Public expectations on tertiary education

Dr Lakshman Andrady

We are at a critical juncture in our history with a unique opportunity to redefine our higher education structure in Sri Lanka. Privatization of university education is finally being discussed openly and there appears to be the political will to refurbish, if not to reinvent, the system. It is an opportunity we need to grasp, leaving aside all politics and parochial aspirations, to pose broader, albeit uncomfortable, fundamental questions that can fashion the future Sri Lanka our children and grandchildren will live in

Countries seek development in terms of such metrics as higher income, high employment rates, good public health, high standard of living and good governance. These rewards, however, have to be earned in competition with others in an ever-expanding global economy. The Internet-linked world of communication and increased access to transportation encourages a multinational, cross-cultural economy we will be forced to function in.

The goods-based economy has given way to a knowledge-based economy worldwide as reflected in the growth of service sectors. In this shuffle, specialists have replaced the generalist in many spheres of endeavour, especially in Science and Technology.

National development requires that we explicitly plan for these changes and strategically align Sri Lanka’s universities to respond to these changes. The objective is clear; to produce a high-quality student who can contribute to our national productivity. We must strive to produce innovative, world class high-caliber knowledge-workers to allow Sri Lanka to meaningfully compete for our slice of the ‘global pie.’ Our goal should be to create citizenry committed to protecting and fostering our cultural heritage upholding good values of governance and democracy. This is the public expectation that represents a reasonable return on investment of our tax-rupees in higher education.

Service-sector growth

Sadly, we have fallen far short of this lofty goal. Sri Lanka has not enjoyed the recent IT-driven prosperity of India nor enjoyed explosive service-sector growth based on specialized skills of our Asian neighbors. Is our higher education model deficient? Trapped in a fiscally constrained, politicized, Oxbridge model borrowed from the West in a post-colonial era, we have generally preferred the easy path of status quo. We educate our brightest as if they were destined to integrate into a post-war social scheme in England. Signs that the system is wrecked are everywhere.

Good students are paying for university education abroad and in the process contribute to ‘brain drain’ as well.

Those qualified to pursue higher education are kept out of the few the university we have because the tax-paying public simply cannot afford free tertiary education for all.

A large fraction of the gifted, survive this ordeal of selection and finally graduate, only to join the ranks of the unemployed.

Why are those bright children we educated at the cost of millions of rupees now demanding for ‘artificial jobs’ to be created and handed down just to keep them occupied? Are we cranking out the wrong type of graduate? Are we producing too many of them? There is clearly a serious mismatch between what the country needs to fuel her developmental goals and the vision in the echelons of higher education. But, all this is history: what can be done now to re-engineer the system?

Tertiary education

At least three factors hold us back in achieving our developmental goals in this arena;

* Lack of a clear, research-based long-term vision of how national developmental needs relate to tertiary education.

* Serious limitation of

resources to fund our free higher education process

* Lack of adequate com-munication between the educators and industry or commerce, the ultimate customer.

Realistic public expectations from tertiary education have been articulated in the Mahinda Chintana that targets an ambitious, sustained annual growth rate of eight percent and therefore a doubling of our per capita income (to over $4000) within the decade.

Assuming a minimal population growth, unemployment should then drop to three - four percent.

It is in this vision that taxpayers have invested their higher education rupees in (instead of in hospitals, energy and agriculture with risk-free short-term benefits). Finally, it is the local industry that has to ultimately deliver on this national vision.

As educators we cannot afford to be disjointed from this client base or the global marketplace. But, where is the strategic higher education document that identifies which sectors will fuel this rapid growth, what specialized skills will be in demand, and how quickly we must retrain or re-tool to make the vision a reality? Where is the national graduate output plan, the capital resources demand forecasts, the faculty acquisition/training criteria that quantifies deliverables in concert with the vision? This is the opportunity to create such a plan and whet it with the help of our academia and planners.

Degree programs

Plans are of little use without funding to execute them. In Sri Lanka, universities are a monopoly and the public pays the tab for university education of all students, regardless of their ability to pay. World over, however, the cost of educating a student, especially in Science and Technology is increasing annually.

We in Sri Lanka are not immune to this cost increase, and realistically must regularly increase the per capita cost of educating a graduate. If funding is maintained at the same level, invariably the facilities and the quality of education must deteriorate.

The faculty hours might be overstretched, equipment obsolete or even the degree programs themselves pruned to cut costs.

A sub-standard university education has little competitive edge or any role to play in development and is certainly not a ‘basic right’ worth fighting for. In terms of contributing to our GNP it will not be worth anything.

Privatization of universities is a good and proven response to the problem of resource limitation.

Less than 15 percent of those who qualify find a place in our free universities funded with about ½ percent of our GDP. Others, who spent decades horning their skills for higher learning are left in the cold, as Sri Lanka cannot afford to educate them all. But some of the privileged 15 percent can afford to pay all or a part the cost of a local university education (One-three lakhs per student). Shouldn’t they be asked to pay an amount determined on a sliding scale based on their family income for their education?

Why not adopt a work ethic where the students pay a part of their way working on campus (if a misplaced sense of dignity of labor prevents outside campus employment)? Once they graduate and find employment why not ask them to pay back the cost (even free of interest) so that the right to free education can also be extended to the less fortunate 85 percent as well? Why does it have to be a public handout rather than a repayable loan?

Could the non-research faculty be part-time or shared between several campuses and university/industry jointly, allowing them a better income? Could web-based resources be pooled and delivered nationwide to all university to save on costs?

Privatization

Can privatization of universities save the day? Assuming that implementation is well thought out there is virtually no downside risk.

Does it compromise the right of Sri Lankans to free education? With private universities available, at least some of the pressure on State universities will ease.

Why would the fortunate 15 percent, in a seemingly elitist move, block privatization of universities (or a fee-based public education) that will allow more of that 85 percent of the working class to attend public universities at little or no cost? Is it the creation of an uneven playing field that is the issue; only rich students will be able to afford private education? But this is the status quo.

Rich students routinely attend foreign universities and are highly sought after by local industry.

The billions of rupees in foreign exchange they spend are lost to the country. How can we promote equity?

A government loan guarantee scheme (even at no interest) to help those who cannot afford either a public or private higher education will begin to address this issue.

Private universities might be asked to contribute to such a fund as well or provide merit-based scholarships.

Graduates after employment will pay back the loan to the public to be recycled as a loan to yet another. Or, is it the fear that low-grade degrees will be ‘sold’ by these universities to the unworthy?

As long as Sri Lanka stipulates admission criteria, only legitimate students will get into any university, public or private. If the latter entity yields a poor-quality graduate of little use to employers, within a few years they must fade away into disrepute.

Private universities, especially those affiliated with a foreign university, will be a business venture and they will have to excel to survive.

Public universities will in turn compete to match or excel these. Public and private universities will benchmark themselves against each other resulting in higher academic standards.

Higher education

The bottom line is that Sri Lanka needs to be on fast-track development in the coming years if the national vision in Mahinda Chintana is to become reality. Tertiary education has a critical role to play in this plan. Skilled knowledge workers we rely on to fuel this growth must come from either our universities or be imported from elsewhere. The taxpayer cannot afford to provide a world-class education a sufficient number of our qualified pool of students.

The time has come for Sri Lanka to adopt privatization of universities. Along with a loan/grant scheme it will allow the other 85 percent also the freedom to educate themselves. Time has come to demand free access to higher education for all.