Higher education system in India: A comparative study
Higher education system is essential for national, social and economic development øf the country. There is å need øf value based higher education system which empowers youth for self sustainability by inculcating employment skills and hence reducing poverty. India’s higher education system is the third largest ˆn the world. This paper includes the comparative study øf components øf value based higher education system øf six countries – UK, China, USA, Australia, Brazil and South Africa with Ind. The paper proposes educational reforms and explains the critical aspects øf managing, and delivering superior value øf the higher education system ˆn Ind. This study gives å complete view øf the need øf value ˆn higher education system ˆn Ind.
INTRODUCTION
The rising demand for higher education is represented by an increase from 100.8 million tertiary students worldwide ˆn 2000 to 152.5 million ˆn 2007. The higher education sector has undergone major changes throughout the world which led to increased competition for institutions ˆn this sector (Kirp, 2003; Maringe and Gibbs, 2009). According to UNESCO, “higher education is no longer å luxury; it is essential to national, social and economic development”. The quest to achieve Education for All (EFA) is fundamentally about assuring that children, youth and adults gain the knowledge and skills they need to better their lives and to play å role ˆn building more peaceful and equitable societies. This is why focusing on quality is an imperative for achieving EFA. As many societies strive to universalize basic education, they face the momentous challenge øf providing conditions where genuine learning can take place for each and every learner. Quality must be seen ˆn light øf how societies define the purpose øf education (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2005). Quality improves the value øf education. So there is å lot øf importance nowadays to increase the value øf education. ˆn this paper, å trial was made to explain the demand øf value ˆn higher education ˆn Ind.
The six goals adopted at the World Education Forum ˆn Dakar, Senegal, ˆn April 2000, implicitly or explicitly integrate å quality dimension. The goals are early childhood care and education, universal primary education, youth and adult learning, literacy, gender and quality. Countries that are farthest from achieving goals 1 to 5 are also farthest from achieving goal 6. Several indicators provide information on dimensions øf quality. Public expenditure on education represents å higher proportion øf GDP ˆn rich countries, where the EFA goals are already achieved, than ˆn poorer ones, where the coverage øf under-resourced systems needs to be both expanded and improved. Spending has increased over the past decade ˆn many developing countries, notably ˆn East Asia and the Pacific and ˆn Latin America and the Caribbean. Pupil/teacher ratios remain higher than is desirable ˆn many countries øf sub-Saharan Africa (regional median: 44:1) and South and West Asia (40:1). ˆn many low-income countries, teachers do not meet even the minimum standards for entry into teaching and many have not fully mastered the curriculum. The HIV/ AIDS pandemic is sev erely undermining the provision øf good education and contributing significantly to teacher absenteeism. Data from national and international test scores show that low achievement is widespread ˆn most developing regions. Goal 6, ˆn particular, commits countries, with the support øf their EFA partners, to improve all aspects øf the quality øf education. This results ˆn improvement øf the value øf education. The central planks øf most education systems are expected to ensure that all pupils acquire the knowledge, skills and values necessary for the exercise øf responsible citizenship.
The broad objective øf education is to create å sizeable population øf such educated men and women who could understand the world well enough and are able to bring about å change leading to adequate health and education services, å better environment, and elimination øf ignorance and deprivation (limitations), which continue to strangulate the developing societies. The policy, therefore adhering to the principles øf equity, quality and efficiency place added emphasis on the education øf the people, who are under-privileged and live ˆn misery (Rao, 2004).
ˆn the next few decades, Ind will probably have the world’s largest set øf young people. Even as other countries begin to age, Ind will remain å country øf young people. If the proportion øf working population to total population increases, that should be reflected ˆn å sharp increase ˆn the country’s savings rate. And if Ind can find productive job opportunities for working population, that would give Ind å big opportunity to leapfrog ˆn the race for social and economic development and as å result growth rates would go up. China and other countries øf South East Asia face the phenomenon øf ageing population and Ind is an exception to this rule. Therefore, it might be India’s opportunity to leapfrog ˆn the race for social and economic development. India’s youth can be an asset only if there is an investment ˆn their capabilities.
The National Knowledge Commission’s (NKC) recommendations have been crafted to achieve the objective øf tapping into India’s enormous reservoir øf knowledge, to mobilise national talent and create an empowered generation with access to tremendous possibilities. With 550 million below the age øf 25, India’s demographic dividend is å greatest asset. By recommending reforms ˆn the education and associated sectors, NKC aim has been to provide å platform to harness this human capital, which has the ability to change the course øf development ˆn the country. Recommendations have also been suggested ˆn other key areas, because to adequately tap this potential, the right development paradigm has to be created by investing ˆn intellectual capital, developing the skill set øf the population, strengthening research, encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship and creating effective systems øf e-governance (Sam, 2009)
OBJECTIVES ØF THE STUDY
1. To find the factors that helps ˆn creation øf value-based highereducation. 2. To compare India’s higher education with six different countries taken from different continents øf the world. These countries are US, UK, Australia, China, Brazil and South-Africa.
3. To give suggestions for improving India’s higher education system.
METHODOLOGY
ˆn this paper, the research is based on secondary data taken from different research reports, journals and research papers. The research is based on the comparative study øf components øf value based higher education øf six countries: United States, United Kingdom, Australia, China, South-Africa and Brazil.
INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
Since ancient times, Ind has å strong tradition øf higher education. This is evident from centers øf learning like the Buddhist monasteries which existed ˆn the 7th century BC and Nalanda which existed ˆn the 3rd century AD (Perkin, 2006). Few øf these centers were very large, having several faculties. Invasions and disorder ˆn the country has extinguished ancient Indian education system (Britishers brought western and secular education, with an emphasis on scientific inquiry, to Ind. The first college was set up ˆn 1918 ˆn Serampore, ˆn Bengal, imparting western education ˆn Ind. ˆn 1857, three Central Universities øf Calcutta, Bombay and Madras were set up, and 27 colleges were affiliated to them. ˆn 1947, 19 Universities were already ˆn existence ˆn Ind (CABE, 2005), while after independence, higher education system grew rapidly. ˆn 1980, the numbers øf Universities were 132 and colleges were 4738 ˆn the country, ˆn which 5% øf the eligible age group enrolled ˆn higher education. Student enrolment, which grew between 1987 and 1993, was 7%, but declined to 5.5% at å compound rate øf growth. The members øf higher education institutes grew from 516 ˆn 1947 to 1948 to 17, 973 ˆn 2005 to 2006 (Government øf Ind, 2007).
The rapid expansion øf higher education ˆn Ind has been at the cost øf its quality, ˆn that quality varies with institutions. There are three agencies that evaluate the quality øf institutions and programmes. These agencies are evaluated through an external quality assurance ˆn the country. These are the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) to accredit institutions øf higher education, the National Board øf Accreditation (NBA) to accredit programmes ˆn engineering and related areas, and Accreditation which does not protect student from fraud and abuse. Public awareness is very low ˆn Ind. ˆn Ind, there is no system øf collection and compilation øf statistical information on higher education ˆn the country. The Ministry øf Human Resource Development øf the Central government delegated this responsibility to University Grant Commission (UGC). However, University Grant Commission (UGC) has failed to do so (Agarwal, 2006).
Ind has more than 9% annual growth rate. ˆn order to sustain the growth rate, there is å need to increase the number and quality øf the higher education institutes ˆn Ind. Therefore Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister øf Ind, has announced the establishment øf 8 IITs, 7 IIMs and 5 IISERs and 30 Central Universities ˆn his speech to the nation on the 60th Independence Day. ˆn the 11th Five Year Plan (2007 to 2012) for education, the planned amount is Rs. 2500 Billion, å four-fold increase over the previous plan. The numbers øf higher educational institutions ˆn the year 2006 are 355 universities and 18,064 colleges, although there exist 20 Central Universities, 216 State Universities, 101 Deemed Universities, 5 Institutions established through State Legislation and 13 Institutions øf National Importance. Enrolment for students was estimated to be currently around 110 lakh ˆn the Indian higher education system ˆn 2005 to 2006. The growth øf student enrolment ˆn higher education ˆn Ind has been uneven and slow. For instance, while the enrolment grew by 6.7% ˆn 2001 to 2002, it grew by 5.2% ˆn 2005 to 2006. The total number øf teachers ˆn the higher education system is 4.88 lakhs as shown ˆn Table 1. Out øf the total teaching faculty, 84% were employed ˆn affiliated colleges and only 16% were employed ˆn the universities and university colleges. The student-teacher ratio works out to 18 ˆn the university departments and colleges and 23 ˆn the affiliated colleges. Need øf value based Indian higher education system
ˆn the socio-economic development øf å nation, human capital has å very crucial role. So, there is å need øf investment ˆn education ˆn Ind, education, particularly higher education, is mostly owned by the public sector. Hence, the role øf the State is very important ˆn making literacy levels high. Private sector role is also increasingly becoming important because øf wrong kind øf state intervention or too little state intervention. About 0.37% øf GDP is spent on higher education ˆn Ind and this is also falling ˆn recent years. Therefore, education ˆn developed countries, have been able to have “market complementary arrangements” rather than “market excluding arrangements” which will result into widespread literacy levels (Government øf Ind, 2007).
The government øf Ind has pursued å five-fold strategy following the recommendations øf the NPE consisting øf the following:
1. Improvement øf infrastructural provision and human resources for education. 2. Provision øf improved curriculum and teaching-learning material. 3. Improve the quality øf teaching – learning process through the introduction øf child-centered pedagogy.
4. Attention to teacher capacity building. 5. Increased focus on specification and measurement øf learner achievement levels. Quality improvement ˆn education cannot be carried out on å turn- key basis ˆn å specified time-frame. So moving ˆn all fronts mentioned ˆn the strategy will make improvements ˆn the quality øf education. Keeping this ˆn view, å number øf programmes and schemes have been initiated by the central as well as state governments. Also, quality improvement component has been given high priority ˆn all the EFA projects (Rao, 2004).
There are some issues ˆn the current Indian higher education system framework which are as follows:
Expansion: The current enrolment ˆn higher education stands at about 11 million. While there has been å consistent growth ˆn enrolment ˆn higher education over the last few years, this is not enough when compared to other countries . The gross enrolment ratio for higher education (percentage øf the 18 to 24 age group enrolled ˆn å higher education institution) is around 8 to 10%, whereas it is 25% for many other developing countries . Various committees that have examined the higher education scenario ˆn Ind have recommended an increase ˆn the GER to at least 20%. If Ind has to achieve the target soon, it would imply more than doubling the scale and size øf the higher education system within the next 5 to 7 years. the GER for 18 to 24 years ˆn percentage.The percentage øf GER shows increase every year from 2001 to 2005. ˆn 2002 to 2003, the percentage increase was 0.90 from the last year, which showed the maximum increase during 2001 to 2005. The lowest increase was 0.24 ˆn 2003 to 2004 ˆn comparison to the last year.
Access: With high disparities, inclusive education has remained an elusive target. Inter-caste, male-female and regional disparities ˆn enrolment still remain prominent. For example, while the gross enrolment ratio for people living ˆn urban areas was almost 20%, it was only 6% for rural areas. Further, the gross enrolment ratio for Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was 6.57, 6.52 and 8.77, respectively, and was much lower than all GER ˆn Ind.
Regulation: The regulatory structures ˆn the current higher education system are cumbersome. Entry through legislation alone, at present, is å formidable barrier. It requires an Act øf Legislature øf Parliament to set up å university. The deemed university route is much too difficult for new institutions. The consequence is å steady increase ˆn the average size øf existing universities with å steady deterioration ˆn their quality. Å vast majority øf the colleges are not recognized by UGC under section 2(f) øf UGC Act.This poses å great challenge for the UGC ˆn respect øf maintenance øf the standard øf teaching and examination ˆn higher education. Also, the current system øf affiliated colleges for undergraduate colleges is not adequate. These are affiliated to large unwieldy universities, making it difficult to monitor the standard øf education being imparted. Currently, about 90% øf the undergraduate enrolment and 67% øf the postgraduate enrolment is ˆn the affiliated colleges. There are å large number øf institutions that are technically under the purview øf the UGC but are not provided by financial support because they fail to fulfill the minimum eligibility norms.
Faculty: Shortage øf quality faculty is one øf the main problems affecting higher education ˆn Ind today. Teacher shortages often occur due to non availability øf suitably qualified people. Further, the academic profession has seen å steady decline ˆn popularity – as å result øf lack øf incentives and more lucrative opportunities ˆn other professions. Apart from increasing compensation øf teachers, there is also å need to introduce performance-based incentives ˆn order to ensure teaching øf superior quality.
Funding: Public expenditure (Centre and States) on education is only around 3.6% øf GDP. Government funding øf higher education is still below 1% øf GDP. The percentage expenditure on University and Higher Education to GDP, which was 0.77% ˆn 1990 to 1991 showed å gradual decrease to 0.66% ˆn 2004 to 2005. Various committees have unanimously recommended that state funding should be increased to 6%. While the Central Advisory Board for Education (CABE) recommends spending 1% for higher education and 0.5% for technical education, the proportions ˆn 2004 to 2005 are 0.34% for higher education and 0.03% for technical education. Ind also has one øf the lowest public expenditure on higher education per student at 406 US Dollars .
Private Institutions: The share øf private unaided higher education institutions increased from 42.6% ˆn 2001 to 63.21% ˆn 2006. Their share øf enrolments also increased from 32.89 to 51.53% ˆn the same period. This trend is likely to continue and therefore, it is reasonable to expect that about half øf the incremental enrolment targeted for higher education will come from private providers. There is å need for the state to recognize the role øf the private sector and encourage their participation. There has already been å de-facto privatization øf the professional education sector, with more than 80% øf the engineering colleges being privately funded and managed. While there are strict entry barriers for the private sector, there is not enough regulation on the products and outputs øf the private sector.
Accreditation: Accreditation ˆn higher education pertains to determining the quality øf an institution. The criteria on which institutions are judged typically involve expected student achievement, quality øf curriculum, faculty, academic support and services for students, and financial capacity. ˆn Ind, accreditation is performed by government agencies. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) was set up by the UGC ˆn 1994 to accredit institutions øf higher education. The NAAC’s assessment is based on the pre-determined criteria that combine self-study and peer review. NAAC accredits and certifies for educational quality ˆn institutions based on seven criteria with different weights for each criterion, and for different types øf institutions. NAAC has so far completed accreditation øf only 140 out øf the 355 universities and 3,492 out øf the 18,064 colleges. This covered just over 10% øf all institutions, and barely any private colleges and universities. The results øf the accreditation process thus far indicate serious quality problems. However, very few institutions have been applied for accreditation by NAAC.
Quality: There are concerns about the quality øf higher education provided ˆn Ind currently. There is an annual outflow øf more than 150,000 students to institutes ˆn the west every year – driving out nearly 2 to 3 billion dollars ˆn foreign exchange per annum. It makes Ind the second-largest target market globally for education institutes ˆn the west. Although the problem øf reaching world class standards is not as pressing as meeting the larger needs øf the population, India’s standing ˆn this regard is indicative perhaps øf the generally low standards. ˆn å London Times Higher Education Supplement ranking øf the top 200 universities, only 1 Indian institution was listed, while the Shanghai University ranking øf 500 world-class universities featured only 3 Indian universities.
Comparative analysis
There are various factors on which the comparative analysis øf India’s higher education system with six countries is performed. The countries are United States, United Kingdom, Australia, China, South-Africa and Brazil. These factors are:
Education inputs and participation ˆn education
Rankings ˆn global competitiveness report related with higher education system
Human development index and public expenditure on education
Tertiary education: Enrolment and teaching staff
Tertiary Education: Internationally mobile students by host country and region øf origin; (6) International flow øf mobile students.
Education inputs
The education inputs depend on the public expenditure on education. Public expenditure ˆn the year 1999 and the maximum public expenditure per student with the percentage øf GDP per capita are spent by Ind. ˆn the year 2006, Ind also spent their maximum percentage, but the maximum public expenditure on education, which is the percentage øf GDP, was spent by US and the minimum by Ind. The percentage øf the total government expenditure spent on education is maximum by South-Africa and minimum by UK.
Participation ˆn education
Participation ˆn tertiary education can be checked by the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER). The gross enrollment ratio (GER)19 or gross enrollment index (GEI) is å statistical measure used ˆn the education sector and by the UN ˆn its education index. The GER gives å rough indication øf the level øf education from kindergarten to postgraduate education – known ˆn the UK and some other countries (mostly ˆn the Commonwealth øf Nations) as primary, secondary and / or tertiary – amongst residents ˆn å given jurisdiction. ˆn the UN, the GER is calculated by expressing the number øf students enrolled ˆn primary, secondary and tertiary levels øf education, regardless øf age, as å percentage øf the population øf official school age for the three levels.
According to the table, GER øf Ind is increasing at å very slow rate. China’s GER is increasing every year tremendously. USA is always at the top øf GER. So steps must be taken by Indian government to increase GER as GER is the lowest among all six nations.
Rankings ˆn global competitiveness: Report related with higher education system
The World Economic Forum has, for the past 30 years, played å facilitating role ˆn this process by providing detailed assessments øf the productive potential øf nations worldwide. The ‘report’ is å contribution to enhancing the understanding øf the key factors determining economic growth and to explaining why some countries are more successful than others ˆn raising income levels and opportunities for their respective populations; hence, it offers policymakers and business leaders an important tool ˆn the formulation øf improved economic policies and institutional reforms. The ‘report’ contains å detailed profile for each øf the economies featured ˆn the study as well as an extensive section øf data tables with global rankings covering over 100 indicators.
The GCI captures this open-ended dimension by providing å weighted average øf many different components, each øf which reflects one aspect øf the complex concept that is competitiveness. The Global Economic Forum groups these components into ’12 pillars øf competitiveness’:
1. Institutions. 2. Infrastructure. 3. Health and primary education. 4. Macroeconomic stability. 5. Higher education and training. 6. Goods market efficiency. 7. Labor market efficiency. 8. Financial market sophistication. 9. Technological readiness. 10. Market size. 11. Business sophistication. 12. Innovation.