PAPER*

Modernization, Class, and Inequality in Indonesia’s Higher Education

Sulaiman Mappiasse
Email: sm9@hawaii.edu

Ph.D. Program
Department of Sociology
University of Hawaii

*Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Hawaii Forum at East-West Center September
6, 2008  
 Modernization, Class, and Inequality in Indonesia’s Higher Education1

“One of the great achievement of capitalism is to develop human productive capacity to

such an extent that it makes the radical egalitarianism needed for human flourishing
materially feasible, yet capitalism also creates institutions and power relations that block
the actual achievement of egalitarianism” (E. O. Wright, 2005, p. 7)

Introduction

This article is intended to examine how education system has increasingly become an

effective screening device to include certain groups of people and exclude others from

entering higher education based on their class situations in Indonesia. In other words, it is

interested in exploring factors (i.e. structural and cultural) involved in the making of

education system in Indonesia as a tool of social exclusion. I argue that this phenomenon

results from the process of modernization movement characterized with educational

institutionalization driven by class and political interests alongside with the global and

capitalist forces in Indonesia since 50s. Afterward, education system became a state sub-

institution believed to have an ability to equalize citizen life chances through equal

distributions of knowledge and education resources to the people. However, different class

interests within class relations occurring in society has been transferred and embedded into

this “equalizing” institution – a process that has weakened its equalizing power. Interestingly,

there is a relatively corresponding relationship between the degree of state power and of the

education agency as an equalizer.

Class interests and relations can be found both at micro and macro level (for micro

and macro definition, see Wright, 2005, p. 19-20). Therefore, it is desirable in this article to

examine the issue at both levels, under the assumption that what is happening at the macro

level should have effects on the micro level and vice versa. While at the macro level,

                                                            
1
 Sulaiman Mappiasse, Paperwork Pusat Studi Kesenjangan Pendidikan Indonesia (PSKPI), Email 
info.center@pskpi.org http://www.palioijayabiz.com 

1 

 
globalization, state, and class structure are assumed to have affected Indonesia’s education

system, at the micro level, on the other hand, it is assumed that market division and

reproduction of class culture have influences on it.

It is expected that by being able to explain these class interests and relations at micro

and macro level, I will be able to show how the process of “rational” modernization in

Indonesia has contributed significantly to the creation of two types of citizens – first who are

included and allowed to have privilege in entering higher education system; and second, who

are excluded and removed from having opportunities to perform class and education

mobility.

Inequality in Indonesia’s Education System

The principal constitution of Indonesia (UUD 45) states explicitly that the main aim of the

country as a nation-state is to “educate its people in order to bring prosperity for all.” This

ideal type of national commitment to realize “education for all” has been translated by

developing a national system of education since 1954 to the present. Along with its political

and economical changes, equality to access education always becomes the main goal of its

educational programs. However, it is argued that policy changes in education to attenuate

inequality of access to education have been proved to fail. Of subsidies for higher education

in 1978, 83 percent had been enjoyed by the students from higher income groups (Fahmi,

2007). Zhao (2006) found that government effort to expand access to mass education from

1970-1997 has increased participation in primary education, but it has not reduced the

existing structured inequality in educational mobility.

Fahmi (2007) mentioned several studies from other developing countries indicating

that both mass higher education system (e.g. Kariwo, 2007; Salmi & Hauptman, 2006; Lewis

& Dundar, 2002; Gunawardena, 1999; Ziderman & Albrecht, 1994; and Psacharopouslos,

1991) and privatized higher education system (e.g. Espinoza, 2007) were found failing to
2 

 
eliminate inequality to access higher education. In other words, shifting higher education

from elite to mass access does not necessarily result in eliminating access inequality among

class groups. Similarly, privatizing higher education is most likely to increase inequality.

From 2000, the government has cut higher education subsidies and asked several top

national public universities to generate their own financial resources. Interestingly, the

economic crisis hitting the country in 1997 did not affect the increasing number of students

who apply and enroll to universities (Welch, 2007). As a result, only students from better off

families can afford to obtain the best higher education available in the country. The large

discrepancy between applicants to the national public universities (450,000 each year) and

the number of seats available (75,000) has caused highly competitive environment. In order

to be able to pass the exam, students must have a prior access to a high quality senior

secondary school and extra special training in private study centers. Only students from high

income group can afford to have such extra trainings and good quality schools. Most of these

good quality schools and private training centers are located in urban areas. One of the latest

surveys showed that only 3.3 percent students from the lowest 20 % of the income groups,

compared to 30.9 percent of the students from the highest 20 % of the income groups,

managed to pass the test (Nizam, 2006).

Along with this development from mass to market oriented or privatized higher

education, testing, evaluation, and quality assurance have been increasingly used as an

“objective” selection mechanism from individual level to institutional level. Quality

assurance practices at institutional level made universities to increase their academic standard

of enrolment. However, this symbolic power embedded in an objective mechanism has

created two types of citizens, i.e. the “winners” and the “losers”.

3 

 
 Globalization, State, and Class on Education

What factors shape an education system in a contemporary society? Contemporary

globalization with its various means (i.e. world global systems, transnational governmental

and nongovernmental organizations, and mass media) has an ability to affect education

system, class relations, and state. However, state as a modern institution has a mediating

function to mediate different interests brought to it by global forces and class conflicts at the

class structural level in a stratified society. Furthermore, at micro level, class conflicts exist

either inside or outside education system in a society at the individual or group level. So,

class is a very complex concept and entity because it is dynamic, multilevel, and

multidimensional.

Globalization

State  Class 
Macro

Class origin  Class destination 
Education
Micro

Figure: Interaction of globalization, state, and class on education

Globalization and Education

Wallerstein argues that the structure of the modern university system corresponds to

the political systems of the age. Modernity brought a new global world, one driven by

markets, political states, and social change. Studies developed by universities all over the

world tend to be structured in similar ways through international higher education

cooperation. These universities developed areas of studies that would be politically useful

and relevant (Allan, 2007).

4 

 
 In general, globalization is a condition where people all over the world are involved in

exchanging processes. However, people have associated globalization with different

meanings. Some argue that globalization is about “the emergence of supranational institutions

whose decisions shape and constrain policy options for any particular nation states”. Some

relate globalization to the “overwhelming impact of global economic processes of production,

consumption, trade, capital flow, and monetary independence”. Some associate it with the

signaling “rise of economic liberalism as a dominant policy discourse”. Some argue that it is

related to the “changing cultural forms, communication technologies, the shaping and

reshaping of identities, and interactions within and between cultures”. Others define

globalization more practical as the “construction of policy-makers responding to the demands

of organizations” such as the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and

the World Trade Organizations (WTO) which leave governments with ‘no choice’ but to play

by a complex set of global rules, rules not of their making (Kassem, 2006, p. 197).

All of these globalization dimensions, I argue, interconnect to form multi-dimensional

forces as a result of global interactions where three types of nations, according to Wallerstein,

are created: core, semi-periphery, and periphery (Allen, 2007). On the global world system,

core states, such as the United States and European states, play dominant role by which they

enforce control on other nations through global regulatory organizations, global mass media,

and the global flow of economy and populations. Importantly, even though those core states

become dominants in the “world game”, they also become weakened by the non-traditional or

non-governmental movements operating outside state control, such green peace movement or

notorious terrorist organizations.

In education, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are increasingly

playing a role in establishing and enforcing global laws and regulating economic transactions.

These organizations are like United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
5 

 
Organization (UNESCO), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Bank (WB), and

International Monetary Fund (IMF). These organizations are advocating a variety of

educational programs ranging from schooling for human capital development to education for

the protection of human rights (Kassem, 2006). Often, in order to have educational supports

from them, a country has to sign or agree with certain requirements that maintain the

privilege of the dominant state or capitalist.

Global economic downturn since 80s has brought about increasing pressure on several

developing countries, including Indonesia. As a result, many countries including developed

countries such as America has started to adopt neo-liberal economic policies by which many

public services, including education has been privatized. Reducing public subsidies for these

services and allowing privatization has created two types of citizens; those you are protected

by the state and those who are excluded by the state. Mostly, only those who have high

economic positions in society will be included, and those who are weak and poor will be

excluded. The privatization of education system has changed the social value of education to

become economic value that can be marketized and sold as goods. Consequently, objectified

standards created to enable consumers to make better choices (Kassem, 2006). When they

have become choosy, education services have to compete to increase their quality followed

by increasing prices. Increasing prices will disadvantage the poor people.

Class and Education

Class conflict at state and global level can influence how education system is shaped.

So, education as a sub-system of a state can become a social conflict arena where state plays

a mediating role. The capitalist in a state cannot achieve its market oriented activities in

education system without going through a system called “state”. On the other hand, working

and middle class people cannot make significant changes on education system without state
6 

 
mediation. It should be born in mind that both education system and state are the products of

modernity manifested in power institutionalization to realize efficiency and rationalization.

Modernity has made these institutional relations unique in its inter-connectivity. Interestingly,

within these class relations, state is seen as responsible for justice and equity to normalize

existing injustice and inequality in society where education must play important role to

improve the class position of the subordinated groups by providing opportunities to access

relevant knowledge and certification. In contrast to the equalizing function of education

system, the capitalist relations of productions create market labor to reproduce social

inequality (Carnoy & Levin, 1986).

Earlier, Marx implied that education could be a powerful device for the ruling class

to maintain and reproduce their own class positions by stressing that “the ideas of the ruling

class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” (Marx & Engels, 1976, v. 6, p. 35). People who

own the means of production, according to Marx, often control others’ relations to the mode

of production and product (Marx & Engels, 1976). If education is taken to its contemporary

definition as a thing that has been objectively commodified and traded, it appears that the

types or modes of education, its contents and how it must be produced are controlled by those

who have means of production. In other words, the dominant groups have more control and

access to educational resources – a class condition that will allow them to maintain and

promote their class positions. On the other hand, the dominated groups have to struggle

against the dominant power to increase their life chances through education.

Weber sees that class is determined by individual market conditions. One’s market

conditions are measured based on the types of skills and knowledge he or she brings to the

market. In other words, types of skills and knowledge individuals have will determine their

class locations in society. In relation to education nowadays, it plays very important roles in

determining what kinds of skills and knowledge individuals have and how these skills place
7 

 
them in the structure of society (Weber, 2006). This implies that there is a corresponding

relation between education system and the structure of society because people will pursue

types of skills and knowledge in education that can help them to increase their class positions

in society.

Emile Durkheim defines education as an “influence exercised by adult generations on

those that are not yet ready for social life. Its object is to stimulate and develop in the child a

certain number of physical, intellectual and moral states which are demanded of him by both

the political society as a whole, and by the particular milieu for which he is specifically

destined” (Durkheim, 1972, p. 204). According to Durkheim, education is a natural action

taken by the adult to transmit a set of life skills to enable childrent to function well in soceity.

The object of this process is to create a deep-lying disposition for life. The direction of it is

very much influenced by the goal set by society. When a secularized world has become the

goal of society member conception, the means of education by no means will change

(Durkheim, 1972). From these theorists, it can be understood that both education and state are

arenas of class conflict and class reproduction.

How class conflict occurs in education system? This occurs as a result of the

contradictory realities created by the capitalist. It promises equality, but at the same time it

actively produces division of labor where class relations are stratified and reproduced from

generation to generation. On behalf of effiency, stratified system are created within education

system to serve the need of hierarchical structure existing in the labor market. On other hand,

on behalf of social mobility and democratic partipation, the dominated demand to make

education as equalizing opportunities. “It is the conflict between these forces of capitalism

and democracy that detemine the nature of education” (Carnoy & Levin, 1986).

8 

 
 State and Education

It had been thought that state as a key provider of education acted independently

economically and politically to regulate itself within its border in the world system. Thus,

state can make autonomous decision to lead people in particular directions for their interests.

This view, in the contemporary world, cannot be true anymore because education has become

an expression of class interests. At global level, state policies are mainly constrained by the

world system of capitalist production whereas on the domestic level it is constrained by the

particular way of its national production system. So, as Carnoy and Levin (1986) argue,

educational policy may be autonomous from production in its individual setting but cannot be

autonomous from the division of labor produced by the particular position of a country in the

world system. State in this sense either represents dominant class views in their constrained

economic and political position in the world system or is a class conflict field played out

within its domestic borders. Within this class conflict, state plays a significant role in

education politics. Often, conflicting demands on educational finances, teacher training,

media of instructions, and curricula are mediated through the state. Thus, according to Wong

(2002), state interventions in the school system always bring about multiple and contradictory

consequences (Wong, 2002) by which class conflicts are manifested.

Increasing conflicts in education mediated state has made the state as an important

site for organizing capitalist hegemony. By then, social struggle by the capitalist is shifted

from the capitalist ground to the state. This condition makes the degree of restriction differs

from one state to others. Those states that have more dependency will be more conditioned in

what they can do compared to those that enjoy less dependency, such as highly industrialized

capitalist states. Transnational corporations based in developed countries and metropole

states greatly influence state actions in peripheral nations (Carnoy & Levin, 1986). But,

however the differences among nations in their dependency, each nation has an interest to use
9 

 
education system as a social control by teaching its citizens to behave according to its cultural

blueprint and division of labor (Shipman, 1971).

Reproduction Theory: Social Division of Labor and Cultural Reproduction

How education system corresponds to the class structure at the micro level? Some argue (e.g.

Carnoy and Bowels) that education system in fact corresponds to the stratified structure of

labor market. Education operates to reproduces class relations according to the existing

division of labor in society. This process, according to Bowles (1971), contradicts to

ideological argument of the modern capitalist that asserted the equalizing force of education

to encounter the disequalizing forces inherent in the free market system. There is no doubt,

however, that to some extent education also forcefully democratized the access to highly

rewarded occupational roles, and therefore, fostering genuine social mobility (Mach &

Wesolowski, 1982).

Education, as a part of a state, has its own autonomous life just as a state does.

However, it cannot be denied that educational system is an integral element in the

reproduction of the prevailing structure of society. Bowels and Gintis (1976) explain how

class relations reproduced through education that brings about inequality. In order for

education to reproduce social relations of production, educational system treats people in a

way that makes it possible to subordinate them. When they are sufficiently fragmented in

consciousness, they are prepared for getting together to shape their own material existence

(Bowels & Gintis, 1976). By this way, their consciousness is reproduced through education to

fit into the stratified hierarchy of production relations.

The structure of social relations in education does not only indurate the students to the

discipline of the workplace by shaping social relation consciousness, but it also develops the

types of personal behaviors, self-presentation, and social class identifications that are

important to perform adequately in job markets in the future. This structure is very much
10 

 
manifested in the social relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and

students, students and students, and students and their work. The way this relationship

operates duplicates the hierarchical division of labor. Within and between schools, there

would differences in the social relationships reflecting student social background and their

likely class positions. These differences or inequalities are furthered by their disparities in

financial resources (Bowels & Gintis, 1976).

According to Marceau (1974) “the background of the class structure, and indeed the

entire reward system of modern western society, is the occupational order. Other sources of

economic and symbolic advantage do coexist alongside the occupational order but for the

great majority of population, these tend to be secondary to those deriving from the division of

labor” (p.207). In other words, education system is more about representing division of labor

as it exists in society. Bowles (1971) explains this perspective that

“One’s status, income, and personal autonomy came to depend in great measure on
one’s place in the hierarchy of work relations. And in turn, positions in the social division of
labor came to be associated with educational credentials reflecting number of years of
schooling and the quality of education received. The increasing importance of schooling as a
mechanism for allocating children to positions in the class structure played a major part in
legitimizing the structure of itself. But at the same time, it undermined the simple processes
which in the past had preserved the positions and privilege of the upper class families from
generation to generation. In short, it undermined the processes serving to reproduce the social
division of labor (p. 140).

This perspective differs from Boudieu who empasizes the important of cultural

reproduction through education in allocationg childrent to a certain class destinition.

Bourdieu argues that education is a product of the class relations in society, rooted in family,

then tranfered to education. So, students and families carry their class positions into

education system with all of its capical forms.

Bourdieu (1977) is well-known as the pioner of the science of the reproduction of

structures that he defines as “a system of objective relations which impart their relational

properties to individuals whom they pre-exist and survive (p. 487).” This idea can be traced
11 

 
back to the notion of material dialectic history coined by Marx where he argues that “men are

not free to choose their productive forces – which are the basis of all their history – for every

productive force, is an acquired force, the product of the former activity” (Marx and Engels,

1975). “Marx recognized the link between economic status and ideology. But he did not

appreciate how important a role the very cultures of social privilege played in actually

producing and reproducing the material reality of economic power” (Liechty, 2003, p. 12). In

other words, men are products of the pre-existing social structures so that they are not free to

exercise their own agency. These structures, for Bourdieu, are not limited to economic base,

but they also include cultural and social resources that can be converted to economic

resources. Thus, for Bourdieu, it does not so important to make a differentiation among

economic, cultural and social resources. However, he does not deny that economy is the main

source of the class power.

Both theories of reproduction of division of labor and cultural reproduction imply that

in education there is a social exclusion process where education system becomes a

competition arena to screen who should go on and who should not go on to a certain lot of

class destination (Ball, 2003, p. 15).

Process of Modernization and Inequalization in Indonesia’s Higher Education

Indonesia as pre-state country has a long history of education reflecting its social and political

development under different forces that are mostly associated with religion and cultures, i.e.

Animism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. Each of these cultural identities has its own

epoch in Indonesia pre-state history. Indonesia’s education system had developed and

increasingly become a tool of “neutral and objective” exclusion through the process of

modern institutionalization.

12 

 
 Higher Education in Newly Born State: Capitalism, Communism, and Religion
(1945-1965)
Education as an ideological tool
After its independence from the Dutch and Japan in August 1945, Indonesia has

changed to be a new nation-state. It should be born in mind that nation-state is a product of

capitalist system. In 1959, the first President of Indonesia launched his political manifesto as

a manifestation of its global political view and its domestic policy direction where education

became indoctrination tool to achieve certain political goals. All education policies were

directed top-down to dictate people views, behavior, and actions.

During this time, the world system was dominated by two super powers; the United

States of America representing capitalism in the west and the Soviet Union representing

communism. Indonesia along with several countries, such as India, Egypt and the initial

Czechoslovakia tried to free themselves from both super powers by creating an alternative

alliance called The New Emerging Forces. In order for this ideological and political direction

to have mass support, education was used to indoctrinate people by the elite of the country.

Schools, teachers and public did not have a space to interpret what had been set by the elite.

They only had to transfer values and knowledge that were set by the elite to the people all

over the country.

Even though it was claimed by the politicians that they wanted to get rid of the two

super power dominations at that time, actually their political direction was mostly in favor of

the socialist ideology. In one his important speech, the first president of Indonesia, Soekarno

concluded

“Therefore, it was clear that the forces of the Indonesian social revolution, namely all people
of Indonesia where the working class and the peasant as its basic power without taking aside
the important role of the other groups (classes), were very significant and convincing about
the victory of the Indonesian revolution” (Translated from Tilaar, 1995, p. 94)

13 

 
 During this period (1954-1969), the ideal type of development was directed to realize

a just and prosperous society applying what is called “guided economy and democracy”. This

political policy wanted to utilize all resources to fight against colonial effects, threats of

capitalism and free fight liberalism. Interestingly, higher education development also was

viewed as an important medium to realize their political goals. Therefore, from 1951 to 1960,

there were 16 higher education institutions established all over the country, mostly located in

Java island, to fulfill highly skill human resources required to achieve the goal of “the

universal plan of the national development” (Brojonegoro, 2001). In 1960, the government

wanted to make sure that these newly erected colleges and universities were in line with the

dominant political orientation in the country, so a set of codes must be implemented. First,

higher education was obligated to produce red experts to help develop the socialist oriented

country based on the spirit of Pancasila – the five basic principles of Indonesian ideology –

and the spirit of the state political manifesto. Second, higher education was recommended to

support basic and applied research to meet the need of the Indonesian society, particularly

food, home, and developmental infrastructure. Third, higher education was asked to integrate

itself with society to be the enlightenment base in order to build a link between higher

education and the contextual issues of society (Tilaar, 1995).

Global and Local Ideological Conflicts: Politics, Religion, and Education

The outstanding conflict during this time had a political and ideological base.

Interestingly, this conflict is influenced very much by the global world system after the War

World II. On other hand, there were ideological conflicts at the domestic levels. Each party

competed to enforce their ideological identities to become national identities. Nationalists

were divided into two poles, namely pro-capitalist nationalist and pro-socialist nationalist.

These two opposing parties were supported by several intelligentsia graduated from the

Netherland universities. On the other hand, there were religious based groups, i.e. Muslims

14 

 
and Christians. Muslim groups were generally supported by intelligentsia who graduated

from al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt and several other informal learning centers in the

Middle-East. Small Christian groups were mostly attached either to the pro-socialist,

especially Chinese, or to the pro-capitalist.

These ideological forces were not so much to do with class conflict in higher

education in terms of social relations of production. However, these ideological conflicts

brought ideological debate in higher education curriculum, especially subjects related to the

social values. They agreed that Indonesia needed skillful experts in variety of fields,

especially medicine, engineering, and agriculture. However, the ideological temptations were

too strong so that they failed to solve the real problems. It was not strange that they were

debating whether religious subjects should be taught at higher education or not. In short,

practical politics and ideological conflicts were too strong that educational and economic

programs of Soekarno’s regime failed to realize progressive changes. In addition, the country

was experiencing extreme economic crisis with a very high rate of inflation – 1966 (600 %),

1967 (100 %), 1968 (85 %), 1969 (10 %) respectively (Tilaar, 1995).

In relation to class relations in higher education, because most citizens do not have

basic and secondary education, as a result of the discriminating education system during the

three century period of the Dutch colonization, only Chinese middle-class, native aristocrat,

and European children who were allowed to attend schools. Lay people could only attend

schools to learn how to read, write, and speak in Dutch language or local languages in order

to be able to meet colonizer needs for clerical jobs. This implies that those who went to

universities during the period of Soekarno’s regime were the children of the elite class

because most people did not graduate from primary and secondary schools.

15 

 
 Industrializing an Agrarian Country: Power, Prosperity, and Class Struggle (1965-
1998)
Power Transition: From One Authoritarian to another Authoritarian
When Soeharto took over Soekarno’s administration of the country after the historical

coup d'état in 1965 where nine high rank generals from the Indonesian Army were killed

allegedly by the communist party – a party that was supporting the political manifesto of

Soekarno. Soeharto called his era as a New Order by which he made a promise to realize the

dreams of justice and prosperity for all Indonesian people as Soekarno did. Soeharto’s

economic orientation was relatively pro-capitalist, and was willing to open international co-

operations with other countries based on the principle of Non-Aligned co-operation during

the Cold War.

Soeharto’s tank thinkers from the Army officers suggested from the beginning that

political and ideological conflicts must be avoided and all resources must be oriented to

develop economy. They recommended that educational development must be freed from

political issues and be given autonomy to operate independently (Tilaar, 1995, p. 114). As a

result, political and cultural oppressions to the sub-ordinate groups were legitimized under

national stability and security pretext. In order to industrialize the country, natural resources

were highly exploited and exported to other developed countries to fund the establishment of

several industrial bases all over the country, mostly concentrated in urban areas, especially

capital cities in Java. His regime had also tried to develop rural areas by providing small

loans for home industries and modernizing agricultural systems. However, most of these

projects failed due to ineffective monitoring system that allowed corruptions.

Promising Development, Sad Ending

In 70s when the price of oil was increasing dramatically, it was the best time for

Soeharto’s regime to develop his economic programs where he promised that in 25 years (i.e.

in 1998) he would have changed the country to be highly developed and industrialized. In
16 

 
designing his economic program, he was supported by Indonesian economists graduated from

American universities in 70s, especially University of California, Berkeley. In this period, the

government also had worked closely with some international organizations, such as the

World Bank and UNESCO – two international institutions that involved in monitoring and

directing the regulation of public services and policies in Indonesia.

In 80s, the urbanization rate to Java from other islands, such as Sulawesi, Sumatra,

and Kalimantan was significantly increasing as the result of economic deregulation where

private sectors were given opportunities to have investment loans from public banks. So,

many urban job opportunities were open and attracted migrants from the rural areas. This

economic deregulation was in fact a direct impact of the emerging global economic crisis.

Indonesia suffered severely from the 1997’s crisis due to its high dependency on

exported products since its development in 70s. This economic crisis alongside with the

political oppressions had forced Soeharto’s regime to step down in May 1998.

Emerging Middle Class: Quality and Inequality in Higher Education

Sarjadi (1994) argued that 80s was the beginning of the middle class emergence that

was increasingly formed in 90s. Quoted by Sarjadi, Soetrisno described this emerging middle

class as a group of people who had independent political views and had influencing economic

power in Indonesia (p.23).

In education, the thirty two years of Soeharto administration had made significant

change where through mass education program Indonesia had succeeded to reduce illiteracy

rate from 72 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 1995 (Welch, 2003). Participation index of

higher education for 19-20 year age group increased from 1.6 percent (around 200.000

students) in 1968 to 10.5 percent (around 1.700.000 students) in 1998 (Tilaar, 1995; Welch,

2003). However, opportunities provided to attend higher education was very biased to the

students from the better off families. The Work Bank data in 1978 showed that 83 percent of
17 

 
the subsidies for higher education was received by the students from the upper class group.

Interestingly, this trend was increasing steadily from 1987 to 1998 (see Table 1) students

from the highest SES dominated entrance to higher education institutions from 27.6 percent

in 1987 to become 45 percent in 1998 regardless of the 1997’s economic crisis. This is

consistent with the data shown in Table 2 where the economic crisis in 1997 did not affect the

increasing rate of enrolment to higher education.

Table 1: Proportion of each SES quintile attending higher education institutions, 1987-1998 (%)
SES 1987 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
quintile

I 2.6 3 3.6 3.9 5.1 4.4

II 3.5 5 4.7 4.9 8 7.6

III 6.6 8.2 7.7 10 12.4 12.6

IV 13.1 13.4 14.3 18.4 22 22.9

V 27.6 25.3 26.6 35.8 43.5 45

Adapted from Fahmi (2007)

Table 2: Growth of Indonesian higher education, 1970-1998

1970 1980 1990 1998

Enrolments 206,800 543,175 1,590,593 1,690,662

Adapted from Welch (2003)

I argue that this phenomenon indicates the power of the emerging middle class who

had had economic and influencing political power in the country since 80s. During the crisis

time, they had been resistant and stubborn to the change. I assumed that their class positions

had been played out well during the rapid change of politics, national institutions, and

policies after the collapse of Soeharto’s regime.

This rapid expansion of education had been accompanied by a demand, according to

the policy makers, to ensure that quality had been achieved and maintained. As a result, a

new institution within education was created what was called evaluation and testing system.

For elementary and junior high schools, this evaluation in the form of final examination

18 

 
conducted each year by the national ministry of education had two purposes, i.e. for

certification (pass or fail) and selection to move on to a higher level of education. For senior

high schools, this final exam served as a certification only, because universities, both public

and private, had their own entrance tests. This system had been in effect till the early 70s.

From the early 70s to the early 80s, this national examination was changed into school

examination by which each school had its own test and decided who passed and failed. From

the mid 80s to present, school examination systems had been changed to be national

examination (Mohandas, Wei, & Keeves, 2003). Test and evaluation is one of the effective

mechanisms of exclusion to advantage dominant groups.

Power Questioned, Class Negotiation Started

It is interesting that educational development was not followed by significant

development in legal policy during Soeharto’s regime. Not until 1989, Soeharto’s regime

released a new act of national education replacing the old act released by Soekarno’s regime

in 1954. With respect to higher education, not until 1990, the government produced a new

regulation to replace higher education regulation of 1961. I argue that this new development

in educational legal policy was influenced by the increasing complexity of social relations of

Indonesian citizens. Under the global economic and politic development, and development of

labor market, the government realized that the old regulations could not accommodate all

demands of different interests. Importantly, it also indicates the weakening status of the state

as a result of the emerging global economic crisis in 80s. Therefore, its control power was

decreasing.

In his speech, the ministry of national education in 1989 explained that “there were

several political contents in the previous higher education regulation of 1961 that could not

be tolerated anymore … and it was important to introduce new regulation in order for the

people to avoid anarchism (Sistem Pendidikan Nasional, 1989, p. 6, 8).” In addition,

19 

 
according to him, there was also an increasing need to unite all education system under the

umbrella of the national education system.

In the old national education law of 1954, schools and colleges that were organized by

different religious groups were not recognized as legal education systems, such as private

educational institutions managed by Muslim and Christian communities. There was also

discrimination toward religious schools and colleges under the ministry of religious affairs.

The new act of national education year 1989 recognized this non-secular education system.

Furthermore, education program was highly expected to serve the available division

of labor in the process of national development. In order to fulfill this need, alongside with

general schools and colleges, there was increasing number of vocational schools and colleges.

In his national speech in August 1994, Soeharto asserted that vocational schools and colleges

must be developed to meet the need of semi-skilled and high skilled labors for business and

industrial fields.

Educational system during Suharto era was very centralized and controlled strictly by

the governmental policy. Education was used to indoctrinate ideology of Pancasila focusing

on the principle of the national unity and less on the principle of social justice. As a

consequence, people had less control on educational policy and institutions. However, in 90s

when the economic crisis showed signs, the civic movement and students found opportunities

to express their ideas against Soeharto’s oppressive regime. A group of people concerned

with democracy asked changes in educational policy to allow civil participations and to erase

ideological and political indoctrination practices done by the ruling power. They argued that

Pancasila as a national ideology should not be interpreted only based on the ruling ideas, but

its interpretations should come from all Indonesian people. It should be born in mind that

indoctrination of Pancasila as the single ideology of the country was done actively from the

20 

 
primary education to higher education under the state control. Only state regime had right to

interpret it.

Interestingly, none of Soeharto’s regime statements during that time expressed the

emerging threat of the global condition on the national development. I argue that his regime

willingness to introduce new initiatives in educational policies was influenced by the

deteriorating economic condition of the country. A movement to include groups that were

initially excluded from the system was in fact an indication of his weakening authoritarian

power. Many were excluded from the system due to political and ideological reasons, such as

Chinese descendents and religious activists. It is worth noting also that in 80s and 90s,

Soeharto tried to attract sympathy from the Muslim intelligentsias who were the main

streaming power among the middle class people. His willingness to inaugurate the

establishment of the national association of the Muslim intellectuals in 1990 was a big

question because he had taken a distance from Muslim activists from the beginning of his

regime.

Democratization and Decentralization Movement Started from Higher

Education
It seems that education during Soeharto’s regime had a special place in order to

support their modernization and industrialization program under the rhetoric of social justice

and prosperity for all. Nevertheless, policy dynamic during his administration had not been

played out significantly. I think this is much to do with his authoritarian direction using

national stability and security as a pretext. But, at the end his political direction could not

escape from the global world system. Emerging global economic crisis in 80s to 90s had

shaken his industrialization project. At the same time, it had allowed civil society movement

to challenge his power legitimacy. Interestingly, his regime leniency to listen to the people

voices who wanted changes in education system to include the excluded groups had only

21 

 
started to increase during the time of emerging economic crisis. Most of these groups were

excluded for political and ideological reasons. As a result, significant change in higher

education in 1994 was achieved four years before the end of Soeharto’s regime and beginning

of democracy in Indonesia.

This change in higher education policy orientation demanded the central government

to change management system in higher education to be autonomous in developing relevant

knowledge and culture to the development of the global world. They argued that mass and

decentralized governance of higher education would not improve the competitiveness of

higher education in Indonesia. On the other hand, there was strong demand to unify higher

education system under the same national standard to ease its management complexity. This

institutionalizing effort was legitimized through the release of the government regulation on

higher education regarding community participation in developing higher education in 1990.

As a result, a new board called National Accreditation Board (BAN) was established in 1994

under the ministerial decision letter, then renewed in 1998. Under this new policy, it was

stressed that both public and private higher education institutions would be treated in the

same way based on the same principle of quality assurance (Brojonegoro, 2001). This implies

the partial shift of the higher education control from the government to the civil society. On

the other hand, it implicitly indicates the direct impact of emerging economic crisis forcing

the central government to deregulate its relationship to the society.

I argue that the demand to unify higher education system under efficiency pretext as

well as the demand to unify education system to include the excluded groups was partly

influenced by the middle class interests to access educational policies in the country,

especially private and religious educational institutions. High quality private and religious

education systems were owned by the middle class people, both Muslims and Christians.

22 

 
 This policy and political direction had social impacts on individual access to higher

education at micro level. Like subsidies that were dominated by the better off families for

three decades of Soeharto’s regime through mass education system, decreasing subsidies

shifted the resources of inequality from the policy level problem to the market problem.

Giving the market opportunities to solve inequality of access problem often disadvantages

students from the lower income families because they have less economic and cultural power

to compete.

This change in higher education was called a change from an old paradigm to a new

paradigm of higher education. The core idea of this new paradigm is to decentralize higher

education system. Interestingly, the idea of decentralization was first introduced in higher

education, than introduced later in the government system in 1999. I argue that this is part of

the indicator of the emerging middle class forces played out mostly by intelligentsia groups

that have strong social networks within and outside education system. It cannot be denied that

democratization movement in the country was mainly supported and designed by many

scholars who had their higher education in western countries, especially the United States and

Australia. The current spokesman of the presidency, Andi Mallarangeng, who is a PhD

graduate from one of the American universities for example, was the main designer of the

government transition from centralized to decentralized system in 1998-1999. Another

important figure is Amin Rais, an earlier PhD graduate from an American university, was the

chair of the People Assembly during the transition time.

Preserving Class Position from the Bottom

During this time on the micro level, tracking practices from the early schooling age

within each school was popular to identify who were capable to go on education and who

were not. This was similar to what happened in American schools at some point as Lucas

(1999) described “tracking was designed not only to slot students into positions in the
23 

 
economy, but also to encourage the individual student to resign himself or herself to this lot

(p. 11-12)]. Schools were also increasingly stratified where better schools increased their

selection grade standards. Thus, those who are good students will go to the same schools. At

the same time, the government developed so-called “model schools”. They argued that these

model schools would become samples for other schools to improve their quality. However,

usually these model schools were used to legitimize the government success by claiming that

student success in these schools was the indicator of the government success in education

development. Importantly, these schools reflected a rational design to stratify social relations

through education because usually such schools only wanted to accept well-performed

students. Both “good” and “bad” quality schools during this time were practicing ability

grouping system where students were stratified into different class rooms according to their

academic ability under the rhetoric of intelligence testing. These class practices in education

at the micro level reflect the need of the dominant class to preserve their privileges.

Negotiating Class Interests in a New Democratic Environment within a Weakening

State (1998-2008)

Following the collapse of Soeharto’s regime in May 1998, there was a rapid change in

the structure of the national institution. The most important mode of change was a shift from

a centralized system to a decentralized system. It was argued that by shifting power from the

central government to the provinces, districts, and sub-districts would provide opportunities

for the people to participate in the process of national development. In other words, this will

motivate people to involve in the national development by giving them trust to do so. In order

to legalize this new political direction, the constitution of the country has experienced four

amendments. Along with this constitutional amendment, different legal products were

released. In 1999, the government released the Act of Sub-national Governance and the Act

of Financial Balance between Central Government and Sub-National Government.

24 

 
 Institutionalization: Negotiating Power Relations in Education
In education, in order to implement a decentralized system of education, the Act of

National Education Year 2003 was released to replace the Act of National Education Year

1989 that was considered incompatible with the latest development in the structure of the

national institutions. Following the release of this new act of education, several legal products

in education were produced. First, in 2005, the Act of Teacher and Lecturer released to

professionalize teaching jobs based on certification, educational qualification, and

credentiality. Second, in the same year, a government regulation on the National Education

Standard was released to set benchmark for the minimum quality of education required from

school and higher education institutions. This becomes the main parameter to determine

whether an education institution has done its tasks. In other words, power relations between

educational institutions and their customers are regulated and mediated by the government

through legal documents or texts. There was an “independent” institution established

involving education experts, mostly educational management, so-called National Education

Standard Board to monitor the implementation of this standard. Third, in 2005 the

government introduced to the public a legal bill called the Act of Educational Legal Entity.

This legal bill was severely criticized by the public and has not released until now. This legal

bill was blamed for supporting the privatization of education system from the primary level to

the higher education level. The government argued that by giving autonomy to schools,

colleges and universities to manage themselves, it would stimulate “positive” competition

among players in the market. As a result, according to the government, the quality of

education will be increased. The government will only provide financial supports for the

education institutions on merit base through grants. Similarly to the poor students, they will

be given financial supports if they can make high achievement.

25 

 
 The latest development was that the government had been considering changing the

ratio between general and vocational schools to be 30:70 (Kompas, July 28, 2008). The

government also has been considering reducing the number of schools offering social and

political sciences, humanity, and law. They argued that many college graduates from social

sciences became jobless because jobs relevant to their disciplines are not available. So, they

argued that job market in the current Indonesian society requires more graduates from

technical, economy, and IT schools (Kompas, February 11, 2008). This direction supports

strongly the notion of corresponding relations between education and division of labor. I

assume that such direction is directed by dominant groups who need human labor for their

business activities.

In higher education, as a consequence of the paradigm change and institutional

development in the country, the state launched a new government regulation in 1999 as a

legal basis to transform state public universities to become autonomous universities labeled

“State Legal Entity University”. Some called this process as a privatization action that will

lead to the exclusion of the underprivileged citizens from getting access to higher education.

But, most of the pro government people argued that this was the only way to get rid of any

problems associated with the underdeveloped condition of Indonesia’s higher education

compared to other neighboring countries’ higher education.

The state was proactive to realize this project by asking the four most established

universities (University of Indonesia, University of Gadjah Mada, Technology Institute of

Bandung, and Agriculture Institute of Bogor) to submit proposals to change their status.

Indeed, these four universities had changed to be state legal entity universities in 2000. As a

consequence, their bureaucracy was separated from the state and their management has

become more market oriented. This number has been increasing to be about ten universities

by then. I argue that these institutionalization processes and market problems are part of the
26 

 
class relation consolidation dominated by the middle class utilizing democracy to maintain

their privilege through state hegemony. On the other side, economic, market, and political

development at the global level has, to some extent, contributed to the dynamic of this class

relation through trans-national education co-operations under the demand to internationalize

education system. This internationalization project is expected to enable Indonesian

education system to compete at the global level.

Larger Participation, Higher Cost for Higher Education

How this policy and institutional change has affected access to higher education? As

shown in Table 3, cost to obtain a civil engineering degree from the public state legal entity

universities (i.e. ITB and UGM) has increased dramatically. Before their status changed, this

cost has been lower than private university because they were subsidized by the government.

The most affected student groups to have access to such expensive education are students

from the lower economy groups. However, it should be noted that the initial subsidies

distributed equally to all universities had also been dominated by the higher class student

groups.

Table 3: Costs of obtaining a civil engineering degree, public vs. private university
University Trisakti (Private) ITB (Public State UGM (Public State
Legal Entity) Legal Entity)
Donation 0 45 50
Annual fee 10-12 3.6 2.7
Practice fee 1.5 Unknown Unknown
Fee per subject Unknown Unknown
(U/G) 26-28 48.6 52.7
Total
NB. All fees and donations expressed in Millions of Rupiah (1US$=8.500 Rupiah)
Source: Tempo 1st June 2003, and Suara Merdeka 22nd June 2003
Adapted from Welch (2003)

I assume that this inequality occurs due to at least three recent developments. First,

inability of the government to control the middle class forces to dominate its public policy

decision within Indonesia’s education system. Second, unintended effect of the previous

27 

 
democratic movement that was directed by the middle class group who struggled against the

initial authoritarian state in order to have larger participation in education system. However,

their victory has direct effect on the less privileged people. Third, the global market forces in

education, especially higher education, have required equal standards to all education system;

no matter how the economic condition of a country where education system is located.

Universities that cannot fulfill this requirement will be excluded from the global market.

Global Control on Education

On international level, Indonesian schools participated in the international evaluation

program called TIMSS for math and sciences in 1999, 2003, and 2007, and PIRLS for

reading achievement in 2006. Indonesia participated also in the international higher education

association and regionally at the ASEAN higher education forum. Usually, studies done by

the organizing international institutions are used to make policy recommendations to the

countries participating in order to increase their performance in education. Furthermore,

international organizations that support these trans-national organizations provide technical

experts to help these countries to reform their education institutions in a way that is

recommended by their sponsoring organizations. Thus, educational policies made at the

domestic level are inevitably to some extent directed by these international organizations,

especially when the state control of the participating countries are experiencing economic and

political problems. I argue that middle class intelligentsia both who work for the government

and for the non-governmental organizations has played an important role in the processes of

this power relation construction.

Class Preservation from the Bottom Continued

Exclusion practices through selection mechanism also exist at the primary and

secondary schools. When the tracking system had not been welcomed anymore in schools

due to its discriminating force at individual level, other more hegemonic forms of exclusion

28 

 
mechanism replaced it – this relatively new practice had been found at the school level.

Schools had been stratified into national and international schools as a form of reward to the

schools that managed to perform well. Usually, these schools set a high grade standard for

entrance. Thus, only can well performed kids go to such prestigious schools. Operational

financial support provided by the government through public funding cannot change this

stratification because this financial support is distributed to schools (both public and private)

based on the number of students they have. Often, well performed schools have much more

students compared to less privileged schools. Most of the well performed schools have either

special international or local programs that are provided to serve the need of whom they call

talented or gifted student groups. Such kids usually come from better off families. Their

parents also contribute financially through donation program to the schools. Students who are

less privileged, if they want to go to higher education, have to compete for entrance exams

with these well prepared students academically, culturally and economically from the

beginning of their schooling experiences.

Another current resource of inequality in Indonesian education is the geographical

locations of schools and universities. This year 2008, the central government has decided to

allocate 20 percent out of the total annual budget for education sector in 2009. Sub-national

governments will be obliged to provide the same percentage of the financial support to help

education within their borders. The problem is that provinces and districts in the country have

large disparities in their economic capabilities. Thus, provinces and districts that are better

economically are most likely to provide higher amount of the financial allocation for

education program within their administrative borders.

Conclusion

Ability of an independent state to control policy depends on its economic power, class

structure, and structure of the global world system. Indonesia during Soekarno’s regime
29 

 
failed to implement its political and economic agendas because it did not have enough

economic power to carry out its agendas. In addition, it was not well prepared to develop a

significant collaboration with other developed countries due to uncertain political stance it

had within the global system that was divided to be the West Block (capitalism) and the

Eastern Block (communism). Soeharto’s regime had succeeded to control the country within

32 years, but when the global economic crisis emerged, it lost trust from the public to bring

justice and prosperity for the people. In addition, the global inter-connectivity and

interdependency as a result of the capitalist expansion facilitated by rapid development in

information and transportation technology had weakened the controlling power of the state.

Consequently, the way the state managed had to change from centralized system – that

heavily relied on an authoritarian leadership – to decentralized system where the authoritarian

leadership style must be changed to be democratic or participatory leadership. In this

condition, the status of the state was shifted from having a relatively absolute control on the

system to become a mediating actor. When the state becomes a mediator for many conflicting

interests, a tendency to apply rational capitalism on the principle of efficiency in managing

state institutions and services, such as education, increases. Interestingly, this tendency

becomes more salient when Indonesia was facing economic crisis. Economic crisis has forced

the state to partly give away its control to the market. Once its services marketized,

institutionalization through documents and organizations has emerged to facilitate social

relations in communicating interests. However, such document and organization are more

likely to reflect the interest of the capitalist where the middle class groups increasingly

become “opportunist parasite” that act ambiguously to protect their class interests, especially

during the time of uncertainty. Marger (2005) comments on the US situation as follows

The economic and social opportunity structures within which people must operate,
therefore, are fundamentally shaped by public policies (p. 203) … To understand how
capitalism as an economic system creates and assures inequality, we need to consider
30 

 
 the capitalist framework. The two most basic characteristics that shape economic
activity in capitalist society are the competitive pursuit of profit and the private
ownership of property … The confluence of capitalism and democracy thus seems to
create a contradiction. Capitalism is founded on liberty, which creates inequality;
democracy is founded on equality, that is, fairness for all (p.206).

Carnoy and Levin (1986) explain the US case during the previous global economic crisis,

The implicit message is that better education is a question of better “management”,

better teaching promoted by competition, and greater student discipline (p. 44).

Recent market oriented of the Indonesian education system, especially higher

education has shown how education has been managed and rationalized by establishing

different educational institutions and organizations boosted by legal documents. These

modernized bureaucratic institutions have operated in fact as a selection mechanism in

education at individual and institutional level. Standardization and measurability has become

“neutralized and objectified” devices to exclude less privileged students at the individual

level to perform educational and social mobility. On the other hand, these institutions also

have operated “objectively” to determine what schools and colleges “counted”. In order for

the school and university to gain more profit in local, national and international the market

they have to recruit those who are well established economically, politically and culturally.

Furthermore, under the influence of the internalization of education, educational institutions

compete to gain the best input to be counted and recognized internationally. Best input means

best students intellectually and economically. This rational exclusion has been performed

intentionally or unintentionally on behalf of modernization, development and

internationalization where the middle class expressed its interests ambiguously, but played

very important role.

Reference:

A. English

Allan, K. (2007). The social lens: An invitation to social and sociological theory. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications.
31 

 
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. K. Halsey, Power
and ideology in education (p. 487-510). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bowles, S. (1971). Unequal education and the reproduction of the social division of labor.
Review of Radical Political Economics, 3, 137-151.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Education and personal development. In S. B. Gintis,
Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of
economic life (pp. 125-148). New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Carnoy, M., & Levin, H. M. (1986). Educational reform and class conflict. Journal of
Education, 168(1), 35-46.

Durkheim, E. (1972). Education and Sociology. In A. Giddens, Emile Durkheim: Selected

works (p. 204). London: Cambridge University Press.

Fahmi, M. (2007). Indonesian higher education: The chronicle, recent development and the
new legal entity universities. Retrieved on November 12, 2008, from
http://mohamadfahmi.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/indonesian-higher-education-
mfahmi.pdf

Kassem, D. (2006). Global education: Global issues. In D. Kassem, Educational studies:

Issues and critical perspectives (pp. 197-198). Buckingham, BGR: Open University
Press.

Liechty, M. (2003). Suitably modern: making middle-class culture in a new consumer

society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high

schools. New York: Teacher College Press.

Mach, B. W. & Wesolowski, W. (1982). Social mobility and social structure. London:
Routledge & Kagen Paul.

Marceau, J. (1974). Education and social mobility in France. In Frank Parkin, The social
analysis of class structure (pp. 205-235). London: Tavistock Publications Limited.

Marger, M. (2005). Social inequality: Patterns and processes. Boston: McGrawHill.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1976). Collected works, 1848-90. London: ElecBook. 

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1975). Selected correspondence, 1846-95. London: Greenwood Press. 

Mohandas, R., Wei, M. H., & Keeves, J. P. (2003). Evaluation and accountability in Asian
and Pacific countries (p. 107-122). In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), International handbook of
educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (Part One). The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

32 

 
Nizam. (2006). The need for higher education reform. In UNESCO, Higher education in
East-Asia (pp. 35-68). Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for
Education.

Shipman, M. D. (1971). Education and modernization. London: Faber and Faber.

Weber, M. (2006). Class, status, party. In D. B. Grusky, & S. Szelenyi, Inequality: Classic
readings in race, class, and gender (pp. 35-53). Colorado: Westview Press.

Welch, A. R. (2003). Blurred vision? : Public and private higher education in Indonesia. High
Educ, 54, 665-687.

Wong, T. (2002). Hegemonies compared: State formation and Chinese school politics in
postwar Singapore and Hong Kong. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Wright, E. O. (Ed.) (2005). Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

B. Bahasa Indonesia

Brojonegoro, S. M. (2001). Implementasi paradigm baru di perguruan tinggi. In Fasli Jalal

and Dedi Supriadi, Reformasi pendidikan dalam konteks otonomi daerah (p. 361-412)
Yogyakarta: Adicita Karya Nusa.

Sarjadi, S. (1994). Kaum pinggiran kelas menengah quo vadis? Jakarta: Gramedia.

Tilaar, H. A. R. (1995). 50 tahun pembangunan pendidikan nasional 1945-1995: Suatu

analysis kebijakan. Jakarta: Grasindo.

SISDIKNAS (1989). Sistem Pendidikan nasional: Undang-undang republik Indonesia No. 2

Tahun 1989. Jakarta: Dharma Bhakti.

Kompas (July 29, 2008). Miopi kebijakan Pendidikan. Retrived on December 15, 2008, from
http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/07/29/01010686/miopi.kebijakan.pendidikan

Kompas (February 11, 2008). Jumlah pengangguran terdidik terus meningkat. Retrieved on
December 15, 2008, from
http://www.finetext.de/attachment/Artikel%20Pengangguran%20Kompas.pdf

33