Singaporeans enjoy a wide range of education opportunities in our institutions of higher learning, especially at the university level. Currently, we have achieved a publicly-funded cohort participation rate (CPR) of 26%. This means that more than one in four students from each Primary One cohort obtains a place in one of Singapore’s publicly-funded universities. The Government plans to increase the CPR to 30% by 2015.
To meet the expanded intake, MOE has set up several new institutions:
- Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) for polytechnic upgraders
- Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD)
- Yale-NUS Liberal Arts College (YNC)
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCSOM) in NTU
At the same time, to grow more pathways for Singaporeans with different abilities and aptitudes, MOE will be funding places for Creative Industry degree programmes by selected foreign institutions who partner our arts institutions. For example, the Royal College of Music will be partnering the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts to offer subsidised music degree programmes.
Beyond 2015, there is a need to further develop and expand the university sector, as highlighted by the Prime Minister at the 2011 National Day Rally. Our education system is producing good students, who aspire towards university education. At the same time, our economy is growing in size and sophistication, and will need a larger pool of diversified talent and knowledge workers.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has therefore convened a Committee on University Education Pathways beyond 2015 (CUEP). The Committee will study and recommend ways to expand the university sector, in order to provide more opportunities and pathways for Singaporeans to obtain a university education.
Key Policy Considerations
In considering any expansion of the university sector, the Committee will be guided by several policy considerations.
Consideration 1: Economic Relevance
Any increase in the number of university places will have to be sustainable and supported by the economy. Increasing places too quickly can lead to an over-supply of university graduates, who would then either become unemployed or under-employed. This has been the experience in some countries which have gone for very high CPRs or expanded university places too rapidly.
Besides the overall increase in places, the mix of these places also matters. There is a need to ensure close alignment between the distribution of places across course disciplines, and the manpower needs of the economy. This will ensure that our graduates enjoy good employment outcomes.
Consideration 2: Quality Education
The Government has always placed great importance on a high quality university education to equip our graduates with the necessary skill sets to seize opportunities. Our existing institutions – the National University of Singapore (NUS), the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and the Singapore Management University (SMU) are currently internationally recognised. Selecting reputable partners for our new institutions, i.e. SUTD, SIT, YNC and LKCSOM, also help to ensure that they start off with the right quality “peg” and are held to high standards.
Consideration 3: Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness is also a relevant consideration. Any expansion in university places will require significant government funding. We therefore have to ensure that we get good value from the investment of public resources in this area.
How does our Cohort Participation Rate compare to other countries?
Internationally, there is a wide variance in the publicly-funded university CPRs. Countries weigh their own policy considerations, matched to their models of governance, tax and spending policies, and the historical developmental paths of the higher education sectors.
The publicly-funded CPRs in Asian jurisdictions tend to be fairly low, in the range of 10-20% in Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Yet, the number of students who enter universities in these countries is significantly higher, as the private university sector has emerged to meet the additional demand for university places.
The publicly-funded CPRs are generally higher in European countries, exceeding 50% in Nordic countries like Denmark and Finland. For example, Finland’s publicly-funded CPR of about 70% comprises students entering both its universities and polytechnics. This CPR structure is underpinned by a socialist system of governance where education at all levels is effectively heavily subsidised by Finnish citizens through higher taxes.