THE mid-term appraisal of the 11th five year plan on higher education by the Planning Commission has been called ‘disappointing’ by a section of experts, presumably because even though the appraisal credits the current plan with recording a ‘much faster increase of 13.1 per cent in the second year’, it laments the failure to match the growth in enrolment with ‘requisite faculty and infrastructure support’, and thus falls far short of current demand. The appraisal brands the affiliating college system as a major culprit in view of its inadequate faculty for research and a poorer student-faculty ratio compared to university teaching departments.

The key elements of the strategy for the 11th plan have been unexceptionally sound and address the need of the times. Who could dispute that restructuring and reforming the higher education system to achieve equitable access, improvements in quality, and the promotion of autonomy are not desirable objectives?

The strategy for increasing access has two distinct elements – creating new institutions as well as augmenting the capacity of existing ones. The latter had perforce to be resorted to mainly in order to give effect to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. With respect to the former – with a little support from the states – it should have been possible to operationalize the scheme of setting up 374 model colleges in districts with GERs lower than the national average. This is the first time ever that a centrally sponsored scheme has been introduced in higher education for establishing institutions which fall within the domain of the states – hitherto, assistance from the Centre has been under the central sector scheme of grants to the UGC which in turn assists state institutions and others eligible for funding.

 

This departure from the past must be seen as a milestone – never before has it been acknowledged that the Centre may not ‘own or establish’ institutions of higher learning, while funding them at the level of an IIT or IIM. Recall that the parliamentary debate on the introduction of the subject of universities to the concurrent list of the Constitution (entry 25), even as the incorporation and winding up of universities has always been on the state list (entry 32), was buttressed with the assurance that the strengthening of higher education would be the joint responsibility of the Centre and the states. Schemes providing incentives and assistance to the states for establishing colleges and universities or for strengthening existing institutions are therefore the redeeming of that pledge today.

There is an underlying tension in Indian higher education. To say that it is at the crossroads would be an understatement. Two currents are locked in a power struggle – the votaries of commercialization and those who wish to see higher education achieve the larger societal purposes of human development and the creation of knowledge. There are also those who believe that the two forces need not be mutually exclusive, that commercialization could thrive even as the societal purpose is being addressed. Unfortunately, the voices of those who feel that ‘private’ does not necessarily imply ‘for profit’ are getting lost in the entire debate. They are easily rubbished by the votaries of commercialization with the argument as to why the private sector should invest at all if not for maximizing their returns; they also point out that the slow pace of ‘not for profit’ private investment through charity or by other means bear testimony to the inherent failure of the ‘not for profit model’. Yet another argument advanced is that there are limits to public funding, making private investment a compulsion.

There is a disquieting mystique surrounding the philosophy of public-private partnerships in higher education. Whereas the success stories in the preceding six decades of higher education have either been purely public institutions (such as the IITs/IIMs) or a few instances of purely private ones (BITS, Pilani), the hybrid PPP, as the term is understood at present, remains a rare species (IIIT Hyderabad/Bangalore).

 

Public-private partnerships are not a newfound concept – they have been with us ever since the ‘public’ signified the people outside of ‘private’ interests, and the ‘private’ was what was outside the sphere of the ‘public’. It was always possible, even if it required sustained effort, to bring the two together and so achieve the miracle of say the Benaras Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University, the Vishwa Bharati and so on. Private initiative on the part of Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya or Sir Syed Ahmed Khan or the poet Rabindranath Tagore to garner contributions through donations big and small, or even in terms of the time and energies provided by the general public, is what made all these institutions possible.

Two transformations have taken place over the years since these great educational institutions. First, governments have come to hegemonize the public space – shifting from being a facilitator by piloting legislations to being an active ‘public’ participant. Second, private philanthropic interest in promoting scholarship, research and education has been replaced by the search for profit. The growing demand for higher education and its mismatch on the supply side has clearly tempted the market.

 

The mid-term appraisal of education by the Planning Commission makes the somewhat veiled suggestion that ‘existing requirements of private initiative in education as "not for profit" must be dealt with pragmatically’ (para 6.142), which is interpreted by many critics as nothing other than an invitation to explore the commercialization of education, especially when read with what has been proposed subsequently – ‘a framework should be developed to encourage large-scale infusion of private capital to this sector’ (in para 6.143).

The ‘pragmatism’ alludes perhaps to the notion that the private sector would not be interested in investment unless there are profits to be made and returns are assured. The extreme votaries of this logic would also demand that investment and consumption in higher education be left entirely to market forces, though experiences from across many countries in turn point to the rather negligible share of the private for profit segment in higher education, especially in the developed West. While the concept of a ‘market’ in higher education is unacceptable in India at present, being against national policies and the pronouncements of the apex court in a number of decisions, assuming that there are well developed markets in higher education, how would they behave?

Are there lessons to be learnt from the functioning of markets for other goods and services? Is it possible to imagine certain situations that confront other markets which could be replicated in the context of a market for higher education, and if so, with what consequences? Perfect markets are those with large numbers on the supply and demand side, where no sub-group of buyers or sellers are in a position to influence the market clearing price. Consequently, to convert higher education into a perfect market, there ought not to be any constraints on the number of suppliers; and typically this would imply no regulation except by the market forces themselves.

 

Perfect markets also assume barrier-free entry and exit, as also information symmetry, here between student-consumers and higher educational institutions. Every student seeking admission must have perfect information about the institutions and their faculty quality, capacity, standards being maintained as well as institutional weaknesses. Every institution must similarly have all the information pertaining to student preferences, profiles, ability to pay, and so on. It follows that any mismatch between supply and demand will have one of two possible outcomes: Prices (here fees) rise whenever demand outstrips supply, i.e. those demanding enrolment outstrip the capacity of intake on offer. Conversely, lower demand for an institution, programme of study or course would result in surplus vacant seats, the closing down of institutions in extreme cases, and in any event bring fees crashing down.

Lowering fees to unsustainable levels could result in economy measures, i.e. cost cutting by paying lower salaries to teachers, lower investments in infrastructure, and a resultant fall in quality, which in turn would remain unchecked in the absence of any regulation. True, continuing with this logic, ultimately some day the demand and supply mismatch would be eliminated and the optimal balance struck – but till then institutions would have to close down or new institutions held back till the market clearing fee levels are reached.

Surely, it would be naive to assume that such a ‘utopia’ could be achieved here, where not a day passes without some institution or the other claiming to be the ‘no.1 business school in India, ahead of all IIMs in global exposure (whatever that means) as well as intellectual impact (whatever that may be)’ or of being the ‘largest professional university in India’ – never mind that such claims are never verified and are only self-proclaimed. The new legislative proposal on the prohibition of unfair practices in higher education, which is currently under parliamentary scrutiny, should facilitate some restraints as it makes it mandatory for institutions to publish all quality related and other information in the prospectus and also place it in the public domain for greater transparency so that ‘beneficiaries’ can make more informed choices.

 

It is not as if the consequences of an increase in fees are unknown – the obvious being the exclusion of those who cannot afford the market determined fee. Alternatively, an increase in the number of suppliers to meet the unmet demand would in turn lead to over-supply – in the absence of any regulatory mechanism – and the vicious cycle would be unleashed all over again. Over-supply in a limited range of disciplines or locations where the potential for surplus is perceived – both of which potentially distort the delivery of higher education in undesirable ways – does not rule out simultaneous undersupply in other disciplines and regional imbalances.

According to market advocates in higher education, even quality would be determined by supply and demand, that is, if the quality of an institution is lower than the level acceptable to the market commensurate with the fee realized, students would not enrol and consequent lack of demand would accelerate its demise. The corollary is that institutions with a high reputation would be much sought after and can levy a premium in fees in a differentiated market. Over time, market differentiation would stabilize and there would be institutions suiting every ‘pocket’.

 

This argument overlooks the minimal quality requirements that must necessarily be mandated irrespective of the institution one graduates from; presumably, such assured minimum quality or standards would then be determined through exit or qualifying examinations for testing eligibility, as may be prescribed by professional bodies. According to this worldview, marketing techniques of advertising and sales promotion would determine the ability of the suppliers to vend their offer successfully; and, the advertisers’ claim of an institution being better than the IIT or IIM ‘in global exposure’, untested as it obviously is, would have to be judged from among other competing claims in the market place. The larger the advertisement revenue, presumably, the better would be the perception of quality!

What happens to the market in higher education in the event of market failure? It is easy to see that the consequences could potentially impact an entire generation of our youth. We may actually draw lessons from a review of institutions ‘deemed to be universities’ that was ordered by the central government, which found a number of such institutions to be unworthy of being allowed to continue as such. As the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court, it would be improper to discuss the merits of the matter here; however, there are lessons to be learnt from the challenge posed by the possible migration of students from potentially fallible institutions. Incidentally, the hardship likely to be caused to the enrolled students is often the defence cited for not acting against errant managements.

 

Demand and supply in higher education have never matched, not merely because of the inability to keep pace with growing aspirations, but because there does not seem to be any concerted effort to develop any meaningful forecasts of the composition of the demand; consequently, we either end up oversupplying or undersupplying in disciplines that are relevant to society and the economy. It is hoped that the Planning Commission will constitute steering groups to address this issue – at present there are steering groups and working groups that address issues of demand separately from those of supply. The projection of demand by the ministry responsible for manpower planning has to be a necessary input in planning capacity creation or expansion by the ministries responsible for different sectors of higher education. This is vital also because we need to identify critical knowledge areas for the growing economy and for society at large.

What are the results of the investments made in the 11th plan thus far? The central sector investments have been productively utilized. Though several new institutions have been established, nevertheless all the IITs, IIMs, IISERs, IIITs, SPAs and central universities put together do not contribute to the numbers that would have a telling effect on access, because not even 10 per cent of total enrolment in higher education is within the central sector. The bulk of enrolment comes from state institutions and that is where we need to focus during the 12th plan.

Even though the affiliation system has been maligned as the bane of Indian higher education, the twin roles it plays cannot be taken lightly: First, as the entry point for post-schooling higher education for a large mass of our youth who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to join the limited number of institutions in select urban pockets, even though they may otherwise be eligible; and second, as the feeder system for the postgraduate (PG) level education of our top universities.

It is not difficult to see that our low Gross Enrolment Ratios would have been even lower – particularly for the socially, educationally as well as economically disadvantaged – had there been no affiliation system. Where we seem to have erred is in not strengthening the unit of affiliation – the college – so as to serve not merely as teaching-learning centres but also as potential training and initiation grounds for research and publication. With the immense capacity of leveraging technologies through ICT enabled education, and convergence between the open system and the traditional classroom system, there are opportunities to strengthen our colleges.

 

Assuming we have good faculty, good students and good infrastructure – what could be lacking in our higher education? The most critical issue facing Indian higher education today is a crisis of leadership in the academic sphere. Consider the range of skills we now require for each of the new institutions being planned – for inspiring students, attracting talented faculty, managing everything from staff to the external environment (including civil society, the media, corporates and, not least, the government). The eligibility for leadership weighs more in favour of the academe every time, and non-academics leading higher educational institutions should only be resorted to in emergency situations or exceptional circumstances.

 

How are leadership positions to be filled? In the proposed National Commission of Higher Education and Research (NCHER) legislation, the zone of consideration is to be limited to a ‘national register’ of persons eligible for such positions with names that are screened in a transparent process by eminent experts. The proposal had to be revised to accommodate the views of a few states that it would not be binding in the case of state universities – a compromise that has to be made in a federal polity, which is understandable. Let us hope that if and when the proposal becomes the law of the land, subject to parliamentary approval that is, we may see a culture of excellence consistent with national policies of inclusion. Possibly then even the states would acknowledge the register as a desirable benchmark of quality of leadership.¹

How else would the NCHER make a difference? It is too early to write an obituary, because the plan is still under way and another year remains. If the NCHER bill could be passed in time, perhaps the 12th plan will have something better in store for higher education. The NCHER has been a work in progress ever since the Yashpal Committee gave its recommendations after countrywide consultations. There was widespread endorsement that something ought to be done to bring back the primacy of institutional autonomy. That universities should be self-governing autonomous organisms free to pursue knowledge, bereft of handholding or dictation by bureaucracies, industry or governments should have occurred naturally to us. Unfortunately, it is not so. The concept of the NCHER is intended to restore the autonomy of universities by encouraging them to exercise a majority of the powers currently being exercised by the UGC and similar other bodies, except regulations that have to do with professional practice.

 

The NCHER is meant to prescribe academic standards, norms of accreditation for ensuring quality and to serve as a mechanism for financing and promotion of self-governance that could help both creation and dissemination of knowledge. However, there have been certain domain issues among various sectors of higher education, particularly with regard to the other council/commission simultaneously announced by the President in her address to Parliament two years ago. It is hoped that the two separate legislations would be unveiled in the near future after ironing out the rough edges in both proposals so that they can together address the need for higher education and research as well as the creation of human resources in the highly specialized health sector.

It would be naive to assume that the proposed Universities for Innovation are intended to address all the ills that seem to plague higher education. The purpose behind setting up such universities is neither to solve the issue of access – 14 universities spread across two five year plan periods can only have a marginal impact on this count – nor of quality, when the majority of our institutions languish for want of resources and infrastructure. They are primarily intended to serve as benchmark institutions in experimenting with concepts that are not often practised, or that have not been allowed to be experimented with in existing institutions.

The Universities for Innovation are expected to serve as role models in showcasing how it is possible to establish the concept of embracing the universe of knowledge while focusing on issues and problems of societal and global significance, building bodies of knowledge around specific themes; second, they are expected to innovate in processes of faculty selection and student admission, even as they do not stray from national policies and priorities; finally, they are expected to serve as role models in benchmarking quality and so on.

While it is legitimate to ask as to why existing universities cannot be given the autonomy and allowed the ‘n’ degrees of freedom being contemplated for the Universities for Innovation, we also need to appreciate that while doing so is highly desirable and indeed we cannot wait to create larger benefits within higher education, the management of change itself is tricky and problematic in the short run. Playing with the acts, statutes and ordinances of existing institutions is obviously bound to be a slow and deliberate process.

 

Therefore, it may be safe to assume that while nothing prevents our existing institutions from embracing change in many meaningful ways, the experiment itself need not await the longer process of change involved but rather simultaneously move in the direction of innovating with new paradigms and new institutions, without in any way weakening our existing institutions, which have no doubt contributed immensely to the growth and development of our higher education and society.

 

Footnote:

1. A fuller discussion of this issue is to be found in the Sudeep Banerjee Memorial lecture I delivered at Swami Ramakrishna Vivekananda University, Belur Math, Kolkata on 4 March 2011, ‘Higher Education in India: The Crisis of Leadership’.