PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2009 ID-22640
.
(p 35): YCR says private institutions should not have a sole motive of profit and should not confine themselves only to commercially viable sectors. The phrase sole motive of profit is interesting. So its ok if profit is one of the motives, as long it is not the sole one?! The YCR seems to have no idea of the structural logic of private capital and private profit. It mistakenly locates the profiteering motive in family greed: fails to see that private capital inevitably has a profit motive and a profit motive inevitably militates against the humanist vision of university that Yashpal presents and recommends. .
As for exorbitant fees charged by private institutions, what does YCR recommend? Insistence on a certain % age of freeships based on merit; this and any mandatory reservations can be discussed, modalities worked out. (p 35) Can a certain %age of freeships be enforced? The example of schools says NO. Can it act as a corrective for exorbitant fees charged by private players? YCR doesnt say how. Nor does it say how this can prevent capitation fees! .
The question of FEES: Time and again, in the context of both private and govt institutions, YCR repeats that No student should be turned away
for want of funds for education. Do a search for turned away and youll see this phrase is repeated at least thrice! And he says primary focus should be on making education affordable. (p 38-39) So he proposes a differential fee structure high fees for those who can afford it and scholarships, loans for those who cant. Our point should be: the best and proven way of subsidizing the poor is through free or v cheap education. If we dont want to also subsidise the rich, the best way to stop doing that is not through fees, but through taxes: through an educational cess on people in a certain salary bracket, and even larger cess or industry etc. High fees, for those who can pay means privatization by the back door: the govt will decree that all but the very poorest, can pay! If education is a public good, not a commodity in the market (as YCR correctly describes it in his humanist vision of education) why should anyone pay for it? .
YCR on private or self-financing in govt universities: Having eloquently described the horrors of privatization, YCR then justifies most of the govt proposals for self-financing etc.. P 38: Univs should organize their progs and activities to continue to attract the support of the state as well as private enterprise
The ability to attract partnership from the private sector, either in execution
or in more enduring relationship (my emphasis) is based on a univs performance and organization. No doubt, Tata or Ambani or Coke would be happy to have an enduring relationship with, say, JNU that performs well: the point is: why should an institution that has built up its prestige on govt funding then allow private profiteers to capitalize on this achievement (and risk distorting that achievement: and can there be any doubt that such funding will distort that humanist, organic vision of university that YCR describes)?! P 41: While the state cannot walk away, univs must look for complementary sources of funds. alumni etc. We cannot possibly object to alumni donations: the point is, why should a univ have to depend on these. These can be supplementary -not complementary. It MUST PRIMARILY be the Govts responsibility. .
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2009 ID-22640
.
(p 35): YCR says private institutions should not have a sole motive of profit and should not confine themselves only to commercially viable sectors. The phrase sole motive of profit is interesting. So its ok if profit is one of the motives, as long it is not the sole one?! The YCR seems to have no idea of the structural logic of private capital and private profit. It mistakenly locates the profiteering motive in family greed: fails to see that private capital inevitably has a profit motive and a profit motive inevitably militates against the humanist vision of university that Yashpal presents and recommends. .
As for exorbitant fees charged by private institutions, what does YCR recommend? Insistence on a certain % age of freeships based on merit; this and any mandatory reservations can be discussed, modalities worked out. (p 35) Can a certain %age of freeships be enforced? The example of schools says NO. Can it act as a corrective for exorbitant fees charged by private players? YCR doesnt say how. Nor does it say how this can prevent capitation fees! .
The question of FEES: Time and again, in the context of both private and govt institutions, YCR repeats that No student should be turned away
for want of funds for education. Do a search for turned away and youll see this phrase is repeated at least thrice! And he says primary focus should be on making education affordable. (p 38-39) So he proposes a differential fee structure high fees for those who can afford it and scholarships, loans for those who cant. Our point should be: the best and proven way of subsidizing the poor is through free or v cheap education. If we dont want to also subsidise the rich, the best way to stop doing that is not through fees, but through taxes: through an educational cess on people in a certain salary bracket, and even larger cess or industry etc. High fees, for those who can pay means privatization by the back door: the govt will decree that all but the very poorest, can pay! If education is a public good, not a commodity in the market (as YCR correctly describes it in his humanist vision of education) why should anyone pay for it? .
YCR on private or self-financing in govt universities: Having eloquently described the horrors of privatization, YCR then justifies most of the govt proposals for self-financing etc.. P 38: Univs should organize their progs and activities to continue to attract the support of the state as well as private enterprise
The ability to attract partnership from the private sector, either in execution
or in more enduring relationship (my emphasis) is based on a univs performance and organization. No doubt, Tata or Ambani or Coke would be happy to have an enduring relationship with, say, JNU that performs well: the point is: why should an institution that has built up its prestige on govt funding then allow private profiteers to capitalize on this achievement (and risk distorting that achievement: and can there be any doubt that such funding will distort that humanist, organic vision of university that YCR describes)?! P 41: While the state cannot walk away, univs must look for complementary sources of funds. alumni etc. We cannot possibly object to alumni donations: the point is, why should a univ have to depend on these. These can be supplementary -not complementary. It MUST PRIMARILY be the Govts responsibility. .
.