Crisis in Higher Education

Way back in 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, in his convocation address at the University of Allahabad, said “a University stands for humanism, for tolerance, for reason, for progress, for the adventure of ideas, and for the search of truth. It stands for the onward march of the human race towards even higher objectives. If the Universities discharge their duty, then it is well with the nation and the people.”

The definition of a university, so succinctly summed up by the first Prime Minister of Independent India, has undergone a sea change over the last five decades. The Universities today are found wanting in many of the once cherished ideals. The primary reasons for the fast deterioration of these ideals is the continuous political interference in the academic administration of Universities and the grave situation in the financial sphere of higher education.

Unless some urgent steps are taken, it may lead to a real crisis. The current financial trends are so alarming as to drive many intellectuals to give a call for launching an “education emergency”.

The current situation
Few would contest that our universities and colleges, including those imparting professional education, are in bad shape today. Barring the rare exception, campuses across the country present a picture of breakdown-run-down and ill-managed buildings, libraries without books and journals, laboratories without equipment, derelict classrooms, and the list can be extended ad nauseum.

Equally depressing is the intellectual environment, with teachers often not teaching and students not learning. Of course, the former complain of being ill-paid, saddled with unrealistic workloads and that too without adequate facilities, constrained by outdated and irrelevant syllabi, buffeted by an intrusive bureaucracy and politicians and, worse, denied the social respect they once enjoyed.

As for the students, one often wonders what and how they learn. An unwelcoming environment, adverse teacher-student ratios, poor infrastructure and low access to learning aids, often absent teachers and frequent strikes-all contribute to engendering a crass attitude towards the university, a near exclusive focus on somehow acquiring the necessary degree, usually with the help of crammers and, for those who can afford it, private tuitions.

While India has the second largest system of higher education, next only to the US, the total number of students hardly represent 6 per cent of the relevant age group aged between 18 and 23 years, which is much below the average of developed countries (47 per cent) and less than that of developing countries, which is 7 per cent. With the expansion of school education, the pressure on the higher education system to expand is expected to continue in India.

For a country which, a few decades back, prided itself for being at least a Third World leader in matters of higher education, claimed to have the third largest scientific and technical work force in the world, and hoped to piggyback its growth path on its human resources, such a situation can only be described as alarming.

Higher education in India, which is predominantly a State funded and directed activity, is in deep financial strain, with escalating costs and increasing needs, on the one hand, and shrinking budgetary resources, on the other.

Faced with financial crises, the State and Central governments have not been able to allocate adequate resources for higher education. We are far behind the target of spending 6 per cent of GNP on education, as recommended by the Education Commission (1964-66).

Public expenditure on higher education as a share of GNP increased consistently until the 1980s. In fact, in the late 1970s, India was spending almost one per cent of GNP on higher education. This trend changed in the 1980s and its share reduced to 0.56%.

From the mid-1980s onwards, especially after the National Policy on Education, the focus of discussions and priority in allocation shifted towards elementary education. From 1970s onwards there was a consistent decline in the share of allocations to higher education, reaching the lowest share of 7% in the Eighth Plan.

The actual expenditure on higher education, however, increased manifold, from Rs 14 crore in the first Five-Year plan to Rs 84,943 crore in the eleventh Plan, at current prices.

In 1950-51, the government and private sources shared the expenditure on higher education equally. More importantly, fees accounted for nearly 37% of the total recurring expenditure on higher education. However, by 1985-86 more than 80% of the expenditure came from government sources. Correspondingly, there was a decline in other sources of funding for higher education. The trends in the financing of higher education in India show that: (i) the share of the government in total educational expenditure has increased; (ii) the share of higher education in the total public education expenditure has declined, both in plan allocation and in recurring expenditure; and (iii) student fees and endowments as a share of total resources for higher education have declined. Consequently, the share of government expenditure in total spending on higher education has increased.

Thus, higher education in India is characterised by massive public investment, though the investment is still regarded as much below optimum.

Reforms needed
Most of the reform measures recommended in higher education centre around two major propositions—improving efficiency in the functioning of public institutions, on the one hand, and mobilizing resources from non-governmental sources, on the other. The former category of reform measures focus on efficiency in resource use so that more resources are available even when additional resources are not allocated to the sector. A general trend in these reform measures is to shift the burden of cost from the public to private and household domains.

In the Indian context, two important committees were appointed to recommend measures to respond to the demand for funds for education. The Swaminathan Committee (AICTE, 1994) looked into possibilities of resource mobilization in technical education and the Punnayya Committee (UGC 1993) looked into the funding of central universities. The AICTE panel felt that institutions of technical education should have enrolments in the range of 1,500-2,000, with a minimum annual intake of 180, and with an intake of 40-60 for every course discipline. The Committee also suggested staff-student ratios to vary between 1 : 15 and 1 : 20. The report on technical education strongly advocated the possibility of rationalizing teaching workload and reducing the share of salaries in recurring expenditure from 80% to 60%. It also advocated reducing the share of regular faculty to 60% and appointing the remaining 40% of the staff on a part-time and contract basis.

Other experts have suggested that universities must reduce their staff drastically and ideal of ratio of teaching and non-teaching staff 1:1.5 should be achieved, which would mean massive outsourcing of various activities like security, sanitation, messenger services, data entry, maintenance of buildings, etc.

The universities could also resort to innovative methods of saving the money by optimum utilisation of space, centralised purchase system, centralised admission process, development of a network of higher education institutions and sharing of physical and faculty resources.

Reforms relating to mobilisation of resources include, promotion of distance learning, encouragement of private sector and cost-recovery methods. The overall constraint in resources calls for private initiative and community support. In the mixed economy of India, while the contribution of private sector has been significant in general, its contribution to higher education has not been encouraging.

In the 1980s a large number of 'capitation fee colleges' (aided or unaided), offering professional courses, especially engineering and medical, were set up in the private sector. The system of capitation fee began first in Karnataka and soon spread to Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. The July 1992 judgement by the Supreme Court, however, held that the capitation fee system represented a potent denial of a citizen's right to education under the Constitution.

It was not just lack of State funds that allowed the unbridled growth of the capitation fee phenomenon. Most such private initiatives came from caste-based associations of lower and middle castes in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. They had been looking at their own socio-economic upliftment in the face of oppression from upper caste Brahmins. However, over a period of time these objectives underwent change and acquired an entrepreneurial character, wherein profit became a major motivator.

Such private colleges mushroomed with little concern for providing quality education. Rather than using the rush of admissions to professional courses to impose higher academic standards, the State governments allowed the managements of these private colleges their quota of seats, which were filled for political and other non-academic considerations.

There were compelling reasons why State governments yielded to the pressure of various sectional minorities and entrepreneurial interests in order to protect the private managements of such institutions. The managements maintained a close link with vested interests-caste leaders, politicians, businessmen and government officials. Community and caste colleges were often supported by religious leaders and their mutts and served as vote banks for caste leaders.

Efforts to privatise higher education in India, by encouraging private agencies to set up institutions of higher learning, have enjoyed limited success in general education. Pure or “unaided” private colleges do provide financial relief to the government in providing higher education, but at huge and long-term economic and non-economic cost to the society. The growth of private sector has led to two types of distortions: (i) it encourages only certain courses, especially professional courses; (ii) it adversely affects equity considerations in education, since admissions are based more on the ability to pay principle than on merit.

Advocates of privatization say that it would at least take care of those segments of the demand for higher education that can afford to pay the prices charged by the private institutions. State universities are over centralised, bureaucratic and monopolistic, thwarting the impending ideas of students and professors subordinate to the government. They often play the tune of political masters, who keep changing.

Most of the times, the vice-chancellors are appointed on political considerations. They bring politics in universities and the scholarship is driven out. Research is given a back seat. Private universities have existed in the US for last hundred years. The standard of education in them, and the quality of research output, vis-a-vis that of the State controlled universities, is superior. The best universities (like MIT, Boston) are private. Private universities in India will break the monopoly of the State universities and provide relief from all ills of State universities

However, while setting private colleges, utmost care must be taken to ensure that the same does not lead to rampant commercialization of higher education. To this end, necessary control and monitoring mechanism must be developed to ensure quality education at reasonable cost.

Cost recovery and current issues in financing
Heeding the advice of their American counterparts, many experts have declared higher education a non-merit good deserving little or no subsidy. Basically, the argument that higher education is a non-merit good proceeds as follows: College education enables a student to get better paid jobs, more prestigious jobs and more secure jobs too. Therefore, the college graduate earns a private benefit from higher education. Hence, it is not fair to burden the taxpayer with the cost of such education. So, higher education does not merit a subsidy, at any rate not much subsidy.

However, this is only one side of the story. Graduates may earn a lot, but they may contribute a lot more to the economy and to society. For example, a scientist working at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre may earn ten times the national average wage. That is undoubtedly an enormous private benefit. At the same time, if poor but capable students are prevented from studying, and therefore, less able persons alone are available for space research, who would suffer more—the individual or the economy at large?

Cost-recovery implies a reduction in subsidies in higher education. The best way to reduce subsidies is to diversify the sources of funding for higher education. This could be done by shifting the financial burden either to the beneficiaries (students) or to their users (employers). Student loans, graduate tax and enhancing fees are some of the suggestions made in this regard. Loan scholarships have been suggested as a cost recovery method. One advantage of the student loan scheme is that the incidence of liability is confined to those persons who take advantage of the public provision.

A student loan scheme can create two types of distortions. First, professional courses which enjoy a premium in the employment market will be preferred, at the expense of others which are important from the point of social and national concerns, both by the providers of loans and borrowers. Second, when banks try to provide educational credits to students they look for surety and security deposits, which poor students are not in a position to provide. Moreover, even if poor students get loans, education does not guarantee employment. With no employment or no ability to repay, people from relatively poorer sections will be worst affected.

Another commonly suggested measure to recover the cost of higher education is through a graduate tax. The graduate tax is an education specific tax levied on those companies in production sector that use educated manpower. The major drawback with the scheme is that it might create distortions in the employment market as many employers may use lower level educated manpower as a substitute, instead of recruiting university graduates.

Another cost recovery method in higher education is to increase fee rates. Generally, it is felt that the levels of fees in higher education in India are very low and that there exists much scope for increase in the fee and for rationalisation of the fee structure. This is more so in case of higher technical education.

In order to avoid deprivation of poor but deserving person to avail of such education, the provision of scholarship and loan funds may be made. Schemes such as "earn while learning", under which students work in labs, libraries, etc., and earn money, could also be launched. The cross-subsidisation of education will, thus, ensure equitable access to higher education. In view of the resource crunch, to optimise cost effectiveness, financial assistance to universities should be based on vigorous assessment of their performance.

The present "covering the deficit" approach of university funding discourages saving, economy or generation of internal funds. Universities should also open their campuses abroad or tie up with universities and institutions to offer their programmes for mobilizing funds and providing education in the countries where such education is in demand. This assumes importance, as education in 21st century will be international in character, placing emphasis on quality, with partnerships and networks being important.

Similarly, universities may engage in consultancy services and patents should be taken out for the discoveries and innovations made by the faculty and students. Universities may also rent out their premises during vacations / after class hours on commercial and semi-commercial basis.

Other sources of income will also have to be boosted up by encouraging private donations and endowments, strengthening community participation and establishing industry-university linkages.

Quality improvement
Quality of higher education in the country is deteriorating with expansion. It is said that only about five per cent of the colleges in India are maintaining anything like satisfactory academic standards. Evaluation of the performance of the students in the examinations is the common method by which the quality of education is determined.

However, the subjective elements that are inextricably linked with the quality determining methods in the education system, make the task of measuring the quality of education a difficult one.

The quality of education of a student depends on various factors, like the teaching to which he is exposed, educational facilities and environment available in the institution and his own temperament and approach to studies. By subjecting the students to a test for a few hours at the end of a course and classifying the students into different categories on the basis of performance in examinations, is only to make the superficial, unrealistic and unfair classification.

For improving the academic standards, steps must also be expeditiously taken for (a) improving the efficiency of teachers (b) to provide the minimum required infrastructure (c) to see that examinations in all colleges are conducted in a fair manner without malpractices.

Decentralization and autonomy to institutions of higher education is perhaps one solution to the problems connected with evaluation reforms. If colleges become autonomous, continuous assessment of students, performance and use of diversified methods, instead of only written tests, can be adopted. But care must be taken by some supervisory mechanism to see that subjectivity is not increased in these institutions.

However, it is to be noted that quality assurance in education cannot be only student-centric, but should also be society-oriented, as society supports the education system. Every educational institution needs to set out its mission to meet the expectations of society and its people and the country at large. In the context of quality control and maintenance of quality in higher education,
UGC has set up an autonomous Inter-University Institution for quality assessment and accreditation. This is named as National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and it was set up in 1994.

Objective of NAAC is to assess and accredit institutions of higher learning in India, including universities and colleges, with an objective of stimulating the academic environment and quality of teaching and research, encouraging innovations, self-evaluation and accountability in higher education. Several universities and colleges have offered themselves for this assessment, which is a voluntary process.

Modernising higher education
A student pursuing higher education in India gets much less choice than his peer in the West, where one can specialise in aeronautical engineering and can also learn to play the piano as a part of the overall credit requirement, or can study biochemistry, calculus and linear algebra at the same time—a possibility unthinkable in India where the higher education system rigidly follows the anachronous Oxford-Cambridge model of education supply (fixed courses with watertight syllabus for each degree programme).

Also, we certainly need to take a second look at the current pre-degree programme. Does a student' need such an over-specialisation at such a young age? What if a student who has chosen a medical stream does not get into medicine, but would like to major in physics or chemistry, both of which require a sound knowledge of mathematics.

A credit-based semester system is ideal since it offers maximum flexibility in terms of course offerings, course selection, faculty and student schedules, and optimum use of existing facilities.

Recommended changes in college education system include, review of pre-degree programme, the value of a four-year undergraduate study, credit based semester system, the need of an orientation programme for new students, diverse majors and minors, 'double major system, change from teacher centered method to learner centre method of learning, and the relevance of technology in the classroom.

Other challenges include, framing an academic calendar, providing for the stipulated minimum working days, annual up-dation of curricula, examination reform, restoring quality to distance education courses, evaluation and assessment of performance of teachers, skill up-gradation of faculty, making foolproof evaluation of doctoral dissertations to improve research work, clear policy for granting permanent affiliation to courses and colleges and fixing
norms for teachers.

A disturbing development of the 1990s has been the influx of foreign universities that prefer to enter into partnership with professional organisations and little-known institutes that do not form part of the Indian higher education system. The activities of such universities need to be discouraged.

There is also an urgent need for making vocational courses more purposeful, result-oriented and rewarding. At present, most vocational courses are seen as inferior and expensive.

Despite the expansion that has occurred, it is evident that the system is under stress to provide a sufficient volume of skilled human power, which is equipped with the required knowledge and technical skills to cater to the demands of the economy. The accelerated growth of our economy has already created shortages of high-quality technical manpower. Unlike the develop countries, where the young working age population is fast shrinking with higher dependency ratios, India has a demographic advantage with about 70% of the population below the age of 35 years. But this advantage can only be realised if we expand opportunities for our youth on a massive scale and in diverse fields of basic science, engineering and technology, health care, architecture, management, etc. This is possible only if we initiate rapid expansion along with long overdue reforms in the higher, technical, and professional education sectors.

Last, but not the least, effective measures should be initiated to check the canker of corruption. There is considerable degradation of quality standards, thanks to corrupt practices prevalent in many universities. The sycophancy culture has spoiled the academic atmosphere. Negative trade unionism and petty politics should have no place in temples of learning.

To meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, and to acquire a competitive edge, the higher education system has to transform to make it more socially relevant, information and technology-oriented, diversified, going beyond areas of specialisation and of high quality. The skills and specialisation of graduates produced by our system should match the real needs of the productive sectors in the market place, and the changing needs of our society.