M. Bakri Musa
[Last of Six Parts]
[In the preceding essays, I discussed the rationale and benefits of
enhancing private sector participation in education, surveyed the various
models in the rest of world, and summarized the current state of affairs
in Malaysia. This last piece is my prescription for private sector
participation at the tertiary level.]
As with schools, opportunities for private sector participation at the
post-secondary level are also endless. At one end would be the
completely independent proprietary universities free of governmental
control except those that govern any private enterprise. At the other
would be the various public-private partnerships.
The advantage of being independent is just that. As Thomas
Kealey, head of the only independent private university in Britain, the
University of Buckingham, observed, "Every other university … works
solely to government targets. The government gives them money, and
therefore they do whatever the government wants. …. [O]ur economic
success is determined by our students' satisfaction. The other
universities' success is determined by how much they please the
government."
Kealey's assertion reveals something else, and that is the
basic philosophy of any commercial enterprise: Give your customers (in
this case, students) what they want, not what they need. It is not my
purpose to challenge the legitimacy of such a viewpoint, or support the
traditional view of the university as a community of teachers and
scholars concerned only with the pursuit of knowledge and truth. In
reality, we need both types of institutions.
Just because a college is private and free from governmental
funding does not mean that the government can abrogate its
responsibilities to regulate these institutions. They too must be
regulated, like other private providers of services like hospitals and
restaurants.
The purpose of regulatory oversight is to prevent and weed out
fraudulent operators and institutions; that is, to protect the public and
the industry. Our students must be assured that when they enroll in a
private college and part with their parent's hard-earned cash to pay for
the tuition, they are indeed getting an education and not be the victim
of a degree mill. Of course there is no way any regulator could prevent
a shady character with money and eager to burnish his qualification from
getting a fake degree from one of the many fraudulent purveyors.
Such regulations would also protect the industry. If it were
to be infested with shady operators and degree mills, then the industry
as a whole would suffer. The value and marketability of the genuine
providers would decline. This applies to providers of education as well
as purveyors of Gucci leather goods.
This oversight function gets complicated in these days of
"non-traditional" learning. The line between a degree mill and
legitimate "non-traditional" on-line degree program can be blurry. A
"dissertation" can be nothing more than a few pages of your "life
experiences," and heavily coached at that, or even ghost written. That
these fraudulent operators are becoming more sophisticated is reason to
remain vigilant.
One way to achieve this would be to have strict definitions of
terms and clear criteria to qualify. Just as private doctors and lawyers
must have certain qualifications and experience before they hang out
their shingle, so too private colleges and universities must meet certain
published and transparent standards.
Thus before any institution could grant a degree or diploma,
it must satisfy certain academic and non-academic criteria. The former
would include the qualifications of its key faculty and academic leaders,
entry requirements, and quality of courses. The non-academic criteria
relate to the facilities, financial soundness, and the posting of a
performance bonds.
As for the quality of the academic offerings, these
institutions would have to acquire accreditation from recognized foreign
bodies. Alternatively they could seek accreditation from Lembaga
Akreditasi Negara (LAN).
Unfortunately LAN is not an independent agency; it is just
another government bureaucracy. Further, it accredits only private
institutions, not public ones. We need an independent agency staffed not
by civil servants but relevant professionals from both the public and
private sectors. That is the only way to enhance LAN's credibility.
Once the regulatory requirements are met, any entity, foreign
or local, should be able to set up a private college using whatever
language of instruction it chooses.
Private, Non-Profit Post-Secondary Institutions
As indicated earlier, there is no model of a successful truly private or
proprietary university anywhere in the world. Hence I suggest we adopt
the American model of private but non-profit universities.
Like America, we should grant our private non-profit
universities tax-free status; free from paying income, property and other
taxes. Additionally, donations to these institutions should be tax
deductible. The government should also treat the students attending
these private institutions no differently from those of public ones in
terms of eligibility for scholarships and student loans. Likewise, the
government should not discriminate the granting of research funds between
public and private universities; those should be given to those most
competent to conduct the study. These universities should also have
access to government-guaranteed loans so they could lower their funding
costs for capital projects.
Additionally the government should give direct financial
grants to these non-profit universities. After all it has done that to
foreign universities, like Ohio University (US), the Royal College of
Surgeons (Ireland), and Cambridge.
In return for those privileges, these universities would have
to agree to some mutually agreed and beneficial goals, like having their
faculty and domestic student body broadly reflect Malaysian society.
However, there would not be any rigid quota. The university should
recognize that diversity in the classroom enhances the learning
experience. It would also be a wonderful and effective way of preparing
your students for the diverse global marketplace.
In short, these non-profit private universities would be like
my proposed charter schools.
My concept could be extended to technical and vocational
institutes. I envisage a consortium of construction companies banding
together to set up a vocational institute to produce electricians,
plumbers and carpenters. Another would be a group of major hotel
operators establishing a school training chefs, tour guides, and hotel
workers.
In America, there are many bridges between private and public
institutions so students could seamless move from one system to the other
at many levels with minimal loss of academic credit. This is particularly
useful during this time of economic crisis when many parents find their
priories have shifted and they can no longer afford private universities.
On an administrative level, I would not put these universities
and institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Higher
Education (MOHE) as that would impose significant conflict of interest.
Those folks at MOHE see themselves first and foremost as looking after
the interests of public universities. They would see these private
universities as unwelcome challenges to the growth of public
universities.
Instead these private tertiary educational institutions should
be under the Ministry Of Trade and Industry (MITI). After all the initial
idea of having them was essentially economic – to save and earn foreign
exchange – the same mission of the ministry. Besides, there is precedent
for this, with the International Islamic University under MITI. That was
a sneaky maneuver to overcome the government's prohibition on the use of
English in public universities. By having IIU under MITI, the university
is considered under the law as a commercial enterprise rather than an
educational institution, and hence could use English without incurring
the wrath of the language nationalists. Brilliant!
Apart from establishing these non-profit universities, there
are other avenues for public-private partnership involving our public
universities. On many American campuses, the food, housing, and many
other non-academic services are run not by the university but by private
entities, relieving the university of the financial, human, and other
strains of running such ancillary services.
Another would be for public universities to employ
practitioners from the private sector as adjunct faculty members. That
would not only supplement the teaching staff but also bring a much needed
practical perspective to the curriculum.
Like everything else, such private-public partnerships can go
too far as to undermine the universities core academic mission. A major
concern on American academia today is to what extent these collaborations
with private for-profit entities would compromise the intellectual and
academic integrity of the research and the institution. In many
instances especially in medical research, the findings are often tainted
because key investigators are too generously funded by interested
commercial parties.
Such conflicts are experienced even on such hallowed campuses
as Harvard. Recognition of the problem is the first step towards solving
or even preventing it.
The Malaysian government tried to loosen its stranglehold on
our public universities through the exercise of "corporatization" in the
hope of freeing them from the tight leash of ministry bureaucrats. The
result? Nothing much has changed despite the costs, flurry of paperwork,
and legal maneuverings. The reason is that the same people with the same
mentality remain in charge, only their titles are changed.
Take one example. A few years ago the newly corporatized
University of Malaya went into partnership with a private entity to
develop part of the campus. Unfortunately it was not to build a new
laboratory, convention center, or student residence, but an exclusive
gated community! Not even under the most generous interpretation would
such an arrangement be viewed as advancing the university's mission. The
units were so luxurious that that they were beyond the reach of the
faculty members! Such one-sided arrangement is not the sort of PPP I
envisage.
My criticism is not directed at corporatization, rather how it
was done, again illustrating my earlier point about a sound policy having
flawed implementation. My proposals as outlined here would entail first
of all a change in mindset of those in charge.
A vigorous private sector involvement in higher education
would lead to greater competition for our public universities. That
could lead to their improvement. We already see this. The recent
decision by many public universities to improve the English proficiency
of their students is directly the consequence of the competition from
private universities. Employers (other than the government) are
preferring graduates of private institutions over those from public ones.
Consequently public universities have to respond to this challenge.
Such is the consequence of competition. That alone is a good
enough reason for the government to engage the private sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment