Low-cost higher education

A paradigm shift in mindset is necessary to ensure more options for those who face a choice between low-cost college education and none at all

The role model for higher education in India is typically an institution like an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in the public sector, or an institution like Ashoka University in the private sector. However, the total costs at such institutions are very high and these cater to a small segment. This column is about expanding higher education, given the limited budgets, whether we consider the government or the students’ families. The focus here is on undergraduate studies only.

Much of the conventional wisdom on good education is based on the image in mind of the West. But the per capita income in India is only about 11 per cent of that in the US in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). At market exchange rates, it is not even 4 per cent. So we need to think afresh.

Broadly speaking, the emphasis in the elite institutions is on teaching at various levels, research, and “club facilities”. What are “club facilities”? The meaning that follows here is from a different viewpoint of providing undergraduate education at a low cost.

An elite institution has a big campus with impressive buildings and extensive landscape. Besides the classrooms, the buildings often include auditoriums, theatres, recreation rooms, rooms for meetings, among other facilities. There can be a guest house, and cafeterias that are separate from the dining halls. All of these are very well done but often under-utilised. It is also likely that there is considerable spending on a college festival and such other activities. There is a variety of playgrounds. Even some of the elaborate library facilities may be considered here. All of these are useful but not indispensable, given the context here.

Next, consider research. The major part of the high salaries for the faculty in elite institutions is for research. But how important is this at the margin for the proposed new low-cost institutions for undergraduate teaching? Hardly. We are now left with teaching. All this is not at all a criticism of research or even “club facilities” in elite institutions. The point is that we can have another set of institutions focused on undergraduate teaching alone, given the issue of costs that come in the way of moving away from the gross enrolment ratio of about 25 per cent at present.

Why expand higher education in the first place, if there are hardly any jobs? Note that some of the unemployment in India is of the degree/diploma holders, not among the meaningfully educated or skilled. Also, government jobs pay a lot but there are very few openings. This creates “hopeful unemployment”. These are different problems.

Where can we get faculty for the low-cost institutions? First, it is important not to insist on a PhD for teachers in the proposed institutions. This immediately expands the supply. Second, besides the regular teachers, there are retired competent teachers who would like to contribute to a small extent. Third, many qualified women, realistically speaking, would like to have a flexible and part-time teaching job. Fourth, many qualified practitioners will be happy to do some teaching. Fifth, some faculty at the better coaching centres can teach in the regular undergraduate programmes. Sixth, many good PhD students would like to teach a little. Finally, some meaningfully and adequately educated young people at any point of time would be happy to do some teaching till they find their way.

We can have a variety of faculty members, which helps. There is no dearth of faculty for undergraduate teaching, provided the authorities are flexible, and meaningfully respectful. Undergraduate teaching is no rocket science. And, the salaries in the proposed teaching institutions can be well below those under the University Grants Commission (UGC) scales.

Given the focus on teaching, including some online teaching, the salary bill for the faculty, and the costs of infrastructure, laboratories, administration, maintenance and security can all be small. The proposed institutions can operate from a few floors in some large buildings.

It is important to clarify that the idea here is not to encourage “teaching shops”. Also, the point is not that the government should cut down its spending on education. Furthermore, the idea is not that students in the teaching institutions without “club facilities” should only study. Finally, the proposal is not that students from affluent families go to the elite institutions and the rest go to the proposed institutions.

The regulating, accreditation, and rating agencies, the media, the philanthropists, and the students and their parents need to change their mindset and the “rules of the game”. Then we can move forward. The choice for many in India is not between all-round education and low-cost education; it is between low-cost education and no education at all after schooling.

The writer is an independent economist. He has taught at Ashoka University, ISI and JNU. gurbachan.arti@gmail.com