Higher Education in India
Dr.Sangeeta Angom
Manasi Thapliyal
Introduction
•
India is a land of great vastness, diversity and history(ies) dating back to
several millennia.
•
With a land spanning 3,287,263 square kilometers occupying 2.4% of total
area of world makes it the seventh largest country.
•
India has a population of 1.1 billion which is 16% of the world’s population
•
Home to over fifteen hundred different languages and dialects, and to
almost all the major religions of the world, having variety in cultural
expressions
•
India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, with twentyeight states and seven centrally administered union territories
•
India has a diverse economy encompassing traditional village farming,
modern agriculture, handicrafts, wide range of modern industries and a
number of service industries
The Legacy(?)
•
The Indian subcontinent was, in ancient and medieval period, home to great
institutions of learning such as Nalanda, Taxila and Vikramshila, which
attracted and hosted scholars from across the world.
•
Towards the medieval times, education continued to be largely rooted in
religion and deeply linked to the ways of living and livelihood of people.
Indigenous systems of teaching, in context of particular communities or
groups, continued with variations across the region.
•
Under the British rule, education was elitist, catering to only the socially
advantaged sections of society, largely institutionalised to meet the
administrative requirements of the imperialist rule in India.
•
The foundation of modern higher education was laid down by the British
colonial regime in the mid-19th century.
Higher Education in Contemporary India
•
Higher education is the joint responsibility of the Central and the State
governments, both help to fund it. Universities have to be established by Act
of parliament or State legislature.
•
Most of the universities are teaching and research institutions. There are
also entities called as affiliated colleges, constituent colleges, autonomous
colleges. Most of the colleges provide undergraduate education, very few
undertake graduate teaching and research
•
Universities are of Unitary, Affiliating and combination of both unitary and
affiliating.
•
Four types of universities in India viz. Central, State, Deemed and Private
universities.
•
Large number of vocational training institutions, polytechnics, private
teaching shops affiliated to state universities, dot the landscape alongside
Institutes of National Importance, IITs, IIMs, ISERs etc.
State and Regulatory Bodies
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD)
State Government
University Grants Commission (UGC): UGC is responsible for the
coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,
examination and research in Universities and higher education institutions.
It also has a major role in university finance.
For professional education, guidelines come from the relevant all-India
agencies such as the Medical Council, the Bar Council, the All India Council
for Technical Education and the National Council for Teachers education,
etc.
Institutional Capacity Expansion
Capacity Indicators
1950
2009-2010
Number of Universities
25
504 (510 by July 2010)
Number of Colleges
700
25,951
Number of Teachers
15000
5.89 lakhs (~0.6 million)
Number of Enrolled Students
1 lakh
136.42 lakh (~13.6 million)
Number of Institutions-2007-09
Type of Institutions
2007
2008
2009
1.
State Universities
231
242
243
2.
Central Universities
25
25
40
3.
Private Universities
21
28
21(43
more in
July
2010)
3.
Institutions deemed to
be universities
102
103
130
4.
Institutes of National
Importance (by State
legislature)
5
5
5
5.
Institutes of National
Importance (by Central
legislature)
33
33
39
5.
Colleges
20,760
22,064
25,951
Students Enrolment –Faculty wise 2005-06 and 2007-2008
Sl No
Faculty
Total Enrolment
Percentage to Total
2007-08
2005-06
2007-08
1.
Arts
5508877
45.13
44.51
2.
Science
2543416
20.45
20.55
3.
Commerce/Management
2243899
18.01
18.13
4.
Education
188126
1.46
1.52
5.
Engineering/Technology
914639
7.21
7.39
6.
Medicine
404719
3.16
3.27
7.
Agriculture
73023
0.58
0.59
8.
Veterinary Science
19802
0.15
0.16
9.
Law
379965
3.05
3.07
10.
Others
100252
0.80
0.81
Total
12376718
100.00
100.00
Faculty-wise Enrolment (2005-06 and 2007-08)
0.81
0.8
Others
3.07
3.05
Law
Veterinary Science
0.16
0.15
0.59
0.58
Faculty
Agriculture
3.27
3.16
Medicine
Percentage to Total 2007-08
Percentage to Total 2005-06
7.39
7.21
Engineering/Technology
1.52
1.46
Education
18.13
18.01
Commerce/Management
20.55
20.45
Science
44.51
45.13
Arts
0
5
10
15
20
25
Percentage
30
35
40
45
50
Stage-wise enrolment of Students in 2005-06 and 2007-08
Sl
.
N
o
Stage
2007-08
Percentage
Grand Total
to
University
Deptts/Univ.
Colleges
Affiliated
Colleges
Total
200506
2007-08
1.
Under Graduate
1065969
9967997
11033966
88.91
89.15
2.
Post Graduate
380001
765939
1145940
9.42
9.26
3.
Research
71489
10788
82277
0.64
0.66
4.
Diploma/Certificate
71383
43152
114535
1.03
0.93
Grand Total
1588842
10787876
12376718
Student
Enrolment
Year/ Institutes→
↓
University
Deptts/Univ.
Colleges
Affiliated
Colleges
Grand Total
2009-10
16.69
lakhs
119.73lakhs
(87.76%)
136.42 lakhs
(12.24%)
Enrolment by levels in Universities and Affiliated colleges
88.91
89.15
90
80
70
60
50
2005-06
Percentage
2007-08
40
30
20
9.42
9.26
10
0.64
0.66
1.03
0.93
0
Graduate
Post Graduate
Research
Diploma/Certificate
Faculty Strength 2007-08
Sl No
Category
Affiliating
colleges
University
teaching
departments
/University
colleges
Affiliating
colleges &
University
Teaching
Deptts/Unive
rsity colleges
% to total number
1.
Lecturers
2,23,756
24,625
2,48,381
47.60
2.
Senior
Lecturers
64686
12783
7469
14.84
3.
Readers &
their
equivalent
113527
26460
139987
26.82
4.
Professors
& their
equivalent
24437
17583
42020
8.68
Total
438389
83454
521843
100
Regular Faculty Strengths in 2009-10
Year/
Institutes→
↓
Universities
Colleges
Grand Total
2009-10
0.90 lakhs (15%)
4.98 lakhs (85%)
5.89 lakhs
Number of Graduate Degree Awarded in 2003 and 2005
39708
Others (15 courses)
38539
55754
58228
Law (5 courses)
Vetinery Science (2 courses)
2014
1497
Agriculture (6 courses)
8818
7801
38729
38787
Medicine (14courses)
2005
188580
Engineering /Technology (40
courses)
2003
127610
136717
106048
Education
392999
Commerce (8 courses)
373192
315847
327775
Sciences (12 courses)
996627
972720
Arts (12 courses)
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
Number of PG Degree Awarded in 2003 and 2005
31751
Others
33607
1431
2193
Law
862
700
Vetinery Science
Agriculture
3543
3716
Medicine
7622
8219
2005
16380
12370
Engineering /Technology
2003
5258
4713
Education
105374
Commerce
94426
71836
74295
Sciences
304611
306419
Arts
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
Faculty-wise Pass out Garduates in 2005
3%
0%
0%
2%
2%
9%
6%
Arts
Sciences
Commerce
45%
Education
Engineering /Technology
Medicine
Agriculture
Vetinery Science
Law
18%
Others
15%
Faculty-wise Pass out number of Post Graduates in 2005
0%
0%
1%
6%
1%
3%
1%
Arts
Sciences
Commerce
19%
Education
Engineering /Technology
Medicine
56%
Agriculture
Vetinery Science
Law
Others
13%
Faculty –wise Number of Doctorate Degree Awarded
Faculty
Number of Doctorate Degree
2005-06
2006-07
Arts
7605
8257
Science
5625
5839
Commerce/Technology
1115
1402
Education
599
659
Engineering/Technology
1058
1079
Medicine
438
454
Agriculture
1119
1125
Veterinary Science
180
185
Law
182
175
Others
809
956
Total
18730
20131
Faculty-wise Doctoral Degree Awarded
956
809
Others
Law
175
182
Veterinary Science
185
180
1125
1119
Agriculture
454
438
Medicine
Number of Doctorate Degree 2006-07
Number of Doctorate Degree 2005-06
1079
1058
Engineering/Technology
659
599
Education
1402
1115
Commerce/Technology
5839
5625
Science
8257
Arts
7605
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Quality Assessment in Higher Education
There are three levels at which the issue of quality is dealt with.
•
At the national level, University Grants Commission is responsible for the coordination and maintenance of standards of higher education.
•
At the institutional level, colleges and the university departments make attempts to
deliver quality education. There is an arrangement for the performance evaluation of
teachers in the institutions.
•
At the provincial level, the State Government needs to monitored the quality through
the process of accountability of the university to the State Govt.
•
It is the responsibility of affiliating university to assure the quality of education in
colleges and post-graduate departments of the university.
•
For various technical and professional disciplines various Professional Councils have
been entrusted with the responsibility to maintain standards of higher education.
Quality Assessment in Higher Education
•
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) was established in
1994 as the leading body for quality assurance and accreditation of higher
education institutions in order to introduce transparency and provide
information to students and other groups as to the quality of HE institutions
in India.
•
The Indian Quality Assurance System, unlike the United States, is
essentially unitary and centralized in character.
•
NAAC had by 2007 completed accreditation of only 140 out of the 378
universities and 3492 out of the 14000 colleges. Accreditation is neither
compulsory nor tied to the system of funding by UGC. The demand for
accreditation is very low and questions are often raised on the feasibility
and efficiency of a centralised body in accrediting a diverse set of
institutions.
•
The private universities and the private deemed universities are self financing
and in majority of cases are not dependent on UGC for funding. State
monitoring of these institutions has not so far taken on a clear shape and
there is largely an unfettered growth in private sector with great asymmetries.
•
11th Plan has proposed the introduction of a mandatory accreditation system
for all educational institutions, creation of multiple rating agencies with a body
to rate these rating agencies and department-wise ratings in addition to
institutional ratings. In this regard government is proposing a law for
mandatory assessment and accreditation in higher education through an
independent regulatory authority.
Evident Issues and Challenges
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extremely low GER in higher/tertiary education
Regional imbalances skewed in favour of big cities.
Abysmal quality of higher/tertiary education in large number of institutions
Issues of providing relevant education
Cross Border Education: Issues Concerning Quality, Regulations, Mutual
Recognition
Privatization and Commercialization
Higher Education in the context of Sustainable Development
Research in the context of Knowledge Economy
Issues relating to quality of Doctoral Research
What is being done?
Proposed expansion in access to higher education through increased
institutional capacity
•
Increased enrolment upto 15% in 2012 from 10% in 2006. 5% net
increase in enrolment rate is equivalent to an estimated increase in
the number of students from 14million in 2007 to 21 million in 2012
with net increase by 7 million.
•
All together about 1464 new institutions are to be set up, including 30
central universities and strengthening the intake capacity of existing
educational institutions
•
It is also being hoped that massification and increase in GER would
be achieved by having about 40 percent of GER in the Distance
Education mode. The obvious pitfalls of this strategy are yet to be
addressed in the dominant discourse.
Major Policy Initiatives
New Initiatives taken up by Ministry of Human Resource Development for
enhancing quality in Higher Education in India which relate to
– Bills on Checking malpractices in private institutions.
– Educational Tribunal Bill
– The bill on Accreditation
– The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and operation)
Various Commissions and Committees for developing a policy direction for
Higher Education in the country set up by the Government of India in past
few years.
– National Knowledge Commission
– YashPal Committee
– National Commission on Higher Education and Research
Concerns and Dilemmas
•
Among the most critical of these being: the unmanageably large size of the system; too rapid and relentless pace of
massification of HE; the paucity of state resources to sustain this growth by themselves without a comprehensive
reassessment of rationale of various existing state subsidies to HEIs; a ‘half baked policy ‘and lack of serious
engagement with the presence and dynamics of private sector in HE, the challenge to keep pace with the advance of
knowledge and technology in the world and to provide at the same time, knowledge and technology relevant and
appropriate to the country as a developing society; the contradictions involved in implementing the policy of
reservations; political pressure; and finally State control through an insensitive, inflexible bureaucracy(Chitnis, 1995;
Mehta, 2000,2004, 2006)
•
The Gap between what the system provides and what the Country needs – It does not address the sectors of the
economy that are not yet industrialized or not even on the threshold of technological advance . The underlying
assumption seemingly has been that the needs of this sector will automatically be served by focusing on fairly
advanced and sophisticated professional and technical education (Chitnis1995). This assumption, largely aligned to
the challenges posed by the latecoming of India to the industrialization process and subsequent need for a
technologically trained workforce in independent India recuperating from multidimensionally debilitating colonial rule,
has proved to be in the long run damaging.
•
The dilemma of talking about internationalizing higher education is that it raises concerns about the possible stifling of
domestic capabilities in the higher education systems of developing world and may discriminate against any focus on
the apparently non profitable terrain of study of indigenous knowledge (accompanying modernization of traditional
occupations). (Nayyar 2007and Chitnis 2002)
•
Within the existing mainstream system, the following remarks capture to a substantial extent the sentiments of a large
section of Indian population aspiring for access to a system of Higher education that will be consequential to the
possibilities of a ‘productive’ life in society and the economy:
“The state system has for decades perpetrated an education fraud on millions of students. By admitting that
university degrees are not worth much and therefore even full time BA and BSc students be allowed to pursue a
"vocational" degree simultaneously, the UGC has acknowledged what a fraud Indian higher education is,
especially for 70 per cent of the students enrolled in basic social sciences, sciences courses across the country.
And more than 100,000 of our best students every year are voting by their feet and leaving, often paying a packet
to do so.” (Mehta, 2004, The Education Wars, The Hindu)
•
Story of Indian HE management has been a classic case of State as a regulator becoming a
problem greater than the solution it proposes to offer. Tradition of confusing accountability with
control – It can be reasonably observed that this thrust of regulatory regime in India has served to
diminish rather than increase the supply of education (Mehta 2006). The intensive centralized control
exercised by UGC over the years has fallen prey to this fallacy and Indian HE has had to pay a huge
price for this oversight. Current deliberations and proposed legislative acts on replacing (in fact
wishing away) UGC with National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) are a
recognition of the non feasibility of a leviathan bureaucratic organization like UGC (as a central grant
giving body, an entry regulator, curriculum designer, and accreditation, all rolled into one) in the
transforming higher education scenario of India. How bureaucratic the new proposed body itself
would become or would avoid to become is yet to be seen and worked out.
•
Issue of creating possibilities of empowerment and creating choices for students as opposed to
controlling and micromanaging institutional processes (like admissions, fee structures etc.) through
arbitrary and largely electoral politics motivated REGULATIONS confronts the effectiveness of
trajectory of Higher education reforms on the anvil.
•
Need for a complex and diversified higher education system and articulation of alternative ways of
addressing the social equity concerns and politics of access. Higher/Tertiary educayion cannot also
develop on an adhoc trajectory(which seems to be the case at present) without a clear articulation of
expectations and real time assessments of the needs required to support massification as well as
demands of a transition economy. (Altbach 2009,p.42-The Giants Awake- Higher education Systems
in India and China; also Bhanu Mehta and Devesh Kapoor 2004,p.3, Indian Higher Education
reform: From half baked socialism to half baked capitalism)