| |
2. Change the system of regulation for higher education. The present regulatory
system in higher education is flawed in some important respects. The barriers to entry are
too high. The system of authorising entry is cumbersome. There is a multiplicity of
regulatory agencies where mandates are both confusing and overlapping. The system, as
a whole, is over-regulated but under-governed. We believe that there is a clear need to
establish an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE). The
IRAHE must be at an arm's-length from the government and independent of all
stakeholders including the concerned Ministries of the Government, along the lines
specified in our attached Note.
- The IRAHE would have to be established by an Act of Parliament, and would be
responsible for setting the criteria and deciding on entry.
- It would be the only agency that would be authorized to accord degree granting
power to higher education institutions.
- It would be responsible for monitoring standards and settling disputes.
-
It would apply exactly the same norms to public and private institutions, just as it
would apply the same norms to domestic and international institutions.
- It would be the authority for licensing accreditation agencies.
- The role of the UGC would be re-defined to focus on the disbursement of grants
to, and of, public institutions in higher education. The entry
regulatory functions of the AICTE, the MCI and the BCI would be performed by
the IRAHE, so that their role would be limited to that of professional associations.
3. Increase public spending and diversify sources of financing. The expansion of our
system of higher education is not possible without enhanced levels of financing. This
must necessarily come from both public and private sources.
- Since government financing will remain the cornerstone, government support for
higher education should increase to at least 1.5 per cent of GDP, out of a total of
at least 6 per cent of GDP for education.
- Even this would not suffice for the massive expansion in higher education that is
an imperative. It is essential to explore other possibilities that can complement the
increase in public expenditure.
- Most public universities are sitting on a large reservoir of untapped resources in
the form of land. It should be possible to draw up norms and parameters for
universities to use their available land as a source of finance.
- It is for universities to decide the level of fees but, as a norm, fees should meet at
least 20 per cent of the total expenditure in universities. This should be subject to
two conditions: first, needy students should be provided with a fee waiver plus
scholarships to meet their costs; second, universities should not be penalized by
the UGC for the resources raised from higher fees through matching deductions
from their grants-in-aid.
- We should nurture the tradition of philanthropic contributions through changes in
incentives for universities and for donors. At present, there is an implicit
disincentive in both tax laws and trust laws. These laws should be changed so that
universities can invest in financial instruments of their choice and use the income
from their endowments to build up a corpus.
- Universities should also seek to tap other sources such as alumni contributions
and licensing fees. We need to create supportive institutional mechanisms that
allow universities to engage professional firms for this purpose.
- It is essential to stimulate private investment in education as a means of extending
educational opportunities. It may be possible to leverage public resources,
especially in the form of land grants, to attract more (not-for-profit) private
investment.
|
