For students' sake a good analysis: Higher education need not be location specific, wonderful institution can even be established in Kalahandi

For students' sake
Daily News & Analysis, Jan 20, 2010
E Raghavan

As is often the case these days, it is the intervention of the apex court, in response to a public interest petition, that might once again help clean up the mess in higher education; particularly of the deemed university variety.

Even a cursory look at the list of over 40 such universities that the union HRD ministry now believes is sub standard is enough to indicate how messy this particular business is. The name and the location of such institutions suggest that they could be anything but places of higher learning.


Higher education, of course, need not be location specific. One can have a wonderful institution even in Kalahandi. But for that, you need a good faculty and good facilities as well. The list that the government put out does not show any such stuff in the first place. Many of them sound like hole-in-the-wall teaching shops and they secured the status of a deemed university through a process of accreditation that now seems completely dubious.

It is obvious that you can reach this conclusion based on a couple of simple pointers in the affidavit the Centre filed in the Supreme Court after a review committee looked into the functioning of 126 deemed universities across the country. Of these 44 were found so unfit that the Centre wants to derecognise them while giving an opportunity to another 40 odd such institutions to improve standards in a given time frame. Quite simply, if the affidavit more or less certifies that 38 of the 126 deemed universities were OK and 44 can reach that level in three years but another 44 are beyond redemption, you can guess how bad that last lot is.

Of that lot, six in Karnataka give the state the dubious distinction of a ranking only below Tamil Nadu, which with 16 such universities is at the top. Some of them probably used their patrons’ political clout to secure the status they did not deserve in the first place, though they maintain that they have met the standards laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Many of them are not institutions you would happily send your child for higher studies.

While the institution itself may be justified in seeking some autonomy from the larger state-run universities to avoid scrutiny at every stage, the potential to profit from turning education into a business is what makes the deemed university status attractive.

The state’s track record in dealing with higher education has always been pretty poor. Those involved in academics will readily agree with that and share their lament over declining standards as well. Quite apart from the quota system that, according to the meritocracy lobby, lowers standards, it is the injection of caste quotient that has sufficiently vitiated academic environment in universities. For instance, the appointment of vice chancellors these days is based on caste affiliation much more than academic accomplishments. Quality and standards would be the first casualty in such an environment.

There is always a counter argument in favour of privatisation of higher education. Many private engineering and medical colleges made huge profits by collecting hefty fees under various nomenclature and turned education into a lucrative sector with more and more players setting up colleges in tin sheds. At the end of the day, however, the sheer volume of number of engineers and doctors created a funnel for the knowledge industry in the state to prosper. Students who benefitedfrom this system have no complaints. The deemed university route, however, seems entirely different and does not seem to show long term benefits to students. As long as students in these colleges can continue their studies through an affiliation of the institution to the state university, very little is lost.

The current dispensation in the state may have had very little to do with the six institutions in the state securing a deemed university status. It would, therefore, be easy for the state government to critically examine the process of accreditation of not only such institutions, even those that secure affiliation of universities run by the state. The system of inspection to certify standards, even by academic bodies, is completely broken in the state and deficiencies of either facilities or faculty can be overcome by greasing palms.

As long as such a system receives political patronage as well, it is very difficult to expect truly higher learning in institutions of higher learning that are only so in name. The solution lies in improving overall quality by applying stringent standards such as those the review committee in the HRD ministry used to recommend derecognition of six such institutions in the state. A transparent system of the affiliation of colleges by universities and a stringent process of evaluating standards periodically by an independent body may compel poor collages to upgrade their quality as well. That is the kind of silver lining the state should seek in the long term interest of its young citizens.