The NTU College of Medicine isn't the only Institution in need of Soul-searching

The NTU College of Medicine isn't the only Institution in need of Soul-searching
China News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 11, 2009

Prominent neuroscience professor Hong Lan told the media yesterday that students at the National Taiwan University College of Medicine were sleeping in class. They gnaw on chicken drumsticks, slurp down ramen noodles, chat on their cell phones, and send out text messages. They are unserious about their studies, and display scant respect for their teachers. Professor Hung denounced such behavior as the result of "sinecures."
After the story broke, the National Taiwan University College of Medicine responded in three different ways. First President Yang Pan-chyr said such mistakes must be corrected. Then students protested that the courses Hong Lan audited may have been elective non-major courses taken purely for credit, and that the professor was guilty of generalization. Finally the College of Medicine expressed extreme dissatisfaction with Professor Hung for going public with his complaints. Each of the three views have merit, but also require closer examination.

NTU is hardly alone. Observers have noticed that students on many college campuses today are increasingly self-absorbed. From childhood to adulthood, students are forced to memorize texts, attend cram schools, and take entrance exams. They have been all but suffocated by the educational monolith. Once they succeed in getting into college however, they suddenly find themselve absolved of the need to study. They soon undergo a process of untrammeled self-liberation. Their decade long educational experience forced them to neglect their athletic and social development. The result is "Anything Goes." This of course accounts for the outlandish behavior described by Professor Hung.

This syndrome is widespread. It is not confined to National Taiwan University. It is not confined to the students' first choice among three possible majors. From an educational perspective, it must be addressed. We need not single out the Faculty of Medicine at National Taiwan University. Their higher joint entrance exam scores invite criticism and calls for them to "vacate their seat to others."

Professor Hung does not teach at National Taiwan University. She was observing National Taiwan University classrooms merely because she was participating in a College of Medicine evaluation program. The courses she audited were probably not part of the core curriculum. Students in medical school labor under a heavy course load. Liberal arts courses have little to do with medical licensing exams. Are students wrong to attach little importance to liberal arts courses? That is a question worth asking. That said, in almost all professionally oriented university disciplines, including engineering, law, finance, accounting, students take liberal arts courses only to gain academic credits. If one wishes to review the liberal arts curriculum, it would be best to initiate a comprehensive review of the entire educational system. It would be best to avoid making a fuss over any particular discipline.

Even if the National Taiwan University College of Medicine or other colleges were to improve their liberal arts curricula, NTU is hardly alone. In fact, even high schools and their system for advancement should be reviewed. Taiwan's university entrance exams are divided into three categories. Apart from a handful of interdisciplinary applicants, the vast majority of high school students have already chosen their majors by their senior year. Medical students for example, stop studying history, geography, and civics in their junior year. Needless to say, they are utterly uninterested in humanities courses such as "Medicine and Society." Suppose they are forced to attend liberal arts courses. The class schedule may be inconvenient, the teacher may insist on calling roll, and the classroom location may be remote. Is it any surprise students sleep or surf the Net in class?

Compare this to the liberal arts curricula at well-known universities in the United States such as Harvard and Yale. Medical school is considered postgraduate education. At least half of the curriculum is devoted to liberal arts subjects. By contrast, on Taiwan, we do not provide students with a liberal education before allowing them to specialize. Just the opposite. We allow them to begin specializing during their junior and senior year in high school. We allow them to tread a narrow and specialized path. Anyway you look at it, liberal arts education on Taiwan is a systemic failure of major proportions. Singling out NTU for harsh criticism is unfair.

Finally, we would like to offer the following observations regarding Professor Hong's critique of the National Taiwan University College of Medicine. Education has only one goal. To put students on the right track, enabling them to fulfill their own potential. During the educational process, structured guidance is essential, and so is the occasional wake-up call. Children's dignity and honor must be respected. If primary and secondary students do not shape up, one can reprimand them in private. One must not call them onto the carpet to be humiliated. As Professor Chen Ting-hsing, a teacher at the College of Medicine said, since the medical evaluation is not yet over, all constructive suggestions should be given a proper hearing. It is better not to vent one's emotions via outside journals. Even though the magazine used the term "the top medical school on Taiwan," everyone knew what they meant. Professors and students at the College of Medicine have in effect been summoned before a military reviewing stand, to be humiliated. Isn't the Medical Evaluation Committee's move, made before the evaluation is complete, a little excessive?

The College of Medicine's core curriculum must be reviewed. But what about other colleges? Classroom discipline at NTU must be improved. But this is hardly a problem confined to National Taiwan University. Slacking off in the classroom must be criticized. But so must professors' disregard for students' heartfelt criticisms.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.11.11
社論－該檢討的不止是台大醫學系
本報訊

知名神經科學教授洪蘭日前對媒體表示，台大醫學系的學生上課睡覺、啃雞腿、吃泡麵、打手機、發簡訊，非常不認真，也不尊重授課老師。洪教授對這樣的言行作為予批判，說是「尸位素餐」。

新聞曝光之後，台大醫學院出現了三種聲音：其一是楊泮池院長表示要有錯就要改進，其二是學生辯稱洪蘭旁聽之課可能是通識營養學分，有以偏蓋全之嫌；其三則是醫院大老對於洪教授近似對外放話的意見表示方式極為不滿。以上這三種意見，都有些道理，也都值得拿出來好好檢視。

其實不止台大，許多在各大學校園有所觀察的人都會發現，現在的大學生確實越來越「自我」。就學生而言，他們從小到大，漫無目的地Ｋ書、補習、聯考，幾乎在一元化的升學管道被壓到窒息，一旦考上大學，他們瞬時掙脫了唯一升學的桎梏，遂開始了漫無邊際的自我「解放」。由於學生們在十幾年的求學過程中，其體育與群育都受到忽視，因此孩子們未受引領而恣意行為，當然會出現洪教授描述的脫軌現象。

但是，這種現象應該相當普遍，既不限於台灣大學，也不止學測三類組的第一志願科系。從教育的立場我們確實應該正視這個問題，但也不必特別把台大醫學系視為標靶；只因為他們聯考分數高，就特別予以批判，叫他們「把位子讓出來」。

洪教授並沒有在台大授課；她之所以對台大課堂有所觀察，是因為她參與醫學系評鑑。而其所訪視的課程，恐怕也如外界所說，是與醫學專業無關的通識課程。醫學系學生專業課程負擔很重，通識課又與醫師考照無關，學生不重視通識課程確實不該，背後也有相當值得檢討的問題；但是話又說回來，大凡專業取向較重的大學科系，不論工程、法律、金融、會計，學生們都是將通識課程當成營養學分；要檢討通識教育最好能全面性的開放檢討，最好宜避免針對特定科系大作文章。

就算台大醫學院或其他學院的通識教育要做改善，其背後牽動的環結，也不止是台大；其實連高中教育與升學制度也該一併檢討。台灣升大學的學測分為三大類組，除了少數跨組考生之外，絕大多數高中生在三年級就已經志趣有專攻。就醫學院學生而言，他們從高二開始就已經不碰史地公民，對於類似「醫學與社會」這樣的人文課程，當然也就興趣缺缺。如果再加上大班上課、時段不佳、老師點名、學院地點偏僻等因素，學生們到課堂上睡覺、上網、恐怕就不是新聞了。

如果拿美國通識教育知名的哈佛、耶魯做對比，則人家醫學教育根本是「學士後」的訓練，其在大學階段則至少有一半課程是在做通識學科的全面吸收。反觀台灣，我們不但不是先通識、後專業的延後分流，反而在高二、高三就提前分殊，讓學生走進又窄又專的小路。無論如何，台灣通識教育失敗是體制性的大問題，單單挑台大嚴批，恐怕是找偏了切入點。

最後，我們也要對洪蘭教授對台大醫學院的責觀方式做些檢視。教育的目的只有一個：將學生導向正軌，鼓勵其自我實踐。在教育的過程中，循循善誘絕不嫌少，而偶爾的當頭棒喝，也一定要顧及孩子們的尊嚴與榮譽。中、小學生們再不成材，頂多也只能私下訓斥鞭策，而不宜在朝會「叫到司令台上」予以羞辱。誠如醫學院陳定信教授所言，既然醫學評鑑還沒有結束，所有為孩子們好的意見，都該在會議中理性抒發，而不宜向外部雜誌做情緒宣洩。即便在雜誌上是用「台灣最頂尖醫學院」稱呼，但所指為何大家心知肚明。對醫學系教授與學生而言，他們似乎都有被請上朝會的司令台，體驗被羞辱的感受。醫科評鑑委員在評鑑結束之前這樣的舉措，是不是動作也太大了一些？

總之，醫學院的通識課要檢討，但別的學院又何嘗不然？台大的課堂倫理待改進，但這又豈止是台大一校獨然？學生們課堂無狀該批評，而教授們不顧學生顏面的評論，恐怕亦非全無可議之處。