PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has set a target for the number of publicly funded university places in Singapore to increase to 30 per cent of a cohort by 2015.

This is a huge expansion from where we were in 1980, when just 5 per cent of a cohort went to university. Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew, who is leading a committee to study how this can be done, has said that in the interim, by 2009, the number of publicly funded places will increase to 25 per cent of a cohort.

Let me pose a question: Will providing more places in higher education mean less entrepreneurship?

We often delight in stories of how individuals who did not go to university, or who dropped out, made it big as entrepreneurs and captains of new industries.

Of course, there are many examples of entrepreneurs who did go to university and became great successes. But we ought to ponder whether there might be some validity behind such a belief.

I offer two possible reasons. First, some argue that those who have not had the advantage of a university education are more hungry. Without a university education, the 'easy' path to success - climbing the ladder in some big company or in the public service - is not open to them. Hence they have less to lose, are more driven, and more prepared to take the risks and venture out as entrepreneurs.

Second, and perhaps a more serious reason if true, is that a university education could be training a person in a structured way of thinking which prepares him to be part of a system, to be a cog in a machine, rather than to think out of the box, and to venture out on his own.

Both these observations have some validity.

Keeping standards and quality

ANY development in the university sector must uphold standards and quality. Programmes and courses must be rigorous, relevant and of high repute. And these fundamentals must be the starting point of any discussion about the university system.

A number of questions will then follow naturally. How do we expand university participation rates and maintain standards in the university sector? Our school system is already a very strong one, and the latest innovations announced by Minister for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam will strengthen it further. We have a strong polytechnic sector. A larger proportion of each cohort of our students is therefore better prepared to proceed to and benefit from a university education.

Some students, perhaps 10 per cent of a cohort, will want to study abroad, or do courses our publicly funded universities do not provide. So the overall percentage of those going to university will exceed 30 per cent of a cohort.

What we should aim for is a university sector which, when taken as a whole, is best of class.

California is often cited as an example of a state with a good university system. The University of California campuses take in the top 12.5 per cent of the (American) high school cohort. Certain campuses, like UC Berkeley, are even more selective.

The University of California system provides undergraduate, professional and graduate education up to the master and doctoral levels. The California State University system takes in students from the top one-third of (American) high school graduates and offers degree programmes up to, generally, the master's level.

Community colleges in California accept all student applicants capable of benefiting from instruction, and offer a range of associate degree and sub-degree programmes. In addition there are a number of private higher education institutes, some like Stanford, of a very high quality.

In Singapore, the higher education sector consists largely of state-funded universities and polytechnics, catering to some 60 per cent of a cohort, with the Institute of Technical Education providing a further 25 per cent of cohort with a high-quality technical education. This is one of the most comprehensive higher and further education systems in the world, with high-quality institutions in each segment.

Best of class

OUR university sector itself should have different types of institutions and programmes, each of which is best of class.

The National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University are very large universities. But within them, they have created niche programmes to cater to students of very high ability in particular areas, to stretch and challenge them. We should continue to do more of this, because such niche and high-end programmes can attract high-ability students and maximise their potential.

But such programmes will not cater to the larger expansion of capacity that we are looking for. For this, we need to look at how to expand the structure of our system.

Our three state-funded universities - NUS, NTU and the Singapore Management University - will take in 25 per cent of a cohort by 2009. Their entry model is designed to minimise errors on entry. They have high admission standards and the intake quality is high. Hence, the graduation rates are high, easily over 90 per cent.

This selection process is no different from what is used in most good universities in Japan, the United Kingdom or United States. Among those not admitted, there will be some who could have met university graduation standards.

When we raise cohort participation to 30 per cent, this entry model may have to be re-visited. It might be worthwhile to find a system that maintains graduation standards but also provides more opportunities for people to try to meet those standards.

To complement NUS, NTU and SMU, which should remain highly selective, we may need a university which exercises more flexibility in admission, but still maintains progression and graduation standards. This allows us to develop those who might otherwise have missed out on a university education. But the implication is that the graduation rate will be lower. The shape of the student body will be like a pyramid instead of being cylindrical. There will be attrition among those who enrol and try, but do not meet pre-requisites for progression.

Here, we need to be mindful of going too far and avoid what the French and Germans have done, and are now trying, with difficulty, to correct. Anybody who merely passes the high school exam can be admitted to university.

The Economist magazine of July 5 quotes French President Nicolas Sakorzy asking: 'Why in France are there no campuses worthy of the name...?' The article points out that not a single French university makes it to the top international rankings.

The French do have a separate system of grandes ecoles, which are highly selective, but these cater to just 4 per cent of the students. According to the International Herald Tribune of May 24, Mr Jean Robert Pitte (the Sorbonne's president) says 45 per cent of Sorbonne students do not complete their first year, and 55 per cent do not finish their degrees. Without entrance standards, there is a 'selection-by-failure' that squanders resources and professors' time on weak students who 'have no real chance of success', he said.

We should provide more access, but maintain appropriate entry standards, and good progression and graduation standards.

Open-entry model

OUR university entry model could also encourage a wider age range among entrants. Some people may work some years before they feel ready to return to get their degrees. The university system therefore needs to keep access to tertiary education open regardless of age.

We should encourage a pattern of interspersed learning in-employment. University education can be more modular in structure so people can have different entry routes, picking up qualifications as they go, for progression to each higher rung.

UniSIM, a private university that has been granted university status by the Ministry of Education, aims to achieve this through an open university approach, organised around part-time study.

Having a more 'open' entry model, while still maintaining standards, will have funding implications. In an open system that allows more people to try to meet progression and graduation standards, the current funding model where subsidies are provided to everyone who enrols may not be workable.

Funding may still have to be pegged to some entry criterion, or perhaps given only retroactively upon progression to the next level of the course, with a limit on the number of semesters of study in the institution.

Science and arts

NEXT, what programmes should the universities offer, so that we preserve the relevance and rigour of a university education? This is an important question. A university education in a generic field or that does not meet rigorous standards, and thus does not equip a graduate with the skills and competencies for work, will result in rapidly rising numbers of unskilled and unemployed graduates.

The popular debate over whether an education in the humanities or in science and technology is more useful presents a false choice. An educated person should have grounding in both.

It would be a very positive outcome if we were to also have somewhere in our overall university system a world- class programme in the liberal arts. In America, their liberal arts colleges are top institutions and centres of learning. While publicly funded universities do have liberal arts programmes, the liberal arts colleges are privately funded. A number of small niche programmes or institutions in specialised areas would add to the diversity of our system.

The real issue is where to channel limited public funding. In Japan and South Korea, 75 per cent of university places are privately funded. However, most of these places are not in science and technology. The majority of places in science and technology are in the publicly funded university sector.

By current policy, to meet the needs of the economy, and because we feel that an education in the hard sciences gives our people an advantage, we have provided more than 50 per cent of our publicly funded university places in the hard sciences.

This is among the highest percentages in the world and a huge competitive strength for Singapore. No other country in the region has this. Even developed countries are seeing their base in science and technology being gradually eroded.

Science and technology is important because it permeates every aspect of modern life. The world is continuously shaped by technology. It drives jobs and the economy. All the major public issues of the day - climate change, energy, health care, food security - require some level of scientific literacy. People need to be scientifically literate to engage in intelligent public discourse and make informed choices for the public good.

A good grounding in science and technology also provides the widest career flexibility for graduates.

Entrepreneurs in many fields also depend on technological innovation to survive and thrive. The oil rig builder, the curry puff or popiah skin manufacturer, needs marketing savvy, but he also needs technology to expand in scale and to conquer new markets with new products.

A solid science and technology base in education is costly, and hence state support is needed. Few countries can afford to provide a high-quality, cutting edge science and technology education to a large proportion of their populations; or have a large proportion of their populations who have the aptitude and ability for science and technology. We give a great deal of value to our people through public funding of science and technology in university education.

This is also why it is important that our polytechnics remain an established part of our higher education landscape. They provide a practice-oriented tertiary education that equips our people with the technical skills they need in the economy. Having science and technology as the centre of gravity of our tertiary system is a huge advantage we should preserve.

Creating value

APART from skills and knowledge, what values and attitudes are important for university education to remain relevant?

At one time, it was enough for university education in Singapore to provide a set of skills that would enable a graduate to fit into a well-defined job in the public service or corporation. This is no longer true. Every job now requires the person to seek out opportunities, to create value.

You will be familiar with the Japanese term 'salaryman'. It describes a person who comes out of college, starts working for a company at a lower-level administrative job, serves a life-time in the company, and eventually retires in a middle- or upper-middle management level job in the same company.

'Salarymen' are to be found not only in Japan, but in large bureaucracies everywhere. They perform a key function in an industrial-age economy where efficiency comes from economies of scale, superior organisation, discipline and adherence to rules and procedures.

This system has produced high efficiency, profits for companies and high economic growth. It has provided many salarymen with good, steady jobs, and a life-long career with a good salary.

But the paradigm of industrial and economic organisation has changed. Organisations have become flatter, with fewer layers.

The change is driven partly by technology. But more importantly, to respond to the market, successful companies have re-organised themselves to get closer to the customer. Small companies and start-

ups that are more flexible are eating the lunch of companies that are bigger and slower to respond.

A higher percentage of employees will be directly involved in interfacing with customers; conceiving, designing, developing and making new products and services; and making real decisions that impact on the company or the business unit's bottom-line directly. They will have to take risks and accept responsibility. Fewer will be required in collation, coordination, inspection and reporting role. In short, the salaryman is an endangered species.

Our education system should not be geared towards producing salarymen, but towards graduates who will thrive in the new world.

Our graduates, whether from our ITE, polytechnics or universities, must not only have the foundation and the factual knowledge that our education system is so good at equipping them with. They must also have the customer orientation, creativity and innovation, flexibility, and risk-taking mindset that they will require to succeed in the new world.

Entrepreneurship

WHETHER they are running their own businesses as entrepreneurs, working in a corporation, or in the public sector, they must have this entrepreneurial mindset.

Our educational institutions recognise this and have taken steps to promote entrepreneurship in their programmes, through mentorships, incubators and innovation funds. Students, and their parents, must make the mindset shift too.

This returns us to the theme of entrepreneurship. In the emerging economy, success turns more on skill, motivation and creativity than on elite credentials. For an education to be any good, it must nurture people who are venturesome, resilient and able to define things for themselves. Not everyone will run his own business, but we must produce people with an entrepreneurial mindset.