Public vs. private higher education in Guyana: the bigger picture

Sep 18, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The initiation of the discussion of the issue: “Public vs. Private in higher education” (Kaieteur News 13-09-10), is significant. The letter by Dr Prem Misir, Pro-Chancellor, University of Guyana, illustrates quite vividly the challenges involved in the application of knowledge resulting from experiences in developed societies to practical problems in poor developing countries like Guyana.
Perhaps, the writer may plead that editorial constraints forced him to be selective in his presentation. However, I do find his description of the benefits to be derived from public higher education in Guyana extremely limited.
There are several ways in which public higher education in Guyana, as represented by the University of Guyana (UG), can contribute to the public good (nation building, national development, improved standards of living). Some of these are:
1) Direct action or position taken by the university as a corporate institution;
2) Social policy pursued indirectly as a by-product of discharging normal university responsibilities;
3) Social change that naturally flows from the work of university professionals allied with other professionals in other sectors of society;
4) The influence for change exercised by the university as a free community, constitutionally concerned with what could be rather than what is; and,
5) The knowledge and skills of university graduates.
Further, in the context of Guyanese social and economic realities, characterized by a paucity of intellectual entrepreneurs in a variety of sectors, one of the critical tasks in our national development strategy must be the identification of strategic loci or centers where inputs would have a multiplying effect and result in a maximization of impact. In a one university nation like Guyana, it is likely that the University of Guyana by virtue of its status (being the apex or head of the Guyanese public school system), its relationships with and potential to influence other levels of the school system, and hence society and the quality of its intellectual life, is, most definitively, one such locus or center.
In his promotion of private higher education, Dr Misir gives the impression that private higher education is, universally, the new wave, to use the writer’s own words – “the in-thing”. This is not accurate. There are opposing schools of thought.
The reasons offered for the move towards private higher education are the inability or unwillingness of states to fund public higher education. However, there could be other reasons such as aggressive marketing by franchising organisations, or, subtle attempts at social engineering, just to mention two. In Guyana nation building is, most probably, our paramount concern, since we are a much divided people.
Consequently, we must avoid policies that have the potential to make a bad situation worse. If UG were privatized, only the rich would be able to attend, thus widening the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”.
A student loan scheme would be useless, if jobs are unavailable after graduation.
Further, Dr Misir neglected to mention that usually, “for- profit” private higher education institutions are organised strictly for the benefit of their owners and managers. In many of the for-profit private higher education institutions, the programmes offered are restricted, and geared to narrow niches in the job market, but, not to public needs, or, to the general welfare of their host societies
There are several other serious concerns with regard to the manner in which private higher education institutions are operated and managed. These concerns include “lack of transparency’, “quality assurance”, “staffing”, “institutional commitment” (most of the staff may be part-time), tenure, et cetera, et cetera. These issues need to be discussed at every level of Guyanese society.
In summary, the evidence suggests that, on one hand, private higher education institutions are usually vocational or commercially focused, and set their sights mainly on their own success and market position, rather than on their role in a national education system, or serving the broader public good. On the other hand, public higher education institutions, like UG, usually function as part of a coordinated system, and their activities are regulated by their respective states to varying degrees. Private universities experience few constraints on their activities. Unless they go beyond a strict market oriented approach, private higher education institutions will ignore broad public needs.
However, when the last three letters on higher education recently written by the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Guyana are carefully examined and studied, one becomes a bit apprehensive. “What’s the buzz Dr Misir? Tell me what’s the happening?” Are we witnessing the initiation of genuine intellectual discourse with regard to UG, or, is this an example of “Greeks bearing gifts?” Are the waters being tested for a dramatic increase in tuition fees at UG? Is the demise of UG as a public higher education institution imminent?
The list of possible questions is by no means exhausted, but, it is hoped that the salience of this issue is given due prominence in future discussions of national development strategies in Guyana. Guyanese must never be allowed to forget that the University of Guyana was expected to become a center for training and educating a large number of Guyanese. Further, it was expected that the institution would undertake research into the many problems confronting this nation, and, that from the university would emerge the highly qualified personnel for all sectors. Further still, it was intended that UG would provide the focus for the intellectual life of the Guyanese community, and a place where the merit of particular solutions to Guyana’s problems would be tested by argument and experiment.
Dr Prem Misir, at his installation as Pro-Chancellor, UG, undertook to uphold the above tenet and to do all in his power to assist the university to fulfill its role in society. If he now finds this responsibility burdensome, rather than dishonour the legacy of the founder of UG, the late President Dr C. B. Jagan, he should do the honourable thing. Walk!
Clarence O. Perry

---

---