Higher Education in India: Issues, Concerns,
Challenges and Expectations
By: Dr. Deepak Sharma
INTRODUCTION
Higher education in
India has expanded rapidly over the past two decades. This growth has been mainly driven by private sector initiatives. There are genuine concerns about many of them being substandard and exploitative. Due to the government’s ambivalence on the role of private sector in higher education, the growth has been chaotic and unplanned. The regulatory system has failed to maintain standards or check exploitation. Instead, it resulted in erecting formidable entry barriers that have generated undesirable results. Voluntary accreditation seems to have no takers from amongst private providers and apparently serves little purpose for any of its stakeholders.
The higher education system in
India grew rapidly after independence.
[1] By 1980, there were 132 universities and 4738 colleges in the country enrolling around five per cent of the eligible age group in higher education. Today, while in terms of enrolment,
India is the third largest higher education system in the world (after
China and the
USA) with 17973 institutions (nearly 500 universities and 31,000 colleges) and is the largest higher education system in the world in terms of number of institutions.
[2]
There are different types of universities and colleges in the higher education system in the country. They vary in terms of their academic, administrative and financial arrangements. Universities can either be established by an Act of Parliament or by the state legislatures. Those established by the Act of Parliament are the central universities and the ones set up by the state legislatures are state universities. Some higher education institutions are granted the ‘deemed university’ status by the central government through gazette notifications. A few institutions are established by the Parliament / state legislatures as institutions of national importance. Universities, deemed universities and institutions of national importance are degree-granting institutions.
The expansion of higher education system in
India has been chaotic and unplanned. The drive to make higher education socially inclusive has led to a sudden and dramatic increase in numbers of institutions without a proportionate increase in material and intellectual resources. As a result, academic standards have been jeopardised. There are many basic problems facing higher education in
India today. These include
inadequate infrastructure and facilities, large vacancies in faculty positions and poor faculty, outmoded teaching methods, declining research standards, unmotivated students, overcrowded classrooms and widespread geographic, income, gender, and ethnic imbalances. There is an inadequate and diminishing financial support for higher education from the government and from society. Many colleges established in rural areas are non-viable, are under enrolled and have extremely poor infrastructure and facilities with just a few teachers. Apart from these, the system of higher education has met several setbacks with regard to its regulatory framework, funding and finances and the much debated and controversial move of privatization of higher educational institutions. These underlying issues will be identified and addressed in the paper.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this paper is to identify the major issues, concerns, challenges and expectations relating to higher education in India.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
The scope of this paper is limited to the identification and study of the major issues, concerns, challenges and expectations in the Indian higher education system.
MODE OF CITATION
A uniform mode of citation is used throughout the paper.
SOURCES OF DATA
This paper is based on researched compiled from numerous articles, working papers, statistical data case laws and my own views.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following questions are sought to be addressed in the course of this paper:
· What are the major issues and problems affecting higher education in
India?
· Why is the existing regulatory mechanism problematic for the growth and development of higher education in the country?
· How can student loans help in improving the accessibility of higher education?
· How can the issues discussed in the paper be addressed to resolve the existing conflicts?
ISSUES & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
___________________________________________________________
v Poor quality of graduates – lack skills for employability
Only 10% of graduates are directly employable
Only 25% of engineering graduates are directly employable (Infosys, an IT giant, last year sorted through 1.3 million applicants only to find that around two percent were qualified for jobs.)
Quality of education delivered in most institutions is very poor. While India has some institutions of global repute delivering quality education, such as (Indian Institute of Management) IIMs and (Indian Institute of Technology) IITs, we do not have enough of them.
Very narrow range of course options are offered
Education is a seller’s market – lack of competition – no incentive to provide quality education.
Increasing number of students going abroad for higher education which is a drain on foreign exchange resources and also on the students and/or their parents’ finances.
Lack of attractiveness in teaching as a profession – there is clearly a lack of educated educators – Teaching is not an attractive profession – it’s a last choice in terms of career.
Ø Number of Ph.D.s produced each year is very low – those required by academia is far higher. In fact, at many institutions fresh graduates are employed to teach, leading to poor quality of classroom instruction.
Ø Industry having to invest a lot of resources in training new hires – not every organization is in position to set up requisite training infrastructure
Ø Most of the education institutions esp. in states such as Maharashtra and states in South India are owned by politicians – Education system which is highly regulated by the government has been set up to benefit politicians.
A regulator in higher education usually has five functions:
(1) Entry: license to grant degrees;
(2) Accreditation: quality benchmarking;[3]
(3) disbursement of public funds;
(4) Access: regulation of access through stipulation of fees or affirmative action; and
(5) License: provision of licenses to practice profession. Apart from the first function the University Grants Commission (UGC) is responsible for all the others.
Higher education in
India is coordinated by several agencies. While most of the general higher education falls within the jurisdiction of the UGC. Professional institutions are coordinated by different bodies. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is responsible for coordination of
Technical and Management Educational Institutions. The other statutory bodies are the Medical Council of India (MCI), Central Council of Indian Medicine, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) etc. Each one of them has specific powers relating to the area with which it is concerned. For instance, the Medical Council of India (MCI) deals with medical education and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) with technical education etc. Another coordinating agency, the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) plays an important role as an agency of dissemination of information and as an advisor to both the government and UGC and Universities
[4]. Each one of them has a specific role to play and it is for the ministry of HRD to deal with how they coordinate their functioning with one another. With a number of professional councils in existence, overlapping of functions could not be avoided
[5].
PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
· Problem of coordination – gaps and overlaps in functioning
· Non-transparent processes
· Judicial interventions
· Regulatory system fails to maintain standards despite formidable entry barriers;
· Major criticism remains that of over-centralization; Lack of institutional autonomy and accountability; very slow response to changes;
Much of the state of higher education in our country can be attributed to the system of governance and regulation. The system of command and control implicit in the functioning of universities is unworkable and does not promote accountability. These institutions are constantly subjected to governmental pressures and intrusion of political processes. The other cause of poor governance is the system of affiliating colleges to the university which yields revenue for the university through fees. There are a total of about 31,000 colleges, out of which a mere 1.4 percent are autonomous. The rest are affiliated to universities
[6]. Many universities have more than 100 affiliated colleges and there are some with more than 400 affiliated colleges each. Usmania is such a university which affiliated more than 1,000 colleges
( “Hindustan” Daily news paper 9th june 2011 UGC chairman statement).
With so many affiliated colleges the universities become bulky structures. The need for joint examinations of affiliated colleges prompts standardisation and dilution of curricula and examinations with inadequate emphasis on flexibility in response to changing and varying needs of students.
A characteristic weakness of regulatory regimes in
India is that they concentrate on motives and intentions rather than on likely outcomes. Nowhere is this more the case than in education. While the legislatures have often designed regulation badly, the courts have compounded these fallacies. In
State of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Education Society [7], the Supreme Court held that the consent of the State government is necessary before starting an engineering college and the AICTE cannot grant approval without this consent. But the grounds on which this determination was made is astonishing. The Court held that ‘‘the State authorities alone can decide about educational facilities and the needs of the locality. If there are more colleges in a particular area the state would not be justified in granting permission to one more college in that locality’’
[8]. There may be good reasons to involve state governments in granting permissions, but this argument is premised on faulty logic. The court’s assumption that competition will not be good for the locality, both in terms of price and quality is questionable. Agglomeration of institutions in a locality is often a good thing for education as in the case of
Cambridge, Massachusetts etc. As one commentator correctly observes, “In case there is no government money involved, except for usual zoning considerations, why should the state exclude more colleges from coming up in a locality? This ruling is symptomatic of the rather odd character of our regulations”
[9].
With this, the Supreme Court has done away with the concept of educational centres. Many areas like
Boston in the
USA have grown as educational centres and provide many common facilities and an academic environment conducive to higher education. Agglomeration of education institutions has been well accepted world wide and the State Uttar Pradesh and Haryana has declared setting up of an ‘
Knowledge Park’ Noida and ‘
Education City’ in Kondli. Karnataka, Andhra and Tamil Nadu in
India are examples in this context where many private colleges have found a base in a region and are doing well
[10].
In addition to this, the UGC Act section 3.1.2(a) suggests that an additional institution will be permitted only if the Commission is satisfied that the existing institutions in the state are not adequate to serve the needs of the state. If this suggestion is followed rigidly no quality competition would take place between institutions. Thus,
India needs a regulatory system which promotes the growth of competition as a means to enhance institutional quality. An independent regulator has to be the cornerstone of such a system
[11].
The gross enrolment rate of higher education in
India is roughly not more than 6.5 per cent
[12]. This will need to be doubled in the next decade. This involves thousands of crores of Rupees of investment. Since the Government will not be able to meet the requirement, all other sources of funds need to be tapped as well. There is a serious mismatch of demand and supply
[13]. The size of demand and its projected growth, clearly indicate the need for new institutions imparting quality education in subject areas of contemporary relevance and job opportunities. Quality can be ensured only if there is sufficient competition among institutes to attract talented students and provide choices and innovative subject combinations. Unfortunately, the Indian regulatory regime tends to stunt supply rather than increase it
[14] .
RECOMMENDATIONS BY VARIOUS COMMISSIONS
A National Knowledge Commission (NKC) was accordingly set up to prepare a blue print to tap in to the enormous reservoir of knowledge base to confidently face the challenges of 21st century. Some other important recommendations of NKC on expansion include change in the system of regulation for higher education, increase in public spending and diversifying sources of financing and establishment of 50 national universities. The Commission perceiving confusion and overlap in mandates of multiplicity of regulatory agencies has recommended establishment of an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE) which should be at an arm’s length from all stake holders including Government of India [15]. IRAHE conceptualized by NKC is to be set up by an Act of Parliament and would be the only agency authorised to accord degree granting powers. “The purpose of creating an IRAHE is to separate these functions. The proposed IRAHE shall be responsible for setting the criteria and deciding on entry. It would, in addition, license agencies to take care of accreditation. The role of the UGC will be limited to disbursing public funds. Issues of access will be governed by state legislation on reservations and other forms of affirmative action. And, professional associations may, in some institutions set requirements to determine eligibility for conducting a profession”[16].
The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India set up another Committee, post- NKC, under the chairmanship of eminent physicist and a former Chairman of UGC, Prof. Yashpal, to guide the efforts at reforms process. This Committee known as the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education submitted its report in June 2009 and advised a different structure and role for the regulatory authority than the one suggested by NKC. Prof Yashpal Committee maintained that a holistic view of knowledge requires a regulatory system which treats the entire range of educational institutions in a holistic manner. The Committee recommended a single, all encompassing higher education authority since it considered all higher education including engineering, medicine, agriculture, law and distant education as an integrated whole. This Committee noted that there were 13 professional Councils created under various Acts of Parliament to promote and regulate specialised areas of education and underlined the need to bring them under a national apex body for bringing greater coordination and integration in the planning and development of higher education system including research as already envisaged in the National Policy of Education (1986) and the Plan of Action (1992). The Committee accordingly proposed to create an apex body to subsume academic functions of all professional bodies to be called The National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER)[17].
CHALLENGES & PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
___________________________________________________________
v Huge demand supply gap – not just in terms of number of seats available but more so in terms of seats available in institutions who offer quality education
Eg. 290000 applications received for CAT – 2008, entrance exam for admissions to IIMs – only 1700 get admission – only 1 out of every 170 students who take CAT will make it to the IIMs. Number of applicants went up by 28% in 2008.
IIT-JEE – > 3.95 applicants in 2009 competing for ~7000 seats – average 56 students competing for 1 seat.
About 2 lakh students compete for the 77 seats available at AIIMS – a premier medical education institution in India
9,500 seats in National Institutes of Technology (NIT) invited more than two lakh applications
(if you factor in seat reservations, the students in “open” category face much stiffer competition than indicated above)
India has birth rate of 25 million per year – developed countries have 1/3rd of students going to college. If India were to meet the same standard, it will need 8-9 million graduate seats in college and it has only 4.5 million today.
Regulatory framework – antiquated, “not for profit” requirement to set up educational institutions – major obstacle in attracting serious players and investments
There is huge obsession with capacity creation – but emphasis should be much more on quality – how is it that we can create quality capacity?
Parents only treat engineering, medicine as only choices for graduation – they are unable to appreciate attractiveness of new specialized industry oriented programs that are launched in the country
India has a very large number of talented students but many of these feel rejected for not making it to IITs and IIMs due to lack of capacity – they end up going abroad for education
One of the striking features of the development of higher education in
India over the last few decades has been the extent to which private institutions have entered the scene and attempted to respond to the massive demand for education at the post-secondary level. This is particularly true in the fields of engineering, medicine, and management, and much less at the broader level of university education. The strong emergence of the private sector is reflected in the funding pattern: While the government’s share in overall education expenditure has declined from 80 percent in 1983 to 67 percent in 1999, private expenditure on education has increased more than ten times over the same period.
[18]
Till the late 1990s, the expansion of higher education largely took place through affiliated colleges. By then, many promoters of private unaided colleges began to realise that the regulatory mechanisms of the affiliating university and state governments were inhibiting their growth and did not allow them to fully exploit their market potential. The promoters were not able to make money from their educational enterprises. Such institutions explored the possibilities of emerging out of the control of the state governments and the affiliating universities. Some of the institutions took the deemed to be university route to get the degree granting powers.[19] Commercial private higher education emerges from market forces and tied to economic and global forces. They thrive on the principles of commercialism, primarily focus on vocational courses and highly pragmatic. Their commercial thrust is training jobs, indeed, part of the curriculum is industrial training. Not only training for jobs but also place their students in well-paid jobs.[20]
In two conflicting judgements of the Supreme Court, the issue of ‘Capitation Fee Colleges’ was addressed. In 1992, the Supreme Court in St. Stephens v. University of Delhi[21] practically banned high fees charging private colleges stating that capitation fee is ‘‘potentially unreasonably unfair and unjust’’.[22] The following year, in Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[23] the court reviewed the state’s right to interfere in the admission policy and the fee structure of private professional institutions. In this context, the court ruled that education was a fundamental right which could not be used for profit seeking. The very fact that education is a right and not a service (the definition of a service suggests that it is rendered as a part of a commercial transaction) has been used time and again to escape punishment by consumer courts as by implication it does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. However, even in the interpretation of education as a service, courts have been divided. For example, the Kerala High Court did entertain a complaint about the quality of education by a student who had paid capitation fees. In 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the judgement in the Unni Krishnan case saying that a private unaided institution could also make a reasonable surplus to meet the cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities.[24] Thereafter, elaborate mechanisms were developed by the Government that helped in proliferation of self-financing capitation fee colleges in the country. Today, such colleges, especially in engineering and management outnumber public institutions several times over, especially in the Southern States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.[25] However there are concerns that such reckless growth of colleges has led to deterioration in quality. The Government has appointed several Committees to study the impact of privatization of higher education in the country.[26]
It is clear, on the one hand, that in order to meet the massive demand for higher education, India will need to attract significant private investment in terms of both philanthropy and individual fees; even with a major reshuffling of spending priorities in the public sector, the overall investment needed is likely to exceed significantly whatever public funds will be available in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, there are persistent and fairly well-documented claims that the existing political, regulatory and judicial context is not at all conducive to the adequate mobilization of private resources and energies for higher education.[27] The constraining nature of the regulatory framework applies particularly to private institutions; the need for affiliating such institutions to public universities is a case in point. As one author states, “The requirement that all private colleges grant degrees through existing universities is, with rare exceptions, a real deterrent to innovation. And it corrupts the state system further because often universities pretty much sell these affiliations. If the intent of this affiliation was quality control, the intent has failed.”[28]
With the advent of privatization, there has been an enormous growth in the number of private professional colleges. This rapid growth has no doubt contributed to a quantitative increase in the number of colleges providing higher education but this has been at the cost of quality. Most private colleges although adhering to standard admission procedures like conducting entrance tests, interviews, etc. tend to admit students by charging an exorbitant amount as capitation fee. Merit invariably takes a backseat and those with the ability to shell out more money often tend to get admitted, without fulfilling the admission requirements. With privatization, there is the risk of commercialization of education.
[29] Although a competitive atmosphere would be created, some colleges would concentrate on profit making rather than on improving the standard of education. It is important to note that in the
U.S., drive for efficiency and profits are categorically powerful among the private higher education providers. In developing countries like India, it is only the profit, which thrives these institutions and efficiency is jeopardized.
[30] Further, the important dimensions of complementarily and competition found in the U.S. private higher education sector boosts the growth and survival of both the public and private higher institutions, which is conspicuously absent in India.
[31]
Others view privatization as a welcome trend. According to one scholar, “Higher education requires it to maintain creativity, adaptability and quality. The economic trail of liberalization and globalization demands it. Considering the chronic paucity of resources, gradually unburdening itself of the additional responsibility for higher education may be advisable for the government.”
[32] The increasing demand for better quality higher education in
India can be met only by Private Institutions complementing the Universities established by the State. The proportion of students opting for higher education in
India is increasing at a rapid rate and the only feasible way out is the privatization of the educational system. Also, in the case of Private Universities, there would be minimal or practically no political intervention. This would be beneficial for the Universities in terms of being independent.
[33]
FUNDING AND FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION
___________________________________________________________
DECLINE IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
An important development of the early 1990s that had tremendous impact on higher education was the introduction of new economic reform policies that include stabilisation and structural adjustment, which required a drastic cut in public expenditures across the board, including education. These policies set the tone for drastic reforms in higher education in India in the following years and on the whole, higher education suffered severely.[34] The economic reform policies introduced in the beginning of the 1990s did not allow the government to allocate adequate resources to higher education. Budgetary outlays for higher education have been seriously squeezed.[35] This is clear on an examination in the trends in per student expenditure. In 1993-94 prices, expenditure on higher education per student declined from Rs 7,676 in 1990-91 to Rs 5,873 in 2001-02 (budget estimates), a decline by nearly 25 per cent points.[36] Decline in per student expenditures means decline in real resources available per student on average, seriously affecting the quality in higher education.[37] In addition to this, steep cuts in budget allocations for libraries, laboratories, scholarships, faculty improvement programmes, etc. had serious effects on the quality of higher education.
In addition to the decline in public expenditure on higher education after the introduction of the adjustment policies, public resources have not flown into higher education sufficiently to maintain the system in terms of quantity, quality and equity. In fact, higher education has been subject to severe neglect in terms of not only resource allocation, but also in terms of coherent policy and information.[38]
The cost for higher education is to be essentially borne by the government or taxpayers (as grants), parents or their substitutes (as tuition fees), students and / or individuals (by availing loans or doing part-time work) and donors (individuals or institutional). Donation for higher education is not a universal phenomenon and plays an insignificant role in financing higher education in most countries.
[39] The funds for higher education in
India come mainly from three different sources, viz, government, fee income from students and other sources of income from philanthropy, industry, sale of publications, etc. Higher education in
India is primarily funded by the government – central or state governments and the households. The central and state governments spend around Rs.190 billion per year on higher education.
[40]
Public universities traditionally live on grants from the government and 95% of the grants provided to them goes towards fee and establishment expenses.[41] There are hardly any disposable funds to develop the institutions. Methods of teaching are outdated. Far too much money is wasted on frivolous administrative expenditure. More funds need to be diverted to productive purposes. At present, most of the institutions of higher Education, belong to the government or funded by them. Criticism that the regulatory bodies, therefore, only address issues of immediate importance to the government, such as extent of grant, government representation on the Board and regulation of courses etc. For this reason, there has not been sufficient emphasis on academic rigor and developing skills to meet the needs of industry and the job market.[42]
It is seen that the funding is lopsided and limited. Eighty five per cent of the total central funding to higher education (including technical education) goes for supporting only about three per cent of students enrolled in around 130 out of a total of 17625 higher education institutions in the country.[43] The UGC is also the main funding agency of the central government. Whereas, around forty two technical institutions are funded by the central government directly, all others are funded through the UGC. Bulk of the expenditure on higher education is on revenue account and the capital expenditure is a negligible proportion of the total educational expenditure.[44] In terms of its mandate, UGC is expected to inquire into the financial requirement of the universities (and colleges affiliated to them) and advise the governments to provide the same. The actual performance of the UGC in carrying out this function is questionable. The private un-aided universities and colleges are expected to be self-financing institutions and are expected to meet all their expenses from their own revenue sources, which is mostly from tuitions. They are not eligible for any public funding or UGC grants.[45]
QUALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
The question of making education affordable while ensuring its fiscal viability and quality constitutes the central problem in the provision of higher education in
India. Student loans, like in the
US, could be a solution.
[46] Student loans are currently in operation in more than 80 countries around the globe. Of late, educational loan is very popular among students because of its simple and appealing logic, despite its inherent weaknesses. It is argued that in order to safeguard poor students from the rising costs of higher education (both tuition fee and maintenance cost), a number of countries in the developing and developed world have established student loan programmes.
[47] The old National Loan Scholarship Scheme was started in 1963 to provide interest-free loans to needy and able students to help them finance full time higher education in India, starting from the post-matriculation level to the completion of higher education. Loans were renewable on an annual basis. The scheme was being implemented through State Governments for disbursement of around 20,000 loan scholarships per annum. The old Scholarship Scheme targeting to nurture the talent among the economically disadvantaged was discontinued from 1991-92 because of
(i) unrealistic rate of scholarships with the passage of time,
(ii) Low rate of returns and
(iii) thinly spread out resources over a large target group.[48]
The Government is considering the re-structuring of the scheme and fund the same as a Plan scheme. The re-structured National Loan Scholarship Scheme envisaged modifying the on-going National Loan Scholarship Scheme by dovetailing it with the scheme of educational loans of Commercial Banks. The main objective of the Scheme is to provide financial assistance in the form of Educational Loan Scholarships to the needy and meritorious students, pursuing professional educational/special higher education courses, in identified institutions, with high employability. A straight forward interest subsidy from the Department of Education for the loans sanctioned by the Banks is aimed at reducing the heavy burden of repayment of the Educational Loan at commercial rates, as per usual terms.[49]
The Educational Loan Scheme was introduced in
India following the announcement in the budget 2000-01. The scheme is administered by the commercial banks. The scheme covers a wide range of courses in higher studies from post-matric to research studies, both in
India and abroad. Eligibility criterion is that any student who secures admission in domestic / foreign educational institution is eligible for loan. However, it is to be noted that there is no income ceiling on students / parents for the eligibility of this loan scheme. Neither the academic achievement is considered as an eligibility criterion, that is, there is no minimum qualifying marks required. There are no special provisions of any kind for the weaker sections in terms of security, government guarantee, lower rate of interest or repayment period, repayment in accordance with earnings, waivers, etc. However the scheme is criticized for being insensitive to the needs of the poor and does not concern equity aspects as there are no special provisions of any kind for the weaker sections
[50] .According to report published in ‘Times of India’ dated ……..
The fund was released for Education Loan in the year 2010-11 was Rs. 1100 Crore. The Government Spend only Rs 236 crore.
In the
US, the government has taken major steps in deregulation of higher education sector as well as adoption of market based policies designed to make universities more efficient and effective. The
US system is the most market oriented system in the world with the existence of a large number of privately funded colleges and universities and public universities supported by fifty states that compete nationally with private institutions for students and research funds. Further, federal policies provide research support to individuals rather than institutions. Thus colleges and universities in the
US compete with each other for students.
[51] This competition is becoming more and more aggressive. This can be best described as a set of competing organizations offering similar goods and services. Therefore, colleges and universities in the
US form a common industry providing academic degrees, research and services to their clients who are the students. Colleges and universities compete for students, research grants/support, faculty members and also financial contribution. It has, therefore, introduced a market like structure for education services and customers are the students who look at ‘prestige of the degree’ and ‘value for money’ in their selection. This market competition also triggers greater innovation and adaptation in higher education.
[52]
EXPECTATIONS OF/FROM VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS – STUDENTS, INDUSTRY, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, PARENTS, GOVERNMENT
_____________________________________________________________
Need to double capacity – not just in terms of seat count but “quality” seats count
Deregulate education in India
Remove the “Not for profit” requirement to facilitate the investment from private sector
Industry and Academia connect necessary to ensure curriculum and skills in line with requirements.
Skill building is really very crucial to ensure employability – Academia to understand and make sure – knowledge + skills+ global professional skills = good jobs
Industry and students are expecting specialized courses to be offered so that they get the latest and best in education and they are also industry ready and employable.
Too much power vested in single institutions that regulate e.g AICTE – eg. policy, licensing, funding, curriculum etc. Need to disintegrate to perform specific key functions.
Some industry-academic connection programs not working out as expected – eg. summer training for MBA students – most of them given dummy projects and are avoided while on board. Industry needs to get involved to support institutions.
Vocational and Diploma courses need to be made more attractive to facilitate specialized programs being offered to students
CONCLUSION
Government regulation of higher education has been the subject of an acrimonious debate across the policy spectrum. Proponents argue that regulation is essential for delivering quality education. Without regulation, they further argue, profit maximization rather than education would be the raison d’être of private educational institutions. In their opinion, the abysmal quality of most private institutions—despite decades of stifling regulations— justifies more government intrusion; not less. It is perceived to be the State’s responsibility to protect those who avail of higher education.
The inability to incentivize quality in private institutions of higher learning is the key failure of
India’s education regulators. Rather than improving quality, the state’s stranglehold on higher education has created an artificial shortage leading to an acute supply-demand mismatch. The demand for higher education has been growing rapidly with comparatively faster growth in enrolment in higher educational institutions than the growth in number of higher educational institutions. The regulatory process is thoroughly politicized; it is well documented that most private colleges are owned by politicians or well-connected business houses. The poor quality of such institutions offers a readymade excuse to impose even stronger government regulations, notwithstanding the fact that high entry barriers-ostensibly erected to improve quality- allow poor institutions to thrive in the first place. While the regulatory bodies seek to guard the portals of higher education, and are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring adherence to minimum guidelines by existing institutions, however, these regulations, in their current form are simply erecting entry-barriers rather than working to remove the asymmetry.
Regulation, therefore, needs to be well structured and thoroughly researched to take full account of relevance, requirements, practical constraints and market realities. The objective of encouraging growth of educational institutions rather than restricting them should not be lost sight of. Higher education offers a wide variety of subjects and with continuing education it needs to be demand driven. Over the last few decades, higher education has been handled casually and, for the most part, is lacking in initiative or direction. In addition to this, the process of accreditation remains a strenuous bureaucratic exercise. While it is noted that quality assurance in higher education is one of their main objectives, however making recognition and accreditation a tedious process is surely not the only way to ensure quality. While the bogus or poor quality colleges are a matter of concern for every regulator, the problem in
India is that University Authorities do not have a proper monitoring and surveillance system for colleges. This leads to episodes of sudden de-recognition as in the case of
Chattisgarh University and a large number of affiliated colleges which was very distressing for a large number of students.
Another important measure to be undertaken is that of decentralization. The purpose of decentralization is to eliminate or reduce the cumbersomeness and inefficiency, to convert high costs per unit into low costs and replace diseconomies of scale. In the absence of decentralization, the introduction of new techniques becomes meaningless as the already over expanded monolithic system does not leave any room for improvement.[53]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
· Assessment and Accreditation in Higher Education (
New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 2004).
· Decentralization of Higher Education System (New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 1991)
· Reforms and Innovations in Higher Education (
New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 2001).
ARTICLES
· A. Singh, “Challenges in Higher Education,” Economic and Political Weekly, May 22, 2004, pp 2155-2158.
· C. Premsai, “Higher Education in
India: From Socialism to Capitalism”
· D. Kapur, P. Mehta, “Indian Higher Education Reform: From Half Baked Socialism to Half Baked Capitalism”, (CID Working Paper No. 108),
Cambridge,
MA: Center for International Development at
Harvard University, 2004.
· H. Weiler, “Higher Education in
India: Critical Issues”,
Stanford University
· J. Tilak, “Absence of Policy and Perspective on Higher Education”, Economic and Political Weekly, May 22, 2004, pp 2159-2164.
· J. Tilak, “Student Loans in Financing Higher Education in
India”,
Higher Education, 24(04), June 1992, pp 389-404.
· N. Jayaram, “Higher Education Reform in
India: Prospects and Challenges”
· P. Agarwal, “Higher Education in
India: The Need for Change”, Working Paper No. 180,
New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, June 2006.
· P. Mehta, “Three-Part Series on Regulating Indian Higher Education: Part II: Critiquing the Regulatory Regime”, July 15, 2005.
· P. Nair, D. Kumar, “The Financing of Higher Education: A Broader View”, ICFAI Journal of Infrastructure, 03(04), June 2004, pp 21-34.
· P. Rani, “Economic Reforms and Financing Higher Education in
India”, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 2003.
· “Regulation of Higher Education in
India” CUTS Centre for Competition, Investment and Economic Regulation”
· S. Kaul, “Funding Higher Education in
India: Seizing the Opportunity,” Working Paper No. 179, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations,
New Delhi, May 2006.
· S. Sharma, “Higher Education: Recent Reform Initiatives in
India”,
MISSCELEANOUS/ WEB
· National Knowledge Commission (2006), “Letter to the Prime Minister on Higher Education”,November29,2006. http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/recommendations/HigherEducationLetterPM.pdf
· http://www.napsipag-research.org/pdf/SUMAN-SHARMA.pdf
· http://www.ijeb.com/Issues/data/June04_6_erafheii.pdf
· http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=74416
[1] The system of higher education in
India has seen an impressive growth since independence. The number of universities has increased from 25 in 1947 to 348 in 2005. The number of colleges has increased from 700 in 1947 to 17625 in 2005. The total enrolment increased from a meagre 0.1 million in 1947 to 10.48 million in 2005. The colleges that are affiliated to 131 universities constitute the bulk of the higher education system in
India, which contribute around 89 per cent of the total enrolment.
[2] P. Agarwal, “Higher Education in
India: The Need for Change”, Working Paper No. 180,
New Delhi: Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, June 2006 at 5.
[3] In order to evaluate performance of an institution and bring about a measure of accountability a mechanism of accreditation has been developed by UGC. This is an autonomous council under UGC called National Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) with a purpose to carry out periodic assessment of universities and colleges. NAAC has evolved a methodology of assessment which involves self-appraisal by each university/college and an assessment of the performance by an expert committee. Similarly, for technical education AICTE has established its own accreditation mechanism for its institutions through the National Board of Accreditation (NBA). NBA has also undertaken a detailed exercise for bench marking the performance of reference for evaluation if performance can be initiated.
[4]
Reforms and Innovations in Higher Education (
New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 2001) at 133.
[5] A. Singh, “Challenges in Higher Education,” Economic and Political Weekly, May 22, 2004, pp 2155-2158 at 2156.
[6] Only the Central or State Government can open a new university and that too by legislation in the Parliament or State. Universities are empowered to award their own degrees and take affiliate colleges.
[7] (2005) 3 SCC 212.
[8] P. Mehta, “Three-Part Series on Regulating Indian Higher Education: Part II: Critiquing the Regulatory Regime”, July 15, 2005.
[10] S. Kaul, “Funding Higher Education in India: Seizing the Opportunity,” Working Paper No. 179, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, May 2006 at 33.
[11] “Regulation of Higher Education in
India” CUTS Centre for Competition, Investment and Economic Regulation”
[12] This is around one half of the Asian average. The NKC estimates that
India needs around 1500 Universities to facilitate a gross enrollment ratio of at least15 percent in higher education to match the Asian average.
[13] Supra note 10, at 30.
[14] Ibid at 31.
[16] Supra note 15, at 54.
[17] S. Sharma, “Higher Education: Recent Reform Initiatives in
India”,
[18] Data from the National Sample Survey (NSS) cited by Kapur and Mehta 2004, 5.
[19] section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. Earlier this provision was used sparingly to declare premier institutions offering programmes at advanced level in a particular field or specialization as a deemed to be university to enable it to award degrees. Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore and Indian Agricultural Research Institute at Delhi were the first two institutions to be declared as deemed universities in 1958 for education and research at advanced level in the field of basic sciences and agriculture respectively. Over the last five years, there has been sudden jump in the number of deemed universities. In the early years, this privilege was extended only to the government / government aided institutions.
Manipal Academy for Higher Education (MAHE) – a pioneer in private higher education became the first totally self-financed institution to be declared as a deemed to be university in 1976. After 2000, when the provision for conferring the deemed to be university status to a de novo institution was introduced, there was sudden spurt in the growth of deemed to be universities in the private sector. Between 2000 and 2005, 26 private-sponsored institutions got the deemed university status.
[20] P. Rani, “Economic Reforms and Financing Higher Education in
India”, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, 2003 at 18.
[21] 1992 AIR SC 1630.
[22] This decision is quite contrary to the approach taken in countries like the
United States has taken the market approach to higher education. The
US was able to build up a stratified system of state and private colleges with an unregulated fee structure. But since colleges and universities had to seek students, they had to compete and offer attractive educational packages.
[23] 1993 AIR SC 2178.
[24] Supra note 11, at 4
[25] Supra note 10, at 58.
[26] These include the Punnaya Committee (1992-93) and Dr. Swaminathan Panel (1992). In 2000, the government appointed a committee headed by two noted private sector industrialists Mukesh Ambani and Kumaramangalam Birla, to suggest the needed reforms in education sector, along with other sectors. The Ambani-Birla Committee (ABC) was constituted by the prime minister’s council on trade and industry. The Ambani-Birla Committee [Government of India 2000] though noted the critical importance of the role of the state in development of education, including higher education in several developed countries of the world and strongly suggested that government in India should leave higher education altogether to the private sector in stocks and barrel, and the government should confine itself to school education. Further, it pleaded for legislation of the private university bill and also suggested that user pay principle be strictly enforced in higher education, supported by loans and grants to economically and socially backward sections of society. J. Tilak, “Student Loans in Financing Higher Education in
India”,
Higher Education, 24(04), June 1992, pp 389-404 at 2162-2163.
[27] H. Weiler, “Higher Education in
India: Critical Issues”,
Stanford University
[28] Supra note 8.
[29] C. Premsai, “Higher Education in
India: From Socialism to Capitalism”
[30] Supra note 20, at 18.
[32] N. Jayaram, “Higher Education Reform in
India: Prospects and Challenges”
www.cshe.nagoya-u.ac.jp/seminar/kokusai/jayaram.pdf (Last Accessed January 16, 2010).
[33] Supra note 29.
[34] Supra note 26, at 2160.
[35] Supra note 4, at 136.
[36] Supra note 26, at 2160.
[38] Supra note 4, at 138.
[39] Supra note 2, at 19.
[40] This figure was arrived at on analysis of the budgeted expenditure on education by the government for the year 2004/05. Ibid at 21.
[41] P. Nair, D. Kumar, “The Financing of Higher Education: A Broader View”, ICFAI Journal of Infrastructure, 03(04), June 2004, pp 21-34 at 25.
[42] Ibid at 28.
[43] Supra note 2, at 22.
[45] Supra note 2, at 23.
[46] The
US has developed many student loan schemes, two of which are notable. Pell Grant is the largest federal need based aid programme for post secondary students. In 2004 President Bush requested over $12.8 billion to fund some 5.3 million college students through the Pell Grant. Eligibility is based on a variety of income and tax information and if a student is eligible the maximum grant is $4050 per year. The second is the federally insured Student Loan Programme, which is of great advantage of the student community as it provides total access to higher education with a minimum of governmental involvement. The scheme facilitates expanded opportunities on an equal basis by assisting anyone who met the usual criteria for gaining admission into college.
[47] Supra note 20, at 13.
[49] Apart from these, the old scholarship scheme encountered many other problems. As one scholar sums up, “The credit market in
India is not well developed to provide educational loans. The organised credit market in
India is in the public sector, and that is not prepared to get involved in educational loans. When education does not guarantee employment and as repayment of loans becomes compulsory, people from relatively poorer families will be worst affected. The most important problem faced with respect to student loan programmes in
India, as in most other developing countries, relates to non-repayment of the loan. Lastly, the loan scholarship scheme is considered inferior to general scholarship schemes by many educational administrators, as the former involves huge administrative machinery and costs. The administration has to keep track of loanees, their movement and career, and has to devote extra efforts to recover the loan. Given the poor rates of recovery in
India, it is felt that the costs of administration of the scheme, including costs of recovery are so high that the amount actually recovered becomes rather insignificant, if not less than the costs incurred.” J. Tilak, “Student Loans in Financing Higher Education in
India”,
Higher Education, 24(04), June 1992, pp 389-404 at 399-400.
[50] Supra note 20, at 16.
[51] Supra note 10, at 44.
[52] Ibid at 45.
[53] A.M. Khusro, Decentralization of Higher Education System (New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 1991) at 23.
Indian Universities Ranking in Asia slides
The Times of India, New Delhi June 16, 2011
Not a single Indian University, including the IITs, has fared well in all – Asian varsity ranking for 2011. IIT- Bombay is the only one to figure in the world top 200, at 187, lower than the previous year’s rank of 163.
Top 5 world Universities
1. University of Cambridge, UK
2. Harvard University, US
4. University College London, UK
5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US
Top 5 Asian Universities
1. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
2. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
3. National University of Singapore, Singapore
4. The University of Tokyo , Japan
5. The Chinese University of Hong Kong
We need 500 more new college in Delhi and NCR statement by Vice chancellor of IGNOU on dated 18th June, 2011.
