Higher education reforms

Higher education reforms
by Dr Mahnaz Fatima

posted December 15, 2002

There has always been consensus on the need for reform not just in higher education, but in various other sectors as well. However, a distinction has to be made between advocates of reform and those who end up being "reformists", more because of the latter's influence in policy-making corridors rather than a genuine belief in reform.

Since the two are not necessarily the same, one would like to know how many representatives of public sector universities - academics, scholars, and intellectuals - actually sat in on the Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE). The composition of SCHE alone speaks volumes for the predispositions of the "reformists." Are university academics, mostly accomplished in their respective fields or disciplines, not good enough for the purpose? If the answer is in the negative, then it does not require a whole lot of intelligence to appreciate the uproar against the higher education reforms proposed by the SCHE.

The claim made by the SCHE that participation of the key stakeholders of the universities was ensured needs elaboration. Who in the opinion of the SCHE were the "key stakeholders" if not accomplished university staff, academics and scholars? It has been wisely accepted by the SCHE that no reform can be implemented unless the university community has the motivation and the will to do so. Now that the upshot is hidden from none, it is about time that a fresh look is taken of what has been christened as "higher education reform" by those distant from life in public sector universities.

The SCHE itself accepts that there could be a divergence of views in the areas of governance and management structures, this divergence cannot be given short shrift as it is these areas that will make or break the organizational climate. Faculty involvement here is imperative as what is to be governed is an environment that should foster freedom of thought and expression, openness and a spirit of enquiry.

All of this requires a management capable and self-confident enough that it does not feel threatened by processes of intellectual fermentation - hallmark of centres of excellence at the tertiary level - without which a nation cannot possibly determine its path in a world where global powers will be all too eager to even control our thought processes as they did during the cold war by influencing even tertiary-level education policy. This could be done through generous funding tied to a predetermined world view donors would like to be promoted in consideration of the funds.

This would imply that those to the left or the right of a prescribed thought process would be sidelined or marginalized further or, worse still, weeded out. This would be diametrically opposed to what a university is expected to promote - freedom of thought and inquiry along with the courage to live with the research findings, whatever they may be.

So, if the mission of universities is to aim at national development in all spheres and is to be accomplished by promoting freedom of inquiry, then academic and administrative policy needs to be chalked out through intense involvement of a wide range of academics as they alone can determine the implications of various policy decisions.

Restricting participation to a few favourites will lead to many difficult questions that thinking minds in universities cannot help asking. Bulldozing pet solutions in a thinking environment will either boomerang or dissent will continue to simmer beneath the surface.

Obtaining increased funding may not be a very valid indicator of success. What is important to know is whether or not additional funds will be utilized to attain organization goals. While the goals are defined afresh either too broadly or vaguely for higher education, their specific definition will again be the function of the governing bodies in which the chosen few academics might be reduced to pieces of furniture if the external financiers are either over-represented or carry an over-weight by virtue of their wealth or some other power. In environments where the size of coffers and their contents gain primacy over what the mission should be, professional and academic capability stands discounted.

Also, all areas will require equal emphasis as it is not just science and technology (their importance notwithstanding) that will be able to do the needful without commensurate emphasis on the social sciences which ought to be guiding thought processes and attitudinal and behavioural disposition. Higher PhD allowance for science and technology is already a discrimination against the social sciences which is expected to aggravate. We need philosophization as much as we need other fields or disciplines that supposedly provide "market-oriented" education. For, "market-oriented" education in a country where markets are disappearing fast will not help us achieve our goals.

Instead, we will be providing low-cost training grounds for job markets elsewhere in the world which is a reason why our best graduates find themselves lining up for foreign visas. Are we then equipping education for national development or for the development of the cores of the world? It is through our education policy that we must determine whether we aspire to be amongst the world's cores or keep ourselves resigned to the fate of being a periphery of the world. The education policy is always a crucial determinant of this.

Requirement for funding irrespective of the source is being sold with the promise of salary revision. While none can deny the importance of a significant salary revision for university staff and faculty, it needs to be understood that salary is not a motivator. It is a satisfier whose absence would cause dissatisfaction but whose presence may not necessarily motivate. Motivation requires fulfilment of higher-order needs of self-esteem and self-actualization so as to move the soul which alone can impel the human spirit in the direction of accomplishment. Having bypassed some lower-order needs linked with adequate pecuniary compensation, most university academics are already in the self-actualization mode.

Can such self-actualizing individuals strongly committed to their professional, academic, and/or ideological goals be dissuaded to keep away from their chosen paths? Can their existing beliefs be replaced by an ersatz ideology simply by pricing it higher? The answer is never if the higher price is tagged with a view that is out of sync with what they believe in.

Emphasis on need-based financial aid further implies that the tertiary education sector is also likely to be restricted for the underprivileged segments of society, thus aggravating our chronic dualism. This would further imply that the less capable of the affluent will have wider access to higher education whose zone would be narrowed for the more capable-but-disadvantaged as the latter will have difficulty "buying" tertiary education in the "market place." Capability and merit are then likely to be reduced to even more hollow slogans. It will then become the birthright of all those born in affluence to procure whichever higher education they will like as more space will be vacated for them by pushing out the meritorious-but-poorer through a higher price tag on education.

While only the brightest of the underprivileged will be funded, the average of the elite will graduate in droves to rule the roost. As the elitist structures of power will thus be cemented even further, we will have a nation growing even more in the image of the financiers rather than in an image we ought to be determining ourselves through independent thought and action.

It is, therefore, imperative that a fresh look be taken of higher education reform which should be driven by ideological considerations first and foremost with the issue of funding subsumed under the above overarching one.