University Grants Commission(UGC) founded in 1956 through a parliamentary Act.Its mandate to provide funds to universities apart from maintaining standards in institutions of higher education.
-A committee headed by former UGC chairman Hari Gautam has recommended the scrapping of the UGC,by saying the commisiion has failed to fulfill its mandates and any attempt to reshape or restructure it will be futile.
-Committee recommended for constitution of new National Higher Education Authority in its place.
-UGC has not been able to deal with emerging diverse complexities.
-UGC has deviated from its core goals of being a watchdog for ensuring excellence in education,also accused of indulging in favouritism.
-Committee raised questions about selection criteria for the members so,recommended for transparent mechanism for selection procedure.
-Existing system has no autonomy in its working to deal with political interference.
-Some expert argued about the strengthening of the existing system and made to work properly and scrapping is the not the ultimate solution of the problem.
There is need for a commission for funding and maintaining standard in institutions through a autonomous body where no political interference and everything work transparently and smoothly to ensure the quality based education.
Ans2:
Importance: Higher education an avenue for social mobility, indispensable for progress of a nation
Problems: No Indian University in top 200, Law enacted in 1956 is unsuited for regulation today and needs to be changed in-line with the growing complexity and number w.r.t Universities, Deemed Universities, Politicization of UGC [FYUP etc.]
Recommendations : Scrapping of the UGC for having failed to fulfill its mandate of ensuring quality education; It has ignored its primary function of promoting excellence in education and concentrated mostly on disbursal of funds; UGC working characterized by concentration of powers and use of threat and coercion; recommends constitution of an overarching authority namely NHEA which will be in-line with contemporary requirements of higher education - internationalization, cross-disciplinary etc.
Criticism and suggested reforms: Though the, committee has made a genuine analysis of the problems, the solution of scrapping UGC is akin to throwing baby along with the water. The committee doesn't dwell on the ways to improve higher education in India. It also tends to ignore how to enhance access of higher education for lower-middle class people especially from rural background and limited English proficiency. Further, the proposed overarching authority may as well be prone to influence by vested interests [corporates etc]. The substitution of one structure by other is not the solution unless some qualitative reforms are made.
This includes insulating UGC from political interference, constituting an independent selection body for Chairman and members with fixed time period to ensure their independence, evolving a more reasonable and objective criteria for funding, continuous curriculum and methodology review and up-gradation, enforcing accountability , promoting R & D and industry-academia collaboration.
Thus, the way forward should be enhancing quality as well as access of higher education rather than resorting to a symbolic reform!
-A committee headed by former UGC chairman Hari Gautam has recommended the scrapping of the UGC,by saying the commisiion has failed to fulfill its mandates and any attempt to reshape or restructure it will be futile.
-Committee recommended for constitution of new National Higher Education Authority in its place.
-UGC has not been able to deal with emerging diverse complexities.
-UGC has deviated from its core goals of being a watchdog for ensuring excellence in education,also accused of indulging in favouritism.
-Committee raised questions about selection criteria for the members so,recommended for transparent mechanism for selection procedure.
-Existing system has no autonomy in its working to deal with political interference.
-Some expert argued about the strengthening of the existing system and made to work properly and scrapping is the not the ultimate solution of the problem.
There is need for a commission for funding and maintaining standard in institutions through a autonomous body where no political interference and everything work transparently and smoothly to ensure the quality based education.
Ans2:
Importance: Higher education an avenue for social mobility, indispensable for progress of a nation
Problems: No Indian University in top 200, Law enacted in 1956 is unsuited for regulation today and needs to be changed in-line with the growing complexity and number w.r.t Universities, Deemed Universities, Politicization of UGC [FYUP etc.]
Recommendations : Scrapping of the UGC for having failed to fulfill its mandate of ensuring quality education; It has ignored its primary function of promoting excellence in education and concentrated mostly on disbursal of funds; UGC working characterized by concentration of powers and use of threat and coercion; recommends constitution of an overarching authority namely NHEA which will be in-line with contemporary requirements of higher education - internationalization, cross-disciplinary etc.
Criticism and suggested reforms: Though the, committee has made a genuine analysis of the problems, the solution of scrapping UGC is akin to throwing baby along with the water. The committee doesn't dwell on the ways to improve higher education in India. It also tends to ignore how to enhance access of higher education for lower-middle class people especially from rural background and limited English proficiency. Further, the proposed overarching authority may as well be prone to influence by vested interests [corporates etc]. The substitution of one structure by other is not the solution unless some qualitative reforms are made.
This includes insulating UGC from political interference, constituting an independent selection body for Chairman and members with fixed time period to ensure their independence, evolving a more reasonable and objective criteria for funding, continuous curriculum and methodology review and up-gradation, enforcing accountability , promoting R & D and industry-academia collaboration.
Thus, the way forward should be enhancing quality as well as access of higher education rather than resorting to a symbolic reform!
No comments:
Post a Comment