Experts: Foreign Universities Commercialising Hr Edn

New Delhi, July 26: Giving private investors tax breaks, but fining defaulters-- even debarring them from running courses-- may be in store if authorities accept expert advice to prevent commercialisation of higher education.

The advice, and a warning that foreign universities are fuelling commercialisation, came from experts who attended a seminar conducted by the National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration recently.

Experts discussing Privatisation and Commercialisation of Higher Education recommended a gamut of tax concessions, land grants and transparent rules to attract private investment.

According to a summary of their views, they also suggested encouraging research grants from industry and floating funds with private contributions managed by academic bodies.

At the same time, they stressed immediately setting norms and ensuring adherence.

''Whenever an institution is found in default of the norms laid down by the relevant controlling authority, the latter shall have the right to impose a financial penalty for each default,'' the summary said.

''If an institution more than twice commits the default, it should be debarred from running the courses,'' it said.

''This should apply to all institutions, including those controlled by the government,'' it said.

As the experts pointed out, the objectives of higher education and basic research-- especially for a knowledge society-- are not only to address present knowledge needs but also to project such needs of the future.

They held the State primarily responsible for ensuring quality education at all levels and in all regions, and stressed strengthening public institutions.

They underscored State obligation to raise public resources for higher education, reminding of a long-recognised need to spend on education at least six per cent of Gross Domestic Product.

''The philanthropic tradition in Indian higher education has been always active and institutions sponsored by it therefore should be promoted,'' the NIEPA paper said.

It noted the recent opening of a large many new institutions, with private initiative in higher education having become almost unavoidable, pressure to expand having increased and courts allowing students in some cases to be charged in full.

Even as the private sector of education came into existence alongside the governmental sector, the paper said the process threw up fresh problems-- commercialisation, for one. The experts said commercialisation was manifesting itself in a variety of ways such as: -- Full recovery of the cost of higher education in government and government aided institutions; -- High fees in self-financing private professional colleges, deemed and private universities; -- High fees charged in unrecognised private institutions offering foreign degrees in collaboration with foreign universities.

''Commercialisation, therefore, needs to be unambiguously defined with a view to containing it,'' they said.

They pointed out that commercialisation of higher education could have ''adverse implications, both in terms of access and equity.'' It ''may even create internal imbalances and distortions'' in higher education-- such as excessive importance to Information Technology sector at the cost of social sciences and humanities.

''Commodification of education, research and knowledge will not serve the long range interests of the nation. It could lead to truncated growth and lopsided development of higher education.

''The applied aspects may acquire importance at the cost of other dimensions, thus neglecting vast pools of traditional knowledge acquired over the centuries, they pointed out, stressing that ''commercialisation needs to be controlled.'' The experts advocated a system to regulate commercialisation to be put in place by the Central and State governments in coordination with each other.

They suggested the Centre laying down Constitutional provisions to regulate commercialisation through laws and regulatory bodies.

They cautioned that foreign universities were promoting privatisation and fuelling commercialisation.

They asked the authorities to immediately attend to such issues as regulation by professional bodies to control fees, fine tune quality and ''suitable legislation'' for foreign universities's entry.

They suggested letting private institutions generate ''a fair surplus without indulging in unfair practices'' but requiring ploughing such surpluses back to upgrade the institution.

They suggested requiring such institutions to submit a copy of their quarterly accounts to their respective states for audit.

They said potential of commercialisation was ''quite high'' in distance education because of diverse nature of suppliers offering ''variegated programmes'' with little control by the regulatory bodies.

They pointed out that the distance education quality was both unsatisfactory and uneven-- ''largely because it is not clear who controls what.'' The participants were concerned that the University Grants Commission and the Indira Gandhi National Open University operate in different ways and sometimes at cross purposes with each other.

''The role of foreign universities also contributes to this phenomenon. It is a matter of urgency therefore that confusion is removed and responsibilities are allocated in a rational and constructive manner.'' ''There is an urgent need to evolve a proper coordination mechanism amongst the various regulatory bodies in order to determine issues such as fees, admission, procedures, the quality of education (and) future directions.'' They suggested making periodic accreditation of all institutions of higher learning mandatory for the purpose of ensuring quality.

They empahsised it as a ''matter of utmost urgency that each new institution is accredited not later than one year of it being started.''

UNI