AS WE enter the new millennium, the world economy is experiencing an unprecedented change. New developments in science and technology, competition, media revolution and internationalisation are revolutionising the education sector. We are witnessing paradigm shift in higher education, from `national' to `global education,' from `state controlled' to an `open market economy,' from `general education' to an `educational system driven by market forces,' from `one time education for a few' to `life long education for all,' from `teachers centred' to `learner centred' education. These changes make new demands and pose fresh challenges to our established education systems and practices and, therefore, a time has come when we have to re-appraise their role and functions, the present administrative structure/ finances of university management.
In India, over the last several years there has been a phenomenal increase in enrolment. The number of universities increased from 28 in 1950-51 to 224 in 1996 and colleges from 695 to 8,613 during the same period. The student population increased from 2.5 lakhs to over 60 lakhs while the number of teachers increased from 12,000 to 3,00,000. We have now 238 universities, over 11,000 colleges and 3,42,000 teachers with a total student enrolment of nearly 7.5 million. It may however be pointed out that while India has the second largest system of higher education, next only to the U.S., 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.
When we look at university finances around the country, we see a familiar landscape. Bulk of the funds received by both Central and State universities is from public sources. Private contribution to education in the form of donations and endowments, which were the hallmarks of the pre-Independence period, has dwindled. The internal resources of universities have been dwindling as a percentage of their annual maintenance expenditure. Investment in higher education is far too inadequate. Cost recovery from students has not kept pace with the requirements. Most of the expenditure is on salaries, especially on the non-teaching staff, which in some universities number five times the teaching staff. Salaries and perquisites have grown precipitously with no corresponding reduction in numbers.
Faced with financial crises coupled with competing demands for funds for different sectors of the economy, the State and Central Governments have not been able to allocate adequate resources for higher education.
Private sector participation
Keeping in view the increasing demand for higher education and inability of the state-funded universities and colleges to cope with the pressure effectively, the participation of private sector should be encouraged. 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. However, while doing so 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. For many pro gramme of studies, there is a demand for seats by foreign students who can pay in dollars. The universities may create supernumerary seats up to 20 per cent to enrol foreign students, and students sponsored by NRIs on the basis of full cost fees. 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. 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. After meeting the project cost, maintenance and service cost, the balance could be put into the university corpus fund. The UGC may consider a matching grant to the tune of amounts saved in revenue/current expenditure so that the corpus fund of the university is built up over a period of time and the interest earned thereon could be used in the long run for maintenance and development of universities.
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 from which both the universities and the industrial sector benefit. The industry should recognise that the skilled qualified manpower it requires can be produced by universities only if the universities are well endowed with finance.
In the preceding paras I have tried to suggest the various ways through which the university finances could be brought back on rails. However, such efforts must not be constructed as a justification for gradual withdrawal of state support to higher education. In fact the government is keen that the budgetary allocation for higher education, both plan and non-plan, is increased substantially. Perhaps the resources raised through disinvestments in public enterprises, as a consequence of economic liberalisation and structural adjustment, can be diverted to infrastructure and human resource development.
No comments:
Post a Comment