PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2009 ID-22962
.
cases, the higher the share of private universities in higher education, the lower the share in enrolment. In China, for instance, private institutes constitute 39.1% of higher education institutions, but a mere 8.9% students study in them. In the US, private universities constitute 80% of higher educational institutions, but they account only for 42.8% of total enrolments in the country. By contrast, public sector institutions in the US constitute just 19.6% of total higher education institutions, but they account for 57.3% of enrolments. .
No Effective Correctives for Capitation Fees .
The report describes the rampant corruption and commercialisation in private institutions. But when it comes to a credible corrective mechanism, all it can suggest is that family members of investors should not hold administrative posts. It says private institutions should not have a sole motive of profit and should not confine themselves only to commercially viable sectors. The question is, if profit remains one of the motives, how can the institution avoid ills like steep fees, capitation fees etc.? As a solution for the problem of exorbitant fees in private institutions, the YCR recommends, not strict curbs on fee hikes, but merely a certain percentage of freeships for poor students a formula that has proved a dismal failure in the private sector schools in Delhi. The YCR seems to have no idea of the structural logic of private capital and private profit. Mistakenly locating the profiteering motive in family greed, it fails to see that private capital inevitably has a profit motive that militates against the humanist vision of university. .
.
The Reality of Differential Fee Structure and Education Loans .
The question of fees is a central one. Time and again, in the context of both private and government institutions, YCR repeats that No student should be turned away
for want of funds for education. And it says primary focus should be on making education affordable. (p 38-39) This can be achieved only through making public funding and low fees the norm: but the YCR does not recommend this. Rather it proposes a differential fee structure high fees for those who can afford it and scholarships, educational loans for those who cant. The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) too recommends a differential fee structure. Such a measure cannot cater to poor students; it is nothing but a pretext to make high fees the norm, while virtuously denying the agenda of commercialisation. The best way of making education accessible to the poor is to provide education at a very low cost. If we want to avoid subsidising the rich, the best way is not through .
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2009 ID-22962
.
cases, the higher the share of private universities in higher education, the lower the share in enrolment. In China, for instance, private institutes constitute 39.1% of higher education institutions, but a mere 8.9% students study in them. In the US, private universities constitute 80% of higher educational institutions, but they account only for 42.8% of total enrolments in the country. By contrast, public sector institutions in the US constitute just 19.6% of total higher education institutions, but they account for 57.3% of enrolments. .
No Effective Correctives for Capitation Fees .
The report describes the rampant corruption and commercialisation in private institutions. But when it comes to a credible corrective mechanism, all it can suggest is that family members of investors should not hold administrative posts. It says private institutions should not have a sole motive of profit and should not confine themselves only to commercially viable sectors. The question is, if profit remains one of the motives, how can the institution avoid ills like steep fees, capitation fees etc.? As a solution for the problem of exorbitant fees in private institutions, the YCR recommends, not strict curbs on fee hikes, but merely a certain percentage of freeships for poor students a formula that has proved a dismal failure in the private sector schools in Delhi. The YCR seems to have no idea of the structural logic of private capital and private profit. Mistakenly locating the profiteering motive in family greed, it fails to see that private capital inevitably has a profit motive that militates against the humanist vision of university. .
.
The Reality of Differential Fee Structure and Education Loans .
The question of fees is a central one. Time and again, in the context of both private and government institutions, YCR repeats that No student should be turned away
for want of funds for education. And it says primary focus should be on making education affordable. (p 38-39) This can be achieved only through making public funding and low fees the norm: but the YCR does not recommend this. Rather it proposes a differential fee structure high fees for those who can afford it and scholarships, educational loans for those who cant. The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) too recommends a differential fee structure. Such a measure cannot cater to poor students; it is nothing but a pretext to make high fees the norm, while virtuously denying the agenda of commercialisation. The best way of making education accessible to the poor is to provide education at a very low cost. If we want to avoid subsidising the rich, the best way is not through .
.
.