparison of Japanese national and private universities external review of Japanese universities University Grants per Student/faculty ratio Government subsidy First-year (Nature 397, 371; 1999). It is true that faculty member* per student* tuition fee* external evaluation works efficiently if Univ. of Tokyo 28,000 4.0 19,000† 6,200† universities have equal opportunities in Kyoto Univ. 26,000 5.0 research — that is, if the ‘losers’ after Niigata Univ. 5,500 9.2 evaluation have a chance to become ‘winners’ Tottori Univ. 4,000 7.7 one day. But, because of the hierarchy Waseda Univ. 4,100 29.4 1,600 13,000‡ among Japanese universities, the losers will Keio Univ. 7,500 17.9 2,700 13,000‡ have no such chance. This explains why Science Univ. 3,400 18.5 1,800 11,000‡ professors in reputable universities are scared of Tokyo of external evaluation. *US$; †Average for national universities; ‡Science and technology faculty. Table 1 shows a comparison of the two Source: University Ranking ‘99, published in the Asahi newspaper. leading national universities, the University teaching load, good scientists at private or imbalance between Japan and other of Tokyo and Kyoto University, with two local national universities rarely publish countries. Although Japanese markets are typical local national universities, Niigata important papers. officially declared open to foreign University and Tottori University; the best The income of private universities is companies, they cannot gain ‘fair’ access. two private universities, Waseda University almost completely dependent on tuition fees Similarly, it is impossible for private and Keio University; and the best private from students. Faculty members are not universities to compete with national science university, the Science University of allowed to draw their salaries from scientific universities in research. Tokyo. Waseda and Keio have the best grants from the Ministry of Education, This problem seems to be intrinsic to reputation in literature, economics and Science, Sports and Culture (Monbusho), Japanese society. Recently, the Council on politics. There are remarkable differences and the private universities are not allowed University Education, an advisory body to between the scientific grants obtained by to get overheads from the grants. National Monbusho, published a report proposing a the best national universities and the rest. universities, on the other hand, are plan to stimulate competition among But lower grants do not necessarily imply subsidized by the government without any universities. Amazingly, however, there is lower scientific quality of faculty members. assessment. Private universities receive only not a word in the report about problems They are more likely to reflect a lack of time about one tenth of the subsidy per student caused by the hierarchy among universities. for research, because of heavy teaching that is given to national universities. Mitsuo Tagaya duties, especially in private universities. And Given this unfair situation, who can School of Life Science, note the differences in the ratios of students expect fair competition in research? The Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Science, to faculty members. As a result of the heavy situation is similar to the issue of the trade Horinouchi, Hachioji 192-0392, Japan Technical University of Denmark in 1988. investigated by a ‘university visitor’, Some PhDs are more Are we really free to move between the appointed by the Privy Council. But trying universities of all EU countries? to get the Privy Council to act on your behalf equal than others Leonor Cruzeiro-Hansson is like getting a live eel into a jar of Swarfega. Mathematics Department, Heriot-Watt University, The cause of academic fraud and Sir — One important aim of the European Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK malfeasance is greed and conceit with Union (EU) is to allow the free circulation relative impunity. My suggested remedies of people among the different countries. In are, first, to end the chartered status of spite of this, countries such as Portugal Name and shame the British universities. Second, to register all demand that a PhD awarded abroad must research students directly with their be ‘recognized’ in Portugal before a scientific fraudsters universities and not to their supervisors. researcher can have a university job. Third, for science journals to fund a task The quickest way of gaining this Sir — With regard to the recent coverage of force to maintain a database of all suspected ‘recognition’ is to ‘register’ the PhD, a fraud in science1, I would like to suggest and proven agents of fraud and malpractice, process that involves the submission of the some remedial actions to counter fraud and and to investigate and collect relevant diploma, a copy of the thesis and a payment malfeasance in British universities. information. The task force would act as an of up to 25,000 escudos, about US$130, to a I am not alone in my anger and advice bureau for honest scientists, with the Portuguese university. Usually, PhD status is contempt for universities that abuse power of naming and shaming all proven granted after 10 days. A more lengthy scientists and others2,3. But it is difficult to cases in the journals. Fourth, for all research process known as ‘equivalence’ involves the obtain legal redress against a British funding bodies to check with the task force re-evaluation of the thesis by a panel of university administration. A university before allocating grants. Portuguese professors, as if the judgement with a royal charter has special status in James McComb of the original jury was not to be trusted. common law that renders it invulnerable to 12 Russell House, Cross Lane, Although everyone assumes these to be prosecution in a county court. Newport, bureaucratic formalities, they do allow for An excellent survey of grievance Isle of Wight PO30 2JJ, UK the possibility of revoking a degree awarded procedures, by Don Staniford et al.4 of the e-mail: [email protected] by another EU university, and indeed the National Postgraduate Committee, 1. Abbott, A. et al. Nature 398, 13–17 (1999). 2. McComb. J, Nature 387, 448 (1997). University of Lisbon has recently chosen to illustrates the problems clearly. The present 3. Anon. Nature 393, 407 (1998). reject the PhD that I obtained at the system allows for complaints to be 4. Staniford, D. http://www.npc.org.uk/ NATURE | VOL 398 | 29 APRIL 1999 | www.nature.com © 1999 Macmillan Magazines Ltd 745.

Load more