(a) the details of the recommendations in the recently submitted report of the National
Knowledge Commission regarding higher education in the country; and
(b) the action taken by the Government on the recommendations to strengthen the State
universities and giving them same treatment as that of Central universities?
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND MINISTER OF STATE
IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS(SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY)
(a): Relevant extracts of National Knowledge Commission’s recommendations along with Note
on Higher Education are enclosed.
(b): There is no specific recommendation on strengthening State Universities and giving them
same treatment as that of Central Universities.
Higher Education November 29,2006
Higher education has made a significant contribution to economic development,
social progress and political democracy in independent India. But there is serious
cause for concern at this juncture. The proportion of our population, in the relevant
age group, that enters the world of higher education is about 7 per cent. The
opportunities for higher education in terms of the number of places in universities are
simply not adequate in relation to our needs. Large segments of our population just
do not have access to higher education. What is more, the quality of higher
education in most of our universities leaves much to be desired.
Foundations are critical. NKC believes that an emphasis on expansion and reform of
our school system is necessary to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity
to enter the world of higher education. It is engaged in consultations on school
education and will submit recommendations in this crucial area in due course. In this
recommendation, it focuses on higher education. NKC has engaged in formal and
informal consultations on this subject with a wide range of people in the world of
higher education. In addition, we consulted concerned people in parliament,
government, civil society and industry. The concerns about the higher education
system are widely shared. There was a clear, almost unanimous, view that higher
education needs a systematic overhaul, so that we can educate much larger
numbers without diluting academic standards. Indeed, this is essential because the
transformation of economy and society in the twenty-first century would depend, in
significant part, on the spread and the quality of education among our people,
particularly in the sphere of higher education. And it is only an inclusive society that
can provide the foundations for a knowledge society.
The objectives of reform and change in our higher education system, as you have
often stressed, must be expansion, excellence and inclusion. NKC recognizes that
meaningful reform of the higher education system, with a long-term perspective, is
both complex and difficult. Yet, it is imperative.
A. EXPANSION
1. Create many more universities. The higher education system needs a massive
expansion of opportunities, to around 1500 universities nationwide, that would
enable India to attain a gross enrolment ratio of at least 15 per cent by 2015. The
focus would have to be on new universities, but some clusters of affiliated colleges
could also become universities. Such expansion would require major changes in the
structure of regulation.
2. Change the system of regulation for higher education. The present regulatory
system in higher education is flawed in some important respects. The barriers to
entry are too high. The system of authorising entry is cumbersome. There is a
multiplicity of regulatory agencies where mandates are both confusing and
overlapping. The system, as a whole, is over-regulated but under-governed. We
believe that there is a clear need to establish an Independent Regulatory Authority
for Higher Education (IRAHE). The IRAHE must be at an arm’s-length from the
government and independent of all stakeholders including the concerned Ministries
of the Government.
# The IRAHE would have to be established by an Act of Parliament, and would
be responsible for setting the criteria and deciding on entry.
# It would be the only agency that would be authorized to accord degree
granting power to higher education institutions.
# It would be responsible for monitoring standards and settling disputes.
# It would apply exactly the same norms to public and private institutions, just
as it would apply the same norms to domestic and international institutions.
# ?It would be the authority for licensing accreditation agencies.
# The role of the UGC would be re-defined to focus on the disbursement of
grants to, and maintenance of, public institutions in higher education. The
entry regulatory functions of the AICTE, the MCI and the BCI would be
performed by the IRAHE, so that their role would be limited to that of
professional associations.
3. Increase public spending and diversify sources of financing. The expansion
of our system of higher education is not possible without enhanced levels of
financing. This must necessarily come from both public and private sources.
# Since government financing will remain the cornerstone, government support
for higher education should increase to at least 1.5 per cent of GDP, out of a
total of at least 6 per cent of GDP for education.
# Even this would not suffice for the massive expansion in higher education that
is an imperative. It is essential to explore other possibilities that can
complement the increase in public expenditure.
# Most public universities are sitting on a large reservoir of untapped resources
in the form of land. It should be possible to draw up norms and parameters for
universities to use their available land as a source of finance.
# ?It is for universities to decide the level of fees but, as a norm, fees should
meet at least 20 per cent of the total expenditure in universities. This should
be subject to two conditions: first, needy students should be provided with a
fee waiver plus scholarships to meet their costs; second, universities should
not be penalized by the UGC for the resources raised from higher fees
through matching deductions from their grants-in-aid.
# India should nurture the tradition of philanthropic contributions through
changes in incentives for universities and for donors. At present, there is an
implicit disincentive in both tax laws and trust laws. These laws should be
changed so that universities can invest in financial instruments of their choice
and use the income from their endowments to build up a corpus.
# ?Universities should also seek to tap other sources such as alumni
contributions and licensing fees. We need to create supportive institutional
mechanisms that allow universities to engage professional firms for this
purpose.
# It is essential to stimulate private investment in education as a means of
extending educational opportunities. It may be possible to leverage public
resources, especially in the form of land grants, to attract more (not-for-profit)
private investment.
4. Establish 50 National Universities. NKC recommends the creation of 50
National Universities that can provide education of the highest standard. As
exemplars for the rest of the nation, these universities shall train students in a variety
of disciplines, including humanities, social sciences, basic sciences, commerce and
professional subjects, at both the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. The
number 50 is a long term objective. In the short run, it is important to begin with at
least 10 such universities in the next 3 years.
National Universities can be established in two ways, by the government, or by a
private sponsoring body that sets up a Society, Charitable Trust or Section 25
Company. Since public finance is an integral constituent of universities worldwide,
most of the new universities shall need significant initial financial support from the
government. Each university may be endowed with a substantial allocation of public
land, in excess of its spatial requirements. The excess land can be a subsequent
source of income generation. Exceptions need to be made in existing income tax
laws to encourage large endowments.
Further, there should be no restriction on the utilization of income in any given period
or in the use of appropriate financial instruments. And these universities should have
the autonomy to set student fee levels and tap other sources for generating funds.
The National Universities we propose shall admit students on an all-India basis.
They shall adopt the principle of needs-blind admissions. This will require an
extensive system of scholarships for needy students. Undergraduate degrees in the
National Universities, in a three-year programme, should be granted on the basis of
completing a requisite number of credits, obtained from different courses. The
academic year shall therefore be semester-based and students shall be internally
evaluated at the end of each course.
Transfer of credits from one National University to another shall also be possible. An
appropriate system of appointments and incentives is required to maximize the
productivity of faculty in these National Universities. Strong linkages shall be forged
between teaching and research, universities and industry, and universities and
research laboratories. The National Universities shall be department-based and shall
not have any affiliated colleges.
B. EXCELLENCE
5. Reform existing universities. The endeavour to transform higher education must
reform existing institutions. Some essential steps are :
# Universities should be required to revise or restructure curricula at least once
in three years.
# Annual examinations, which test memory rather than understanding, should
be supplemented with continuous internal assessment which could begin with
a weight of 25 per cent in the total to be raised to 50 per cent over a stipulated
period.
# NKC proposes a transition to a course credit system where degrees are
granted on the basis of completing a requisite number of credits from different
courses, which provides students with choices.
# Universities must become the hub of research once again to capture
synergies between teaching and research that enrich each other. This
requires not only policy measures but also changes in resource allocation,
reward systems and mindsets.
# There must be a conscious effort to attract and retain talented faculty
members through better working conditions combined with incentives for
performance.
# The criteria for resource allocation to universities should seek to strike a much
better balance between providing for salaries or pensions and providing for
maintenance, development or investment. It should also recognize the
importance of a critical minimum to ensure standards and strategic
preferences to promote excellence.
# The elements of infrastructure that support the teaching-learning process,
such as libraries, laboratories and connectivity, need to be monitored and
upgraded on a regular basis.
# There is an acute need for reform in the structures of governance of
universities that do not preserve autonomy and do not promote accountability.
Much needs to be done, but two important points deserve mention. The
appointments of Vice- Chancellors must be freed from direct or indirect
interventions on the part of governments, for these should be based on
search processes and peer judgment alone. The size and composition of
University Courts, Academic Councils and Executive Councils, which slow
down decision-making processes and sometimes constitute an impediment to
change, need to be reconsidered on a priority basis.
# The need is for smaller universities which are responsive to change and
easier to manage.
6. Restructure undergraduate colleges. The system of affiliated colleges for
undergraduate education, which may have been appropriate 50 years ago, is no
longer adequate or appropriate and needs to be reformed. Indeed, there is an urgent
need to restructure the system of undergraduate colleges affiliated to universities.
# The most obvious solution is to provide autonomy to colleges either as
individual colleges or as clusters of colleges, on the basis of criteria that have
been stipulated in our note. However, this would be able to provide a solution
for a limited proportion, or number, of undergraduate colleges.
# Some of these affiliated colleges could be remodelled as community colleges,
which could provide both vocational education and formal education.
# A Central Board of Undergraduate Education should be established, along
with State Boards of Undergraduate Education, which would set curricula and
conduct examinations for undergraduate colleges that choose to be affiliated
with them. These Boards would separate the academic functions from the
administrative functions and, at the same time, provide quality benchmarks.
# New undergraduate colleges could be established as community colleges,
could be affiliated with the Central Board of Undergraduate Education or State
Boards of Undergraduate Education, or could be affiliated with some of the
new universities that are established.
7. Promote enhanced quality. The higher education system must provide for
accountability to society and create accountability within. An expansion of higher
education which provides students with choices and creates competition between
institutions is going to be vital in enhancing accountability.
# There should be stringent information disclosure norms for all educational
institutions such as their financial situation, physical assets, admissions
criteria, faculty positions, academic curricula, as also their source and level of
accreditation.
# Evaluation of courses and teachers by students as well as peer evaluation of
teachers by teachers should be encouraged.
# There must be a focus on upgrading infrastructure, improving the training of
teachers and continuous assessment of syllabi and examination systems.
# It is particularly important to enhance the ICT infrastructure. Websites and
webbased services would improve transparency and accountability. A portal
on higher education and research would increase interaction and accessibility.
A knowledge network would connect all universities and colleges for online
open resources.
# ?It may be necessary to rethink the issue of salary differentials within and
between universities along with other means of attracting and retaining
talented faculty members. Such salary differentials between and within
universities could be effective without being large.
# ?It is necessary to formulate appropriate policies for the entry of foreign
institutions into India and the promotion of Indian institutions abroad, while
ensuring a level playing field for foreign and domestic institutions within the
country.
# The system of higher education must recognize that there is bound to be
diversity and pluralism in any system of higher education, and avoid a uniform
one-sizefits- all approach. This sense of pluralism must recognise, rather than
ignore or shy away from, such diversity and differentiation.
C. INCLUSION
8. Ensure access for all deserving students. Education is the fundamental
mechanism for social inclusion through the creation of more opportunities. It is,
therefore, essential to ensure that no student is denied the opportunity to participate
in higher education due to financial constraints. We propose the following measures.
# Institutions of higher education should be encouraged to adopt a needs blind
admissions policy. This would make it unlawful for educational institutions to
take into account any financial factor while deciding whether or not to admit a
student.
# There must be a well-funded and extensive National Scholarship Scheme
targeting economically underprivileged students and students from historically
socially disadvantaged groups.
9. Affirmative action. A major aim of the higher education system must be to
ensure that access to education for economically and historically socially
underprivileged students is enhanced in a substantially more effective manner.
# Reservations are essential but they are only a part, and one form, of
affirmative action.
# Disparities in educational attainments are related to caste and social groups,
but are also strongly related to other indicators such as income, gender,
region and place of residence. Therefore, we need to develop a meaningful
and comprehensive framework that would account for the multi-dimensionality
of differences that still persist. For example, a deprivation index could be used
to provide weighted scores to students and the cumulative score could be
used to supplement a student’s school examination score.
NKC recommendations require action at three different levels: reforms within existing
systems, changes in policies and amendments in, or the introduction of, new statutes
or legislation. The suggested changes would also be implemented at three different
levels: universities, state governments and the central government.
It is important to recognize that there is a quiet crisis in higher education in India
which runs deep. The time has come to address this crisis in a systematic and
forthright manner. NKC recommendations constitute an important beginning; the
changes suggested would make a real difference. Of course, the process of reform
and change is continuous. There is more to be done, and NKC will continue to think
about the next steps, but it emphasizes the urgency of the situation, because India’s
future depends on it. It is important to act here and now.
NATIONAL KNOWLEDGE COMMISSION NOTE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
The spread of education in society is at the foundation of success in countries that
are latecomers to development. In the quest for development, primary education is
absolutely essential because it creates the base. But higher education is just as
important,for it provides the cutting edge. And universities are the life-blood of higher
education.Islands of excellence in professional education, such as IITs and IIMs, are valuable
complements but cannot be substitutes for universities which provide educational
opportunities for people at large.
There can be no doubt that higher education has made a significant contribution to
economic development, social progress and political democracy in independent
India. It is a source of dynamism for the economy. It has created social opportunities for
people.It has fostered the vibrant democracy in our polity. It has provided a beginning for the
creation of a knowledge society. But it would be a mistake to focus on its strengths
alone.It has weaknesses that are a cause for serious concern.
There is, in fact, a quiet crisis in higher education in India that runs deep. It is not
yet discernible simply because there are pockets of excellence, an enormous
reservoir of talented young people and an intense competition in the admissions process. And, in
some important spheres, we continue to reap the benefits of what was sown in
higher education 50 years ago by the founding fathers of the Republic. The reality is that we
have miles to go. The proportion of our population, in the age group 18-24, that
enters the world of higher education is around 7 per cent, which is only one-half the average for
Asia. The opportunities for higher education, in terms of the number of places in
universities, are simply not enough in relation to our needs. What is more, the quality
of higher education in most of our universities requires substantial improvement.
It is clear that the system of higher education in India faces serious challenges.
And it needs a systematic overhaul, so that we can educate much larger numbers
without diluting academic standards. This is imperative because the transformation of
economy and society in the twenty-first century would depend, in significant part, on the
spread and the quality of education among our people, particularly in the sphere of higher
education. It is only an inclusive society that can provide the foundations for a
knowledge society.
The challenges that confront higher education in India are clear. It needs a
massive expansion of opportunities for higher education, to 1500 universities
nationwide,that would enable India to attain a gross enrolment ratio of at least 15 per cent by
2015. It is just as important to raise the average quality of higher education in every sphere.
At the same time, it is essential to create institutions that are exemplars of excellence at par
with the best in the world. In the pursuit of these objectives, providing people with access
to higher education in a socially inclusive manner is imperative. The realization of these
objectives, combined with access, would not only develop the skills and capabilities
we need for the economy but would also help transform India into a knowledge economy
and society.
We recognize that a meaningful reform of the higher education system, with a
long-term perspective is both complex and difficult. Yet, it is imperative. And we
would suggest the following building blocks in this endeavour. First, it is essential to reform
existing public universities and undergraduate colleges. Second, it is necessary to
overhaul the entire regulatory structure governing higher education. Third, every
possible source of financing investment in higher education needs to be explored. Fourth, it is
important to think about pro-active strategies for enhancement of quality in higher
education. Fifth, the time has come to create new institutions in the form of National
Universities that would become role models as centres of academic excellence.
Sixth, the higher education system must be so designed that it provides access to marginalized
and excluded groups.
I. UNIVERSITIES
Universities perform a critical role in an economy and society. They create
knowledge. They impart knowledge. And they disseminate knowledge. Universities
must be flexible, innovative and creative. They must be able to attract the best talent
whether teachers or students. They must have the ability to compete and the motivation to
excel. We cannot even contemplate a transformation of our higher education system
without reform in our existing universities.
There is, however, a serious cause for concern about universities in India. The
number of places for students at universities is simply inadequate. The quality of
education at most universities leaves much to be desired. The gap between our
universities and those in the outside world has widened. And none of our universities
rank among the best, say the top fifty, in the world. The symptoms are clearly visible,
even if we do not wish to diagnose what ails our universities. Of course, every
problem does not exist everywhere. And there are exceptions. But the following problems are
common enough to be a cause for concern. First, curricula, which have remained
almost unchanged for decades, have not kept pace with the times, let alone with the
extending frontiers of knowledge. Second, learning and creativity are at a discount in a system
of assessment that places a premium on memory rather than understanding. Third, the
milieu is not conducive to anything beyond the class room, for it is caught in a 9.30 to 1.30 syndrome. Fourth, the academic calendar is no longer sacrosanct for classes or
for examinations, as there are slippages in schedules so much so that, at several
places,classes in the timetable are not held and results are often declared with a time-lag of
6 to 12 months. Fifth, the infrastructure is not only inadequate but also on the verge of
collapse. Sixth, the boundaries between disciplines have become dividing walls that
constitute barriers to entry for new disciplines or new courses, while knowledge is
developing most rapidly at the intersection of disciplines. Seventh, the importance
attached to research has eroded steadily over time. Eighth, the volume of research
in terms of frequency of publication and the quality of research reflected in the
frequency of citation or the place of publication, on balance, is simply not what it used to be.
Ninth, as in most public institutions, there is little accountability, because there are no
rewards for performance and no penalties for non-performance. Tenth, structures of governance
put in place fifty years ago are not responsive to changing times and circumstances but
the system is readily subverted by vested interests.
It is difficult enough to provide a complete diagnosis of what ails our universities.
It is even more difficult, if not impossible, to outline a set of prescriptions for our
universities. Nevertheless, it is clear that a reform of existing institutions must be an
integral part of our endeavour to transform higher education. We recognize that this
is easier said than done. Even so, we believe that reforms in the following spheres,
along the lines suggested by us, are not only possible but would also make a difference.
Number and Size: India has about 350 universities. This number is simply not
enough with reference to our needs in higher education, or in comparison with China which
has authorized the creation of 1250 new universities in the last three years. Yet, some of
our universities are much too large, for ensuring academic standards and providing good
governance. We need to create more appropriately scaled and more nimble
universities.The moral of the story is not only that we need a much larger number of universities,
say 1500 nationwide by 2015, but also that we need smaller universities which are
responsive to change and easier to manage.
Curriculum: The syllabi of courses in universities, which remain unchanged for
decades,need to be upgraded constantly and revised frequently. The laws of inertia reinforced
by resistance to change must be overcome. Universities should be required to revise or
restructure curricula at least once in three years. These revisions must be subjected
to outside peer review before implementation. The process for such revisions should be
streamlined and decentralized, with more autonomy for teachers, through a change
in statutes wherever necessary. For existing systems often act as major impediments
to a timely or speedy revision of curricula. There should be some mode of censure for
departments or universities that do not upgrade their courses regularly. It needs to
be recognised that it is very difficult to introduce new courses or innovative courses in
universities because of departmental divides. Appropriate institutional mechanisms
should be put in place to resolve this problem.
Assessment: The nature of annual examinations at universities in India often stifles
the teaching-learning process because they reward selective and uncritical learning.
There is an acute need to reform this examination system so that it tests understanding rather
than memory. Analytical abilities and creative thinking should be at a premium. Learning
by rote should be at a discount. Such reform would become more feasible with
decentralized examination and smaller universities. But assessment cannot and should not be
based on examinations alone. There is a clear need for continuous internal assessment which
empowers teachers and students alike, just as it breathes life back into the
teachinglearning process. Such internal assessment would also foster the analytical and creative
abilities of students which are often a casualty in university-administered annual
examinations. To begin with, internal assessment could have a weight of 25 percent
in the total but this should be raised to 50 percent over time.
Course Credits: The present system is characterised by too many rigidities and too
few choices for students. Universities that are smaller, or run semester-based systems,
are obviously more flexible. Even in large universities, however, it is necessary to
introduce greater diversity and more flexibility in course structures. This would be the
beginning of a transition to a course credit system, where degrees are granted on the basis of
completing a requisite number of credits from different courses. Every student should
be required to earn a minimum number of credits in his/ her chosen discipline but
should have the freedom to earn the rest from courses in other disciplines. It is essential to
provide students with choices instead of keeping them captive.
Research: We attempted to create stand-alone research institutions, pampered with
resources, in the belief that research should be moved out of universities. In the
process,we forgot an essential principle. There are synergies between teaching and research
that enrich each other. And it is universities which are the natural home for research.
What is more, for universities, research is essential in the pursuit of academic excellence. It
is time to reverse what happened in the past and make universities the hub of research
once again. This would need changes in resource-allocation, reward-systems and
mindsets.Substantial grants should be allocated for research. The provisions of these grants
should be competitive and the criteria for these grants should be different from the usual
criteria for non-plan and plan grants.
Faculty: There must be a conscious effort to attract and retain talented faculty
members.This is necessary because talented students who are potential faculty members
have choices that are far more attractive in other professions in India or in the academic
profession outside India. It is necessary to provide working conditions in the form of
office space and research support combined with housing. But it may not be
sufficient.This must be combined with some incentives and rewards for performance. There is,
however, another dimension to the problem. Universities do not always choose the
best in part because of native-son/daughter policies which leave them to select their own
former students. This tends to lower quality and foster parochialisation in universities.
Therefore,cross-pollination between universities should be encouraged. It may be worth
introducing a ceiling, say one-half or even one-third, on the proportion of faculty members than
can be hired from within the university. This would almost certainly engender greater
competition and more transparency in faculty appointments.
Finances: There is a serious resource crunch in universities which leaves them with
little financial flexibility. In general, about 75 per cent of maintenance expenditure is on
salaries and pensions. Of the remaining 25 per cent, at least 15 per cent is absorbed
by pre-emptive claims such as rents, electricity, telephones and examinations. The
balance,less than 10 per cent, is not even enough for maintenance let alone development.
Laboratories and libraries languish while buildings crumble. But that is not all. In
most universities, plan (investment) expenditure is less than 5 per cent of non-plan
(maintenance) expenditure. Such a small proportion of investment in total
expenditure can only mortgage the future. It is doing so. The time has come for some strategic
thinking on the re-allocation of budgets for universities with some allocation for
development grants and on needs other than salaries. The criteria for resource
allocation should seek to strike a much better balance between providing for salaries/ pensions
and providing for maintenance/ development/ investment. These criteria should
recognise the importance of a critical minimum to ensure standards and strategic preferences to
promote excellence.
Infrastructure: The elements of infrastructure that support the teaching-learning
process,most directly, need to be monitored and upgraded on a regular basis. This means
attention particular attention to libraries and laboratories, in addition to class rooms, sports
facilities and auditoriums. It is imperative that universities provide broadband and
connectivity to all students and teachers in campuses. In parallel, information
technology systems should be used for admissions, administration and examinations along with
other relevant web services for campus communities. And, as soon as possible, a digital
infrastructure for networking universities should be put in place.
Governance: There is an acute need for reform in the structures of governance of
universities. The present system is flawed. On the one hand, it does not preserve
autonomy. On the other, it does not promote accountability. The autonomy of
universities is eroded by interventions from governments and intrusions from political processes.
This must be stopped. At the same time, there is not enough transparency and
accountability in universities. This must be fostered. It is exceedingly difficult to provide
generalized prescriptions. Some steps, which would constitute an important beginning, are clear.
First, the appointments of Vice-Chancellors should be based on search processes
and peer judgment alone. These must be freed from direct or indirect intervention on the part
of governments. Once appointed, Vice Chancellors should have a tenure of six years,
because the existing tenure of three years in most universities and five years in
central universities is not long enough. Second, the size and composition of University
Courts,Academic Councils, and Executive Councils slows down decision-making processes
and sometimes constitutes an impediment to change. University Courts, with a size of
500 plus, which are more a ritual than substance, could be dispensed with. Large
Academic Councils do not meet often. Even when they meet, decisions are slow to come.
Thus, Standing Committees of Academic Councils, which are representative, should be
created for frequent meetings and expeditious decisions. The Vice-Chancellor should, then,
function as a Chief Executive Officer who has the authority and the flexibility to
govern with the advice and consent of the Executive Council which would provide checks
and balances to create accountability. Third, experience suggests that implicit
politicisation has made governance of universities exceedingly difficult and much more
susceptible to entirely non-academic interventions from outside. This problem needs to be
recognised and addressed in a systematic manner not only within universities but also outside,
particularly in governments, legislatures and political parties.
II. UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGES
Undergraduate education, which accounts for about 85 percent of the enrolled
students, is the largest component of our higher education system. It is imparted
through colleges where students enrol for first degrees in Arts, Science or Commerce. There
are a total of about 17,700 undergraduate colleges. Of these, a mere 200 colleges are
autonomous. The rest, as many as 17,500 colleges, are affiliated to, or constituent
in, 131 universities. On average, each university has more than 100 affiliated colleges, but
there are some universities each of which has more than 400 affiliated colleges.
This system of affiliated colleges for undergraduate education, which may have
been appropriate fifty years ago, is neither adequate nor appropriate at this juncture,
let alone for the future. It is cumbersome to manage. And it is difficult to ensure minimal
academic standards across the board. The problem has at least three dimensions.
First,it imposes an onerous burden on universities which have to regulate admissions, set
curricula and conduct examinations for such a large number of undergraduate
colleges.The problem is compounded by uneven standards and geographical dispersion.
Second,the undergraduate colleges are constrained by their affiliated status, in terms of
autonomy and space, which makes it difficult for them to adapt, to innovate and to evolve. The
problem is particularly acute for undergraduate colleges that are good, for both
teachers and students are subjected to the ‘convoy problem’ insofar as they are forced to
move at the speed of the slowest. There is also a problem for undergraduate colleges that
are not so good, or are poor, because universities cannot address their special needs or
unique problems. Third, it is difficult to set curricula and assess performance for such a large
number of students where there is such a large dispersion in performance at school
before entering college. This reality tends to make courses less demanding and
examinations less stringent across the board. In fact the design of courses and examinations
needs to be flexible rather than exactly the same for large student communities.
There is an urgent need to restructure the system of undergraduate colleges
affiliated to universities. In doing so, it is important to make a distinction between
undergraduate colleges that already exist and undergraduate colleges that will be
established in the future. It is also important to remember that undergraduate
colleges are afflicted by problems which are very similar to those that afflict universities.
The most obvious solution is to provide autonomy to colleges, either as individual
colleges or as clusters of colleges.
Individual colleges: Colleges with a proven record of academic excellence and
efficient administrative functioning can be granted autonomy in terms of academic
selfgovernance.Existing affiliated or constituent colleges should be granted autonomy in
phases after due assessment by professional accreditation bodies. A review of
performance of these colleges should be institutionalised and they may be granted
university status on the fulfilment of stated criteria of academic and administrative
performance. The college authorities should be given financial autonomy with regard
to internal allocation of resources. However existing methods of financing should be
retained. In operational terms, then, the autonomy would be accorded in setting of
curriculum and evaluation of students.
College Clusters: Autonomy can be provided to clusters of colleges, selected on the
basis of criteria such as similar standards or geographical proximity. These colleges could
then form a group, complementing each other, offering different courses between them. In
time, these clusters could be upgraded to universities. The course-credit system can
be implemented in these autonomous clusters, whereby different colleges offer
semesterbased courses on a credit system and credits can be transferred across colleges. A
mechanism for the administration of courses across colleges and for the resolution of
problems should be institutionalized with provision for representation in committees.
Such autonomous colleges, or clusters of colleges, would constitute a part of the
1500 universities we propose nationwide by 2015. It must be recognised, however,
that this is, at best, a limited solution. There are two discernible problems.
The first problem with the model of autonomous colleges is the principal-agent
problem of providing autonomy as an option. It becomes necessary to distinguish
between the motivations and the capabilities of colleges. We need to make a
distinction between colleges that wish to become autonomous but do not deserve to, and
colleges that have the capabilities to be autonomous but do not wish to opt for autonomy. For
colleges that wish to become autonomous but may not be suitable, clear cut criteria
should be put in place as a filtering mechanism for colleges wishing to attain
autonomous status: critical number of faculty and disciplines, governance, track record in terms of
students, faculty and research, administrative competence measured by utilization of
grants, regularity of audits, office resources and account maintenance, contribution
to university processes, infrastructural facilities and ratings, if available, by accreditation
agencies. For colleges that can be autonomous but do not wish to be, appropriate
incentives have to be designed, especially for the teaching staff to encourage a
move towards autonomy. Institutional incentives relating to funding and resource
generation and professional incentives for staff including positions of professors, research
grants and greater mobility should be provided.The second problem with the model of autonomous
colleges is that it would be able to provide a solution for a limited proportion, or number, of
undergraduate colleges.
There would be a significant number of undergraduate colleges that would remain
because they may not have the capabilities to become autonomous or join an
autonomous cluster. The obvious solution would be for this latter group to continue as affiliated
colleges with their present universities. In that event, problems will persist not only
for these undergraduate colleges but also for their affiliating universities. Nevertheless,
a proportion of these undergraduate colleges will continue to be affiliated to their
present universities on the basis of stipulated criteria. There are two other possibilities that
could be explored.
The first possibility is that some of these affiliated colleges could be remodelled
as community colleges. These colleges could provide both vocational education
through two-year courses and formal education through three-year courses. This would serve
the needs of a particular segment of the student population better. They could focus on
promoting job-oriented, work-related, skill-based and life-coping education. These
community colleges could provide a unique opportunity to provide holistic education
and eligibility for employment to the disadvantaged.
The second possibility is that we establish a Central Board of Undergraduate
Education along with State Boards of Undergraduate Education which would set
curricula and conduct examinations for undergraduate colleges that choose to be
affiliated with them. These Boards would separate the academic functions from the
administrative functions and at the same time provide quality benchmarks.
Governance would become much simpler. It is possible that some of the existing undergraduate
colleges, particularly those that are at some geographical distance from their parent
university, may wish to affiliate themselves to these Boards.
New undergraduate colleges are bound to be an integral part of the expansion of
opportunities in higher education. Where would these be located? It would be difficult
for them to become autonomous colleges without a track record. It may be possible for
some to join a cluster of autonomous colleges but this would be more the exception than
the rule. It would not be possible for them to affiliate with existing universities which are
already overloaded. Hence, there are three possible options for new undergraduate
colleges to come. First, they could be established as community colleges. Second,
they could be affiliated with the Central Board of Undergraduate Education or State
Boards of Undergraduate Education. Third, they could be affiliated with new universities that
are established.
There are, of course, issues related to governance, curricula, examinations, course
credits and access which arise in the context of undergraduate colleges. These have
been discussed in the context of universities in the preceding section of this note.
III. REGULATION
There is a clear need to establish an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher
Education (IRAHE). Such a regulatory authority is both necessary and desirable.
It is necessary for two important reasons. First, in India, it requires an Act of
Legislature of Parliament to set up a University. The deemed university route is
much too difficult for new institutions. Entry through legislation alone, as at present, is a
formidable barrier. The consequence is a steady increase in the average size of
existing universities with a steady deterioration in their quality. The absence of competition
only compounds problems. Second, as we seek to expand the higher education system,
entry norms will be needed for private institutions and public-private partnerships. The
institutional framework for this purpose must be put in place here and now.
It is desirable for four important reasons. First, it would minimise conflicts of
interest as it would create an arm’s-length distance from stakeholders. Second, it
would replace the present system which is over-regulated but under-governed, through
more appropriate forms of intervention. Third, it would rationalize the existing system
where mandates are both confusing and overlapping. Fourth, it would dispense with the
multiplicity of regulatory agencies to provide a single-window clearance.
The present regulatory system in higher education is flawed in many respects. The
barriers to entry are too high. The system of authorizing entry is cumbersome. And
there are extensive rules after entry, as the UGC seeks to regulate almost every aspect of
an institution from fees to curriculum. The system is also based on patently irrational
principles. The UGC Act section 3.1.2(a) suggests that permission for receiving
grants will be accorded only if the Commission is satisfied that the existing institutions in the
state are not adequate to serve the needs of the state. The other regulators, say in
the sphere of professional education, are often inconsistent in their adherence to
principles.There are several instances where an engineering college or a business school is
approved, promptly, in a small house of a metropolitan suburb without the requisite
teachers, infrastructure or facilities, but established universities experience
difficulties in obtaining similar approvals. Such examples can be multiplied. These would only
confirm that the complexity, the multiplicity and the rigidity of the existing regulatory
structure is not conducive to the expansion of higher education opportunities in India.
In sum, the existing regulatory framework constrains the supply of good
institutions, excessively regulates existing institutions in the wrong places, and is not
conducive to innovation or creativity in higher education. The challenge is therefore
to design a regulatory system that increases the supply of good institutions and fosters
accountability in those institutions. An independent regulator has to be the
cornerstone of such a system.
The proposed IRAHE will rationalize the principles on which entry is regulated.
There are two aspects to this rationalization: what is to be regulated and what are
the principles used for regulation.
In higher education, regulators perform five functions: (1) Entry: licence to grant
degrees. (2) Accreditation: quality benchmarking. (3) Disbursement of public funds.
(4) Access: fees or affirmative action. (5) Licence: to practice profession.
India is perhaps the only country in the world where regulation in 4 of the 5
functions is carried out by one entity, that is, the UGC. 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. All other regulatory
agencies such as the AICTE will need to be abolished while the MCI and the BCI will
be limited to their role as professional associations. These professional associations
could conduct nationwide examinations to provide licences for those wishing to enter the
profession.
The second aspect of regulation is the principle used to regulate. The IRAHE will
determine eligibility for setting up a new institution based on transparent criteria
rather than discretionary controls. Its main role would be to exercise due diligence at the
point it approves a licence to grant degrees. In doing so, it would assess the academic
credibility and the financial viability of the proposed institution on the basis of information
submitted in accordance with the stipulated criteria. It will apply exactly the same
norms to public and private institutions,just as it will apply the same norms to domestic and
international institutions.
The IRAHE would be constituted as follows. It would have a Chairperson and six
Members.The tenure of the Chairperson would be six years. The tenure of the
Members would also be six years. One-third of the Members of the Authority will retire every
two years. The Chairperson would be a distinguished academic from any discipline with
experience of governance in higher education. The Members would be distinguished
academics drawn from the following sets of disciplines: physical sciences, life
sciences,social sciences, humanities and professional subjects such as engineering,
medicine, law or management. The IRAHE could have some part-time members or standing
committees drawn from academia to advise the Authority in each of the aforesaid sets of
disciplines.The Chairperson and the Members of the IRAHE would be appointed by the Prime
Minister based on the recommendations of a Search Committee.
The IRAHE would have to be established by an Act of Parliament. It would be the
only agency that would be authorized to accord degree granting power to higher
education institutions. It would also be responsible for monitoring standards and
settling disputes. It should also be thought of as the authority for licensing accreditation
agencies.The IRAHE must be at an arm’s-length from the government and independent of all
stakeholders including the concerned Ministries of the Government. The Acts of the
UGC, AICTE, MCI and BCI would have to be amended. The role of the UGC would
be re-defined to focus on the disbursement of grants to, and maintenance of, public
institutions in higher education. The entry regulatory functions of the AICTE, the MCI
and the BCI would be performed by the IRAHE, so that their role would be limited to
that of professional associations. These professional associations could conduct
nationwide examinations to provide licenses for those wishing to enter the
profession.
IV. FINANCING
The expansion of our system of higher education, which is both necessary and
desirable, is not possible without financing. For an increase in supply of quality
education depends upon an increase in investment which, in turn, requires financial resources.
There are several sources of such financing.
Government Support: There is no system of higher education in the world that is not
based upon significant public outlays. And government financing will remain the
cornerstone of any strategy to improve our system of higher education. The present
support for higher education, at 0.7 per cent of GDP, is simply not adequate. In fact,
over the past decade, in real terms, there has been a significant decline in the resources
allocated for higher education, in the aggregate as also per student. In an ideal
world,government support for higher education should be at least 1.5 per cent, if not 2 per
cent of GDP, from a total of 6 per cent of GDP for education. This is easier said than
done.But the government should endeavour to reach these levels by 2012. Even this
magnitude of state financing, however, would not suffice for the massive expansion in higher
education that is an imperative. Therefore, it is essential to explore a wide range of
possibilities which can be complements to the increase in public expenditure.
Better Asset Management: Most public universities are sitting on a large reservoir of
untapped resources in the form of land. In effect, with some imagination, many of our
universities can be converted into institutions that are similar to land grant
universities.Each university should thus have an innovative asset management plan. Such plans
should be in consonance with objectives of universities. At the moment, however,
universities have no strategy in this sphere. And there is considerable room to think
in strategic terms about the use of physical assets in the possession of universities. It
should be possible to draw up norms and parameters for universities to use their land as a
source of finance.
Rationalization of Fees: On an average, fees constitute less than 10 per cent of total
expenditure in our universities. And, in most universities, fees have remained
unchanged for decades. In theory, universities have the freedom to decide on fees. In practice,
however, universities have not exercised this freedom in part because of some
genuine concerns about access but in larger part because of the rhetoric and populism in the
political process. The problem has been compounded by the UGC method of
providing grants-in-aid to bridge the difference between income and expenditure.
Consequently, there is no incentive for universities or colleges to raise income through higher
fees as that sum would be deducted from their UGC (or State government) grants. The low
fees in public universities, without any means test, have meant unquantifiable benefits for
unintended beneficiaries. But private players and foreign institutions have not been
restrained in charging fees that the market can bear. The time has come to rethink,
as we have no choice but to rationalize fees. It is for universities to decide the level of fees
but,as a norm, fees should meet at least 20 per cent of the total expenditure in
universities. In addition, fees need to be adjusted every two years through price indexation.
Such small,continuous, adjustments would be absorbed and accepted far more easily than
large,discrete changes after a period of time. This rationalization of fees should be subject
to two conditions: first, needy students should be provided with a fee waiver plus
scholarships to meet their costs; second, universities should not be penalized by the
UGC for the resources raised from higher fees through matching deductions from their
grantsin-aid.
Philanthropic Contributions: It is clear that we have not exploited this potential. In
fact,the proportion of such contributions in total expenditure on higher education has
declined from more than 12 per cent in the 1950s to less than 3 per cent in the 1990s. It
should be possible to nurture this tradition of philanthropy through changes in incentives for
universities and for donors. In the present system, there is an explicit disincentive. If
universities mobilize resources from elsewhere, they are in effect penalized through
a matching deduction in their grant-in-aid. What we need to do is exactly the opposite.
Universities which mobilize resources through contributions should be rewarded with
matching grants-in-aid. At present, there is also an implicit disincentive in both lax
laws and trust laws. Endowments of universities can only be placed in specified securities
where rates of return are low and barely keep up with rates of inflation. What is
more,trusts must spend 85 per cent of the income stream from the endowment in the
same year,so that only 15 per cent of the income stream can be used to build up the corpus in
the endowment. These laws should be changed so that universities can invest in
financial instruments of their choice and use the income from their endowments to build up a
corpus.
Other Sources: Obviously, universities must not be driven by commercial
considerations.But it would be both prudent and wise to tap other sources such as alumni
contributions,licensing fees, or user charges (for facilities in universities used by people from
outside).We need to create supportive institutional mechanisms that allow universities to
engage professional firms for this purpose. Mobilizing resources, even from former students,
is a task that cannot be performed by academics because it needs specialised talents
and experience. Current UGC practice also penalises universities for any resources
mobilised with a matching deduction from the grants-in-aid provided to the institution. Rather
than penalizing universities for raising resources, the UGC should incentivise them. In
addition, universities must have the autonomy and flexibility to mobilise resources
from elsewhere by creating or using appropriate institutional mechanisms.
Private Investment: In three professions – engineering, medicine and management- there
has been a de facto privatization of education so that two-thirds to three-fourths of
the seats are in private institutions. But private investment in university education, where
more than 70 per cent of our students study, is almost negligible. It is essential to
stimulate private investment in higher education as a means of extending
educational opportunities. We must recognise that, even with the best will in the world,
government financing cannot be enough to support the massive expansion in opportunities for
higher education on a scale that is now essential.
Public-Private Partnerships: It might be possible to leverage public funding,
especially in the form of land grants, to attract more (not-for-profit) private investment. The
present system of allotment of land, where political patronage is implicit, discourages
genuine educational entrepreneurs and encourages real estate developers in disguise. In
principle,it should be possible to set up new institutions in higher education, not just more IITs
and IIMs but also more universities, as public-private partnerships where the government
provides the land and the private sector provides the finances. Such public-private
partnerships which promote university- industry interface would also strengthen
teaching and research.
International Students: India is not an attractive destination for international students,
not even as much as it used to be 30 years ago. It is time for us to make a conscious
attempt to attract foreign students to India for higher education. This would enrich our
academic milieu. This would enhance quality. This would be a significant source of finance.
Even 50,000 foreign students charged fees at an average rate of US$ 10,000 per annum
would yield US$ 0.5 billion: the equivalent of Rs. 2300 crores per annum in current prices at
current exchange rates. The other side of the coin is perhaps even more important.
Estimates suggest that there are about 160,000 students from India studying abroad.
If their average expenditure on fees and maintenance is US$ 25,000 per student per
year,Indian students overseas are spending US$ 4 billion: the equivalent of Rs. 18,400
crores per annum in current prices at current exchange rates. This has an enormous
potential as a source of finance for higher education in India, if only we could crate more
opportunities for students with increased places and enhanced quality in our system.
V. QUALITY
The introduction of an independent regulator in higher education, the reform of
existing public universities and the creation of national universities, taken together,
would contribute to enhancement of quality in higher education. But this needs to be
supported with some pro-active steps that would foster quality in higher education.
Accountability: The quality of higher education depends on a wide range of factors.
But accountability, at every level, is a critical determinant. The higher education system
must, therefore, provide for accountability vis-Ã -vis the outside world and create
accountability within the system. Accountability of universities must not be confused with control
of the state.Institutional mechanisms, based on checks and balances, constitute the most
effective system for this purpose. The essential objective of accountability to society
must be to empower students to take decisions rather than simply increase the
power of the state.Stipulated performance criteria or inspections are forms of control. We
need to create systems that enable students, or their parents, to choose between and assess
universities.
Competition: The supply constraint on higher education is an impediment to
accountability. When students have relatively few choices, institutions have greater
power over them. An expansion of higher education which provides students with
choices and creates competition between institutions is going to be vital in enhancing
accountability. Such competition between institutions within India is, of course,
essential.But the significance of competition from outside India, more qualitative than
quantitative,must not be underestimated. For this purpose, we must formulate appropriate
policies for the entry of foreign institutions into India and the promotion of Indian
institutions abroad.Such policies must ensure that there is an incentive for good institutions
and a disincentive for sub-standard institutions to come to India. The present regime does
the opposite: sub-standard players rush in while premier universities stay away as they
care more about their autonomy and wish to set benchmarks for themselves. However, a
level playing field should be ensured and all rules that apply to domestic institutions
should also be applicable to foreign institutions. At the same time, policies must encourage
rather than discourage Indian institutions to create campuses abroad not as
business opportunities but as competition opportunities in their quest for academic excellence.
Of course, expansion abroad should not be at the cost of domestic provision, either at
present or in the future.
Accreditation: So far, we have sought to create accountability by increasing the
powers of government regulators. Yet, it has done little to improve the quality of higher
education.Consider, for example, the National Accreditation and Assessment Council. This
system has three characteristics which significantly erode its credibility. First, it grants one
institution, the NAAC, monopoly power over accreditation. Second, NAAC itself does
not have the capacity to rate all the institutions. It has rated just about 10 percent of
the total number so far. Third, the methodology of NAAC is much too discretionary.
Instead of vesting one institution created by the state with monopoly power, the IRAHE may
be empowered to license a number of accreditation agencies, public and private, to do
the ratings. In doing so, the regulator would set standards for them. This will need to be
accompanied by stringent information disclosure norms for all educational
institutions,including the source and level of their accreditation. The rapid growth in higher
education, particularly in the private sector, has created a strong need for
empowering students and parents with reliable information from a credible accreditation process.
This system can be supplemented with the creation of self-regulatory bodies in the higher
education system and the freedom to seek recognition from global accreditation
systems.
Internal Systems: In most universities, the main stakeholders, students, are
minimally part of any mechanism for accountability. Obviously, student evaluations need to be
used with care.Even so,they can be part of a baseline set of accountability measures which
could at least establish whether classes scheduled in the timetable are held. But