swadeshi jagran manch logo

Higher Education: Tread with caution

Education can’t be treated as a private good; instead, it should be considered as a merit good. Impliedly therefore State cannot abdicate from its responsibility of providing high quality University system. — Dr. Jaya Kakkar

 

During 2020-21 student enrolment in higher education institutions (HEI) touched 4.1%, a hike of 7.5% from 2019-20 and 2.1% from 2014-15. The gross enrolment ratio too hit 27.3%: female enrolment was 2.1 crore. The number of universities increased in 2020-21 by 70 compared with 2019-20 while the colleges freshly added were 1453. There were 1043 HEI, out of these 184 are centrally funded, while the rest are state funded.

However, poverty of investment in India, which seeks to be a knowledge society, is rather abysmal. India spends only 2.9% of its GDP on average on education. India has got its priorities muddled up. Education or even health and nutrition by way of investment has no takers in the ruling dispensation, even though there is conclusive evidence that investment in these areas are fundamental to the growth of economy, society, and culture of our nation. Widespread education can not only add to our overall prosperity but also has the capacity to bridge the gap between haves and have-nots. Perhaps even ideological transition in the society overtime has contributed to neglect of education, including in the tertiary sector: under the neoliberal thinking state is gradually withdrawing from public welfare; this has led to privatization of education, including, now, an invitation to foreign universities in India. 

Many economists view education as ‘public good’ with loads of positive externalities, or at least ‘merit good’ (that is a good that can be supplied through market, but in the best interest of society is provided as a public good, divorced from profitability consideration). But in India now it is considered as a private good, standardized, commodified, packaged, and sold on the basis of demand and supply principles. Those who do not have the purchasing power may not be able to sample the good since it will be beyond the reach. On one hand this has led to opening up of private domestic universities (Jindal, Shiv Nadar, Ashok and many more), and on the other there is an open invitation to foreign universities to come and make their offers. 

Yet the fact remains that education is not a homegenised commodity which consists of identical ideas that can be imported on any soil with equal efficiency and effectiveness. Simply untrue. If a UK or US university comes to India then will it teach the works of Dadabhai Naoroji or an RC Dutt? Will it agree with the established view that underdevelopment has linkage with imperialism? Colonialism will not likely be a part of the curriculum. Even in sciences since we have our own unique set of problems (providing water, sanitation, inexpensive electricity …. ) our course contents will need to be necessarily different from those that find place in foreign universities’ curriculum. If we are finding pearls of wisdom and knowledge in our ancient past (say, vedic mathematics, naturopathy, ayurveda …) will these foreign universities make these a part of their teaching? Indubitably, no.

Thus, the need is to vocalize the need for better public education, including at the tertiary level.

If we go by NIRF (National Institutional Ranking Framework) ranking of HEI we find that most Indian universities perform abysmally, particularly the state run HEIs. This is mainly due to their poor financial health. This is turn adversely affects their scores on all parameters teaching, learning, and resources, research and professional practices, graduation outcomes, outreach and inclusively and therefore overall perception. They suffer from very poor academic and administrative infrastructure. Even in Delhi University, from where this author comes as a student and teacher, a class may consist of 100-150 students while the classroom may not be able to accommodate more than 50 students!

Most universities inherently suffer from having poor academic performance indicators, including faculty strength, teacher student ratio, learning resources, physical infrastructure … the list is endless. Handholding by reputed universities and active collaborations to provide academic assistance, research guidance, etc. can partially ameliorate the problems faced by their poor cousins. This should stop brain drain and save previous foreign exchange.

Instead, we are moving in the direction of establishing a three tiers system. At top will come the foreign universities (as and when they come) which will have almost unfettered freedom in appointing their own staff (local or foreign), on their own terms, and devise their own curriculum. They will of course fix their own admission process and fee structure. Then come the private universities (some of them no doubt doing great job, and most others in business of money minting) which enjoy most privileges extended to foreign universities, though not all: for example, they may not override political compulsions. Finally come the publicly funded HEIs which have many restrictions imposed on them. Thus, first of all of course they always suffer from resource crunch. They cannot appoint foreign faculty. Nor, the appointment of domestic faculty is free from controversies their course structure and curriculum contents are prescribed by UGC guidelines. Research funds are tied to set domains and topics and grants are inadequate and falling.

Public universities have traditionally charged very low fees. Now the Union government is advocating a falling dependence on state funds; instead, fees should be hiked and resources should be privately generated, it is suggesting. This has led to protests on one hand and meritorious (but underprivileged) students dropping out due to financial constraints. Private universities, many of them, adopt suspect practices as regards admissions, catering mainly to well off students, indigent students have to stay away. And now foreign universities are being invited which will plant an unfamiliar – and perhaps unsuitable – seed on Indian soil. This model is moving in the direction of a three-tiered HEIs where access will be dictated by ‘ability to pay’ principle and not ‘need to have’ basis. The potential learners will be divided by inequalities of class and wealth. Majority would be deprived of ‘quality’ education rooted in Indian ethos and needs of the society. We will suffer in developing human resources suited to our needs. Unfortunately, education philanthropy in India is not half as widespread as, say, for religious purposes. To an average wealthy Indian, the way to go is to donate to a religious charity/temple rather than funding the educational needs of a deprived child.

Having said it all, still the fact remains that our public university system has been organically adopted to the needs of our nation; it has developed a suitable ecosystem. We need to admit and reform its shortcomings and not supplant it by another ‘market-based education’ model.              

Share This

Click to Subscribe