The Hindu : Funding higher education

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Funding higher education

By Amrik Singh

The basis for the grant should be the total income of the college. While about half the students should pay the full fee, others would be subsidised from the amount thus saved by the State Government.

IN 1991, Supreme Court ruled that half the students in privately-run colleges should be admitted on the basis of merit and charged the tuition fee payable in Government-run colleges. The colleges were free to charge the rest the full cost of education. In 2002, the Court reversed the order. During the decade in between, it became clear that a substantial number of those selected on merit could afford to pay, whereas many of those asked to pay in full could not.

Now the Court has permitted the professional colleges to fix their own fees. There are several problems of implementation and the matter is still being debated. The thing to do would be for professional bodies such as the University Grants Commission, the AICTE and the Medical Council, to work out an alternative plan, discuss it with the Centre and the State Governments, and present it to the Supreme Court for approval.

Academic ability is being recognised but the ability to pay does not figure anywhere. While academic ability is important, so is the ability to pay. Universities and colleges must raise funds from alumni and the public to facilitate admission for those unable to enter professional colleges. There is a viable plan of action, which can help address the problem effectively. However, the State Governments, which control almost all the colleges, will have to help.

In all the States, there is now one formula for grants applicable to all the colleges. Whether a college functions outstandingly well or poorly hardly concerns those who release the funds. The State Governments are indifferent to the quality of education. What is proposed is that the quality of education should be made the basic reference point. How can this be ensured?

As in the case of the professional colleges, other colleges too should be allowed to determine their fees. All colleges know the kind of students they gets, and the social strata to which they belong. They can fix the fees accordingly. If a college charges, say, Rs. 5,000 a month, it can work out the proportion of students who would be able to pay. If it is estimated that 50 per cent can pay — not a wrong assumption to make in regard to a couple of thousand colleges— let the fees be determined at that level. Not right away, though. Fees can be revised upwards gradually every year. If it is assumed that 50 per cent of the students can pay, the rest would need to be subsidised. The rate of fee remission can vary from 90 per cent to 10 per cent

Worked out in this way, the basis of the grant would become the total income of the college. While about half the students would pay the full fee, others would be subsidised from the amount thus saved by the State Government. The bulk of the funding for the students who deserve support will come from the State Governments.

Today, those who are in a position to pay higher fees are not asked to pay, even in the non-professional sector where the number of such students is something like a quarter million, if not higher. It is students from such backgrounds who go into the services, journalism, law, teaching, banking, middle level business management, etc.

At present, a student cannot be asked to pay more than the norm fixed by the university. The right thing to do therefore is to fix the norm at a higher level and support those who are unable to pay. Who deserves what level of support will obviously have to be determined by the teachers who instruct them. Appropriate and pragmatic rules can be framed. In legal terms, this cannot be challenged. In academic terms, it will have a remarkably chastening effect. In this connection what happened at the Osmania University some years ago merits recalling.

To make up for the low level of financial support being given by the State Government, an imaginative Vice-Chancellor proposed increasing the number of seats at the Master's level by one- third. An admission test was already being conducted and 30 students were being admitted to each course. An additional 10 were admitted on the condition that they would pay the full cost of education. What happened in the wake of it had not been foreseen by anyone. Those who paid in full were not satisfied with the teaching. Within a few weeks, the new students teamed up with another 15-20 who were academically bright but had not shown the ability to get organised. Once this happened, the staff who were performing below their capacity had no choice except to perform better. Though that Vice-Chancellor has retired, the system is still continuing.

Why can this system not be extended to all the universities and post-graduate colleges? The system can be extended even to the undergraduate level in certain cases. The proposal is feasible. The only objection can be extending it to colleges located in rural, backward or hilly areas. To seek to charge a higher fee in those colleges will defeat the overall state policy of pegging the fees at a low level to ensure that the young students who passed out from school are not at a loose end, and have something to do.

If the system recommended is followed, it would mean a change in the support policy of the State Governments. The quality of education will also improve. Once it improves in one set of colleges, it will impact on other colleges too.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Iraq: No material change

Censorship of internet

LTTE and Muslims

Funding higher education

Beatification

Ayodhya issue

Better late than never

Soft target?

On The Hindu