& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

University sector reform

Fortunately, they were saved by an idea from Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin. The idea is based on the notion that while society at large benefits from higher education (the externality and public goods argument), the students also benefit. Thus, both the society and students must share the cost.

Anis Chowdhury
WITH the announcement, by the government of introduction of open advertisement for the appointment of vice-chancellors of public universities (The Daily Star, March 21), the long-awaited reform of the 4 university sector seems tp be back on th? agenda.
The reform agenda is bound to generate debates. In his column (The Daily Star, April 29), the eminent jurist, Dr. Kamal Hossain has argued for revisiting the Dhaka University Order 1973. He believes that, despite its good intentions, the 1973 Order is responsible for the excessive politicisation of the university and the decline in its academic standards. He supports the selection of senior university officials by a search committee.
The former vice-chancellor of Dhaka University, Professor Moniruzzaman Miah (The Daily
Star, May 12), while not denying the unintended damaging impact of the 1973 DU Order, is ambivalent about tiie proposed selection process by a search committee. He has rightly raised the issue of academic independence and the autonomy of the universities.
The issue is not whether the senior university officials are to be elected or selected.-Both Systems have flaws. One of the main demerits of the current election system is "in-breeding." The panels that contest the elections are composed of members of the same university. There is no scope for fresh blood and ideas coming from outside. Whoever is elected remains hostage to his/her patrons and supporters. His/her. or a group's, re-election prospects depend on recruitments based on party lines.
As we all know from the biological sciences, in-breeding is bad for genetic mutations. No wonder the academic standards of our public universities have rapidly declined.
Professor Miah is right when he fears that the proposed selection system can erode academic independence and institutional autonomy, two important ingredients for advancement of knowledge without fear and prejudice. The basis of his fear is real, as the proposed new system is a unified national search committee dominated by bureaucrats and gbvenim6ht'nohiiriated members. The government must allay any fear of interference or loss of autonomy for the universities.
Professor Miah has provided a very valuable historical account of the evolution of university governance. His suggestion to widely discuss pros and cons of different systems deserves serious consideration. In my opinion column in the Daily Star (April 28, 2007), I, too, advocated for wide discussions with the stake-holders on the issue of university sector reforms and, in particular, the selection of senior university officials through an open advertisement process.
The leading universities (private and public) in the world are run by their own boards of governors, headed by their own chancellors, who are generally prominent figures in society, e.g. social reformers, retired judges or educationists. The board of governors is composed of both elected and nominated eminent personalities. The elected members are the representatives of academic and non-academic staff and of the students. The board of governors, not a national search committee or body, appoints the chancellor and vice-chancellor.
The reform of the university sector must not stop at the appoint-■ ment of senior officials: The reform must also aim at making the universities more accountable and competitive.
The autonomy of the universities to raise funds, set their goals and introduce their own internal rules and regulations can go a long way in making them more accountable, competitive and efficient.
Public universities should be encouraged to raise funds through donations from the private sector, especially from their alumni. They should also be allowed to enrol a certain proportion of full-fee paying students. Besides enhancing operational autonomy, these measures
will promote public-private partnership and enhance the performance of public universities as they compete for full-fee paying students and private funds. This will ensure that universities will produce high quality job-relevant manpower.
Government funding for public universities should also be performance based. The funding can be divided into two types — operational and research. Operational funding is mainly for teaching, and can be linked to both the number of enrolments and the rate of successful completion. Similarly, research funding should be made according ‘ to publications in quality journals and the impact of research findings.
The reform agenda must also include admission and student fees. While each university can set its own admission criteria for different programs, the process should be made transparent and competitive. Universities cannot be allowed to lower the entry requirements to fill their initial allocation of enrolment quota.
The University Grants Commission will adjust the initial allocation of quota and funding based on the final number enrolled. This will ensure that universities strive for excellence to attract stu-
dents. It is a carrot and stick policy that rewards a good performer and penalises an under-performer.
Student fees are the most controversial and politically difficult issue. There is a strong belief that education is a public good and, hence, the government must provide it. There is also the question of equity; left to the market, the access of the financially disadvantaged will be seriously hampered. But how to ensure the sustainability of university funding, especially when we need to raise our standards by attracting highly qualified teachers and researchers?
Here the Australian experience is moStreleVafu. Intfrc'early 1970s?the Whitlam Labour government made higher education free, which was hailed as a great egalitarian revolution. But within a decade university funding became strained. The Labour governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating faced a difficult political choice of re-introducing fees for higher education.
Fortunately, they were saved by an idea from Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin. The idea is based on the notion that while society at large benefits from higher education (the externality and public goods argument), the students also benefit. Thus, both the society and
students must share the cost
James Tobin's student, Professor Bruce Chapman of the Australian National University, developed a formula for sharing the cost, and devised a scheme, called the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Under HECS, students are required to contribute a certain proportion (approximately 25%) of the full cost, which varies from program to program. Society shares the rest through public funding.
The innovative part of the scheme is that it is income contingent. Students do not have to pay HECS upfront. They are allowed to defer, and the payment begins only after the income of graduates reach a threshold level. Those who elect to pay upfront get a discount.
Thus, HECS is basically a loan from the government Students are getting interest free loans from the government to pay a certain portion ofthecost of their education.
Of course, the success of the system depends on a reliable tax collection system, and one may argue that this will not work in Bangladesh, as our tax system is not so sophisticated. This is a weak argument, as the tax system needs to be modernised and strengthened in any case.
There is, however, no denying that there will be some leakage. For example, those who do not find a job or do not earn the threshold income will not repay. Those who decide not to join the workforce for various reasons will also not repay their HECS loan. This is ,the cost society must bear, because with education society becomes better in general. Moreover, under the current system, the government is bearing almost 100% of the cost. Under HECS, even with leakages, it would be bearing much less, making quality higher education funding more sustainable.
What about graduates who leave the country with high paying jobs overseas? Well, they can be tracked through the immigration system at the port of departure.
As a matter of fact, a number of developing countries with a poor tax system and high out migration like Bangladesh have adopted the HECS system. Its appeal around the world is rising rapidly, and Bangladesh should not remain behind.
Anis Chowdhury is Professor of Economics. University of Western Sydney. Australia, and Member. Economic Research Group. Dhaka.