Economy to Blame for Graduate Unemployment in Uganda

University training is under attack for producing job seekers rather than creators. Beyond the rhetoric, however, an important question is one of whether university training, rather than the economy, is to blame for the graduate unemployment problem. This is what motivated a recent study, by the author, ‘Factors influencing graduate employability in Uganda’, which undertook to respond to the following, among other, questions: what is the incidence of graduate unemployment in Uganda? Is graduate unemployment in Uganda, if existent, consequent upon mismatch between university training and labour market demands? What are the factors influencing graduate self-employment in Uganda? The findings of the study exonerate university training whilst implicating the economy.

High Levels of Graduate Employment

Firstly, 85% of the graduates were employed and 88% of these had achieved employment within one year of graduation. This disputes a high incidence of graduate unemployment here and is corroborated by evidence from other scholarly efforts like Kirumira (2003) (Where has all the education gone in Uganda?)

Sociology; not university training

An interesting finding, however, was that 50% of these had achieved their first employment placement through a personal contact or were working in a family owned company. This suggests that 50% of the available employment opportunities are rationed ‘sociologically’, meaning that, on account of lack of ‘well-placed’ labour market contacts, some graduates will find it particularly difficult to get into formal employment irrespective of the university training they received.

Jobs Not Enough

Under the auspices of higher education liberalisation, and as a spontaneous response to contemporary demographic trends, the number of graduates turned out in Uganda has expanded exponentially over the last twenty years. The high level of graduate employment noted above not withstanding, it was the opinion of the respondents that employment opportunities have not expanded proportionately. Since, according to the strategic plan for higher education, the vision of higher education here rests not only in the provision of quality higher education but also in making it accessible to all qualifying Ugandans, the desirable condition is that universities enrol all qualifying applicants and the onus is on the economy to absorb the graduates, by way of employment, which it has not done.

Question of Science Education

That science based higher education is of higher employability value in Uganda is a famed, and of late, popular policy position. Nonetheless, the study found no significant discrepancies between the employment situation of humanities and science graduates. Evidence was generated, however, that some science graduates are in placements that are supposedly humanities based, meaning that the economy has not evolved an incentive system that encourages students to specialise in the sciences, despite a much heralded commitment to science education.

Rural-Urban Discrepancies

Critics argue that, owing to their elitist training, graduates decline rural employment openings. Nonetheless, none of the graduates had ever declined rural employment. Several of the graduates in the urban areas, however, explained that these areas offer more hopes of employment and many rural stationed jobs are, all the same, offered at organisational headquarters in Kampala. In the sobering words of Bishop, however, as long as we tax rural enterprises to build social infrastructure, not in rural areas but in towns, a young man who leaves school and goes to a rural area ought to have his head [sic] examined, which exonerates university training whilst implicating development planning.

Lack of capital; not training

Graduate self-employment was generally non-existent--94% of the graduates were not engaged in any form of self-employment. However, all the graduates refuted the claim that they are not self-employed because they lack training in the necessary entrepreneurial skills. Instead, 90% of them cited lack of capital. Prioritisation of formal sector employment was also found to underlie the absence of graduate self-employment, albeit superficially. Sociological factors have tended to restrict jobs to the more affluent graduates that would normally have or access the capital necessitated to be self-employed, leaving those who are least capable of self-employment unemployed yet they are blamed for failing to take up self-employment. Paid employment, on the other hand, is the choice destination for graduates because available options for self-employment, and the ones most employment policy persons and commentators point to, are mostly ‘survivalist’ and don’t keep up with paid employment--in terms of returns, work environment and professional and social development. This is why most of the few graduates who were self-employed looked at their self-employment as stopgap.

Policy Implications

More than anything else, efforts to alleviate graduate unemployment must focus on formal sector employment opportunity creation; not calling university training names. Attention must also be put on increasing the practicability and profitability of graduate self-employment. Graduates should neither be encouraged nor expected to take up ‘survivalist’ self-employment because returns to it characteristically fail to be within range with those to formal sector employment for which they supposedly qualify. It may be important to realise that where graduate self-employment has been significant, the Newly Industrialised Countries for example, this has arisen more out of an enabling macro-economic environment than out of university training. Rather than ask what university training has not done, therefore, policy discussions should focus on why loans, mortgage and leasing have not worked for recent graduates. Lastly, there is no point in being quiet about the absence of subsidies in favour of graduate self-employment if policy makers are genuinely concerned to enhance graduate self-employment.

After USE, Whither Science Education in Uganda? Open Letter to the Minister of Education

Honourable Minister,

The Challenge before Us

Uganda’s education-related economic development challenge is its persistent failure to breakthrough in science. Graduate unemployment, now a daunting problem, has also been extensively blamed (by President Museveni among other education and employment policy persons) on students’ specialisation in labour-market ‘non-marketable’ study programmes namely, humanities. Subsequently, government has explicitly discouraged specialisation in humanities-biased education.

The cause for concern

Nonetheless, while releasing the results from last year’s A-level examinations recently, UNEB announced that science subjects remain the worst done as was the case for O-level. UNEB secretary, Matthew Bukenya, cited laboratory apparatus inadequacies—a survey carried out during the examination period revealed that 48.4% of the centres either had no laboratory or only a poorly equipped room.

Policy Contradictions

This is not surprising. From day one, it was apparent that improving pedagogical support, rather than mandatory study of science subjects and virtual restriction of government sponsorship to science-based higher education programmes is the way forward. That the cost of offering science subjects is way above that of offering arts, yet most educational institutions must struggle to be ‘profitable’, is another overt policy contradiction in a country that is committed to promoting science education. Taxation of (already under funded) institutions only exacerbates this contradiction. The implementation of USE also raises concerns for science education. To start off, only the downscale schools, which characteristically suffer pronounced apparatus inadequacies, are participating and grants have been reduced to 29,420 and 47,000 per government-aided and private school student respectively. This is why the future of science education is even more uncertain.

Way Forward

Ordinarily, it is not possible to train scientists at shillings 47,000. Since we must cut our coat according to our cloth, however, allow me to draw your attention to some much ignored ways through which the teaching and learning of science subjects may be enhanced under the same, or minimally expanded, budget constraint.

Subsidisation of science apparatus: now that we have to teach science subjects under a budget so stringent, the irony of taxing science equipment and private schools must stop. Instead, the duo should be subsidised--like other sectors of the economy whose development is critical to personal and national development.

Optimal utilisation of apparatus: often, teaching resources constraints arise more out of poor management than inadequacy. Hence, a way forward for the effective teaching of science subjects lies in the elimination of underutilisation of available apparatus. This necessitates that: apparatus utilisation is scheduled to achieve space and time optimality, through matching laboratory and class sizes and extending opening hours; the upscale schools are brought onboard USE and that relevant policy barriers are redressed to promote the sharing of their resources with the less endowed schools, since part, or all, of these resources remain idle for part of the work day/week--when, for instance, ‘50-student-seater’ laboratories are accommodated by 25 and when these are closed for sometime during the work week; and under utilisation consequent upon the rest/meal breaks associated with 8-hour-day school schedules is eliminated through session schooling. Moreover, secondary students here seldom study for all the time they are in school.

Optimal utilisation of available teachers: at the current lesson load floor of 20, many teachers teach for two days a week, since most schools offer 10 lesson-periods daily. Effective teaching amidst USE necessitates that these teachers take on more lessons, so that they serve more students without addressing large classes at ago. Group and peer teaching and evaluation might make this more practicable.

Creative creation of apparatus: there are bound to be very limited funds towards the purchase of laboratory apparatus. Rather than sit back and lament the likely inadequacies, however, teachers should creatively utilise the available resources and local environment to create some of the necessary teaching aids. For instance, cessation of the buying of distilled water need not result into shortages because distillation is part of the secondary school syllabus. Similarly, the rats necessitated for anatomy may be supplied by the school wildlife club, free of charge. A wide collection of insects, birds, animals, skins, plants, rocks, bones, implements etcetera for laboratory use can also be stocked, not through purchase, but student collection. The laboratory technicians, who are often as underutilised as their laboratories, could help with the preservation, classification and dissemination of these specimens. Your leadership would be pivotal to the success of this alternative since relevant stakeholders, including teacher trainers, have to be brought onboard.

Construction of public laboratories: in the circumstances, the luxury of constructing laboratories inside the secluded premises of schools is unfeasible, because ‘private’ laboratories are, for a number of reasons, usually under facilitated and utilised. The way forward, therefore, is to construct public laboratories, where different (neighbouring) schools can book sessions. The merits associated with this are that the laboratories are likely to be well equipped, since one big investment is undertaken in lieu of various small ones; all students, including those from the less advantaged schools, would access laboratory facilities; and the laboratories would be put to more optimal use since they would register higher time and space utilisation rates than the ‘private’ school laboratories.

Conclusion

As you have emphatically pointed out, to sceptics, both USE and science education are possible; nonetheless, their attainment necessitates much more than reaffirmation of government’s commitment and the conventional; it necessitates innovative approaches that are responsive to the radically changed education task environment.