Thread by @jamuslim

The term “debate” often evokes images of raucous speeches and lively verbal jousting. Alas, parliamentary debates (in this country at least) are often heavily structured, guarded affairs. (1/n)

For instance, to make a point, one has to be recognized by the Speaker. This preserves order and decorum, but it comes at the cost of stifling dynamic riposte, especially for a heated topic. (2/n)

Time constraints exacerbate the problem (Parliament has more issues to discuss than time allows). This was the case yesterday, when a few #workersparty MPs (myself included) were unable to raise supplementary questions before the end of question time. (3/n)

So I’m afraid the debate over the future of Yale-NUS College (YNC) turned out to be something of a damp squib (at least for me). Education Minister Chan spent a good part of his time explaining the motivation behind the merger of YNC. (4/n)

But the explanations left a wide open question: Why must the merger require such a major restructuring and rebranding, instead of building on existing synergies (most corporate mergers do not dismantle both constituent entities)? (5/n)

The approach also squanders the hard-won reputational capital built by YNC and the University Scholars’ Program (USP). Companies routinely spend millions to acquire intangible capital (this premium is known as “goodwill”). (6/n)

USP is already NUS, so a combined YNC entity (perhaps with some modification) would not be a misnomer. While NUS doesn’t need Yale co-branding, YNC acquired its own enviable reputation (so much so that Yale has indicated publicly its willingness to prolong the partnership). (7/n)

Such institutional restructuring upends real commitments (what happens to endowments collected under the auspices of YNC?). It is also corrosive of Brand Singapore, if we are viewed as an unreliable partner (is Duke-NUS thinking twice?) (8/n)

Some of the justifications were also puzzling. Minister Chan repeatedly spoke of economies of scale as a motivation for the new college. But scaling up is the antithesis of liberal arts experience, of small classes and deeply personalized curriculum. (9/n)

Moreover, it would appear that such economies aren’t really necessary for financial sustainability. One alternative is to raise tuition or reduce subsidies, especially for non-locals; this is a common model for public universities worldwide. (10/n)

Incidentally, while YNC endowments fall short of that of Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore (the very top colleges), it is of a similar order to that of Haverford, Bates, and Harvey Mudd (still top-20 schools). Financing really does seem resolvable. (11/n)

While the debate on Yale-NUS has passed with unanswered questions, I hope we will continue to see the importance of consultative decisionmaking, not just in higher ed policy, but all public policy. #makingyourvotecount (n/n)