Vice-Chancellors in the country are a worried lot, although higher education in India has come a long way since Independence. The figures speak for themselves: the number of universities has increased from 20 in 1947 to 398, colleges from 500 to 20,676, teaching staff from a meagre 15,000 to nearly 4.80 lakh and student population in higher education from 1 lakh in 1950 to over 112 lakh in 2005. At a recent, ?National conference on development of higher education?, organised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in the Capital, there was a consensus among the VCs about the triple objectives of expansion, inclusion and excellence as being integral and complementary to the higher education system in the country. This is in step with the 11th Plan target of achieving inclusiveness in higher education, targeting regions and groups with a lower enrolment ratio.
The ministry of human resources as well as the UGC are, however, ambitious. They have set a target of 15% for gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education by 2011-12 from the current level of 10% GER. Although, the target may not seem unrealistic, a host of policy reforms are needed to achieve the goal. As a first step, it is time to focus on smaller towns, rural as well as remote areas and backward regions, where GER is lower than the national average.
The step is necessary as GER in the backward regions of the country is barely 5%. In the case of SCs and STs, it is at 6%. In addition, female enrolment ratio in higher education needs to be increased. In some backward and still traditional states, parents still do not prefer their girl child going to co-educational colleges. Thus, in every such state, colleges exclusively for girls need to be increased and if possible, a women?s university in each state is likely to be established.
A few other roadblocks are, however, there, which may make the process of achieving the target difficult. The VCs at the recent meet, have asked for one regulatory authority for universities with the role of All India Council for Technical Education and the National Council for Technical Education to be confined to colleges offering professional and technical courses. In fact, VCs of central, state, deemed universities and other eminent educationists expressed their anguish over too many authorities monitoring higher education in the country and suggested the need to have a fewer number to look after higher education.
They have suggested that the UGC be the sole regulatory authority for universities and other regulatory authorities should respect the autonomy of these institutions and should play only an advisory role. For, medical and agricu-lture universities and colleges, which are being funded by separate administrative ministries, the Medical council of India (MCI) and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) should continue to regulate them.
A university VC, on the condition of anonymity, said: ?Universities have been encouraged to run all types of courses including professional courses such as engineering and medical. But, if a college, under a particular university wishes to increase the intake for any engineering course, it has to take permission from various authorities such as UGC and AICTE apart from university authorities. This makes the approval process that much more cumbersome.? Regulatory authorities such as AICTE and MCI should only be concerned about whether a particular course is being taught by an institution and conducted in a proper manner or not, he pointed out. ?If they find laxity on that account, these authorities should take strict action against these institutes. At the same time, they should suggest measures for improvement and should not interfere otherwise, in the day-to-day functioning of the institution,? he added.
While asking for more autonomy, VCs agreed that autonomy should only be accompanied by responsibility. Autonomy with accountability has to be the guiding principle. Meanwhile, even the Knowledge Commission, set up by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005 with the objective of introducing radical transformation in the country?s education sector, has expressed similar views?higher education needs a systematic overhaul so that India can educate much larger numbers without diluting academic standards.
The commission called for an effective regulatory authority for higher education, which should be independent. It felt that the authority must be kept at arm?s length from the government and independent of all stakeholders, including the concerned ministries. The authority will be responsible for monitoring standards and settling disputes among other regulatory authorities and institutions.
And, of course, contrary to what the VCs have recommended, the knowledge commission has suggested a change in the role of UGC including curtailment, and that it would mainly cater to areas such as disbursement of grants to, and maintenance of, public institutions in higher education. It has also favoured curtailment in the functioning of the two regulatory agencies, AICTE and MCI.
With regard to internationalisation, there was almost a consensus. Universities demanded a level playing field and all rules that are applicable to domestic institutions should apply to foreign institutions. A strong regulatory mechanism for foreign universities has to be there so that it cannot adversely impinge on the goal of equity and quality, they felt.
Foreign universities should have an opportunity to come here as it is bound to bring quality and competition along with it. However, before that starts to happen, an urgent need was felt to formulate appropriate policies both for foreign universities coming here as well as Indian university planning for expansion abroad. There should be incentives for reputed universities outside India to come and set up their branches in the country. At, the same time good domestic academic institutions such as IITs and IIMs be allowed to set up campuses outside.
Some policymakers beg to disagree. A senior policymaker, who wished to remain anonymous, said: ?A section of policymakers question why should we allow our institutions to go global, even while we are struggling to set up quality educational institutes in the country itself. So, what is the rationale behind letting a huge sum of money to be spent outside the country. It has its drawbacks. Then again, another section of policy makers argue that if we let our top institutions go global, it will earn significant foreign exchange. That can then be utilised to set up good quality education domestically. With the result of these two dramatically opposite views so far there has been no decision.?