On Planning University Development: Shibboleths Versus Stylised Facts?

University Education is Not Important for Development

The most important presumption that was widely held for a long time was that university education is not important for economic growth and development. On the other hand, it is literacy and primary education that is argued to be important. Estimates on the internal rate of return, estimated by economists, particularly by the economists of the World Bank, also contributed to strengthening such a presumption. Returns to primary education are high and higher than returns to secondary and higher education, and this had led many to conclude that it is only primary education and literacy that matter for development—economic, social and even human development—and secondary and higher education do not matter. In the same context, it was also held that developing countries like India would not be able to fulfil their goals with respect to primary education, unless secondary and higher education are ignored or their growth capped. This was accepted for a long time by many developing countries, some out of compulsion, as the view primarily came from the World Bank (1994), and so the development of university education was neglected. This also misguided many planners to juxtapose one level of education against another, leading to a fragmented approach to educational policy, planning and development.

The contribution of basic education to development is widely recognised. Ever since 1985 when the World Bank set poverty reduction as an important agenda and highlighted the role of primary education therein, the attention of policymakers, planners and development thinkers has shifted very systematically in favour of primary education. Substantial research has established strong linkages between primary education and poverty reduction—reduction in infant mortality rate, reduction in fertility rate, improvement in life expectancy and so on. Research also covered literacy and non-formal education and rarely secondary and higher education. All these contributed to the distorted fallacious argument that higher education is not important.

Later research has shown how erroneous this argument was. The fallacious argument was indeed exploded by a large amount of research that was conducted particularly in the late 1990s and after, including studies by the World Bank and UNESCO (the Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000; the World Bank, 2002) and others (Bloom, Hartely, & Rosovsky, 2006; Tilak, 2003; UNESCO, 1998). Research that used national and cross-national data has demonstrated this. The modern growth theory, developed by Paul Romer (1986) and Robert Lucas (1988), underlined the view that knowledge is a public good and that investment in knowledge produces avenues for limitless sustainable economic growth, it being one of the most important sources of innovations. It is true that primary education is necessary for not only education’s development but also for social and economic development. At the same time, the experience also demonstrates that primary education is not sufficient for economic growth and sustainable development. Societies that have concentrated rather exclusively on primary education and ignored secondary and higher education could not achieve high levels of economic growth. In other words, it is not adequate for fast economic growth to exclusively concentrate on primary education. Voluminous research of recent years has clearly shown that higher education is important not only for economic growth but also for producing a wide set of externalities, as it contributes significantly to cultural advancement, political maturity, social progress and human development. The argument against post-elementary education also fails to recognise the interlinkages between different sub-sectors of education; after all, they depend upon each other.

In short, the simple stylised fact is: all levels of education are important; and higher education is the most powerful instrument for socio-economic transformation of societies.

University Education is Important for Development So We Need Many More Universities

There are some who strongly and rightly believe that higher education is important for development; accordingly, they argued for a massive expansion of university system. There were 190 universities in India in 1990–1991. The number jumped by more than four times to 847 by March 2016, according to the latest statistics available from the University Grants Commission (UGC, 2016). Globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation have been the characteristic features of the development paradigm since the beginning of the 1990s, influencing every nation, and every sector of development, including higher education.

The National Knowledge Commission (NKC, 2009) recommended, inter alia, that India should have some 1,500 universities in the country. Taking the cue from the NKC, the government decided to push for a sudden major expansion of higher education, setting high targets for the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER), founding of new universities and other university-level institutions. A significant increase in the allocation of resources to higher education was also made in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan. During this plan period, as many as 17 new central universities were set up (though the actual target was 32), apart from doubling and trebling the numbers of many other institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management and Indian Institutes of Information Technology. Many states have also set up new universities in the public sector and more under the private sector. The latest statistics state that as of today (in 2016), there are 46 central universities, 347 state universities, 235 state private universities, 123 institutions deemed to be universities and 96 institutes of national importance and others in India.

The growth in the number of universities and colleges has helped in enrolling more students in higher education. Today there are nearly 30 million students (excluding students in open/distance education) in higher education. The growth has also helped in bridging social gaps in participation in higher education to some extent. While I recognise some of these seemingly positive outcomes, I wish to raise a few basic questions on planning the growth of universities. The questions may be relevant not only for India but also in general for other countries.

The NKC strongly recommended that India should increase the number of universities from some 350 to 1,500. The intention was to set up universities in every district/block/taluk, if not in every village. This, it is believed, would enable India to attain a GER of at least 15 per cent by 2015 from the then (incorrectly) under-estimated ratio of 7 per cent. Accordingly, the Eleventh Five-Year Plan aimed at reaching a GER of 15 per cent by the end of the Plan, that is, by 2012. (The target was later revised to 25 per cent by 2017 and 30 per cent by 2020.)

In my view, the NKC’s recommendation to expand the number of universities to 1,500 is not based on any sound detailed analysis. It is based on a very simple logic that as there were about 350 universities in the country with an enrolment of about ten million students; a four-time increase in enrolments to about 40 million would require a four-time increase in the number of universities. A detailed diagnostic analysis of the existing higher education system, if not a detailed manpower planning exercise, and a choice of sound criteria would have helped the Commission to come out with a more sensible recommendation. To argue that there should be a university in every district or block is based on an inappropriate understanding of the very concept of a university. Such a view makes no distinction between primary schools that are expected to be provided in every village at an easy walking distance to every child, and universities that are expected to provide knowledge at a much-advanced level and produce graduates for national and global society. Certainly, there is no case for 1,500 universities in India in the near future. In fact, Pranab Bardhan (2017) in an article that appeared in The Indian Express recently felt that ‘there should not be more than 50 (universities) in the whole country’. (I do not, however, necessarily agree with many other statements he made in the article.) I will return to this issue shortly when I refer to similar aspects relating to diversity.

‘Small Is Beautiful’

The NKC in its wisdom argued that there is a need to set up ‘smaller’ universities, ‘appropriately scaled and more nimble’ universities which ‘are responsive to change and easier to manage’. This view is very difficult to understand. Is small beautiful in case of universities? Why do we need small universities? What are the advantages of small universities vis-á-vis big ones, particularly in serving the main functions of the university relating to knowledge development and dissemination? There is no research anywhere that has shown that small universities perform better. Some may be doing well, but not because they are small, but because of some other important factors. Though the NKC seemed to be concerned about managerial problems, even with respect to managerial and other economies of scale, large universities may be preferred.

I argue that we must prefer having a small number of large universities, with sprawling campuses, and with excellent facilities in terms of teachers, libraries, laboratories, classrooms, play-grounds, other infrastructure, with large areas of student and faculty residences. Such large campuses may provide a better learning environment, attracting students, scholars and faculty from various corners of the country and abroad to study in various disciplines. In addition, this will help in reaping economies of scale, and efficient utilisation of physical, human and financial resources.

Unfortunately, many Indian universities are very small in size in terms of enrolments; they are actually planned so. The best institutions in India, such as the Indian Institutes of Technology or the central universities, established in the last century have an enrolment of about 4,000–6,000, not to speak of several deemed and other universities, including recently established central and state universities and other university level institutions, which have enrolments hardly in three digits. Many universities are much below any ‘optimal’ size that one can think of.

In this context, let me refer to a university of the past that we often speak about with great pride, namely Nalanda University. The University of Nalanda, known during those days as Nalanda Mahavira, built in 4 bce in India was one of the greatest achievements of ancient period in the field of education. According to available records, ¹ it was one of the world’s first residential universities and it had extensive dormitories and accommodated over 10,000 students and 2,000 teachers on the campus in its heyday—that is, with a faculty-student ratio of 1:5. Considered an architectural masterpiece, the university was enclosed by a lofty wall and had eight separate compounds and ten temples, several lakes and parks alongside meditation halls and classrooms. The library was a nine-storeyed building where meticulous copies of texts were produced and preserved. Courses of study were drawn from every field of learning, Buddhist and Hindu, sacred and secular, and foreign and native. Students studied science, astronomy, medicine and logic as diligently as they applied themselves to metaphysics, philosophy, Samkhya, Yoga shastra, the Vedas and the scriptures of Buddhism. They likewise studied foreign philosophy. Transcending ethnic and national boundaries, the university attracted pupils and scholars from Korea, Japan, China, Tibet, Indonesia, Persia, Turkey and other parts of the globe. This institution represents the concept of the university of the ancient period.

In fact, we do not have to go back to the 4 bce. Look at the contemporary scene. The top ten public universities in the US in global ranking have an average enrolment of 34,000 students; the top ten European universities have an average of 29,000 students, the top ten universities in the Asia-Pacific (mostly in Japan) have an average enrolment of 21,000 and the top ten British universities have 20,000 students enrolled. Except for private American universities, most world class universities are relatively large, with the enrolment of students ranging mostly from 20,000 to 40,000 (that is, 51,000 in the University of Minnesota and 10,000 in Australian National University). They have an average faculty size of 2,400–3,000 (1,200 in Australian National University and Sheffield and 5,000 in the University of Michigan), with a faculty-student ratio of 1:6–10 (Tai, n.d.). The average size of the top 50 universities in world rankings is around 25,000 students. When China is planning to set up a new university, it is said, it plans for 40,000–80,000 students to live on the campus.

Such large universities provide intellectually a rich vibrant environment for learning, and for creation and the dissemination of knowledge and would at the same time yield an immense magnitude of economies of scale, not only in terms of financial gains but also with respect to several non-financial aspects.

I think there is hardly any university in India that has an enrolment of about 20,000 (excluding enrolment in affiliated colleges and distance education programmes). The average of size of a university was reported to be about 1,000 a few years ago, much less than the size of a well-functioning secondary school, suggesting the need for the large-scale consolidation of universities. In contrast, universities are being split into smaller and smaller universities.

On average for every 1.3 million people, there is a university in India; and for every three districts on average there are four universities. If one looks at the state-wise picture, the pattern looks even more erratic: there are 75 universities in Rajasthan which has a population of 75 million, 69 in Uttar Pradesh with 204 million people, 56 in Gujarat which has a population of 63 million, 55 for 64 million people in Karnataka, 52 in Maharashtra for 104 million people and 50 in Madhya Pradesh for 73 million people. There are 10 universities in the tiny Northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh which has a total population of 1.2 million. Apart from raising the issues of irrationality in planning universities (if we consider population as a basis for planning universities, even though that is not the best criterion) these numbers certainly raise questions on the sustainability of these universities—the academic, financial and managerial dimensions—in any meaningful way. If a good number of study programmes are to be offered in each of these universities, where do you get sufficient number of teachers, physical resources, funds and, above all, quality students?

There is a huge danger that such small universities will affect the very character of universities. By setting up universities in every district and in every small sub-national local region for different political and other reasons, not only is the growth of small ‘unviable’ universities—unviable economically, managerially and academically—being actually allowed, but we are also allowing them to be parochial in nature, producing closed-minded graduates who know little beyond their given district. Their vision will be narrow and restricted and they might find it difficult to adjust in the larger society after graduation. As universities are available everywhere—in every district, students do not move out of their zones; these universities recruit teachers and administrators from within the region. Universities will become regional and localised, characterised by regional parochialism. Such universities will have a limited capacity to produce global citizens, and even citizens with a broad national understanding. It is desirable to have a smaller number of large universities than a large number of small unviable universities.

Certainly, universities should not be viewed as ones that serve mainly local needs; they are valuable national and global organisations producing national and global ‘public goods’. Only large universities will have potential to deliver these.

Single-discipline Based Universities are Good Models for Knowledge Development

It appears that educational planners in many countries, including in India, strongly believe not only that small is beautiful but also that single-faculty based small universities are excellent models for knowledge management and development. After all, the principles of specialisation and theory of comparative advantage may justify setting up single-faculty based universities. As a result, today we have a wide variety of universities in terms of their disciplinary focus. To name a few, in addition to the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institutes of Information Technology and National Institutes of Technology, a majority of which offer mainly engineering and technology courses of study; there are Indian Institutes of Management, and a big and growing number of universities of technology or engineering and technology; there are also law universities, medical universities, pharmacy universities, agricultural universities, forestry universities, languages universities, music universities, universities for culture, marine universities, petroleum universities and so on—each variety in good numbers. Thus, a good number of universities are set up, each meant exclusively for a specific discipline, though some like the Indian Institutes of Technology are expected to devote 15 per cent of their time to humanities. The mushrooming of single-subject universities is taking place often through the route of ‘institutions deemed to be universities’––a unique kind of university-level institutions in India.

The desire to split and sub-split university disciplines and set up universities for each flows partly from the dissatisfaction with the performance of existing, ‘normal’ universities. But in the process, as Amrik Singh (2004) noted, ‘grievous injury’ has been done to the very concept of a university. Many find it difficult to adjust to the very idea of having a university, for example, of Information Technology, as ‘the traditional idea of the university was that it would provide a home, within the confines of a single institution, for the cultivation of all significant branches of knowledge’ (Béteille, 2010, p. 173) [emphasis added].

The kind of multiplication and proliferation of single-faculty/discipline universities that has taken place makes me to note that the cubicalisation of know ledge, a phenomenon that the Yashpal Committee (Government of India, 2009a) lamented against, is actually inherent in the very approach being adopted in the designing and planning of universities in India in recent decades. None of the great universities of the world, as Amrik Singh Singh (2004) observed, have been guilty of such a blunder. By erecting artificial walls between disciplines, we are going away farther from the very idea of a university.

Ideally, as the Yashpal Committee felt, all universities need to be necessarily multi-faculty, and comprehensive. It suggested that even the IITs should be made into comprehensive universities by adding medical schools and other schools of arts and sciences. Single-faculty universities have no place in a good university system. Highly advanced and specialised research centres though can be considered as an altogether different category. The approach should be to go beyond specialised knowledge and boundaries of disciplines.

A university by its very nature stands for a universe of knowledge, wherein all disciplines are seen as intrinsically and organically linked with each other. Hence, universities per se have necessarily to be multidisciplinary. The objective should be to produce not only skilled manpower but also skilled manpower who are at the same time critical thinkers. Universities have indeed a very unique role in producing and nurturing critical thinking abilities. After all, critical thinking is the only weapon and defence which people have against the dangers of life; and in this sense, university education empowers people with weapons against the dangers of life. This vital role can be performed by multi-faculty universities that have not only science, engineering, technology and other professional and technical education faculties but also the humanities, social sciences and liberal arts, and have a multi-disciplinary approach in their education and research programmes; and this cannot be expected from single-faculty institutions. As it is liberal education that helps in, ‘total transformation and emancipation of the individual student’ (Barnett, 1990, p. 121) and it is liberal education that is necessary for ‘cultivating humanity’ (Nussbaum, 1998), humanities and liberal arts may have to become a necessary part of all universities, including universities of science and technology. After all, humanities and liberal education have traditionally held an important place in university curricula. This is becoming more important, as with the progress of science and its application, there has been a rapid decline in the human element. In an interesting article titled, ‘Why Doctors Need Humanities?’ in The Times of India recently, Anand Krishnan (2017) suggests the inclusion of humanities in medical education as the best way to bring back humanism to the profession. Even in case of technocrats, the learning of human sciences like sociology, philosophy, political science, psychology, economics and so on help in their holistic development. The strength of some of the best universities of the 20th century has been their focus on the arts and sciences which include disciplines such as philosophy, history, languages, mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on along with professional subjects such as law, engineering, and medicine. As the Kothari Commission highlighted, ‘all higher education should be regarded as an integrated whole, that professional education cannot be completely divorced from general education’ (Education Commission, 1966).

To further learn from other countries, I refer again to world class universities, most of which are comprehensive universities. For example, seven out of the top ten public and an equal number in private universities in America, all the top ten British universities, nine out of the top ten European universities, and the top seven universities in Asia and the Pacific region are comprehensive universities. Every university has a medical school, in addition to other schools. Some of the best universities in North America insist that the engineering students necessarily take music and liberal arts as optional courses. For example, the Franklin Onlin College of Engineering in the USA, is adopting a unique method of mixing engineering, entrepreneurship and humanities into one integrated course. Some US universities promote research in languages to such an extent that they have separate departments of almost every language in the world, including a number of Indian languages. The University of Chicago offers programmes in eight Indian languages. The schools of languages, linguistics and culture are regarded as essential for a good university system.

After all, societies require not only scientists, engineers and technocrats but also visionaries, critical thinkers and citizens with highest universal human values. So every university should offer teaching and research programmes not only in the areas of management, technology, engineering and sciences and other disciplines that are highly valued in the labour markets, but also in humanities, social sciences and liberal arts. Heavy neglect of the latter in Indian universities and also in many universities in advanced and emerging societies during the last quarter century, based on a misconception view that liberal arts education has become redundant, is widely believed to be the main source of several tribulations being faced by society. Comprehensive universities provide opportunities for holistic development of individuals.

Further, such universities have an important role at a time when disciplinary boundaries tend to become rigid, but interdisciplinary approach is becoming important for advanced studies and research. The cross-pollination of ideas that takes place when young minds and experienced teachers from different departments/schools interact formally and informally in comprehensive university campuses is a rich source of knowledge development in and across disciplines. Comprehensive universities that offer research and teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in a large variety of disciplines form, by expanding intellectual space, valuable fertile grounds for the creation of rich know ledge. Comprehensive universities provide excellent avenues for interdisciplinary research, drawing from social, scientific and technical fields, that is becoming increasingly important to solve modern society’s complex problems. By ‘comprehensive university’, I do not mean one that has necessarily all disciplines, but one which necessarily has a large cluster of major disciplines covering a wide variety of areas.

Universities can be Good Either in Teaching or in Research but not in Both

In principle, the well-cherished triad of research development, dissemination of knowledge through teaching and community service is the common frame for all universities. This means that universities should aim at producing brilliant researchers, inspiring teachers and socially responsible citizens. They should ‘both stir social progress and support the life and work of a bank of scholars sharing the expertise of the old and the creative imagination of the young’ (Weber, 2015, p. 165). This might require universities to offer not only high quality teaching and research programmes, but also provide opportunities for holistic development of individuals.

But many universities in India tend to become largely teaching institutions and research is confined to a few universities and to institutions of higher education outside the university system. Not only funds for research, but also a good research-promoting environment is lacking in many universities. Some also argue that there is nothing wrong if some (or many) universities focus on teaching and be known as teaching universities and only a few concentrate on research and emerge as research universities, though the idea of a research university never really acquired roots in India. The bifurcation is also justified by the principle of comparative advantage. Some teachers are good in teaching and not in research and some in research and not good in teaching.

These tendencies and arguments overlook the point that research and teaching are related and mutually enrich each other. Teaching contributes to excellence in research and research to excellence in teaching (Charles, 2017). It may be noted that research university, as defined by Clark Kerr (2001), is a ‘multiversity’, with a multiplicity of missions among which research is only one, but where research and graduate study dominate; it is not devoid of high quality teaching programmes. It is well known that many universities that are regarded as the world’s leading research universities also have very high quality teaching programmes at undergraduate and graduate levels. So there is nothing like a pure ‘research university’ with no teaching programmes.

As A. M. Shah (2005) narrates, the early Indian universities remained affiliating and examining bodies for a long time; postgraduate teaching and research departments were set up in the early 20th century; and it was only after Independence that the functions of universities in India were reorganised and research was given impetus. Thus, research culture in Indian universities is hardly 100 years old, and with declining budgets and changing priorities, it rarely bloomed well in many universities (Patel, 2016). The overall priority for research in universities is missing. With severely truncated faculty, universities struggle to complete the task of teaching, conduct examinations and award degrees, and find little scope for improving research culture to a significant level, even when interested. The government does not seem to accord much priority for research in university systems and it looks towards either a few research-focused universities, or more importantly specialised research institutions in public and private sectors for their research needs; much of the research activities are thus getting concentrated in government and private research institutions or non-government organisations, specialised laboratories, and think tanks outside the university system (Shah, 2005). As a result of all this, research has languished in universities. A major part of the university community lacks interest in research activities and is content with teaching.

But it is important that every university is required to necessarily have a major research component along with teaching. Teaching and research together form the centrepiece of a university. The attempt should be towards developing a strong, vibrant and high quality research programme and equally high quality education programmes in universities. University is a ‘school of higher learning combining teaching and scholarship’ (Perkin, 2007). Teaching, scholarship and research go together (Barnett, 2005). After all, knowledge creation and knowledge transmission are two important functions of a good university and a good university should engage in both and balance both. As André Béteille (2010, p. 193) observed, ‘An institution will scarcely deserve to be called a university if it undertakes only teaching and no research, or only research and no teaching’. Universities that offer research, and teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in a large variety of disciplines may form valuable fertile places for the creation and dissemination of rich knowledge in a grand way and emerge as great universities. Only such universities may have huge potential to become world class universities and figure high in global university rankings. Recall that the idea of Humboldtian university represents a holistic combination of research and teaching.

Segmentation of Higher Education will Increase Quality and Quantum of Output

Another kind of segmentation of the higher education system has been the separation of undergraduate studies from postgraduate studies. A vast majority of about 40,000 colleges in India offer undergraduate teaching programmes only; very few of them offer postgraduate studies. Almost all universities get confined to teaching at the postgraduate level. Research is not a major activity in many universities, as already mentioned. Undergraduate students are taught by college teachers and postgraduate students in universities are taught by university teachers. While there are not many differences in eligibility and service conditions of teachers, university teachers in many states require a PhD degree, while in many states postgraduates with MPhil, (or without MPhil but having qualified the National Eligibility Test) are appointed as teachers in colleges and to a less extent even in universities. This may have its own effect on the quality of teaching.

The Indian higher education system is dominated by undergraduate students ––88 per cent are enrolled at the undergraduate level and hardly 10–12 per cent in postgraduate and research programmes. The ratio of undergraduates to post graduates works out to be something such as 7.3:1 compared to almost 1:1 in the top ten American private universities and 2.8:1 in the top ten public universities. It is 1.7:1 in the top ten universities in Asia-Pacific and 2.5:1 in British universities (Tai, n.d.).

Further, in many places in India, university teachers are considered superior to college teachers. This has not only led to the university community looking down at undergraduate studies but also led to a truncated approach to university education as if there are no effective linkages between undergraduate and postgraduate studies.

Ideally, as the Yashpal Committee suggested every university may offer undergraduate, postgraduate and research studies in the same university campus by the same faculty. This is also the practice in many Western universities. There are significant advantages in having composite campuses with all undergraduate, postgraduate and research studies, in terms of quality of instruction, availability of library and laboratory resources and higher transition rates from undergraduate to postgraduate levels and from postgraduate to research levels.

Is Diversity Important in a University?

In the recent past, some have raised this question, which I find really awkward. Most production units maximise their output by taking homogeneous inputs and tend to produce homogeneous outputs. Heterogeneity or diversity in inputs or outputs is not generally a practice. Equating university institutions to manufacturing units, some feel that in the university systems this would lead to efficient production, if the university takes less heterogeneous students, if not exactly students from homogeneous groups. Private schools are found often performing better than public schools, exactly for the same reason: many elite private schools admit only students belonging to a given socio-economic group. Teaching a group of students who belong to one social strata is easier than teaching a diverse group of students. Teaching students coming from diverse backgrounds is indeed a challenge, but many good university teachers, and even good school teachers, enjoy it.

Basically, universities are expected to be truly universal in their character. They should attract students and faculty from different parts of the country and even from other countries, from different social backgrounds, and different ethnic, linguistic, cultural backgrounds. Diversity in student and faculty composition is considered as an important essential characteristic feature of a strong university system. Diversity produces a variety of benefits (ACE, 2012): it expands world liness of students; it enhances social development through interactions and relationships with people from a variety of groups; it prepares students for the future labour market which has a diverse workforce in a national and global society; it demands and promotes creative thinking, expanding one’s capacity for viewing issues or problems from multiple perspectives, angles and vantage points, rather than viewing the world through a single-focus lens; diversity enhances self-awareness, through learning from people whose backgrounds and experiences differ from one’s own, sharpening self-knowledge and self-insight; it compels students to challenge stereotyped preconceptions; it creates curiosity and encourages critical thinking; and it helps students learn to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds. It enhances an overall knowledge base and offers an enhanced overall educational experience.

The civic benefits of diversity are also immense. Education within a diverse setting prepares students to become good citizens in an increasingly complex, pluralistic society; it fosters mutual respect and teamwork; and it helps build communities whose members are judged by the quality of their character and their contributions. Diversity benefits all; it increases cultural awareness among all; and it provides a broader and complete perspective to all. Available research (Alger et al., 2012; Shaw, 2005) shows that the overall academic and social effects of increased diversity on university campus are likely to be positive and significant, ranging from higher levels of academic achievement to a long-term improvement in social cohesion and harmony.

Hence, every effort should be made to have students and faculty in every university campus from different social, economic, cultural-ethnic, religious and geographical backgrounds. Universities have to be genuinely inclusive of diverse groups of population for ensuring a rich and challenging learning environment. For the same reason, many universities offer fellowships even to foreign students as it would enrich the learning environment in their campuses. Certainly, homogenous populations are considered not conducive for a good learning environment.

Universities should necessarily be designed to be universal in character, scope and jurisdiction, with students and faculty drawn from various socio-economic echelons, different cultural backgrounds, diverse ideological milieu, and from various regions of the country and even the globe. The habitat of the university should be inclusive of diverse groups of population. Diversity, not just in terms of social groups of students but also with respect to a variety of aspects, is necessary, so that learning becomes a rich experience in the university. As a simple thumb rule, if I can propose, to promote regional diversity it can made compulsory that say, about 50 per cent, of students and a somewhat higher proportion of faculty in every university in India be necessarily drawn from states other than the state where the concerned university is located, similar to the provision that exists in institutions like the National Institutes of Technology. In fact, in central universities and other central institutions these proportions need to be higher. This will produce a multitude of externalities—better understanding of and respect for various cultures, ability to ‘learn to live’ together (one of the four pillars of education, highlighted by the Delors Commission, 1996), contributing immensely to national integration, social harmony and global citizenship. Further, with respect to teachers in universities, it may be necessary to recruit quality teachers from various regions of the country and even other parts of the world, and also it is good to think of a nation-wide, all-India, recruitment of teachers, so that the best talented teaches are recruited, and transfers are allowed across universities within the state and country. This might result in better regional distribution of talented teaching manpower and thereby better production of quality graduates.

Segregate to Equalise!

I extend this argument of diversity to draw attention to another fragmented, if not sectarian approach, being adopted in planning development of universities. It is nowadays a little bit controversial too. As a form of protective discrimination and affirmative action, for long periods, some countries have had set up universities exclusively for some racial groups, or gender, or some other group, essentially with a view to advance the educational levels of the specific population on the presumption that these sections of society do not get enough opportunities to develop in integrated universities, and/or that they require special courses of study that are not relevant for others, and that the general courses of study are not relevant for these populations. Varsities for women, tribal population and minority institutions for specific racial (blacks and browns in USA), ethnic (Asian or African, again in USA), religious (for example, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs in India) and linguistic groups—all belong to the same category. All these are categorised in the literature and public policy documents as, ‘state-sponsored segregated minority-serving institutions’. It is believed that forward but minority communities do not need separate institutions; they anyhow participate and perform well in separate or common institutions, like for example, the students in Asian-serving minority institutions in USA whose graduation rates are higher than general and other minority-serving institutions; the problem is with weaker sections who may not participate or perform well in common institutions and hence special institutions. No doubt, their cause needs to be advanced. But such state-sponsored segregated minority institutions exist not only for weaker or backward communities but also for educationally advanced communities such the Asians in USA or Jains, Sikhs and Christians in India.

What is the best strategy? There is still an inconclusive debate among sociologists and legal experts on the principle of ‘separate and equal’ or ‘segregate to equalise’ and ‘integrate to equalise’, an issue that first came up in 1890 in USA, and later in many other countries.

But how far these segregated institutions are good for the development of a healthy university system? Do not the students in these special institutions suffer huge losses in such contexts in terms of learning common values for the development of nations, and specific benefits of learning about other cultures and do the students even in other general institutions not incur, to that extent, or forego huge opportunities of learning to live with others in the society? And does the nation as a whole not suffer from such losses incurred by different groups of population? Does such an approach of segregation help universities to perform the expected role of social integration and social harmony to help in developing a socially harmonious society? These questions are too important to ignore; but we tend to confine ourselves to recognising only the narrowly conceived benefits of education that these institutions confer on them.

Some, though limited, research also shows that educational gains of minorities in minority institutions are not substantial; in fact, students in minority institutions seem to perform poorly—in terms of graduation rates, compared to students belonging to minority groups in normal non-minority institutions in USA (Li & Carroll, 2007).

While in case of a school system, state-sponsored segregate schools are still justified to some extent—but only to a limited extent, the need for the same at the university level is not found to be that high. Segregation is found to be not promoting equality and ‘separate but equal’ is not considered a valid doctrine any more. Integrated universities with additional strong support mechanisms may serve interests of the minorities as well as national interests much better than having separate institutions for weaker sections or minorities. Integrated or composite universities with a high degree of diversity benefit all—not only the general population but also marginalised/minority groups.

Ideally, there is no place for such universities meant for a specific section of society in a good national university system; every university must be for everyone; universities should be open to students of a very broad range of backgrounds. I have already described the immense magnitude of benefits that universities with high degree of diversity confer on the entire society.

Distance and Open Education Models are the Best Substitutes for Conventional Expensive Models of University Development

In the recent past, to meet increasing social demand for higher education, and to save scarce public resources and even to mobilise additional resources, an increasing emphasis has been laid on developing open universities and offer in other conventional universities distance education programmes. For the same reasons in the same context, use of information and communication technology is also advocated further in offering online and distance education programmes. Today in India, there are 15 open universities, including one central and one private open universities, in addition to 118 universities which offer education through both conventional and distance modes. In all, about three million students are currently enrolled in these programmes.

The basic assumption of these modes of higher education is: knowledge is divisible and education can be imparted in packages. The online programmes and the more recent euphoria about the massive open online courses (MOOCs) underline this view that like in business, university experience can be unbundled and ‘singles’ can be made available for purchase by students; and consumers can purchase what they want or can afford (McCowan, 2016), and it can be home delivered. Much of the information communications technology that is being used, including, for example, ‘cloud computing’ have good potential to facilitate information access, storage and transfer, but not to impart education per se. Second, these models also assume that teachers have no significant role in knowledge transmission. Third, they assume that the role of the university can be confined to knowledge dissemination; and that knowledge development and social isation of youth are not important functions. Provision of short duration of contact hours does not satisfactorily address these issues. Fourth, peer learning or learning from peer groups, which educationists believe to constitute about one-third of total learning by students in regular universities, is not important. Lastly, physical learning environment is not at all important. The process of ‘unbundling’ knowledge into divisible micro-units that takes place in these institutions represents, in the words of Tristan McCowan (2016, p. 517), ‘an almost complete destruction of the idea of university as a place’ of knowledge creation and dissemination along with providing a very valuable university experience. Finally, the resultant situation is described by Lange (2015, p. 95) as ‘the rise of the digitised public intellectual [and] death of the professor’ in the network-neutral internet age.

But unfortunately the same flawed assumptions also seem to guide planners in increasingly adopting semester and modular—fashionably known as ‘cafeteria’—approaches in knowledge transmission in regular and open universities; and they have similar associated features that I have just described. Under the semester system, and also choice-based credit system, students get a chance to pick and choose different, not necessarily related and linked courses, in sequential semesters and each course is offered normally within a maximum period of 16 weeks, giving little time for an assimilation of ideas and for the generation of critical creative thinking on issues which actually require sustained interests for relatively longer periods. The underlying strong conviction is: knowledge can be ‘delivered’ in pieces and bits in small packages, and in short spells! This may be okay to some extent in training, but not in the area of education. Rather no distinction is being made in modern universities between higher education and training.

I argue that open universities are not effective alternatives for a good formal university. They could disrupt the fine fabric of higher education. Online and distance education programmes may be good for skill inculcation and provision of employment related skills and education and certain other programmes, and they may serve some important purposes as well; nevertheless they are not good for the creation of knowledge, an essential function of universities; nor do they serve yet another important function of higher education, namely socialisation of the youth. They are conceived to be just appropriate for the poor who cannot economically afford or are not academically eligible for admission in regular university education programmes, creating through such an approach a dual system, causing new inequalities in higher education and in the society at large.

Basic limitations of these universities and programmes and the trade-offs involved have to be noted, and certainly, they should not be viewed as sound substitutes for formal public universities in the long-time horizon. They can at best be second-best alternatives in a short time period. There are few studies that demonstrate that graduates of open universities perform better in labour markets and in their lifetime, than graduates from regular universities. Lastly, except the Open University in the United Kingdom, no developed country has developed a large open university system. The online and other methods of distance learning in advanced countries are only used, wherever they exist, to supplement the knowledge and skill base with additional skills and knowledge required by the graduate manpower to adjust and readjust in the changing labour markets, while in developing countries like India these are viewed and planned as substitutes to formal university education system.

Private Universities would Serve National Development Purposes as Efficiently as Public Universities

Presently, there are 235 private universities and 79 private institutions deemed to be equivalent to universities in India. Almost all of them have been set up after 1990. Private universities are encouraged as they are believed to be meeting social demand for higher education, capable of providing quality higher education and thereby improve the quality in the whole education system, and finally would promote equity in the system. It is also argued that private universities promote even national development, produce externalities and serve as public goods. They are argued to be as good as public universities, and they are the best option, given the scarcity of financial resources with governments.

I do not wish to discuss this at length, mainly because I have written and published quite a bit on private universities (Tilak, 2006). To briefly note, there is no convincing evidence to argue that the claims made by proponents of private universities are valid. On the other hand, available evidence suggests that private universities, particularly profit-seeking private universities, can produce serious harmful effects on the education system, values and entire society. Rapid expansion, if not the massification of higher education has taken place in Western countries through public funding, but in developing countries like India, the attempt is to massify higher education through the massive involvement of the private sector. The evidence shows that result is patchy. The evidence also shows that with very few exceptions, countries that have predominant private higher education systems could not progress, economically, socially, politically or even educationally. Hence, it is certainly not a desirable strategy to develop profit-seeking private universities that too in place of public universities, while philanthropy-based private universities can be encouraged. But not-for-profit private universities are very few even in countries like the USA, and fewer in countries like India in the modern period. Finally, except in a few countries such as the USA, Japan and Korea, one finds no significant number of private universities in any advanced country, say in Western Europe, specifically in the Scandinavian countries, implying as if they are suitable only for developing countries like India. The often described ‘successful’ profit-seeking private universities that exist in countries like the USA represent actually the phenomenon of misapplied commercialism.

I have described in the lecture a few major fallacies in planning university development, and contrasted them with some evidence. In conclusion, let us note that of late, the whole approach to planning university systems seems to be guided more by immediate, short term, narrow and pecuniary considerations and compulsions and by questionable presumptions and fallacious arguments rather than by long term and broad national and global considerations and theoretically sound and empirically valid research. Similarly, private, individual consumer (student) choices and market preferences, and not considerations for society seem to dictate the approach of the planners in education, like in many other modern sectors of production.

The fallacious approaches take us farther and farther away from the very idea of a university. In fact, I argue that the long-enshrined noble mission of the university is getting jeopardised. The ideal university that is described here may seem to be a Utopian idea, but is real, though imaginary to some extent. As I have shown, historically, such ideal universities existed earlier in India and also in a few other countries and such universities are present even in the current modern period and it is not difficult to resurrect the idea of the ‘ideal’ university.