Profit can coexist with quality
Most people worry about quality control in higher education, and rightly so, since there is not much to education without quality. Our policy response to this, however, has been quite misguided. We have set up a system of tight controls, with formidable entry-barriers and a plethora of rules about not just education, but the fees that students must pay and the salaries that professors must get. The casualty of this ‘licensing system’ has been exactly what these bureaucratic rules were supposed to promote—quality.
Till a few decades ago, India stood out among developing countries, and even among many industrialised nations, for its fine higher education and academic excellence. That’s no longer the case. Indian universities are now almost extinct from international lists of the world’s top educational institutes, whereas newcomers like China and Malaysia have made steady inroads.
This is unfortunate since India has three advantages. Its reputation in science and technology, despite the recent decline, is high. It also has English language proficiency. Finally, the cost of living in India is low, approximately onefifth of industrialised nations.
Given these conditions, if the government can effect some organisational and regulatory changes, I believe India’s higher education can become as successful as its information technology industry. It can be a source of huge amounts of revenue flowing into the country, with students coming from around the world, including rich countries. This revenue should also help us raise our own gross enrollment ratio, which currently stands at a paltry 11 per cent. This, in turn, can boost human capital and creativity, raise the nation’s growth rate, and cut down poverty.
To effect such changes, we have to realise that doing something for profit does not mean not doing it for quality. Infosys is a company that tries to make large profits, but it is also a company that provides top-quality information technology. Hence, there is no harm in letting the private sector into the field of education. For that to happen we have to fold back our bureaucratic tendency to set prior rules about everything. With such over-regulation, we will only have shady organisations, which are willing to make underhand dealings, come into education. This is happening now.
If, instead, we set a few essential rules, insist on transparency of fees and salaries (but not try to fix them), top-quality private corporations will come into education. It is true that the private sector will be unlikely to offer education in cutting-edge mathematics, physics, theoretical economics, literature and philosophy— subjects that are essential for a nation’s development, but not commercially viable.
However, by taking the load off the government’s shoulder, it will make it possible for the later to use its limited resources more effectively. One advantage India has over many other nations is its tolerance of diverse opinions. My hope is that, now that the reorganisation of higher education is a matter of public discussion, within the next four or five years we shall see major changes and a take-off in this vital sector.
Kaushik Basu is C. Marks Professor and Chairman, Department of Economics, Cornell University.
