14 February 2022 12:00 am Views - 3044
Nearly 25,000 Sri Lankan students leave the country, per year, for higher education, says Perera. For one such student, parents have to spend US $ 30,000 annually. So, the per batch per year total comes to US $ 750 million. Assuming three batches of such students, the aggregate is as high as US $ 2.25 billion.
Perera then proposes to set up five international universities, within a 30-minute travel distance from the Katunayake international airport that can jointly accommodate those 30,000 students. This move, says he, will help to retain US $ 2.25 billion within the country annually. (All figures are his and no sources are provided. I reproduce them here without cross checking for accuracy, to illustrate the argument.)
Why should one take such a proposal by an individual, who is not even a direct stakeholder of the higher education sector, seriously? For two reasons. Firstly, Perera has made his own genuine contribution to education during the pandemic days by creating the island’s largest non-state-initiated education platform – DP Education, a non-profit venture by the Dhammika and Priscilla Perera Foundation, which has already helped tens of thousands of less privileged students in continuing their studies.
Then he also attempted making his mark in higher education by launching DP Digital University that connects Sri Lankan students with world-class academia. More recently, DP Education collaborated with the University of Moratuwa, facilitating open online ICT course development and delivery. Given this backdrop, one can understand the sincere long-term aspirations of the businessperson. However, that not necessarily makes him correct on his observations.
Dhammika Perera
Following established role models
Following already established role models of SLIIT and NSBM:
While any new universities are welcome, the idea of retaining students by providing them advanced higher education opportunities locally is not new. Exist already both state-owned and privately-owned universities delivering fee-levying study programmes.
Sujata Gamage and Tilan Wijesooriya of the Human Capital Research Programme of LIRNEasia, in a presentation titled ‘Mapping the Higher Education Landscape in Sri Lanka’, makes few pertinent observations. They find we have 17 public universities funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC) (hereafter called ‘state universities’), another 10 public universities/institutes that are fully or partly funded by the state and managed with varying levels of independence from the respective government, authorities but admission criteria determined independently of the UGC and 46 so-called ‘private’ universities. These were 2012 figures and some of them – particularly of the last category, might have increased. The second category is at where we start our journey.
Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT) was established in 1999, says its website, opening its doors for 395 students in the Metro Campus in Colombo. Currently, SLIIT offers both undergraduate and postgraduate courses and accommodates over 9,000 students, including international students. It has already produced more than 15,000 graduates in different disciplines, who have been absorbed by the market – local and international. According to the graduate Tracer Studies of 2016/2017, says SLIIT, nearly 90 percent of its bachelor degree graduates have found full-time employment within six months of course completion.
NSBM Green University Town in Pitipana was established in 2016, as a subsidiary of a state education institute. For few years before that, it operated from Nugegoda but the shift to Pitipana was important to provide a full university experience. NSBM currently offers degree programmes in three faculties: Management, Computing and Engineering. The university is spread over an area of 10 hectares in a university complex, with the intention of providing an opportunity for both national and international students to have a fully-fledged higher education in Sri Lanka. Currently around 9,000 students study at NSBM. Within its five years of existence, NSBM too has proved to be a role model for creating quality graduates to be absorbed by the local and international job market.
There are other fee-levying higher education institutes but these two are unique in their pragmatic business models. Both these institutes have gone great lengths in customising their delivery for the market needs; both offer the UGC-approved degree courses as well as degree courses from the foreign universities they are affiliated with. Their output is streamlined with the industry needs. They create value for the Sri Lankan economy. Unemployment and underemployment, common among state university students of some steams, are hardly known among the students of fee-levying institutes, such as SLIIT and NSBM.
Perhaps Perera wants to study these already established, successful and cost-effective models before proposing any new universities. They are surely worth replicating. It is also worth advancing them further, as that is value created for Sri Lanka. That is more value than merely having international university presence.
Open, fee-levying degree model
The open, fee-levying degree model should be recognised critical in every stream, including and especially in
medical sciences.
This is now more a problem with society than with the government. State thinking on this is already positive. The government or either of the two leading political parties has absolutely no issues with private-owned and managed higher education institutes and/or fee-levying degree programmes. In fact, some of the steps already taken are truly commendable. Good to see policymakers who see the value of open education.
As we have seen in the case of SAITM, who obstructs this workable and economically useful model are only certain sections of society, either for their personal or political gains. Not that SAITM was perfect but we should have first rescued the model and then thought about improving the standards – not the other way around. No model becomes perfect overnight. What we did led to the fall of the model with the future of thousands of students put in jeopardy. Given the wearisome experience we had against fee-levying medical education in Sri Lanka since 1980s, it would not be a surprise if nobody would attempt this exercise soon.
The absence of open and fee-levying medical education in Sri Lanka is a substantial burden to the economy. It is here that we find most of the 30,000 foreign students Perera talks about. In fact, this situation is sad. Sri Lankan students study at medical colleges not just in the developed world, including countries such as the USA, UK, Ireland, China, Russia, the UAE and Malaysia but also at colleges from India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Belarus and Armenia. Why does this happen this way? Shouldn’t it be the other way around – Sri Lanka attracting foreign students for its own medical collages from other countries? Sri Lanka’s medical education is 150 years old. For a period that long, how many non-Sri Lankan South Asia students have we created?
So, the damage we do to the Sri Lankan economy by restricting fee-levying education is not just limited to the outflow of foreign reserves. That also prevents us from earning the much-needed dollars by offering our own education services. Both these components together could add to annual GDP US $ 3-4 billion – only a little less than what we earn from tourism in a normal year. Surely, we cannot further delay this important development for just because of the objections of certain parties – no matter how politically powerful they are. If we close doors for open and fee-levying education, there will be no future for our own higher education industry.
A sustainable higher education industry requires all universities produce graduates directly absorbable to the local and international markets. This is possible only with close linkages with the industry.
Having super grade universities – no matter how advanced – is only one aspect. The supply chain is interrupted, where there is a gap between the skills needed by the industry and the skills of the graduates produced.
Arguably, the only category of degree programmes, to the best of my knowledge, that frequently and constantly undergoes change to meet the industry requirements is the information and communication technology (ICT)-related ones. On the other hand, the only industry that vehemently calls for such a change too is the IT industry – not even the other disciplines of engineering. I myself have participated in quite a few sessions that aimed to thin the gap between the study programmes and industry needs.
This happens for a clear reason. As found out by many surveys, the IT Workforce survey of 2019 most prominently stated there is a distinct gap between the demand and supply. For example, in 2018, the higher education institutes (both state and fee-levying) produced 9,000 graduates while the demand was for 14,000. The story goes far beyond the numbers. There should be a match of skills too – both tech skills and soft skills. The tech skills of course can be cultivated relatively easier but not the soft skills in management, marketing, public relations and negotiation, finally, the ability to work as a team, contributing one’s best and learning from the peers. The industry expects students trained in these aspects before they take over even trainee positions. Of course, in the ICT industry, it is not practically possible to nurture prolonged training periods.
The skill matching has gone to such a level that there is also a constant dialog about the lengths of the internships when this happens. The industry prefers internships towards the final year, with at least one year in duration. That makes direct engagement of interns possible. This is more beneficial from the student’s point too. Internships in the pre-final year are of little use, as that is followed by a break. That calls for an additional training period. Then, from the student’s angle, best is that they get the permanent positions quickly, so they can be financially independent – parents need not spend on them anymore. The best way to get this done is to limit the classroom teaching to two years, followed by a one-year internship.
A student takes her first steps towards higher education at school. Unbiased advices on career guidance and university selection, with the advantages/disadvantages of local and international options, should be first provided at that stage.
In one of my previous career avatars, I worked as a ‘student councillor’ to a few undergrad degree programmes. My firsthand experience was that the students and parents come with blank minds of the possibilities and choices. This may be the same everywhere. Students receive career guidance advice for the very first time at the same institutions – local or foreign – they plan to enter. Such advices will hardly be unbiased, particularly when the student councillors are paid incentives based on the numbers they recruit.
Were parents serious about the higher education of their children, they should seek this information much early. Were local education institutes serious, they should reach students and parents early. School is the best place for this encounter. School authorities must be flexible on this, as that is actually for the benefit of the students; they find a more affordable and continent solution.
Immense assistance will come from an independent university ranking system. Nearby India ranks local universities in multiple systems. Sri Lanka should have at least one ranking system that brings all state and fee-levying universities together. That makes the decisions easy.
Post-grad degrees
Post-grad degrees: We should have a fine balance; that will bring the most beneficial and cost-effective outcomes for the country.
This is one area that deserves more attention than we currently show. When Perera talks about 25,000, it is not just undergrads. The World Education Services figure shows that from 3,080 Sri Lankan students, who studied in the USA, only 33 percent were for first degrees. We had 51 percent of them studying for post-grad degrees. Other country situations may be the same. Should we try to retain post-grad students too, offering better educational opportunities? Well, this is a question that we do not have a straightforward response.
Any country, specially one that looks for a faster growth, requires a diversified set of intellectuals. What matters is not how they study but what input – quantitative and qualitative – they would make towards the growth of the economy. It is essential that at least some section of the grad students obtain their degrees from foreign universities in the developed world. Why kid ourselves? Can we come even close to Tsinghua, NUS, Nanyang Technological University, Kyoto University or Tel Aviv University standards, let alone Harvard and Stanford? Let’s admit it. If we need the highest grade intellectuals, we have to have them cultivated in the world’s best universities. Surely, there is no argument.
Still no harm attempting other avenues. Opening doors for foreign universities, as Perera suggests, could be one. I totally agree if that were for grad degrees – not that I doubt our own capacity. India plans exploring this idea to the best. In the recent Union Budget of India, presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman on February 1, 2022, there was a proposal to let foreign universities in without having them regulated by the local legislature. This is indeed a good move.
The next step would be to improve the standards of locally offered post-grad degrees, by both state and fee-levying universities. We have achieved quantity but for the quality, we still have a long way to go. A difficult journey but one that we should immediately take.
The outcome would be a fine balance among local post-grad degrees, locally offered foreign degrees and internationally offered foreign degrees. We need all three models, for three different reasons.
Empowering universities/institutes
State universities and other tertiary education institutes too should be empowered and equipped to play a critical role in building the higher education industry.
Last but not the least: just the term ‘industry’ must certainly not exclude the state universities that still play a leading in the higher education sector. They may now operate in a non-profit model but in economic terms, state university contribution is unstinting. While Perera talks about setting up new international level universities, one should not ignore the possibility to take the existing state universities up the rank, making their degree courses recognised on par with highest international standards. State universities should both be empowered and equipped for that task.
What prevents state universities from attracting more undergraduate students, local and foreign? Multiple reasons. One – The number of student vacancies is limited. It has come to a level that the door closes even for some students with three As from Colombo. Two – There is a demand and supply in some streams. Even if vacancies are available in courses, nobody wants to take them, as those degree courses are not in demand in the job market. Three – State universities still do not enjoy the luxury of flexibility, as the fee-levying ones.
Skipping the root causes, let’s get into solutions – most are already known to anyone in the academic field. (To be fair, some of these solutions are already implemented and working successfully.)
Firstly, the state universities should have more flexibility in deciding the portfolio of their degree programmes. Let’s admit the truth. Not all degrees are equal. To take extreme examples, there is a substantial difference in demand and economic value between a degree in artificial intelligence and one in humanities. According to the tracer study of Sri Lankan graduates conducted by the UGC itself and available on public domain, [quote] compared to architecture, computer science/IT, allied health science and engineering graduates, whose employment rates were over 90 percent within about two years of graduation, graduates from other disciplines seem to be less dynamic in finding jobs. The only exception is the graduates from the field of education, as all of them have been absorbed into the teaching profession by the state. The lowest employment rates were recorded by the graduates from the arts (45.6 percent) and performing arts (37.1 percent) disciplines. Employment rates among graduates not only vary across disciplines but also among universities. [unquote]
Were this the case, no point in further letting state universities to produce graduates from the streams with low demand in the market. Some have already rearranged their focus. Few universities offer BA in Information Technology, conducted under Humanities. A commendable move is the introduction of technology streams in higher education, absorbing a section of students otherwise will move to humanities.
Then comes the promotion of non-internal degree courses. As far as I know, two universities already conduct their own, the UGC-recognised, Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) degrees for students who could not enrol for the internal ones. The university only conducts the examinations and does monitoring. Teaching is done at external institutes that match all recommended standards (qualified faculty, advanced computer labs) under the close supervision, by the university. Students receive the certificates from the university. This model has a great future as it is more flexible for expansion.
So, while I agree with Perera, we must retain the hardly earned foreign currency by developing our own higher education industry. I disagree that the only or best way to do it is by blindly introducing more universities. That is the only one way of doing it; we have more avenues to explore.
(Chanuka Wattegama, an academic and a policy researcher, can be reached at chanuka@hotmail.com. The opinions expressed are personal)