Thekabarnews.com—For a long time, many people thought that the Achievement-Based National Selection (SNBP) program was the best way to attract Indonesia’s smartest students into the best public universities.

Many people think that it is a way to reward students for doing well in school—no matter how much money they have. However, when you look at it more closely, you start to question whether SNBP really helps. You may also ask if it makes the problems that are already there worse.

SNBP considers schools, but they mainly care about student performance, school reputation, and student behavior outside of school.

These rules seem fair, but they do not always show how things really work. Students from well-known, often urban and wealthier schools, typically benefit more from the system than other students.

Before you sign your child up, verify that the school is accredited and has a positive track record. Students from the best schools usually have an edge over other students even before the selection process starts. Students from schools with fewer resources have to confront bigger problems, even though they are just as smart.

People are genuinely interested in what you do outside of school, which makes it even harder. There are many competitions, certificates, and specialized training programs out there. Unfortunately, not all students can pay for them. Families with more money can pay for things like tutoring, coaching, and other activities. These activities help their kids do better in school.

Now that this event has happened, the idea of meritocracy seems less believable. It is possible that “success” does not stem from individual aptitude but rather from cumulative advantages. In other words, students from families with less money may have a harder time because they have fewer opportunities. This is not because they lack ability.

The effects are more than just what one person does. If socioeconomic status closely correlates with access to higher education, the system may perpetuate inequality. Some students do well in school because they had more chances to learn when they were younger.

To solve this problem, the Indonesian government has done things like set quotas for students from low-income families. On one hand, critics argue that implementation often prioritizes meeting the minimum requirements rather than genuinely facilitating equitable educational opportunities for all students. On the other hand, critics say such policies may potentially perpetuate existing disparities.

Schools can sometimes reach their goals without solving the bigger problems that make it challenging for everyone to have the same chance. Additionally, changes in how universities work and how they acquire money have made them more stressed out.

Public universities might not need as much money from the state. As a result, they might need to identify other ways to attract students who will pay more. People are afraid that the changes will make it easier for people with money to gain access to college.

The SNBP argument is really about a bigger question: what does education do for society? Is college a beneficial thing for society that helps people advance ahead in life, or is it just a place where people compete for what they already have?

Technology alone will not improve things. Selection processes should focus on what students can and could do, not where they came from. Schools, teachers, and policymakers all need to work together to make these changes happen. If things do not change, it might be challenging to keep the promise of equal access to education.

Stay connected via Google News