Kualitas pendidikan universitas di Indonesia ketinggalan kalau dibanding dgn. pendidikan di Eropa dan Amerika Utara dari pengalaman saya pribadi dimana saya pernah belajar di universitas di Indonesia selama 2 tahun, kemudian di Jerman, di Amerika Utara (Kanada dan AS). Misalnya, waktu kuliah di Indonesia, kami/mahasiswa harus mencatat apa yg. dikuliahkan/"di-dikte oleh dosen dimana bahan kuliah dari dosen asalnya dari textbook Amerika dan Jerman. Jadi dosen cuma menciplak dari pengetahuan2 dari luar negeri. Sedangkan waktu saya belajar di Jerman, dosen memberi kuliah dari textbook2 Jerman yg. dikarang oleh profesor2 Jerman dari hasil riset mereka sendiri (textbook Amerika hampir tidak pernah di pakai). Mahasiswa2 luar negeri (Auslaender) terpaksa harus mengerti bahasa Jerman sebab English textbook tidak dipakai. Saya, pada tahun pertama, tidak mengerti kalau kuliah sebab dosen juga memberi kuliah dlm. bhs. Jerman. Perlu diketahui, sebelum perang dunia ke II, Jerman sangat unggul dibidang science dimana mereka banyak mendapat Hadiah Nobel dibidang ini. Akhli2 yg. terkenal dari Jerman seperti Albert Einstein, yg. kemudian pindah ke AS. Sesudah perang dunia II, Hadiah Nobel dikuasai oleh Amerika. Pendidikan di Jerman, pada waktu itu, sangat unik/unique. Dosen kalau memberi kuliah adalah cuma memberi penerangan dan mendiskusikan topik2 yg. penting saya (jadi dosen tidak men-dikte utk. mahasiswa menulis semua bahan kuliah seperti di Indonesia pada waktu itu). Dan mahasiwa tidak perlu datang ke kuliah sebab mereka bisa belajar dari textbook2 Jerman yg. ada di Perpustakaan Universitas. Dan biasanya mereka membeli/mempunyai textbook2 yg. diperlukan Yang penting kalau ujian bisa menjawab dgn. benar (ujian akhir universitas adalah lisan waktu itu). Sedang di Amerika Utara, pendidikan lebih terpimpin dimana mahasiswa harus datang ke kuliah. Saya berpendapat pendidikan di Amerika Utara lebih baik sebab kalau mahasiswa malas di Jerman bisa puluhan tahun tidak selesai2. Tentang keuangan utk.pendidikan di Jerman, bukan masalah, sebab belajar/kuliah di universitas adalah gratis. Kalau tidak punya banyak uang, makan juga gratis di Menza (tempat makan utk. mahasiswa). Jadi mau menjadi mahasiswa "abadi" bukan masalah di Jerman.
Waktu jaman saya, pendidikan sebelum universitas (SMP dan SMA) di Indonesia tidak kalah/jauh dgn. pendidikan di Eropa tetapi setelah masuk tingkat universitas baru kelihatan ketinggalannya karena kurangnya riset di universitas. ---In GELORA45@yahoogroups.com, <jonathangoeij@...> wrote : Kelihatannya benar sekali, dalam kategori engineering Tsinghua menempati posisi pertama disusul MIT kedua dan UC Berkeley ketiga. Bahkan dalam daftar 10 besar engineering Tiongkok dan Amerika keduanya masing2 menempatkan 4 university dan Singapore 2 university. Dalam sejarah memang banyak penemuan engineering diawali di Tiongkok terutama pada pembangunan Tembok Besar seperti roda pedati, katrol, dll. Tentu masuk akal kalau sekarang kemajuan engineering kembali ke Tiongkok, dan bukan hanya dalam pendidikan saja tetapi juga dalam penemuan2 baru. Angkat topi! Kapan Indonesia menyusul? Yg jelas waktu searching Indonesia hasil yg didapat "Not Matches Found" dalam semua kategori. ---In GELORA45@yahoogroups.com, <ehhlin@...> wrote : GRAHAM ALLISON America second? Yes, and China’s lead is only growing China’s Tsinghua University dethroned MIT (above) as the top engineering university in the world in 2015, according to US News and World Report’s annual rankings. By Graham Allison May 22, 2017 In Boston, Commencement season is a time to celebrate our world-leading universities, including engineering powerhouse MIT. But Bostonians might be shocked to learn that China’s Tsinghua University dethroned MIT as the top engineering university in the world in 2015, according to the closely-watched US News & World Report annual rankings. Tsinghua’s recent surge is not an isolated example. Everyone knows about China’s rise, but few have realized its magnitude or its consequences. Among the top 10 schools of engineering, China and the United States now each have four. In STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), which provide the core competencies driving advances in the fastest-growing sectors of modern economies, China annually graduates four times as many students as the United States (1.3 million vs. 300,000). And in every year of the Obama administration, Chinese universities awarded more PhDs in STEM fields than American universities. For Americans who grew up in a world in which USA meant “number one,” the idea that China could truly challenge the United States as a global educational leader seems impossible to imagine. This is not the only reality Americans willfully ignore. In my national security course at Harvard, the lecture on China begins with a quiz. Students get a sheet with 25 indicators of economic performance. Their task is to estimate when China might overtake the United States as the top producer or market of automobiles, supercomputers, smartphones, and so on. Most are stunned to learn that China has already surpassed the United States on each of these metrics. I then ask whether they believe that in their lifetime China will overtake the United States to become the largest economy in the world. In last year’s class of 60 students, about half bet they would live to see the United States become number two, while half disagreed. When I show the class headlines from the 2014 IMF-World Bank meeting announcing that China had become the largest economy in the world, students react with a mix of dismay and disbelief. By 2016, China’s GDP was $21 trillion and America’s was $18.5 trillion, when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), which both the CIA and IMF agree is the best yardstick for comparing national economies. Students are not the only ones in the dark about China’s rise. Most of the press has similarly missed the big picture. The favorite story line in the Western media about the Chinese economy is “slowdown.” The question few pause to ask is: slowing compared to whom? The American press’s favorite adjective to describe our economic performance has been “recovering.” But despite its “slowdown,” China today is growing three times as fast as the United States. President Trump’s claims that we have been “losing” to China reflect, in part, the reality of a shifting see-saw. A bigger, stronger China is challenging American interests in the South China Sea, taking our jobs, buying American companies, and replacing us as the primary trading partner of nations not only in its neighborhood, but also in Europe, where China recently unseated the United States as Germany’s largest trading partner. Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” struck a chord with voters. Number one is who we are. But politically appealing slogans are not a solution for the dramatic resurgence of a 5,000-year old civilization with 1.4 billion people, led by a president whose own mission is the “Great Rejuvenation” of China — in other words, to “Make China Great Again.” To construct a grand strategy for the China challenge that protects vital US interests without catastrophic conflict, policy makers must begin by recognizing these uncomfortable but undeniable realities. Graham Allison is the director of Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the author of the forthcoming book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?”
