{
  "id": 17772397,
  "title": "When universities excel at counting and lose the capacity to judge — Shahrul Mizan Ismail",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/02/when-universities-excel-at-counting-and-lose-the-capacity-to-judge",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-11-02T08:21:42.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Malay Mail",
    "slug": "malay-mail-malaymail",
    "url": "https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2026/11/02/when-universities-excel-at-counting-and-lose-the-capacity-to-judge-shahrul-mizan-ismail/241687"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "When universities focus solely on counting metrics and lose the ability to critically judge, their capacity to foster intellectual growth diminishes. Peter Fleming's \"Dark Academia: How Universities Die\" highlights the dangers of commercialization, managerial control, and the overwhelming influence of performance metrics within institutions of higher learning. The article examines how Malaysia's higher education system may be grappling with similar issues, specifically in the context of the Higher Education Plan 2026 to 2035.\n\nThe article argues that relying too heavily on quantity-based indicators such as publication counts, citation rates, and grant income can overshadow the true value of scholarly work. These metrics alone are insufficient in determining the depth of intellectual inquiry, the originality of research, or the importance of a research question. When institutional rank and academic life are also reduced to numerical values, the quality of academic discourse can be compromised.\n\nMoreover, the text underscores that counting does not replace the responsibility for assessing the substance, methods, originality, and contributions of scholars. Overemphasis on quick outputs can lead academics to prioritize activities that generate easily measurable results, potentially sidelining more significant investigations. This shift can stifle original thinking, as researchers are incentivized to select topics with a higher likelihood of being published, rather than pursuing uncertain or challenging inquiries that may require more time and resources.\n\nThe article also considers the broader implications of reporting requirements on academic time and productivity. Each form, evidence request, and performance return demands academic time, which is a finite resource. If these reporting tasks do not provide clear benefits, they should be critically evaluated. Universities must assess the costs and benefits of such demands, ensuring that they do not unduly burden their scholars.\n\nFurthermore, the diversity of scholarly pursuits is highlighted as a critical element in maintaining a rich academic environment. Different forms of scholarship, such as historical, legal, philosophical, and scientific contributions, have varying timelines for demonstrating their impact. Oversimplifying success to a narrow definition of academic excellence can inadvertently penalize these diverse contributions, risking the erosion of valuable modes of inquiry.\n\nFinally, the text emphasizes the importance of academic freedom and the willingness to engage in critical thinking. In a system where questioning becomes difficult due to administrative concerns, universities may inadvertently teach students that challenges to established norms are unwelcome. The ability to critique and defend one's work, as well as to listen to opposing perspectives, is essential for a robust academic culture. Reform efforts should therefore focus on enhancing accountability, recognizing the different types of scholarly contributions, and ensuring that evaluation processes include substantive peer judgment alongside quantitative indicators.",
  "summary": "NOVEMBER 2 — A university does not have to close its doors to diminish as a place of learning. Its intellectual pu...",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}