◎ Keep the light
Every year, many Ph.D.s are invested in the selection of full-time teachers in universities. Research results, teaching abilities, areas of expertise and doctoral degrees are usually clearly stated in job announcements. However, what is really worthy of discussion in the higher education community is: Are all the conditions that determine whether a scholar can be interviewed or even hired are written in the announcement?
In recent years, universities have faced multiple pressures such as international rankings, research performance, bilingual teaching, international cooperation and competitive plans, etc. Naturally, faculty recruitment has increasingly focused on international research capabilities. Overseas doctoral training, foreign postdoctoral experience, international cooperation networks, and participation in international research projects have become important considerations and are not problematic in themselves.
Please read on...
In university recruitment announcements for full-time teachers, it is usually necessary to write down one's own research results, teaching abilities, areas of expertise and doctoral degree, and even international research capabilities. (Drawing by this newspaper)
The real issue is "transparency".
If some departments actually attach great importance to overseas doctoral background, or regard international project experience as an important screening criterion, should these requirements be more clearly presented in the recruitment announcement?
For candidates, preparing a teacher selection package is not just about filling out a few forms. Research plans, teaching concepts, course planning, representative works, recommended materials, as well as interviews and trial teaching all require a considerable investment of time. If the announcement presents one set of qualifications, but what is really decisive is another set of conditions that are not clearly disclosed, the question is not just "who is selected in the end", but whether all participants compete with relatively equal information.
Overseas academic qualifications are of course valuable, but a foreign doctorate does not necessarily equate to strong research capabilities; a domestic doctorate does not mean a lack of international competitiveness. What is truly worthy of comparison should be research quality, independent research capabilities, teaching performance, international cooperation results, and whether distinctive research directions can be established in the future.
The same goes for international projects.
Whether a young researcher can participate in large-scale international projects sometimes depends not only on ability, but also on existing positions, research teams, and academic networks. If "already having international project experience" gradually becomes an important prerequisite for obtaining a university position, a cycle worth noting may arise: those who obtain resources first will be more likely to accumulate the next resource; those who have not yet entered the formal academic system will have a harder time getting the opportunity to prove themselves.
A young researcher often has less opportunity to prove himself than someone who has already acquired research resources. (Drawing by this newspaper)
This also makes Taiwan’s doctoral training policy face a question worth thinking about.
The government and universities have long invested a lot of resources in cultivating doctoral students, requiring graduate students to publish international papers, participate in international seminars and build research capabilities. If at the teacher recruitment stage, the place where academic qualifications are obtained or the existing international resources still have a much greater substantial impact than other abilities, then we should also rethink: What kind of talents do universities hope to cultivate, and how do they plan to evaluate the talents they cultivate?
Of course universities need to be independent in selecting talents. Different departments have different development directions, and it is impossible to recruit teachers with exactly the same standards. But "autonomy" does not mean "no need to be transparent".
If overseas experience is very important, it can be clearly stated; if international planning ability is highly weighted, it can also be included in the conditions; if what the school really needs is all-English teaching, transnational research cooperation or specific international networks, applicants should be informed in advance.
If the school really needs English-taught courses, transnational research collaboration or specific international networks, applicants should be informed in advance. (Drawing by this newspaper)
This does not require universities to abandon professional judgment, but to make the talent selection system more mature.
A truly competitive university, in addition to having the ability to find the best candidates, should also let all applicants know clearly what the competition is about.
As universities continue to require talents to go global, we should also ask: Have the truly important conditions for teacher appointment been honestly written in the recruitment announcement?
This may be the real problem that Taiwan’s higher education talent competition needs to face.
(The author is a university educator)
