Education is a subject that has continued to evolve and has extended its reach and coverage since the dawn of human history. It is evident from recorded history that societies have played an important role in the spread of education, all the way from the earliest time to the present day. The progressive societies of the world realised much earlier than others that education holds great promise for individuals’ social, economic and spiritual transformation. It was for this reason that right from the early days they recognised education as a unique investment in the present and the future.
Higher education is extremely critical for social, economic and technological advancement. It is higher education that provides us with critical tools to understand the social dynamics which help us in designing interventions to ensure equity and taking a step towards creating an egalitarian society. Higher education develops and promotes technology which permeates in all dimensions of human development. These developments have necessitated bringing out the quality aspect of higher education. In some countries, focus on quality has led to the setting up of newer institutions with better infrastructure. So much so that in certain cases the university system has been sidestepped in preference to the so-called premier institutions which has led to an uneven distribution of resources, favouring a smaller system.
In most economies, higher education is facing multiple crises. The most pertinent crisis amongst them is the crisis of quality, especially in the developing economies wherein the emphasis is laid more on the massification of higher education. Though there is a growing concern about quality management in higher education, there are very few countries that have been able to nurture quality with access and equity.
Some governments have set up agencies for quality assessment at the federal as well as provincial levels. Both mandatory and voluntary types of assessment and accreditation systems can be seen across the globe. Some have even switched over from the earlier voluntary system to a mandatory system of accreditation. There are various kinds of practices like subject assessment, academic audit, institutional accreditation, program accreditation, national and international rankings, etc. that are in vogue. Some of the practices that are currently in use are quite comprehensive and costlier than others. Basically, all of them, though with varying academic standards, aim at improving teaching and learning and assuring academic standards. They provide a good deal of information to both parents and students and help them make a first-choice selection of the institution and the program.
It is evident that curricular provisions in higher education do not lay adequate emphasis on core fundamentals and a futuristic orientation. In certain cases, quality has reached such a sorry pass that it requires the replacement of traditional approach with more collaborative approach. Since quality is a question of degree, universities in their own context have to do serious rethinking about quality. While we have evolved some systems of quality assurance, a lot more needs to be done on classroom processes which remain the cardinal concern of quality. People ask insightful questions about students, faculty and community in terms of life-long learning, employability, career development, global citizenship, leadership and teamwork, for which we have weak answers. This is why rethinking quality in higher education becomes a question of national competitiveness.
Quality in higher education obviously requires multiple interventions. Some countries have designed and developed norms and standards for assessment and accreditation of institutions and programs. The trend is gradually moving towards ranking institutions, which was not the case earlier. Rethinking is required about weeding out obsolescence in curricular provisions and testing thereof in terms of higher order cognitive operations. Rethinking is also required as to how teachers can bring out the innate qualities of thoughts and practices. Quality being a social construct would continue to be a major challenge in most societies and therefore rethinking of quality in higher education would always remain a major challenge.
All these changes have given rise to new quality assurance practices. Both massification and globalisation have, in fact, changed the relationship between the state and the universities. While the cost of education is increasing in leaps and bounds, state funding is not keeping pace with the growing demand of higher education. In addition, the states are putting pressure on the universities to perform. Policy makers are seeking new means for assuring quality which are driven by extra funding and that is not available. The global demand for a skilled workforce is pushing for changes in the overall degree framework as policymakers seek international recognition of academic credentials.
The rapid growth of higher education and continuous pressure of developing economies to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) have led to massive privatization of higher education, including cross border franchising, posing novel challenges to the national system of quality assurance. Competitive forces unleashed by globalization and massification require universities to be more responsive to changing markets and students interests. Thus, it requires greater flexibility and autonomy from traditional state quality regulations. Such developments have altered the environment and reveal the inadequacies of both internal and external practices of assuring academic standards, leading to innovative forms of academic quality assurance.
Apart from participating in external accreditation and ranking processes, it is desirable for the universities to carry out academic audits on their own. They may focus on their existing programmatic structure to have an overview of different faculties and the programs thereunder. This would help them not only know the existing academic profile of the university based on the analyses of the ground realities evolved out of interactions with various stakeholders but also enable them to effect necessary changes in their programmes.
There are three major challenges that have barely been addressed thus far by Indian universities: How far have they been able to align their programs with the markets? To what extent have they been successful in creating new knowledge in different areas of study in keeping with the tradition? And, to what degree have they given a futuristic orientation to their curricular provisions to keep pace with the changing times? These are tough empirical questions that can be answered by observations and measured phenomena. They are nevertheless the most pertinent questions that would continue to haunt the university system, if ignored.
The time has come when these long-standing challenges need to be addressed by such approaches that are culturally appropriate, ethically correct and financially viable, and not by extra-terrestrials. No single approach can possibly be sufficient in as diverse a system as ours. Therefore, we may consider adopting a three-dimensional approach which, to begin with, can be tried in a select few promising universities, and broadly scaled later. Alternatively, some universities can slowly and carefully take one step at a time.
The specifics of the suggested approach would require three competent groups in each department operating in tandem. The first group should constantly remain in touch with the market and keep aligning their programs in close collaboration with business leaders. Such programs should have a strong component of hands-on training which may be arranged under the supervision of designated staff members of the business houses. It will help universities prepare an industry-ready workforce which will benefit industry in terms of the additional resource investment that they have to incur in organizing on-the-job training for newcomers. It should, however, not mean giving universities a complete business or customer orientation, nor should it mean to leave them at the mercy of the market forces, because universities are primarily meant for the advancement of knowledge and not for financial gains.
The second group should have a strong commitment to real-life, cognitive-scientific research programs in different areas of study with its implicit philosophical suppositions that lead to tangible outcomes in the form of new knowledge since it is one of the inevitabilities of university education. The task of this group, though arduous, has to be accorded the uppermost priority because that alone reveals the truth and leads to discovery, invention and innovation, besides freeing humans from the shackles of ignorance.
The third group should give a futuristic orientation to the programs of the university. It should constantly design programs which, on the one hand, should create the infrastructure and workforce to meet the future requirements of the society, and on the other, save humanity from both man-made and natural catastrophes. Such programs should prepare a workforce which can find solutions for future problems like urban transportation, potable water, food security and safety, green energy, community health, superfast means of communication, etc.
This would, of course, require resource allocation, strategic planning, focused attention, talented and committed faculty, and a good student-to-faculty ratio to enable teachers to dedicate more time to their students and research. This is what is missing in most institutions, and their desire to compete with the best of the world will remain a mere mirage under the prevailing circumstances. The changing requirements of the global economy need a rethinking of the quality of higher education and a policy shift, moving from a haphazard policy to a more reasoned one, commensurate with the scale of context-specific interventions.
The writer is former Chairman, UGC. The views expressed are personal.