9 Comments

1. 

   drac said,

   March 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm

   Your reasoning is flawed on at least two counts.

   The literacy rate of a country does not rely on education to the tertiary level, thus it is a strawman to correlate a drop in the literacy rate with paid or free tertiary education. I assume that the person advocating it (S) was suggesting that universities levy a fee of its students. Considering that education is compulsory upto the age of 16 – I do not doubt secondary education will remain free. Your cries of a drop in the literacy rate are just hyperbole. Unless you are seriously suggesting that those who did not go to university are all illiterate savages.

   Further, your argument about sons of ministers being educated and yet committing crimes is another strawman. Doubtless the products of free university education have all gone onto bigger and better things? No? Then perhaps the degree of education is but one indicator (perhaps not even very significant ) of an individual’s propensity to crimes of thuggery. Again, irrelevant to your point.

   There are more factual nitpicks that I could make here, but clearly your experience has not been similar to mine… I do agree with you that limiting universities to only paying students is silly and counter productive and I’ve made arguments elsewhere about expanding the accessibility of universities instead of dimnishing them …

   but having said all that, why do you feel that paid university education (with appropriate financial aid for those who genuinely cannot pay – this system already applies to a limited degree with university bursary schemes) is less suited than your period of service plan? I’m still struggling to see why you advocate what you do, given the flimsy arguments you make for calling paid education an elitist view. Making people who can afford for something pay for it is not an elitist view. Paying for it in years of service as opposed to money (as you advocate) just swaps post graduate earning potential into doing what could be a dead end job. Not everyone likes to or wants to teach, nor is everyone good at it. I personally know I am uninterested in teaching for any number of reasons and would hate that as a job. Perhaps more expensive in the long run for the individual concerned.

   Now I’m not sure that I agree making everyone pay for their university education as they are able is the best plan but I haven’t seen a viable alternative proposed here.

   One more factual nitpick, the dearth of teachers is only in areas of hardship – Colombo schools are usually overpopulated with teachers. I doubt that many graduates demanding a job would welcome a transfer to what they see as the middle of nowhere to teach kids… without adequate facilities. Doctors who are given new residencies complain already about where they are posted, I hardly see graduates selected for teaching being any happier about going where they are needed (instead of where they’d like to stay).
2. 

   Negligible Minoritist said,

   March 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm

   Drac:

   I will try my best to answer the many points you bring up. After re-reading this post it appears slightly ambiguous and my stance seems unclear as you point out. So I will get down to re-writing it once my exams are done.

   Re Free primary and secondary education – You will notice that only later on do I make the assertion with regard to primary secondary education. Thus at that point I am referring to education as a whole rather than tertiary education. If you read S’s comment on Sach’s blog his first point is that he will “get rid of free education,” which is rather inclusive. He/ she later moves on to talk about about the university system. However i wished to make this differentiation (and I apologize for the ambiguity) because I have heard this view proposed for education per se and not merely tertiary education. Thus the initial part of the blog deals with the limiting of education as a whole. Therefore you realize I am not referring to people who do not attend university as illiterate savages.

   My point re the minister sons (and perhaps I am sticking my head out here) is to show that the most strenuous advocates of this view are people of like class who have the money to pay their way through any education they choose. This is not to say that everyone of the same class is like that but to point out that the “rich” are equally capable of the same/worse actions as a person who receives a free education. So why then should a person who cannot afford such privileges be deprived of education merely because she/he cannot pay for it?

   As to why I feel it is an elitist view. In the university I attend the students who really depend on the bursary and mahapola are the norm rather than the exception. It would definitely be elitist to expect them to pay for their education when as it is they struggle with a free education. Your idea of a scholarship system is good but the fact that education will have to be paid for will severely discourage those who cannot afford university. Furthermore, the administrative capabilities of the government are well known and will put an added strain on their incapabilities through your suggestion (I will deal with why I say added strain later). So that is why it is practically unworkable as it bases itself on the presumption that almost all students have the capacity to pay for their education. Which is a very elitist presumption would you not agree as it completely disregards the fact that the Colombo based private educated student is very very much the rarity in Sri Lankan universities today. Thus giving out scholarships to those who cannot afford to pay for their education would prove to be redundant. Thus free education must continue.

   (If the election of MR taught us nothing it should at least have reminded the Pro-UNP middle class electorate that Sri Lanka is still very much a rural country and why I believe RW is viewed as the enemy here. )

   Re the post graduate income potential arguement. Firstly I do not propose that this be a lifelong commitment but rather a very limited period of payback to the government. My reasons for this suggestion is that at present no one values free education because it is not seen as a responsibility. By making a compulsory term of service this idea of responsibility can be brought in. Yes teaching may not be the ideal job for everyone but that was used as an example.

   True re teachers and postings. But then is that to say that education should be limited to the more developed areas? No it cannot and I believe that once the state has paid for your education up to University the State by rights has a say in how it could be utilized. Thus compulsory postings.

   I did not wish to inject this as it runs parallel to a completely different debate. But perhaps the number of election job marketing could be cut down in order to provide job opportunities for graduates in the public sector to serve this period of service.

   Anyway thanks for your comments. The fact that I need to have such a detailed reply is indicative of the state of the post. I will get down to that soon…

   Would like to hear your views on the above though…

   Regards,
3. 

   drac said,

   March 21, 2007 at 11:03 pm

   Fair enough. I myself have never heard anyone advocate that primary or secondary education should be anything other than free. Should there be a choice in allowing parents to enroll kids in a fee-paying school? sure. But if children must attend school until the age of 16 (or is it 14?) then the state is required to provide free education. I’d say to suggest otherwise is verging on ludicrous.

   I do, however, frequently hear that university education should not be entirely free.. or at the very least, it should not be free by default. To make my own position clear, I do not agree wholly with the proponents of such schemes but they just might have a valid point tucked away somewhere.

   A simple setup, if you will. Each university degree course costs something. Calculate overheads, cost of materials if any and so on and you do have a monetary cost attached per seat, per degree course. Call this the base fee levied by the university. You say that many students in your university depend on mahapola and bursary schemes. Nothing needs to change for such students. Except perhaps a difference in accounting – instead of the treasury allocating a fixed budget for the university regardless of the size of the intake as it does now – the university is paid per seat and per course.

   For those who can pay (or can pay part of the fees) as determined by means testing – then they pay that amount. This is no different from the system which used to apply for the year 5 (year 6 back in the day) scholarship. Perhaps things are different now, I have no idea.

   The first rebuttal to your own proposal is this. You say that the government has problems with administration. I completely agree. However, a mandatory service period and enforcing a bond also requires administrative overhead. A structure for disbursing grants to students already exists. Compared to building up a completely different mechanism for enforcing mandatory service after graduation, surely an adaptation of fee paying structures is a much smaller change? People are going to have to work harder and/or change their working practices no matter what you do.

   There are other advantages. The government is now investing in people as opposed to institutions, venerable though they may be. Having a personal contract between student and government also raises possibilities of student loan schemes (at vastly reduced/no interest). Elitist? I’d suggest not. Personal responsibility would be encouraged… at least in my utopian view of the world.

   Are Colombo based private school attendees really disproportionately represented in universities? What percentage are they compared to the thousands that do their A/Ls in state schools in the first place? Remember that only private schools that offer local A/Ls even count in these numbers in the first place – students who do alternative A/Ls or examinations can be safely set aside as having no intention of entering a local university in the first place.

   The only people who would complain about the scheme that I proposed are, ironically, the middle class – possibly Colombo based. They’d be the ones who make enough money to be required to pay for university (which was previously universally free for all). The predominantly rural populace who cannot afford to send their kids to university would still get free tertiary education, provided their z-score is up to scratch.

   Elitist? Hardly. Sustainable? Perhaps. Will it ever happen? I don’t think so. Don’t discount the power of the Colombo based voting bloc.
4. 

   sach said,

   March 21, 2007 at 11:46 pm

   My comment became too long so I made a post about it. My apologies because the post came out a bit disjointed and I will be modifying it at a less sleepy hour.

   http://sachini-perera.blogspot.com/2007/03/some-thoughts-on-free-education-public.html
5. 

   q(curious) said,

   March 22, 2007 at 3:21 pm

   Are people who have free education in Sri Lanka, less motivated?

   I must admit I had the idea that fee paying students would be more hardworking because of the financial outlay, but in the Australian system where universities have a mixture of both, the fee paying students (local and overseas students) have a very bad reputation and non-fee paying students try to avoid them when doing a group project etc because they tend to be slack and not very competent.

   There is also a high level of cheating among fee paying students because they have much more at stake. This is because the university allows them to get in with a lower mark if they pay a full fee. If you are an overseas student the stakes are much higher, because you can lose your student visa not just your university place if you fail too many times. A non-fee paying student will only be expelled from the course.

   Most local students here incur a small fee…the rest of the fee is subsidised by the government. The fee can either be paid upfront or taken as a loan which is paid back in installments when you start earning an income through the taxation system.

   The education industry has become quite lucrative and people here are concerned that standards are dropping as a result.

   Some people consider subsidising or paying a university student’s fees based on a merit based system an investment for the nation. But there is also a realisation that the country has to invest more in skilled labour…such as building, plumbing, car mechanics etc.

   I was curious to know how different it is in Sri Lanka.
6. 

   Negligible Minoritist said,

   March 23, 2007 at 9:29 am

   Drac:

   In furtherance of our previous discussion. First let me start with the whole private school thing… Yes I agree that the amount of people who attend private schools is quite small in comparison to the Government schools. However, if we take in to consideration the number of international school children as well we would have the sum total of people in Sri Lanka who are willing to pay for their education. Even in this larger context the ratio to public school student will be extremely low i.e the number of people who can afford to pay for education. If as you say we leave out those who do not wish to do their local A/L’s anyway we are left with a very small percentage of people with the ability to pay for their education.

   I think there are two other factors here that needs consideration. One the lack of a proper English medium in public schools and thus many middle class parents would rather send their children to international schools as opposed to having them study in the vernacular languages. Second the number of students who wish to go abroad for studies due to the perception of Sri Lankan Universities. So basically to bring it back to the point the number of students who can afford to pay for their education here and want to enter a Sri Lankan University is already very much limited. Hence my point about private education.

   This brings me to my second point as to why your system can’t work in reality. Once the cost etc is worked out people who can pay will come to realize that it would work out to about the same to send their kid abroad or for them to not bother with a tertiary education. Which again leaves the system very much dependent on those who cannot afford to pay for their education. Again your arguement does not take in to account that the overwhelming number of students here cannot pay for their education. Thus instituting your proposal would become redundant due to the fact that the system will be supporting more than what what it is actually getting back from students.

   Student Loans, an interesting idea. But again where will the money come from especially if there is very little capital coming in from the students themselves. Again I make the point that you are being elitist in your assumption that everyone can to a certain extent pay for their education. This is not the general rule and rather the exception. But it is an interesting idea which with your permission I will propose another format of my proposal.

   Have a bond period of compulsory service. However, why not institute a system where if one does not wish to work for that period, the bond can then be paid off? Would that not resolve the whole if-you-can-pay-for-your-education idea.

   Re the middle class: Yes there would be many complainants. And that in itself might (note I’m not saying will) have adverse impacts on the number of students who would rather not take a tertiary education as it might work out to about the same as to follow CIMA or CIM etc. And as much as I would like to argue against it, those with the ability to pay for their education are not falling over themselves to get in to Sri Lankan Universities.

   Also as to why I propose a different system. Yes it would be a drastic change as opposed to your policy. But there is a major difference in fee payment and scholarship disbursement. Further I touted my policy in order for it to effect diverse sections of the question – undergraduate employment, the cumbersome public sector as well as personal responsibility for free education. So yes that would be a major change. Am i being Utopian, probably. But my point is that the system needs a complete overhaul. As things stand at the moment students don’t really feel that they are being given a gift that needs to be used responsibly. They feel it is a right. And for this thinking to change a major overhaul is necessary. Would it work – I’m not sure.

   And I am not discounting the power of the Colombo voting bloc. My point is that the Colombo voting bloc needs to wake up to the fact that there are other factor’s in this country’s political sphere and that they don’t revolve around Colombo. The fact that at the very basic level we are a predominantly rural society and that for this society a free education is a must.

   Your thoughts?
7. 

   Negligible Minoritist said,

   March 23, 2007 at 9:47 am

   Q(curious):

   You make some very interesting point with regard to Tertiary Education. As you would have noted it kind of falls in to the whole discussion Drac and I are having at the moment.

   It was very interesting to note the perception of fee paying students there. It is perhaps an interesting situation that could arise here given the right circumstances. So may I clarify what you are saying in that “paying” for one’s education does not mean that a sense of responsibility would be forthcoming?

   Interesting. Drac any ideas? Since you push for a paid education to a certain extent. I on the other hand am arguing for a continued free education.

   The Sri Lankan system is different. It is based on merit and only a very limited number of students who sit their Advanced Level Examination get in to university. University education is free and has been for a very long time. \

   however, there is a perception in society that University students in SL mainly involve themselves in Politics and strikes and protests and not their actual education. I can tell that this is far from the truth but that is the perception. The issue in Sri Lankan universities as I see it is that with the long term provision of free education it has become the norm and it is no longer seen as a gift that needs to be used responsibly. Further many graduates now expect the government to provide them jobs as well a continuance of the whole free lunch idea.

   So in that sense I am pushing for a sense of responsibility to be added to the education. This is not to say that everyone sees things this way but that this is becoming more and more prevalent.

   Have I answered your question? I apologize if I am not clear as I am in writing this in haste. In the middle of my exams at the moment.

   Thank you for your comment.

   Regards,
8. 

   drac said,

   March 24, 2007 at 5:41 pm

   NM, I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to point to the present population of international school students and conclude that all those who are capable of paying are already doing so. There are kids from reasonably well-off families in state schools for any number of reasons.

   Be that as it may, I think working out the costs is a good exercise in its own right. What you suggest seems to be that the true cost of state based university education per seat and individual should be hidden… essentially not allowing everyone to make an informed economic choice between state education and tertiary education abroad. It’s like going somewhere for lunch and being given a choice between a lunch packet with an upfront payment and a lunch packet with mystery meat in it where the full price isn’t disclosed till after eating

   To return to another point that you touched on earlier, I think plenty of people already make an economic decision about sending their child to state or private university – as my parents did. When I was about to start doing undergrad, the tradeoff was roughly expressed in 2 years waiting. ie: go to a private university when term starts and pay money for your education or wait 2 years or so (while doing CIMA or something) for a state university place to become free. As a direct consequence, state university graduates with equivalent qualifications tend to come into the workplace when they are around 25 or 26 – a full couple of years or more (depending on how many times they repeated A/Ls to get the place) later than private university attendees.

   At the risk of repeating myself, I am completely unopposed (in fact, enthusiastically for) making university education accessible to the widest possible audience. While you say (and I agree) that the number of people who will be capable of paying for their university education is small, I still think that fees levied on a means tested basis would allow more people into the university. If two students pays half their fees, that leaves the facility (in monetary terms at least) for another worthy student who cannot afford his place to enroll into university. Surely a laudable goal? [Clearly, the real world is not quite so simple ]

   Your position seems to be that university should be free for all – ironically this may actually reduce the number of students in university in the long term because state universities are largely dependent on state funding. As a point of fact, some universities (including perhaps your own) offer courses and training to professionals after hours precisely for that reason – to shore up their already overstretched budgets. (check your local English and CompSci departments for details

   As for the details of bond vs pay-off-bond, those are just details – I’m sure it would work. Provided that academic merit remains the primary (if not only) factor in the entry of students to university, I think the rest is just details, really. The point is that there would be (I speak with a fair amount of experience) outcries of people “buying their degrees” from existing university students if there were any attempt to intermingle fee paying with free education students. Again, this may well be because free education is currently a contract between the state and the student body as a whole – instead of between the state and individual on deciding how much he is able to pay.

   Private university graduates already get a certain amount of grief from state university attendees in the workplace for various reasons – allowing fee paying students to get the same degree would be met with mass protests (it’s already happened several times in the past).

   To reiterate, that’s why I think free education as is cannot continue – universities are dependent on the treasury for a budget and there is little incentive to do more than maintain status-quo. For everyone who is completely incapable of paying their way (and yet is qualified to enter university), nothing changes. For everyone else? They chip in an amount towards their own education.

   The Colombo voting bloc (as it were), at the risk of generalizing – understand that they infuse the most amount of money into the economy. Realistic or otherwise, they expect that to be a significant factor in regard to policy decisions, especially economic policy. Obviously, the rest of the country doesn’t necessarily agree
9. 

   Q(curious) said,

   March 25, 2007 at 5:56 pm

   So may I clarify what you are saying in that “paying” for one’s education does not mean that a sense of responsibility would be forthcoming?….
   —————————————————————————————
   Well, yes surprisingly it appears to be the case at least in Australia. Australia has been offering free education from the 1970s and only recently is offering some full-fee paying places to local students with lower exam scores in the public universities. Overseas students of course have been paying fees for some time. And I was honestly very surprised when I experienced the reality of this. Before that, I had a firm belief that fee paying students would be much more motivated and free education was a charitable handout.

   It is probably important when looking at government or private funding, to not look at just traditional acount keeping in terms of dollars and cents. There are certain returns that the country as a whole benefits from investing in education/training at different levels. Private companies these days are beginning to measure intellectual capital as an asset. This probably also applies to public organistions. The word “knowledge economy” is even being used by the current oposition leader in Australia.

   Thanks for taking the time to answer my quesion. Best wishes for your exams. Work hard, I am sure you will be a valuable asset

• Top Posts

  • None

• Blogroll

  • Chappafine – The Finer (And Bitter) Things In A Chappa Paste
  • Guruchetra
  • Kanishka

• a

  Select Category College  (3) Decisions  (1) Education  (2) Identity Issues  (2) Literature  (3) Peace Talks  (2) Poetry  (1) Political  (3) The Sexes  (1) Youth  (1)

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.com

XHTML · CSS · Theme: Dusk by Beccary. Blog at WordPress.com.