Opinion Questions for Mr Sibal

First,there is widespread agreement that the system needs regulatory reform. But the new regulatory reform needs to take care of two things. It must ensure that the new regulator does not become yet another centralised overpowering regulatory body. It must also ensure that the regulator understands that the purpose of regulation is not to increase the power of the state,but to help students and parents make informed choices.

In short,simply creating a new institution will not be enough. There will have to be clarity over exactly what should be regulated. Ideally,regulation should focus largely on disclosure and transparency,not on micro-managing the choices institutions are allowed to make.

There are also different models on regulators in different reports. My worry is that the model that will end up being institutionalised will be overly centralised. The National Knowledge Commission had proposed that different functions of the regulators be parcelled out. UGC deals with one issue only: public funds for public universities. The independent regulator simply regulated entry — who is allowed to set up institutions and on what terms. There must be competition in accreditation,so that a number of agencies are licensed on a competitive basis rather than a state monopoly. On the other hand,Mr Yashpal (though not his committee) seem to favour an omnibus which will have even more powers than the current UGC. It is important to specify what regulators cannot do.

Second,for all the noises being made about autonomy,it is not clear that Mr Sibal is willing to grant universities the core components of autonomy. If a university cannot decide who they can admit,what they can charge,what curriculum they can teach,what will be the meaning of autonomy? His proposals for centralising everything from admission tests to curricula cuts against the grain of autonomy,diversity and experimentation.

Third,Mr Sibal has made many noises about private investment. But there are two issues here. First,will he embrace radical proposals made by,amongst others,Kaushik Basu,which would truly create conditions for private investment? This recognises that what we think of as profiteering can be curbed only by increased competition and supply,not by control. And how would the new regulation deal with various Court rulings on the subject?

Again,the big obstacle to private investment is not education regulations,but what are called “intermediate regulations”. For instance,in my experience,land and zoning issues affect the nature of investment considerably. Even in the school sector,there is arbitrary clustering because of irrational zoning policies. And land affects the capital costs of institutions considerably.

Fourth,what is his strategy for public universities? These remain important for a number of reasons. The bulk of our students are still enrolled in them. But we cannot ease the supply constraint unless their quality improves. And frankly,public universities and not-for-profit universities are,globally,still the strongest sources of research. For-profit universities can fill a niche but it is unlikely they will be sources of fundamental research.

How to reform public universities is a challenging issue that cannot be dealt with within the confines of a blog post. But what worries me is that the government still does not have a good strategy for them. If anything,the decisions it seems to have made on how the new universities will be structured,are all in the wrong direction.

Fifth,the Foreign Universities Bill has been much touted. In its current form the Bill will get us the worst of both worlds. It has enough restrictions to deter good institutions from coming,but it will not prevent the lesser known ones from coming to the market. But there are also deeper issues. Why do we need a separate legislation for foreign universities? Why not simply have effective and clear regulatory structures that apply to all universities and give them all a level playing field? We are all for liberalising the education sector,but it would be really odd if foreign institutions were given the freedoms over faculty,fees,curriculum that Indian institutions not have. If you don’t give them the freedoms the best ones will not come; if you do,it will be unfair to Indian institutions. There needs to be clarity on this issue. We should also be aware of the fact that brand-name foreign universities do not find it easy to open overseas campuses (a few exceptions apart). So we should not hold our breath for them.

Sixth,there is still no strategy for addressing the core problem of the system: the shortage of teachers. Attracting back talent from abroad is a good idea but it will require more than just words or even money. It will require the right institutional environment.

Finally,the minister is also keen on an Indian version of the Bayh Dole Act. Some act like this is desirable so that institutions,not just individuals,can benefit from incomes derived from IPR. But the reason given for undertaking the Act,namely that it will contribute to solving the funding problem of universities,rests on flimsy empirical evidence. Even in the US,the Act has benefitted only a handful of universities and there is some worry that it may become an impediment to research and innovation in the long run. Rather than aping the US,we need to think carefully about what the appropriate IP regime should be for our universities. Our IPR laws need to take account of our research ecosystem.

It is early days yet,so the jury is still out. But in education,detail is important. The quality of people entrusted with taking forward this enterprise will also be important. It is amusing to see many academics who created the mess in the old system in the first place,now trumpeting their reform credentials. But you scratch under the surface,probe a little,and the same tendencies towards control surface. Mr Sibal will have to be wary of bureaucrats who can turn any good idea into a nightmare,and academics that are very good at dialectic: turning any good idea into its opposite.