Whenever one sits down to write on the mess that one finds in the arena of higher
education, one is struck by a sense of de'ja vu as well as a sense of inability to
say anything new. Pawan Agarwal's comprehensive paper that he wrote for ICRIER, the
excellent report by National Knowledge Commission (headed by the irrepressible Sam
Pitroda) are just two of the many articles that easily come to mind. The first one
mentioned, has exhaustive data at a fairly disaggregated level so that this aspect
need not detain us here. The issues and challenges in this context - that are
fairly well understood - are diverse not typical. Thus, the challenge is not
epistemological but one of political will and at a more mundane level of
implementation. In India, it does not take a genius to point out the problems in
any sphere, least of all in the higher educational sector. The point however is
(ought to be) to identify workable solutions. In this article I will concentrate on
the capacity, flexibility and quality issues that beset the higher educational
sector in India and suggest some steps that need to be taken to remedy the
situation. Rest assured, there will be no magic wand and no single solution. Help
and initiative from whatever quarter must be sought and grabbed by both hands. A
bouquet approach will alone be realistic, driven by pragmatism rather than
ideology. Whilst finance is undoubtedly important, I argue that governance is the
key.
The essentials of the story are easily told: Despite tremendous expansion in the
sector, there is inadequate capacity and hence access; after all we have 350
universities with huge enrollment (one of the largest in the world). The system is
characterized by rigidity with absolutely no flexibility; we have degrees being
offered in a rigid framework with very little choice for the students (who should
matter the most) and the regulations are archaic with peculiar unresponsiveness to
the current context. Thanks to the perverse hiring policies and protracted
procedures (not to mention politics: with and without state interference) the
quality of faculty is in a state of rapid decline. The reasons and solutions are
well known and yet some of them bear repetition. Having made a first cut let us
revisit the issues in some detail, but first some preliminaries.
India is at cross roads. It has all the pretensions of emerging as a knowledge
economy and yet the time is running out for it to catch the bus. Surely, we don't
require Thomas Friedman to point out the gravity of the situation. After all, what
we do today - by way of investment - will have a decisive influence fifteen years
from now. For that is how long (even in these fast paced times) it takes for
changes in educational system to fructify. It is no secret that a genuine knowledge
has a prerequisite of solid foundation provided by educational institutions
characterized by relevance and excellence in training and research. This then must
provide us with the parametric environment for what follows.
The long queues in front of the colleges as well as the screaming headlines in the
newspapers, starkly present the scarcity of capacity in the higher educational
sector. The premium that the seats in better colleges for almost all the courses
attract is common knowledge. Whilst there are supervisory mechanisms in place
(dejure) we know that supervision many a time means additional side payments. As an
aside, the only solution lies in self enforcing system design which in this case
would clearly imply removal of structural and overall scarcities through increased
capacities. The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) report talks of setting up 50
National Universities (over a period) with augmented resources leading to capacity
enhancement. There is the private universities' bill which should help too. There
is a scope for great enhancement of capacity in the PPP mode, for which the
regulation has to be more welcoming if not friendly. Whilst there is a need to
think out of box, there is no denying the fact that the traditional state funding
mode will however continue to be of importance for at least some time to come. We
must once and for all put an end to view that improvements are possible with just
non-monetary means. This implies a self binding commitment on the part of
governments at all levels to provide the necessary financial resources. The current
spending on higher education that is pegged at around 0.7% of GDP must be doubled.
This will require a serious lobbying effort. In this context, it may be noted that
there is much that can be done by the institutions on their own in terms of raising
resources. Alumni represent a huge potential source, so also setting up of off
shore campuses and attracting foreign students are other obvious sources. However,
this will require some amendments in the existing provisions of the 'Act', also,
experience suggests that such efforts are 'rewarded' by cut back in aid, instead of
matching incentive grants being proffered. Such efforts in the past have been -
post facto - subjected by the government, to severe restrictions on the use of
monies so collected. Clearly there is a governance issue involved here. This apart,
the required enabling (through regulatory changes) of private sector is a must for
the purposes of raising supplementary resources. The private endowments which at
one time were significant, have to be restored through incentive based legislation.
At the same time the interference - as distinct from engagement - of the State in
all aspects of education has to be significantly reduced, especially in the
'operations' and procedural aspects. This has been a major cause that led to the
Universities being converted into patron saints of mediocrity! The state must truly
practice private enablement with 'oversight from a distance'. Of course, the
processes involved in the setting up in the national universities (or even
investing in old ones!) are so long drawn and convoluted that with the given
absorption capacity of the institutions it will be some time before the plan
becomes a reality. Also, and more importantly, the paucity with regard to the
attendant requirement of quality faculty (which we shall look at later) is so great
that even with physical infrastructure the delivery will not be assured. This
requires some bold and innovative thinking and application which requires a key
governance initiative. The external agencies like the corporations and industries
will have to play (be enabled to do so) a major role. In the interim, I would
suggest that IT enabled distance learning mode as well as the platform for e-
learning have to be exploited to the fullest extent. This will require huge
organization and collaborative effort of the best minds. It is especially required
to mention this here because these avenues (particularly the first mentioned) are
pretty much have received step treatment and have been left to the whims and
fancies of the second raters. This has created sections of milch cows that
fraudulently extract money from the hapless students and give nothing in return.
Just as in case of fundamental/ foundational courses so also in case of e-learning
material creation, we have to identify first rate minds and incentivize them to get
involved with the tasks in a time bound and target oriented fashion. Let me now
turn to the extremely important aspect of flexibility in the system.
Flexibility has to be understood in various ways, so as to encompass the entire
spectrum of stakeholders. These clearly, are the students, teachers (faculty) and
the managements. The students in India are to a very great extent presented with a
rigid degree/ diploma system with 'papers' defining the course as given. Academic
reforms - e.g., through choice based credit system - need to be carried out.
Academic autonomy has to be bestowed. This will mean that students will have the
choice to pick and choose various components that would result in a degree or
diploma. This is an aspect of capacity (not necessarily to do overall availability
but concerned with the structure - viz., capacity to provide access to relevant
education. The credibility of courses/ degree, even as a signal, is severely
eroded. It has to be understood that the mismatch between the demand and supply
that is reported by various agencies (such as the OECD) is essentially a result of
the rigidities inherent in the system. That employability requires imparting of
soft skills - including articulation - is well understood but how will this be
achieved when the faculty themselves, by and large, lack in soft skills. At least
since the mid sixties (Kothari Commission) we know that vocational education must
get a serious consideration through imparting skills in partnership with industry,
but precious little has happened. As an important aside, I believe that such job
orientated courses must be more and more provided by private agents. The
government's role should be limited to provide incentives for such service
providers to help them implement their programs in a needs-blind way. The
government should use its resources at higher level of intensity to provide
education in foundational areas, such as liberal arts, culture, languages and
humanities as well as basic sciences where it is not possible for the institutions
and agencies to pay for their lunch. After all, without state patronage in these
areas not only the superstructure of applied fields but the very existence of the
civilized society in the modern global world will be in jeopardy. Thus, what one is
arguing is for delimitation and a redefining of the role of the state within
sharper contours and hence keeping it to manageable proportion.
Workload of teachers as well as the type and wage contracting while hiring the
teachers will need to be flexible. The current practice with regard to the pay
structure as well as 'clerical' work ethic is not conducive to face the current
challenges. There are no incentives for faculty with quality and excellence, to
self select themselves in this sector. Indeed, as a rule, persons with low or no
quality find secure cocoons here. Incentive compatibility in wage contracts as well
as flexibility in hiring of teachers (enabled through private endowments) is
essential if one is to attract good persons to this sector. A good sign here is
that due to resource crunch at the state government level, this is perforce
happening - at the lower end and to a very limited extent - in case of 'self
financing' as well as professional (especially management) courses. Even if we
grant that the modern 'shikshan samrats' are no saints, there is much to be said
for liberalizing the environment that confront the managements today. The rules
have to be clear and unambiguous and the oversight by government has to be non-
intrusive. There is clearly no place for harassment in day to day operations. It is
my firm belief that after the transitory problems a fair system will prevail that
is both transparent and accountable. The case of state aided institutions is much
worse. The archaic rules and procedures (Act and the Statutes) have to be more
responsive to the changing ethos and needs. This again is a governance issue - for
it entails, letting go! For example, much greater 'accountable' power needs to
reside with the Vice Chancellors, who are currently constrained by the
'authorities' who have little or no stake. It is a well known fact in University
politics it is so very easy to procrastinate with no one questioning and so very
difficult to do a small thing even if it is right and legal. Let me now turn to the
most important aspect of quality, which is clearly of essence in the context of
India emerging as a front runner in the comity of knowledge society. Here again we
consider the various stakeholders.
The subsidy - partial as well as total - is leading students to make wrong
decisions about seeking admissions. Reverse discrimination as is currently
practiced should be seriously reviewed and modified. Rather than mere access
through quotas, it should be strengthened by serious mentoring processes. Otherwise
we would be found guilty of doing actual disservice to the students whom we seek to
benefit. The only way is to take the 'needs blind' approach as proposed by NKC
seriously. It must be articulated in no uncertain terms and adopted in a forthright
manner. Teacher training apparatus and research ambience have to be created with
serious and focused thought. This has to do with much more than finance. It has
been one of the imponderables for me that teaching in higher education requires no
additional qualification/ training except that Master's degree. The other
requirements such as NET/ SET and M Phil/ PhD (of late) are so badly designed that
there are no elements that test the qualities - save basic knowledge - of the
prospective teachers qua teachers. The on-job training programs (orientation and
refresher courses) are little more than a farce and are in serious need of a
complete overhaul. There is of course no denying the fact that much public
resources and private efforts are expended in their conduct. The pay structures are
an example of incorrect pricing that leads to 'right' kind of persons entering the
profession. The quotas for jobs in academics should be dispensed with at higher
levels or promotions at least. Of course to do this, the Government will have to
sacrifice petty politics and indulge in visionary statecraft.
Research is a bird of another feather. Not only do we require first rate
infrastructure in terms of laboratories, library resources, equipment, and internet
connectivity but also a threshold sized group of dedicated researchers that
interact and work and play together. The current regime of government babus who
indulge in chickenery of organizing lectures of 48 (!) minutes and use every excuse
to disallow filling up of vacancies is hardly conducive to creation of research
environment. But this is the easiest way for the bureaucrats - who have very little
idea about research ethos - to bring about expenditure management. Faith and
angelic patience here are of essence. In the current context, with well paying jobs
available to the 'good' students, it is difficult to attract students to research.
Indeed, as Kaushik Basu recently pointed out, most students always went out in
search of well paid careers, but what has changed of late unlike earlier times is
that even the 'best/ top' students do not enter the research arena. This means that
mostly, only the not so good come in to do research - because they have nothing
else to do. Ambience apart, it is necessary to use innovative ways to rectify the
situation. The research scholarships - not numbers but amounts - have to be
seriously enhanced. Also, to attain threshold level groups, multi/
interdisciplinary centers of excellence have to be created. Such centers will be in
keeping with the current ethos of research and will have the advantage of reaping
economies of scale. Whilst this is a strategy that will find many positive
receptors, it is clear that this is well beyond the scope of government alone. It
is here that private sector - in an enlightened self interest mode - play a vital
role. It has to take a center stage - it is already involved marginally in
providing endowments and apprentice scholarships. The centers of excellence - which
require serious funds - will ultimately serve their own collective self interest in
the long run. Of course the government will have to take the minimum steps required
for creating an enabling environment and provide suitable fiscal incentives. The
overall structure of human resources involved in education (including wage
contracting) must be informed by concerns of meritocracy and embedded with
incentive compatible systems. It is well to remember that mediocrity rarely ever
breeds excellence! Finally, and to repeat, finance very crucial as it may be, is
not all. Even more importantly, governance is perhaps the key. Governance here has
to be related to the regulatory framework, as articulated, as well as the way it is
put into practice. It also deals with the building of capacity and encouraging,
enabling and empowering private players. So, a well designed and committed
expenditure plan along with (most importantly) a bouquet of ingeniously designed
enabling and empowering governance initiatives to achieve, efficiency in state
institutions as well as maximum private participation in a flexible mode is the way
to go. It is a moot point whether the state will continue to indulge in myopic rent
seeking behavior or indeed will have the courage to let go thereby demonstrating
visionary play in the realm of real politik?!
