Internals are here and holidays are soon to come!!! Lets all make this good!!!!!
Higher Education -Right or Privilege?
Saturday, August 26, 2006
In ancient times India was known as a center place of knowledge and learning. Students used to come here to quench the thirst of knowledge. Education system of any country should be according to the needs and values of that particular country.
The objectives of higher education are: physical and mental development of a person to develop a feeling of self-confidence and self-independence in person to develop the feeling of moral values and thoughtfulness development of manners, gentleness, equality, co-operation and tolerance to develop the feelings of national integration, respect for all religions, alterness about nature and environment and quest for modern arts etc. people should be given the knowledge of our glorious past and side by side they should be prepared to enhance to-wards the twenty first century. A few years ago, a whiz kid in the World Bank observed that university graduates earn substantially more than others. As a corollary, he postulated, higher education is not a public good the way it was thought to be. He coined the evocative description “inferior good” for higher education. Then, on the principle the beneficiary pays, the World Bank suggested that higher education be priced. The idea has caught on. Pro-market economists liked the principle of pricing education. Socialists too are thrilled. In their lexicon, higher education is monopolized\n by the well to do. Hence they consider any subsidy for higher education is a gift to the rich at the expense of the poor. Harassed governments strapped for cash find the idea attractive. Evidently, this idea has universal appeal. However, it is an important principle that there is no universal principle. In other words, if everybody agrees, there must be something seriously wrong. What is wrong with the idea of treating higher education as a market commodity? There are atleast two, and possibly three flaws. One, it isn’t just the student who benefits from higher education. The employer also benefits, probably a greater extent. In the larger version the society also benefits. How good would a country be without educated people? The poor (and the incompetent, too) benefit when someone becomes a doctor, engineer, a collector, social worker, economist…what not?",1] ); //-->
A few years ago, a whiz kid in the World Bank observed that university graduates earn substantially more than others. As a corollary, he postulated, higher education is not a public good the way it was thought to be. He coined the evocative description “inferior good” for higher education. Then, on the principle the beneficiary pays, the World Bank suggested that higher education be priced.
The idea has caught on. Pro-market economists liked the principle of pricing education. Socialists too are thrilled. In their lexicon, higher education is monopolized by the well to do. Hence they consider any subsidy for higher education is a gift to the rich at the expense of the poor. Harassed governments strapped for cash find the idea attractive.
Evidently, this idea has universal appeal. However, it is an important principle that there is no universal principle. In other words, if everybody agrees, there must be something seriously wrong.
What is wrong with the idea of treating higher education as a market commodity? There are atleast two, and possibly three flaws. One, it isn’t just the student who benefits from higher education. The employer also benefits, probably a greater extent. In the larger version the society also benefits. How good would a country be without educated people? The poor (and the incompetent, too) benefit when someone becomes a doctor, engineer, a collector, social worker, economist…what not? One more drawback of this theory is that “students pay”. The poor will then be left out. As a remedy, loans have been suggested. That sounds well in theory. In practice, what hope is there for the child of, say, a rickshaw puller, to get a loan to study medicine or engineering or whatever professional course is in demand now? even if the loan is given can he ever repay it? Because the cost of professional education keeps going up. Has any institution till day guaranteed that its degree is good enough to fetch, and keep a job for any length of time? Will we ever\n purchase a product that doesn’t have guarantee or that doesn’t even offer a after purchase service? Thirdly, in the market, there is a custom of providing a guarantee for a substantial fraction of product life. For instance, TV sets are available with a guarantee of four years. Does any educational institution guarantee us that its degree can fetch of a job that can be kept for a long length of time? How do we charge a product that offers no guarantee? The next complication is that, our socialist friends want higher education to become universal. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared that 50 per cent of the youth should go to the universities. When so many become graduates, how can they earn much more than others? Won’t their wages fall? Already, a plumber in ",1] ); //-->
One more drawback of this theory is that “students pay”. The poor will then be left out. As a remedy, loans have been suggested. That sounds well in theory. In practice, what hope is there for the child of, say, a rickshaw puller, to get a loan to study medicine or engineering or whatever professional course is in demand now? even if the loan is given can he ever repay it? Because the cost of professional education keeps going up.
Has any institution till day guaranteed that its degree is good enough to fetch, and keep a job for any length of time? Will we ever purchase a product that doesn’t have guarantee or that doesn’t even offer a after purchase service?
Thirdly, in the market, there is a custom of providing a guarantee for a substantial fraction of product life. For instance, TV sets are available with a guarantee of four years. Does any educational institution guarantee us that its degree can fetch of a job that can be kept for a long length of time? How do we charge a product that offers no guarantee?
The next complication is that, our socialist friends want higher education to become universal. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared that 50 per cent of the youth should go to the universities. When so many become graduates, how can they earn much more than others? Won’t their wages fall? Already, a plumber in Britain earns more than a Ph.D . We need also to enquire whether higher education is necessary for large sections of the population. In the recent past I heard of a post-graduate in Kerala who gave up the position of a scientific assistant in a reputed NGO to become a peon in govt service. This not an isolated instance. Will not the absence of employment that matches higher education cause avoidable pain, and unhappiness? Considering the limited market, should higher education be then treated as a right to be demanded or as a privilege to be earned? Privately funded institutions have performed best in the Us. Few are aware that the average fee in universities like Harvard and Stanford is held within 20 per cent of that in state universities. Reputed private universities have found that (a) their reputation depends entirely on the quality of admissions, and (b) when the fee is pegged too high, bright youngsters go elsewhere. In fact Harvard gives larger subsidy to the average student than state universities do. Hence a wise govt will regulate the average fee charged, not how much is charged in individual cases. Only then will the rich and the not-so-bright students definitely cross-subsidise poor but bright students. ",1] ); //--> Britain earns more than a Ph.D .
We need also to enquire whether higher education is necessary for large sections of the population. In the recent past I heard of a post-graduate in Kerala who gave up the position of a scientific assistant in a reputed NGO to become a peon in govt service. This not an isolated instance. Will not the absence of employment that matches higher education cause avoidable pain, and unhappiness? Considering the limited market, should higher education be then treated as a right to be demanded or as a privilege to be earned?
Privately funded institutions have performed best in the Us. Few are aware that the average fee in universities like Harvard and Stanford is held within 20 per cent of that in state universities. Reputed private universities have found that (a) their reputation depends entirely on the quality of admissions, and (b) when the fee is pegged too high, bright youngsters go elsewhere.
In fact Harvard gives larger subsidy to the average student than state universities do. Hence a wise govt will regulate the average fee charged, not how much is charged in individual cases. Only then will the rich and the not-so-bright students definitely cross-subsidise poor but bright students.
If the youth were classified in two main categories: those who have the intellectual capacity to undergo the rigour of true higher education, and those who do not. The first can be subdivided into 2 sub categories: those who can compete for the limited occupations requiring\n higher education that the economy provides, and those who cannot. Likewise we can divide the less competent youth in 2 categories: those who can pay the cost of higher education and those who cannot. Those who are competent, and can compete for the limited opportunities, are national assets. The state and the employer should reward them, and bear in full the cost of their higher education. Those who are competent, but cannot compete may also be admitted if they so wish, but charged a fee linked to what they paid for their school education, about the best guide of their capacity to\n pay. Those who are rich, and are willing to subsidise the poor may also be admitted in the manner Harvard does. Educating the last category that is neither competent, nor rich enough to pay, is not worth the effort. Educated under/unemployment invariably ends up in political disaster. The consequent psychological cost (and the financial one) is too much to pay. So I conclude saying higher education is neither a privilege nor a right. It’s a necessity and is the order of the day. Educated people are the catalysts that are involved in the development of a nation. Ask the developed nations, I bet they wouldn’t deny even an iota of it. Because educated people are not just capable of making the big difference and getting their company the edge on a big project but can also think advanced ways of creating job opportunities and help develop the nation and bring pride. We have Laxmi Mittal for example. ",1] ); //--> If the youth were classified in two main categories: those who have the intellectual capacity to undergo the rigour of true higher education, and those who do not. The first can be subdivided into 2 sub categories: those who can compete for the limited occupations requiring higher education that the economy provides, and those who cannot. Likewise we can divide the less competent youth in 2 categories: those who can pay the cost of higher education and those who cannot.
Those who are competent, and can compete for the limited opportunities, are national assets. The state and the employer should reward them, and bear in full the cost of their higher education. Those who are competent, but cannot compete may also be admitted if they so wish, but charged a fee linked to what they paid for their school education, about the best guide of their capacity to pay.
Those who are rich, and are willing to subsidise the poor may also be admitted in the manner Harvard does. Educating the last category that is neither competent, nor rich enough to pay, is not worth the effort. Educated under/unemployment invariably ends up in political disaster. The consequent psychological cost (and the financial one) is too much to pay.
So I conclude saying higher education is neither a privilege nor a right. It’s a necessity and is the order of the day. Educated people are the catalysts that are involved in the development of a nation. Ask the developed nations, I bet they wouldn’t deny even an iota of it. Because educated people are not just capable of making the big difference and getting their company the edge on a big project but can also think advanced ways of creating job opportunities and help develop the nation and bring pride. We have Laxmi Mittal for example.
By- J.Gayathri Nayak 1st year B.A.Journalism
Courtesy The WEEK an article written by P.V.Indiresan
Name: Scribblers Home: Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India About Me: We are a set of energetic, budding journalists. Make way as we conquer the world. See my complete profile
lowely i say!!!
finally...... class blog is alive!