by Prof. Misri Gozan,

Chair of the Executive Committee of Engineering-Indonesian Engineer Association

Professor of the University of Indonesia

Imagine you a student or lecturer at a small campus in the area. Suddenly your campus lost accreditation because the national accreditation system Kolaps: long lines, assessors never arrived, and funds were not available.

This is not a fiction scenario. This can happen if the accreditation of the study program is returned to the hands of the state, such as before 2020. This trauma is still inherent in the memories of many study programs and campuses.

In fact, since the issuance of Law Number 12 of 2012 concerning Higher Education, Indonesia rearranges the quality assurance system. The state is still present through BAN-PT, but the focus is only on institutional accreditation. As for the Study Program Accreditation, the state encourages the presence of an independent accreditation institution (LAM) which is more focused, independent, and in accordance with the uniqueness of science.

But now, discourse reappears that the state takes over all accreditation, like the past. Is this a solution? Or is it a step back? The incidence of traffic jams for years of accreditation can be repeated.

Accreditation in the Hands of the Country: What is the positive?

Let's be fair. This discourse was born from good intentions: so that there is no burden on accreditation costs borne by universities, especially private and small ones. In this logic, if the country finances, the campus can focus more on improving quality, not taking care of accreditation administration. Little campus feels more heard. Students feel safer. Then, the state is also considered to be able to unite quality standards in accordance with the vision of national education. There is no need for many institutions, just one hand of the government that regulates everything.

But, there is a reality that cannot be ignored, good intentions are not always directly proportional to good results. Let's review the following reality:

Violating Law

Deleting or nifling the role of LAM means to deny Law 12/2012. In Article 55, it is clear that the accreditation of the study program is carried out by an independent accreditation institution and is recognized by the government. Returning to the old system is the same as denying the spirit of high education quality reform.

Overload State Institutions

At present, Indonesia has more than 4,500 universities and more than 31,000 study programs (PDDIKTI Data 2023). Does it make sense if everything must be assessed by a state institution, namely BAN-PT, which only has a maximum of 9 management (total accreditation council members and executive councils) and around 40 staff? Not to mention the fact that BAN PT is fully still dependent on the disbursement of government funds.

first before 2020s, when BAN-PT handled everything, long lines, report backlogs, and brief visits in the style of "fast food" were general stories. All study programs are assessed based on the same instrument. Now, LAM-Lam is present to bring specialization, Lam Teknik for engineering, education for education, PTKK for health, infokom for information systems and computers, lam emba for the economy, management and business. And so on ...

Decreased assessment independence

If the accreditation is entirely under the country, will the quality be maintained objectively? Or will political pressure appear, complicated bureaucracy, even the potential for public openness? Quality assurance requires freedom of thought, not merely a state control instrument.

In addition, LAM-LAM in Indonesia has a reference and affiliation with international accreditation institutions that require and oversee their independence and independence. This ensures that the accreditation process remains objective and in accordance with global standards. Nevertheless, supervision by BAN-PT and Ministry is still carried out as a state responsibility to ensure accountability and quality of national education.

Look at the world: Does other countries work?

We don't live in a vacuum. Let's look at countries that do manage accreditation through the central government. France, for example. In this country the accreditation was carried out by Haut Conseil de L'Osalation de la Recherche et de L'Eneghement Supérieur (or High Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education, abbreviated as Hceres). This is an independent institution, but is fully financed by the state.

The higher education system in France is very centralized, almost all of its quality uniforms and the number of institutions are far less than Indonesia. So indeed this accreditation issue is almost not a warm enough thing to talk about.

The Chinese country led by the Communist Party is clearly centralized in everything. Including accreditation, the entire process is controlled by the Ministry of Education. However, their bureaucracy is very large and a strong country control culture. This country's control culture is the key word for success.

Vietnam and Iran are also still relying on the Ministry's hands for their accreditation. However, their efficiency and innovation are very low in this regard. Even now the Vietnamese government is actually starting to encourage accreditation by multi-institutions.

National Center for Academic Accreditation and Assessment (NCAAAA) operating in Saudi Arabia is a national accreditation body that has large and full -time professional funds. Obviously this is not a condition that can be easily replicated in Indonesia.

The conclusion of this benchmarking is clear: these countries are successful because they are very centralized, strong in a budget, and have a smaller number of institutions. Indonesia, with its diversity, geography, and regional autonomy system, is not suitable to apply a full centralistic approach.

Meanwhile, other countries in the world surrendered to very independent institutions for their high education accreditation.

The solution: the state must remain present

The state still must be present. But his presence is not as a player, or direct executor, but as a regulator, supervisor, and incentive provider that is right on target. The government can subsidize accreditation, especially for small campuses and strategic study programs with flexible mechanisms. But the implementation of accreditation is still given to the competent and responsible lam.

Ban-PT doesn't need to go back to the past. Its role is far more strategic as a controller of the quality of institutions and the LAM performance appraiser that must indeed be monitored. In this case the PT PT can act as the Hand of the State.

Don't retreat because of nostalgia

The results of the 3 -year -old LAM Engineering study also prove that there is a gaping quality gap in the western, central and eastern regions of the country. The results of this scientific research have been disseminated to the supporters of interest such as BAN PT, Dikti, PII Professional Association, Leaders of Study Program Association, as well as to the Dean forum or Vocational Director. It is hoped that the technical together with the state, can jointly overcome the problem of the gap of the quality of this national higher education.

The quality of higher education is not a matter of "who judges," but whether the system is credible, fair, and tough institutionally. Let's maintain the spirit of Law 12/2012. If there are still shortcomings, let's fix it together.

But not to be because we want to save money, we actually exchange professional accreditation with old systems that have been proven to be overwhelmed.

Prof. Misri Gozan,

Chairperson of the Executive Committee of Engineering - Indonesian Engineers' Association

Professor of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia

Caregiver Basic, Medium Education and Pesantren 

 This article is also published in KOMPASIANA