Column: Creating another entry barrier

UGC regulations make it difficult for private universities to function

Historically, political leadership in our country has always connected education with economic development as reflected in the various national documents like the Radhakrishnan Commission Report on University Education (1948-49), the Report of the Education Commission (1964-66), the National Knowledge Commission Reports (2006-09) and the National Skill Development Initiative (2009). The main objective always being to meet the needs and aspirations of a self-reliant nation committed to democracy.

Since Independence the private sector has played a critical role in meeting aspirations of the society and industry demands. Particularly in the last two decades the private sector participation has increased dramatically, accounting for 64% of the total number of institutions and 59% of the enrolment in the country. Although it?s established that the government alone will not be able to meet the growing demand for higher education in the country and achieve 30% gross enrolment ratio (GER) by 2020, the entry barriers for private sector remain as stringent as ever.

Today, the only way a private entity can set up universities at the national level is through the deemed-to-be-university route under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. The basic idea behind deemed-to-be-universities was to promote, strengthen and bring those institutions that were doing exemplary work in specialised academic field comparable to a university under the purview of University Grants Commission. In the last one decade, a few states recognising the need for private sector participation in higher education have introduced the State Private University Bill, which opens another entry route at state level but has its own issues and challenges.

It?s interesting to note that in 1970 the number of deemed universities were only seven, which rose to 130 by 2009. According to 2011-12 data, almost 6 lakh students?3%?were enrolled in 130 deemed-to-be-universities. Most deemed-to-be-universities are rated by independent accreditation bodies and qualify as centres of excellence in specific fields and have contributed immensely in making our youth employable. However, it cannot be ignored that the rapid approvals of the deemed to be universities has lowered the quality parameters in some institutions. The responsibility for such quality dilution lies both with the government and the private sector and there is no argument against the need for bringing appropriate regulations to rectify the scenario.

The question remains, should the regulations encourage centres of excellence to perform better and provide adequate support to those that are not up to mark to improve their performance or put all institutions in one basket and regulate in same parameters irrespective of performance? The industry consensus is that the regulator must differentiate between reputed institutions from those that do not meet minimum (or basic) standards. Accreditation of institutions and of programmes should be the basis for such differentiation. Further, regulations should facilitate appropriate governance structure in the institutions that would allow them to effectively offer new academic programmes as per the industry and society?s needs.

Unfortunately, UGC Regulations on Deemed Universities 2010 impinges on the autonomy and defeats the very purpose and idea behind the provision in the UGC Act 1956. Not surprisingly, these regulations have been challenged by several private deemed-to-be-universities in various courts and are under review by the ministry of human resource development. There are several stringent provisions that deters a private not-for-profit entity to invest in the sector. According to a Ficci analysis, the following modifications in regulations 2010 are needed to improve the environment and re-establish the faith of private sector in the system:

(a) Retrospective application of the regulation has caused immense difficulties and hardship for the established deemed universities that have started off-campus centres or programmes prior to May 2010. More importantly, the future of the innocent students is at stake due to the uncertainties caused in the minds of employers owing to such regulations. UGC should accord approval to those off-campus centres that were set up before regulations became effective, viz. May 2010, and meet the quality standards for higher education.

(b) The regulations insulate the management of a deemed university from the promoter society by insisting that the president of the promoter society (or his close relative) may not be the chancellor of the university. There is no evidence that quality of governance or education will improve simply by insulating university?s management from promoter society?s influence. Further, there is no justification when this is also applicable to those institutions that have a proven track record, are highly rated by experts, and acknowledged by students and employers for their quality of education. To ensure transparency, accountability and quality in governance, every deemed-to-be-university should be required to strengthen its board with more independent members or directors, as also adopt a code of conduct for its board, its members, and university administrators including senate members. To ensure transparency, the minutes of the meetings of the board should be put in public domain.

(c) The regulations require all deemed-to-be-universities to seek prior approval of AICTE before offering a new programme, or starting an existing programme in a new centre impinging on their academic autonomy.

(d) Assets transfer of a deemed-to-be-university to UGC in the event of serious and continued default is indeed irrational. Instead, it should mandate such institution to ensure successful transfer of their students to another UGC-approved institution at their own cost.

(e) The new regulations prohibiting distance education by deemed-to-be-universities is against the government?s own policy of ?education to everyone?. Given the potential for distance education is enormous, participation by deemed-to-be-universities should be encouraged with appropriate regulations to effectively monitor the outcome.

It is our good fortune that India, at present, is one of the younger nations in the world with over 50% of the population in the age-group of 18-30 years. It is estimated that by about 2025, India will have 25% of the world?s total workforce. However, India?s public spending on higher education is just 1.2% of GDP, while the private sector spending is 1.8% of GDP, totalling to 3% of GDP. The key concern in India today is the creation of an ?employable? workforce in order to harness its demographic dividend. Several surveys by Ficci have revealed that both public and private employers as well as students prefer self-financing private institutions as they ensure better quality of education when compared to state-run government colleges and aided private colleges. The private sector is willing to play an instrumental role through the creation of knowledge networks, research and innovation centres, corporate-backed institutions, and support for faculty development, provided the reforms in the sector are implemented on a fast track.

The author is chairman, Ficci Higher Education Committee, and chairman, Manipal Global Education Services Pvt Ltd