Once again, government has blocked Makerere University from implementing fees increments, proposed following expert advice. Earlier, the Minister for Higher Education cited CHOGM, explaining that government is unlikely to support fees increments before the event. Then, in his letter directing the university not to increase fees, he queries the manner in which the decision to increase fees was reached (The New vision, 9th June, 2007).
Ulterior Fears
The Minister betrays an ulterior fear of the proposed increments or, at the least, a condoning of Makerere’s under funding. To start off, one wonders how CHOGM can be cited against increasing fees for privately sponsored students. Secondly, in querying the finance committee’s capacity to increase fees, the Minister ignores article 42 (2) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, which provides for this capacity. Thirdly, while article 40 (b) of the act states that the council shall…fix scales of fees, the Minister is at pains to distinguish between the fixing of scales of fees and the raising of fees, forgetting that raising is also fixing. Fourthly, the minister forgets that the university is not under obligation to delay its decisions until the president has studied visitation reports.
Understanding the refusal of fees rises
The truth is that government fears for the affordability of the increased fees, and likely student action. Nonetheless, we should accept that quality comes with costs and that, as long as we aspire to it, the question of whether to increase fees is irrelevant and decisions to increase fees must be implemented without delay. Rather, attention should be on whether, and how, students can afford increased fees, to which I now turn.
Irony of Makerere Fees
As to whether students can afford increasing fees has already been answered. In a 2004 study, for instance, I found that 80% of the schools that qualified over 70% of the students admitted to Makerere in the 2003/2004 academic year were charging higher fees than those levied in the university’s most populated school and faculties—Education, Arts, Science and Social Sciences—which is corroborated by the McGregor committee. Yet, ironically, there are fears that increasing Makerere’s fees will prohibit access.
Affording the increased fees
No doubt, increased fees could be beyond the means of some students and attract student resistance. Nonetheless, this resistance would be consequent upon inability to pay, and perceived unsuitability, of the increments. Hence, government should focus, not on resisting the proposed increments per se, but on ensuring that they are reasonable and that ways through which they can be met are devised, which could be done through:
Streamlining Resources Utilisation
Crucial to the perceived suitability of fees increments, is the efficiency with which resources are utilised. So far, the McGregor committee has reported resources mismanagement. On top of bringing the motivation for increasing fees to question, this could create an illusion that big increments are necessitated when, in fact, they are not. If the proposed increments are necessitated to procure teaching resources rather than feed the university’s 66 indefensible allowances, and which government can determine, therefore, they should be implemented.
Revision of Government Sponsorship
After increasing fees in line with costs, a means of ensuring their affordability is the extension of governmental funding to their subsidisation, rather than restricting it to a select few. With the cost incurred by each student reduced thus, many would afford a realistically priced university education. These are the policy issues on which Makerere cannot decide, and which government should direct; not the raising of fees as the Minister suggests.
Deferred payment
Underlying the fear that increased fees are likely to be unaffordable is the appropriation of the cost of students’ education to a few payers (government and parents). A way out, therefore, is the shifting of the cost to the students, thorough the institution of loan schemes, which could ensure that each payer incurs but a small fraction of the big cost. The dynamics of operating these schemes may best be worked out by financial institutions that are cognisant of pertinent variables. In many settings where these schemes are operational, however, their institution is capitalised by government, social security funds and similar organisations, meaning that, even here, government has a role to play.
Ulterior Fears
The Minister betrays an ulterior fear of the proposed increments or, at the least, a condoning of Makerere’s under funding. To start off, one wonders how CHOGM can be cited against increasing fees for privately sponsored students. Secondly, in querying the finance committee’s capacity to increase fees, the Minister ignores article 42 (2) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, which provides for this capacity. Thirdly, while article 40 (b) of the act states that the council shall…fix scales of fees, the Minister is at pains to distinguish between the fixing of scales of fees and the raising of fees, forgetting that raising is also fixing. Fourthly, the minister forgets that the university is not under obligation to delay its decisions until the president has studied visitation reports.
Understanding the refusal of fees rises
The truth is that government fears for the affordability of the increased fees, and likely student action. Nonetheless, we should accept that quality comes with costs and that, as long as we aspire to it, the question of whether to increase fees is irrelevant and decisions to increase fees must be implemented without delay. Rather, attention should be on whether, and how, students can afford increased fees, to which I now turn.
Irony of Makerere Fees
As to whether students can afford increasing fees has already been answered. In a 2004 study, for instance, I found that 80% of the schools that qualified over 70% of the students admitted to Makerere in the 2003/2004 academic year were charging higher fees than those levied in the university’s most populated school and faculties—Education, Arts, Science and Social Sciences—which is corroborated by the McGregor committee. Yet, ironically, there are fears that increasing Makerere’s fees will prohibit access.
Affording the increased fees
No doubt, increased fees could be beyond the means of some students and attract student resistance. Nonetheless, this resistance would be consequent upon inability to pay, and perceived unsuitability, of the increments. Hence, government should focus, not on resisting the proposed increments per se, but on ensuring that they are reasonable and that ways through which they can be met are devised, which could be done through:
Streamlining Resources Utilisation
Crucial to the perceived suitability of fees increments, is the efficiency with which resources are utilised. So far, the McGregor committee has reported resources mismanagement. On top of bringing the motivation for increasing fees to question, this could create an illusion that big increments are necessitated when, in fact, they are not. If the proposed increments are necessitated to procure teaching resources rather than feed the university’s 66 indefensible allowances, and which government can determine, therefore, they should be implemented.
Revision of Government Sponsorship
After increasing fees in line with costs, a means of ensuring their affordability is the extension of governmental funding to their subsidisation, rather than restricting it to a select few. With the cost incurred by each student reduced thus, many would afford a realistically priced university education. These are the policy issues on which Makerere cannot decide, and which government should direct; not the raising of fees as the Minister suggests.
Deferred payment
Underlying the fear that increased fees are likely to be unaffordable is the appropriation of the cost of students’ education to a few payers (government and parents). A way out, therefore, is the shifting of the cost to the students, thorough the institution of loan schemes, which could ensure that each payer incurs but a small fraction of the big cost. The dynamics of operating these schemes may best be worked out by financial institutions that are cognisant of pertinent variables. In many settings where these schemes are operational, however, their institution is capitalised by government, social security funds and similar organisations, meaning that, even here, government has a role to play.
No comments:
Post a Comment