The Hindu Business Line : Exporting higher education — Dilemma of `to commit or not to commit'

THE Indian Institutes of Management are in the news again — two years ago on the issue of fees, and now on the issue of `going abroad'. In the former case, the IIMs wanted to raise their fees considerably, which the government argued would make access to such management programmes by the weaker sections even more difficult.

The latest furore was over the Bangalore IIM's intention to set up a campus in Singapore. Though the government initially felt that there was a lot the IIMs could do in India for Indian students, before going abroad, it later relented and allowed the IIMs to go global after amending their Memoranda of Associations. The quid pro quo, however, was that the institutes would enhance the intake of students.

Despite its happy resolution, this issue has once again brought to the fore matters relating to the IIMs' autonomy.

Autonomy of higher education institutions is an important aspect that has to be preserved, nurtured and promoted. It includes academic autonomy, administrative autonomy and financial autonomy.

Though higher education institutions should wield 100 per cent autonomy in academic matters the same cannot be said with regard to financial and administrative autonomy.

After all, most higher education systems in many civilised societies are funded by the state; yet they are academically autonomous. Similarly, all our judiciary is completely funded by the state, and all appointments are made by the government and we can hardly doubt the autonomous functioning of our judicial institutions. Hence we need to separate academic autonomy from administrative and financial autonomy.

There is no need to worry much about financial autonomy, as long as no compromise is made on academic autonomy and as long as government control does not cross safe limits with respect to administrative autonomy of the institutions.

The bottomline is: Without adversely affecting institutional autonomy, the government has to set directions for proper all-round development of our higher education system.

On the question of fee increases, they are generally regressive in nature and effect, irrespective of how efficient the student support mechanisms are. A substantial increase in fees levels understandably prevents many people even to aspire for admission to these premier institutions.

Steep fee increases are not justified where there is huge demand for higher education coupled with the prevalence of wide socio-economic inequalities, on the one hand, and the rapidly increasing manpower requirements of the economy, on the other.

Even setting aside the issue of fees, the IIMs have been highly elitist and restrictive with entrance examinations that discriminate against the economically poor students in rural areas who cannot afford private tuition and time to prepare for these examinations.

On the second issue, the IIMs are said to have been set up with two purposes in mind: To produce high-quality manpower by imparting quality management education to students. And, second, to support and strengthen other public and private institutions imparting management education in the country.

IIMs have probably been performing well with respect to the first objective, but not necessarily on the second point. Even with respect to the first objective, graduates in large numbers go abroad, creating an impression that IIMs (and IITs) produce manpower for the developed world and not for India.

There are shortages of quality manpower in the domestic economy. Hence, the government may not be wrong in saying that IIMs have a lot to do at home before crossing borders. Not that the IIMs are to reach a saturation level with the job at home complete, before thinking of going abroad; perhaps it can never be. But there is a long a way to go before they reach that level.

At the same time, I can agree that our IIMs and IITs and a very few other institutions of higher education, having already established for themselves a brand name, are academically competent enough to `export' education and `earn,' and that there is nothing seriously wrong in their going abroad, even though losses might have to be incurred by the domestic economy.

After all, this is exactly the same practice in many other sectors; we receive international aid — loans and grants — but we also give aid to other countries — small or big.

More important, while the government is faced with the Hamlet's dilemma, `to commit or not to commit' our higher education to WTO under GATS, and when at the same time the government is also occupied with the formulation of guidelines for allowing foreign universities into India and also probably for Indian institutions to go abroad, the IIMs' move to enter `international trade in education' may be seen as inadvertently paving the way to `commit.'

Both issues are related to finances and their origin can be traced to the government policy of financing higher education in the country. The Government has reduced its budgetary support to higher education, in general, and to the IIMs, in particular, in the recent past.

It is now reported that three major IIMs will not get any budgetary support under the non-Plan category in the next financial year.

Even though they have huge corpus/endowment funds, they cannot use these funds, as the memorandum of understanding with the government does not allow them to do so, and it is not so far intended to amend the MoU on this score.

The government also specifically encouraged, and even required in the recent past the IIMs and other institutions of higher education, without considering broad social, economic and educational issues, to raise resources through various mechanisms. The government-appointed committees also clearly recommended increase in student fees, and generating further revenues from high levels of fees from foreign students.

The latter recommendation is little short of encouraging higher education institutions to go abroad to make money. In fact, on many occasions, this was also explicitly suggested. Thus both the measures proposed by the IIMs can be seen as resource generating mechanisms, exactly in line with the recommendations made by the government in recent years.

The government now realises how costly was its policy of niggardliness to education and its recommendation to higher education institutions to raise their own resources. While the Dr Swaminadhan Committee on Technical Education and the Dr Justice Punnayya Committee on Central Universities recommended revenue generation by higher education institutions to the extent of 20 per cent of the recurring requirements of the institutions — a recommendation approved by the government — many institutions are successful in generating much above the 20 per cent level, paying no attention to the resultant inequities in access to higher education, and the other problems it creates.

In this context, the recommendation of the recent Committee on Higher and Technical Education of the Central Advisory Board on Education is worth noting: It suggests capping the revenue generation by our higher education institutions through fees and other sources at the 20 per cent level, meaning that the government meets the remaining part of the budget requirement of the higher education institutions in the country.

Without such a cap and, more importantly, without a clear and firm commitment by the government with regard to funding higher education, many institutions, including many poor quality institutions, may go the way the IIMs proposed to go.

(The author is a Senior Fellow and Head, Educational Finance Unit at the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi. His can be reached at jtilak@vsnl.com)

More Stories on : Education | Management

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Wages of attrition

Budget 2006: Fine-tuning the tax regime

The export growth story

Commanding, not demanding, respect

Exporting higher education — Dilemma of `to commit or not to commit'

WTO has not helped the common man

Beyond Davos

Sensex highs

B-schools

Business correspondents