judicial interference and privatisation: a case study of...
TRANSCRIPT
169
Chapter V
Judicial Interference and Privatisation: A case study of
Self Financing Professional Education
State Legislation vis-à-vis Self Financing Education
Consequent to the violation of the condition – reservation of 50% seats as
government quota – in the aftermath of the T M A Pai Foundation case
verdict put the UDF government in severe confusion. The government
introduced “The Kerala self financing professional colleges (prohibition of
capitation fees and procedure for admission and fixation of fees) Act. 2004.
This is the first law brought by the Kerala government to control and
regulate the self financing professional colleges in the state. The
managements challenged this law in court and finally they got favorable
verdict. It was rightly found that the law had no statutory relevance since
the Supreme Court had explicitly opined in the T M A Pai case in favour of
the private managements.
The second law passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly in July
2006 is known as ‘The Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions
(Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-
Exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in
Professional Education) Act. Interestingly, the law was passed by the
unanimous support of the house.
It indicates that, both the left and right political parties arrived at a
consensus about the political control of the self financing institutions are
necessary. There was also the public opinion in favour of the legislation
which forced the UDF to support it. The different sections of the Kerala
society supported the new bill, except some caste-communal groups
(Prasannakumar 2006).
Naturally, the managements didn’t accept this bill and they dragged
the issue in to the court in the name of constitutional validity and minority
rights. The history repeated and the court declared vital provisions of the
170
bill as against constitutional provisions and minority rights. In fact, the
managements obtained a more favourable verdict ever than before, which
made them more powerful in the matter of admission and fixation of fees.
Obviously, the verdict rendered the government defensive. The question is
remaining here-“Does the court has the power to suspend a law passed by a
legislature unanimously? And moreover, is it democratic? After the failure
of this law the self financing college problem became more complicated and
legal disputes have been continuing.
The Kerala professional colleges or institutions Act 2006 is an Act to
ensure social equity, values and justice in self financing professional
colleges. In simply says, it is trying to impose a socio-political control over
self financing professional colleges to improve the quality of education and
ensure social justice (Prabhash 2006). The important provisions in this Act
are prohibition of capitation fee, regulation of admission, fixation of non-
exploitative fee and other measures to ensure equity and excellence in
professional education sector.
The first important feature of the Act is the provision of single
window system for the admission procedure, i.e. common entrance
examination and centralized allotment process to ensure merit based
admission and to prevent the malpractices. Secondly, the Act envisaged
reservation for not only the SC/ST students but also for other weaker
sections in the society including the economically backward students of
upper castes. The reservation category according to this Act was SC/ST –
10%, OBC – 25%, PH – 3%, socially forward and economically backward –
12%, NRI – 15%, management – 15%, sports and culture – 2% and remained
18% for general merit. The Act also suggested for the organization of an
‘Admission Supervisory Committee’ to monitor the admission procedure,
under the chairpersonship of a retired judge in Supreme Court or High
Court.1 This committee has equal power to civil court.
The Bill contains another provision to organize a committee for the
fixation of fee in self financing professional colleges, under the
chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge (Govt. of
Kerala 2006). The bill strictly prohibited receiving fee of more than one
171
year. If anybody receive the fee of more than one year, that should be
considered as capitation fee. The Act removed the ambiguity regarding
capitation fee by defining the amount collected from the students
exceeding the total amount of fee for one year. If any self financing college
violates provisions of the bill and it find clearly, then the punishment is up
to 50 lakhs rupees fine and one to three year imprisonment (Govt. of Kerala
2006). The money collected through the fine would be invested in the
‘Higher Education Scholarship Fund’ to be given to the students who got
admission on the basis of merit and coming under the category of socio-
economic backwardness. Though the UDF and LDF are seemed to be
committed to the cause of state control in self financing education, a
detailed study of their legislations shows differences between these two
Fronts. A comparison of the two legislations is given in the following table.
Table No.1: Legislations of UDF and LDF Governments: A Comparison.
Comparing
Factor
UDF’s Legislation in
2004- 05
LDF’s Legislation in 2006
Allocation of
Seats
Government Seat –
50%
Management Seat –
50%
(including 15 seats
for NRI
Different way in Majority Institutions and
Minority Institutions. Majority Institutions:
Compulsory Reservation – 37%, The
Reservation Through Negotiation – 15%, Merit
Seat – 18%, NRI Seat – 15%, Management Seat
– 15%. Minority Institutions:
College Owned Community – 50%, NRI – 15%,
Admission A Common Entrance
Examination in
Government Seat.
A Separate Entrance
Examination
Conducted by
Managements’
Consortium in
Management Seat.
(Vacant Government
Seats for
Managements)
Single Window System; The Admission is only
on the basis of Common Entrance Examination
except in NRI seats.
172
Fees No Capitation Fees
Government Fees in
Government seat
and in Management
Seat, Fees as they
like
The Committee to be appointed by the
Government will decide the Fees in whole seat;
within this in reservation seat fees
concession/government fees, high level fees in
NRI/management seat, KT Thomas Commission
fees in general merit seat. Don’t receive
advance more than one year fees, The fees will
re allot in every 3 year.
Reservation# No Provision SC/ST – 10%, Socially and Educationally
Backward – 25%, Arts/…. – 2%, PH – 3%, Other
than above mentioned – 12%*
Scholarship/Free
ship
No Provision Provision for both. Scholarship – Higher
Education Scholarship Fund for Socially and
Economically Backward students. Free ship –
Full/partial Fees Concession for Reservation
category students.
Punitive
measures
Fine up to 5 lakh and
Withdrawal of
institutions’
recognition
Three kind of Punishments:
1. Violation of law relating to admission:
Fine up to 10 lakh rupees and
withdrawal of recognition
2. Common violation of law: 1 – 3 year
imprisonment and fine up to 50 lakh
rupees
3. Bureaucrats: the bureaucrat, who is
making corruption in giving income
certificate and the student, who is
taken admission through this will get
same punishment as above.
# Not Applicable in the case of minority institutions.
* In accordance with the consent of managements because of no constitutional validity
Source: Legal and Constitutional Digest, Vol.20, No.3, Kerala Legislative Assembly Library,
Trivandrum, 2006, pp. 81-92
Government of Kerala, Gazette – Extra Ordinary, Trivandrum, 2004, pp. 1-6
Besides the socio-economic and political factors, the judiciary also played a
crucial role in helping the growth of self financing education institutions in
Kerala. Historically speaking, the judiciary in the name of constitution stood
against radical legislations of the progressive political forces. Kerala has a
173
long history of legal controversy vis-à-vis education. For example, in 1957,
the court viewed that some of the provisions of the Education Bill were
against constitutional provisions and minority rights. In 1993, the Supreme
Court came forward with a new scheme in the verdict of Unnikrishnan case.
Emphasis on 50:50 government – management seats and the concept of
cross subsidies indicated that the private managements have to undertake
some social responsibilities. But, in TMA Pai Foundation case Supreme
Court banned the cross subsidies in education institutions. Subsequent
verdicts in Inamdar case and Islamic Academy case also supported the
commercialization of education accelerating the pace of privatization in the
professional education sector. Laws passed by the UDF in 2004 and LDF in
2006 were largely emasculated by the court. A comparison of the two
legislations in Chapter III also proves that the LDF is more committed to
bring about social control of self financing sector than the UDF.
The constitutional issue is mainly relating to two things. Firstly,
Article 19(1)(g) ensures that the citizens can do any business or profession
and accordingly the court opined that the government control over self
financing institution was against this fundamental right. The second one is
relating to minority rights under Article 30, which gives the right to establish
and run the educational institutions by the minority communities. By
ratifying both of them in various verdicts the judiciary has paved way for
outright commercialization of education in the name of privatization.
Judiciary approved that education is a business or trade because it is
protected under Article 19(1)(g). At the same time, court is keeping mum
about the right to education, which is a most important right of every
citizen. Thus it becomes clear that both the constitution and the judiciary
are trying to protect the interest of the private educational entrepreneurs.
Recently, the Left was also forced to accept the idea of self financing
education, but they held strong reservations about the private institutions
working without any socio-political control. The study also finds out that the
political constraints of the Left as a regional force and the fear of possible
debacle in the electoral politics force the LDF to moderate ideological views.
Two regional political parties - Kerala Congress and Muslim League – always
take strong position in favour of privatization and they are pressurizing the
174
Congress within the UDF. The caste/communal organizations having strong
clout vis-à-vis the education sector of Kerala also exert strong pressure in
favour of privatization. The minority politics in the state is another reason
behind the growth of private self financing colleges and these minority
groups constitute nearly 40% of population. This population has a strong
bargaining power in the electoral politics and the religious organizations
mobilize these people against the governments which dare to take strong
decisions. The media also largely give support to the commercialization of
education through manufacturing public opinion for this.
Quality of Self Financing Education
It is very difficult to define and measure the ideas of merit and quality.
However, there are certain commonly accepted mechanisms to evaluate
merit. In the case of education, standardized examinations are
acknowledged as the primary tool to test the merit of the students.
However, we can’t rank the students only on the basis of their performance
in examination, because their socio-economic conditions are very different.
Hence a meritocratic system naturally helps those students who are coming
from relatively affluent background (Kaul 2000). Positive discrimination,
otherwise called as reservation system helps those students to a great
extent. Reservation of seats was also justified on the basis of benign
principles of democratization of education providing equal access for a
substantial majority of children to education (Weisskopf 2004).
Commercialization of education alters the principles of reservation and
merit giving predominance to money.
The quality and merit are closely related to each other. Every society
wants quality education for its development. Quality implies 3 different but
interrelated factors. They are:
1. The quality of students enrolled
2. The quality of teachers and adequate infrastructural facilities
3. The quality and competence of persons in securing job opportunities
in future.
175
The faulty selection procedure of students in self financing colleges
is the first reason for the decline of quality. In the beginning the proportion
of government seats to management seats was fixed at 50:50. Admission to
government seats was purely based on the mark and rank secured in the
common entrance examination conducted by the government. But in the
admission to remaining 50% of seats managements had greater discretion.
But the Supreme Court verdict which declared that the government would
have no power to interfere in the admission procedure seriously altered this
situation too (Venkatesan 2005). In addition to this, in the Inamdar case
managements were given the right to conduct separate entrance test. All
these helped the managements to hold sway in determining the terms and
conditions of admission on the basis of money, rather than merit. It is quite
natural that the profit – hungry managements of self financing colleges
were not ready to give admission on the basis of merit. The arguments and
activities of managements in recent times further substantiate this point.
Moreover, they are wary of the centralized allotment process or admission
through single window system. They are arguing for separate entrance
examination for management seats, but its transparency is dubious. There
are several examples for this malpractice in Kerala where the corrupt
managements misused their power to conduct examination and admission.
Entry barriers on the basis of money downgrade the quality of
students. Thus, 42 students out of 96, who attended the first year
examination in 2003, failed in Thiruvalla Pushpagiri Medical College (Jacob
2004). Ironically, the students having 32680th and 33728th rank in the state
Medical Entrance Examination got admission in that batch (Jacob 2004). The
same decline of quality is visible in colleges in the co-operative sector also.
In 2004, the High Court of Kerala banned admission to management seats of
Pariyaram and Cochin co-operative medical colleges. Supreme Court also
agreed with the High Court verdict and criticized the admission procedure
of those institutions. Surprisingly, a student, who got only 10 marks out of
960 in the common entrance test having 40012th rank was able to secure
admission in Pariyaram Medical College (Prasannakumar 2004).
It is very difficult to prove the decline of quality in self financing
colleges by means of statistical data. But the graver misconduct in
176
admission and the pressure exerted by the managements on university
bodies like syndicates to get moderation in public examinations indicate
that the quality of students is decreasing day by day (Jacob 2004).
The quality of teachers is important and is as equal to the quality of
students, because these two factors greatly decide the quality of output in
education system. In several self financing colleges there is a dearth of
qualified and experienced faculties. Quality is compromised mainly to
assure profit for the management. Naturally, the profit-hungry
managements will appoint teaching staff having poor quality anticipating
that the latter would be satisfied with less salary. In addition to this, there
are many cases in which retired teachers have been appointed as guest
faculty. This causes a severe blow to the quality because the old teachers
may fail to teach the students about recent developments in the discipline.
Moreover, there is no uniform provision for the selection and appointment
of faculties and non-teaching staffs in the self financing educational
institutions. Importantly, the lack of job security and deplorable wage and
service conditions negatively affect the morale of the teaching staff
(Prabhash 2006). K. T. Thomas Committee observed that the absence of
adequate infrastructure also leads to the decline of quality in self financing
professional colleges.
The decline of quality in professional education not only affects the
concerned professionals but also it has a telling impact on the society as a
whole (Menon 2004). Proliferation in the number of engineers and doctors
without ensuring their quality brings up a lot of social problems. Its
precariousness may be dormant today, but surely it would become a reality
within the next 10-15 years. This decline worsens the plight of health and
other sectors like information technology. The aforesaid description raises
doubts about the perceived propaganda of Neoliberals: ‘liberalization of
education leads to greater quality and economic development’ (Iqbal 2004).
Self Financing Education: The Social Cost
Apart from the conventional queries involved in the issue of self financing
professional education newer issues are also coming to the fore. The social
cost due to the proliferation of professional colleges is enormous. The
177
analysis focuses on some issues of social concerns relating to self financing
Medical Education and Engineering Colleges.
a) Medical Education and Social Health
Increasing number of medical colleges and engineering colleges consequent
to privatization creates several social problems also. The increasing number
of doctors will lead to over hospitalization and educated unemployment.
Moreover, privatization changes the moral values of the doctors, and the
health sector faces deterioration in ethics and values. The decline of quality
in health sector not only affects the poor people but the whole society. In
the health sector, global market shows no stability in demand for medical
professionals. And also some of the developed countries have already
passed anti-migration laws. Moreover, the decline in quality partly due to
the privatization of medical education raises doubts about the chances of
competition in the free market.
Proliferation of medical colleges contributes to the unlimited growth
in the number of doctors. In 2005, the doctor – people ratio in Kerala was
1:960. As a result of the increase in number of colleges and seats the ratio
in 2025 will be 1:430. Further it will become 1:283 if the doctors in
Ayurveda and Homeo streams are taken for consideration. The supply of
doctors further increases it the statistics include those who complete
medical courses outside Kerala (Ekbal 2004).
According to World Health organization (WHO) doctor- people ratio
of 1:3000 is more than sufficient. It shows that there is a big difference
between the existing ratio and the actual need of the society. It is also
opined that modernization of health sector including employment of new
mechanical devices for diagnosis and treatment has also reduced the need
for large number of doctors (Ekbal 2004). All of these suggest that, Kerala
seldom require large number of doctors in future, and what it really needs
is highly qualified doctors. Since quality-wise the doctors from self financing
medical colleges do not seem to be competent such hopes are in vain.
Therefore, the self financing Medical Colleges which produces a large
number of ill-qualified doctors is becoming a social burden (Ekbal 2004).
178
Disproportionate increase in the number of doctors irrespective of
the social demand creates many problems. It has already become a burden
in the case of United States of America, Australia, Hong Kong and some
European states. American Government appointed a committee to examine
this issue. Their policies on medical education propose to reduce the
number of medical seats. They are also discouraging migration of medical
professionals from foreign states. It is worth mentioning that the mounting
resistance to immigration of medical staff in the west has a telling impact
for Kerala because the protagonists of self financing professional education
always point out the increasing job opportunities in western countries as a
strong reason for their case. On the contrary to what is usually argued and
propagated, the current trends show that there would be a slump in job
opportunities especially in medical profession in the global market.
There has been a serious decline in professional ethics in the health
sector. While decline in job opportunities on the one hand spread
disappointment among the medical professionals, the increase in number
also would have graver social concerns. Like any other service it has become
converted into a profitable business. Naturally, doctors enjoy the monopoly
of knowledge in medical science which makes the patients accept without
question the identification, definition and diagnosis of the disease (Nabae
2003). Thus, the doctors who are worry of declining income due to the
increasing competition are compelled to misuse this monopoly. This leads
to problems like over hospitalization and over administration of medicines.
Over hospitalization, over administration of drugs and the misuse of
medical knowledge by doctors are having strong structural relations with
the privatization of Health care and deregulation of the Pharmaceutical
industry. The profit seeking drug companies and mushrooming private
hospitals obviously capitalize from the crisis due to the proliferation of
doctors (Nabae 2003).
A study conducted by Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishath (KSSP) in 1996,
shows that there is 898% increase in health expenditure in the last ten years
in Kerala. The increase in medicine’s price is also a reason behind it.
Definitely, the increase in doctor’s consultation fee has also contributed to
this. It also reveals another significant point that the increasing number of
179
doctors is not helping to decrease the doctor fee and health expenditure
until recently. At the same time instances are not rare when patients were
exploited by the wilful medical practitioners. For example, in Kerala 98.5%
of deliveries is happening in hospitals, because of the high literacy of
people, of which 27% is caesarean. WHO says that, there is no medical
justification if the caesarean operations exceed 10% of total deliveries. But
in Kerala, even in villages, 17% of deliveries are by caesarean (Ekbal 2004).
All these prove that over hospitalization is already a reality in the health
sector of Kerala, and in future, there are sufficient chances to worsen this.
While increasing competition leads to over hospitalization, it also
leads to growing concerns about specialization. It also creates worries. At
present, in Kerala 50% of the doctors are specialists. Growth in Specialty
Hospitals is to be read along with this. Increasing number of specialists
naturally leads to increase in health expenditure. Recent statistics show
that, in Kerala the per capita health expenditure and the ratio between
family expenditure and health expenditure are increasing very rapidly. The
low expenditure for quality health protection, which is an important feature
of Kerala Model of Development, has almost diminished (Gasper and
Sebastian 1999: 398-401). Needless to say in detail, it would have negative
consequences for the marginalized people and low income groups.
Even though the self financing medical education is promoted on the
basis of the propaganda about its positive impact on the society reality
proves otherwise. There are many points in the tall talks about self
financing education which can be disproved through a critical analysis. For
example, there is an argument in support of opening more private medical
colleges that the qualified medical professionals can sell their labour and
skill at the international level. Due to globalization and that the number of
doctors in one state is not to be fixed based on the ratio of doctor-people of
that state. This argument seems to be ignorant about the fact that in spite
of globalization free flow of labour is a distant possibility and export of
human capital is extremely difficult on account of various reasons. In
addition to this, job opportunities in the international market are not
sustainable. Even if one concede for the sake of argument that there is a
constant demand for doctors from Kerala. Another question comes to the
180
mind: Are the medical students of the self financing colleges eligible and
able to compete in international market?
Proliferation of self financing colleges is also justified on another
reason that it would help the backward regions and states to get the service
of doctors (Nabae 2003). But it sounds little logic became there is no ground
to imagine that after spending huge money from their pocket in the self
financing colleges these doctors would be willing to work for the services of
the backward regions for lower financial returns. Such arguments, in fact,
would help to shift critical focus from the real issues faced by the health
sector of Kerala. If the backward regions and rural areas have a dearth of
doctors. It should be resolved through implementing effective health
policies, for instance, expansion of rural health infrastructure and
compulsory village services for the doctors. Instead of implementing strong
measures to tackle the issue the government policies favouring self
financing education would destroy the public health care system.2
The decline of quality in medical field has dreadful impact on the
whole society. The self financing colleges are producing more number of
doctors without sufficient quality which further causes to degrade the
moral standards of medical profession. A doctor’s profession is considered
as service more than a job for income and profit. The self financing colleges,
whose ultimate aim is to make profit, may cause attitudinal change among
the young doctors’. Those who are obtaining degrees from these colleges
and would be more concerned about money than service. Since the
students, of self financing medical colleges spend a large amount of money,
when they start medical practice their main objective would be to recollect
it at any cost.
b) Self Financing Engineering Colleges
Self financing engineering education also has the same story to tell. Growth
of IT industry in the recent one and a half decade has become a strong
reason for shifting the focus of engineering education to Information
Technology. Since the colleges in public and aided - private sector can alone
satisfy the demand self financing education in IT is promoted.
181
The objective of self financing colleges is to increase the quantity
and export these human resources to different part of the country and
other foreign states (Menon 2004: 13). High quality is necessary to compete
in the international and national market. But the self financing engineering
colleges are not producing that much of quality persons (Menon 2004: 13).
The uncontrolled growth of engineering colleges is making many social
problems. It is a false idea that IT can give job to everyone, who completed
engineering degree. It is well ascertained that it may also cause to educated
unemployment. The study conducted by KSSP proves that 20% of students
can’t complete their engineering course. The major reason behind it is the
increasing number of seats which are filled up with unqualified students.
The engineering education is gaining wider currency because of the
growth of Information Technology. But since the market laws dictate the
demand for professionals, engineering graduates also face the problems of
unemployment and under employment. The market economy promotes the
growth of self financing education because it will ensure cheap labour
through increasing the number of job seekers. Preponderance shown to the
professional education also affects other streams of higher education for
example, social sciences and basic sciences. It has negative implication from
the vantage point of production of knowledge.
Kerala’s educational achievements attracted global attention and
even the developed countries were looking at its merits surprisingly.
Educational development, which made the state first among the Indian
states in literacy, health security, social development, political participation
etc., was also the major factor behind all achievements summed up as
‘Kerala Model of Development’. However, it is acknowledged that the high
social development is compounded with a low economic growth. So it led to
a large scale export of human resources to all over the world and the
remittance from abroad sustains Kerala economy. Majority of the new
generation migrants are educated persons and it makes a difference from
the manual labour migration of the previous decades. Higher education
played a vital role in realizing greater migration of educated people.
182
State intervention in the higher education sector, including
professional education made it accessible to all sections of the Kerala
society and it led to the social development, particularly the social
mobilization of backward sections. This positive intervention of state was
realized by various factors like social reform movements, strong presence of
left politics, princely states’ welfare policies, role of Christian missionaries
etc. The introduction of neoliberal policies in the state followed by the
Central government’s economic reforms, led to the privatization of higher
education and mushroom growth of self financing professional colleges in
Kerala. It raises several problems in professional education for example,
questions of quality, social equity and justice.
Formation of Kerala state in 1956 witnessed a turning point in the
educational development of the state. The newly elected government of CPI
introduced an Education Bill to bring about radical changes in this sector,
but the right wing political parties and caste/communal groups opposed
this. The intervention of Supreme Court diluted the radical character of this
bill and it became a big success for the caste/communal pressure politics.
After this the caste/communal groups (which are the institutionalized form
of erstwhile social reform movements) became strong pressure groups in
Kerala politics and they made direct and indirect alliance with political
parties. However, education policies in the first two-three decades after the
formation of state were able to maintain a balance between public and
private participation in the education sector. But since 1990s the education
sector has been moving to a different direction due to the emergence of
self financing institutions. These newly emerged private institutions
demand for greater freedom and autonomy in management.
The origin and development of self financing colleges is not a unique
feature of the state, but it is a nationwide phenomenon. Privatization and
liberalization of education sector resulted in the withdrawal of state from
providing education to the people and the rise of private institutions. Birla-
Ambani Report, GATS, Knowledge Commission Report and the policies of
UGC give support to self financing education. Following this, the UDF
government (1991-96) first started self financing colleges in the cooperative
sector. The UDF government (2001-06) initiated steps to permit self
183
financing professional colleges in private sector without any political
control.
The unbridled growth of self financing colleges not only affects the
poor students, but in the long time it can pose many threats to the society
as a whole. It is true that self financing education denies the right to
education to the poor people. It also creates a situation in which the
professional education is monopolized by the affluent sections. It resembles
the time of feudalism with a subtle difference that while in the older system
caste was used for discrimination of people and denial of education to the
majority; it is the class factor which acts as the criteria of discrimination in
the contemporary times. However, in both cases denial of the basic rights is
most glaring.
Judiciary and Self financing Education: Impact Assessment Study
To assess the impact of judicial pronouncements vis-à-vis self financing
institutions, a field survey was conducted at Thiruvananthapuram District,
Kerala. The study analysed the impact of judicial intervention on issues
related to quality, equity and social justice. The study has specifically taken
Thiruvananthapuram District as the field to carry out the survey.
Thiruvananthapuarm District has some unique features in education,
particularly in higher professional education in Kerala. The first Medical
College and Engineering College were established in this District. Southern
Kerala, particularly Thiruvananthapuram, is well known for the over
emphasise of educational consciousness of middle class. The presence of
different categories of professional education institutions distinguishes this
District from rest of the Kerala. Three medical colleges were selected from
different sectors, one from Government, one from corporate management
and one from single management. The classification of three engineering
colleges are based on government sector, government/university self
financing and private self financing.
Six colleges were selected - three medical colleges and three
engineering colleges - as samples. The population of the survey was the
MBBS and B. Tech students in these Colleges. The total population of the
survey is 6478. Ten percent of samples were collected from Medical
184
Colleges and five percent from each engineering college. Consequently the
sample size was 436. The samples were collected through the method of
simple random sampling. This survey is conducted during July-August 2014.
A general profile of the survey is given in the Table No. 1. The study
included Government Medical College (GMC), Thiruvananthapuram, CSI
Medical College (CSIMC), Karakonam, a corporate management institution
and Sree Gokulam Medical College (SGMC), Venjaramoodu. The engineering
colleges are College of Engineering (CET), Thiruvanathapuram, University
College of Engineering (UCE), Kariavattom and St. Thomas Institute of
Science and Technology (STIST), Kazhakuttam.
Table No.2: General Profile of Survey
Name of College Course Population Sample
Size Percentage
Govt. Medical College, Tvm MBBS 1000 100 10
CSI Medical College,
Karakonam
MBBS 500 50 10
SG Medical Collge,
Venjaramoodu
MBBS 750 75 10
College of Engineering, Tvm B. Tech 2308 115 5
University College of
Engineering, Kariavattom
B. Tech 720 36 5
STIST, Kazhakuttam B. Tech 1200 60 5
Total 6478 436 6.73
A brief profile of the colleges surveyed is given below.
Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram (GMC)
Government Medical College Thiruvananthapuram was established in 1951.
This is the oldest and the most prestigious medical college in Kerala. It has
an annual intake of 200 students for MBBS and 89 students for MD/MS. The
185
Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is the principal agency
in emanating the Kerala Model of health care. The establishment of the
college and hospital was a fulfilment of popular ambitions and paved way
for the rise of Kerala in the health sector. The institution has been upgraded
to the status of All India Institute of Medical Sciences due to its unique
achievements. It is regarded as an important tertiary care-provider to the
southern parts of India. Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
is one among the top 25 colleges in the nation; ranked 21 in the India Today
survey.
Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College (CSIMC), Karakonam,
Thiruvananthapuram
Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College was established in 2002,
attached to the Dr. Somervell Memorial Mission Hospital at Karakonam,
Thiruvananthapuram. The Medical College is a self-financing, minority
institution affiliated to the University of Kerala. The Medical College is run
by the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India and is managed by
the South Kerala Medical Mission. The South Kerala Medical Mission is a
Charitable Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary,
Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act XII of 1955. The office of
the South Kerala Medical Mission is in the LMS Compound, the Head Office
of the CSI South Kerala Diocese. It has an annual intake of 100 students for
MBBS and 20 students for MD/MS.
Sree Gokulam Medical College (SGMC), Venjaramood, Thiruvananthapuram
Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation was established in
2004 and is located at Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram by Foundation
of Non Resident Indians Trust. This institution started MBBS course in the
academic year 2005-06. This institution is recognised by Medical Council of
India for the conduct of MBBS course in the year 2010 and is affiliated to
the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The annual intake currently
permitted is 150 for MBBS and 43 for MS/MD.
186
College of Engineering, Trivandrum (CET)
The College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram was established in 1939 by
Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, king of Travancore. The college was
ranked 18th overall among 100 Top Engineering colleges of the country by
Dataquest-CMR Top T-Schools Survey 2011. With the establishment of the
Directorate of Technical Education in the late 1950s, the college
administration came under the direct control of the Government. In 1960,
the college was shifted to its present campus at Kulathoor, Sreekaryam. The
undergraduate and postgraduate courses are accredited by AICTE. In 1990,
the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, ranked
the college as one among the high ranking institutions in comparison with
the performance of National Institute of Technology(NITs) in the area of
training and placement. It is one of the few technical institutions in South
India, which admits students mostly on merit basis through an All Kerala
Engineering Entrance Examination. Besides the regular B.Tech, B.Arch,
M.Tech, M.Plan and MCA programmes, the college also conducts part time
B.Tech and M.Tech classes for meritorious Diploma Holders. The total
intake for regular B. Tech is 577 per year. The survey is conducted among
the regular B. Tech students.
University College of Engineering (UCE), Kariavattom
The University College of Engineering was established in 2000, at the
Kariavattom campus of University of Kerala. This is a self financing college
directly managed by the University of Kerala. The College aspires to emerge
as a model institution for technical education in the State. The college has
also served as a model in several matters including the fee structure. The
college also admits students under the NRI quota and management quota.
The College offers B. Tech in Electronics and Communication, Computer
Science and Engineering and Information Technology. The total intake of
students in every year is 180.
St. Thomas Institute of Science and Technology (STIST), Kazhakuttam
The St Thomas Institute of Science and Technology (STIST) is promoted by the
Mar Thoma Church Educational Society, Trivandrum (MTCES) registered in
187
1966 under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies
Registration Act. The Society has established the St Thomas Institute of
Science and Technology (STIST) in July 2010. The courses offered are B. Tech
in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer
Science Engineering. This is an ISO 9001:2008 certified institution and
approved by AICTE. This is a private self financing college affiliated to the
University of Kerala. The total intake of students in an academic year is 300.
1. Quality of Students
Even though it is very difficult to define and measure the ideas of merit and
quality, there are certain commonly accepted mechanisms to evaluate
merit. In the case of education, standardized examinations are
acknowledged as the primary tool to test the merit of the students.
However, we can’t rank the students only on the basis of their performance
in examination, because their socio-economic conditions are very different.
Hence a meritocratic system naturally helps those students who are coming
from relatively affluent background (Kaul 2000). The quality and merit are
closely related to each other. Every society wants quality education for its
development. Quality mainly implies three different but interrelated
factors. They are the quality of students enrolled, the quality of teachers,
existence of adequate infrastructural facilities and the quality and
competence of persons in securing job opportunities in future. Among
these four factors, it is very difficult to assess the quality of teachers and the
availability of infrastructural facility of a college through a survey, as the
students are scared to reveal these facts. Naturally, they are inclined to
answer to these questions in the affirmative.
The survey focused to understand the quality of students enrolled in these
institutions.
The faulty selection procedure of students in self financing colleges is the
first reason for the decline of quality. In the beginning the proportion of
government seats to management seats was fixed at 50:50. Admission to
government seats was purely based on the mark and rank secured in the
common entrance examination conducted by the government. However, in
188
the admission to remaining 50% of seats managements enjoyed greater
discretion and elasticity. But the Supreme Court’s verdict which declared
that the government would have no power to interfere with the admission
procedure seriously altered this situation too (Venkatesan 2005). This point
is very clear in the table given below.
a) Rank Position in the State Entrance Examination
The survey conducted gave the following regarding the quality of students.
Table No. 2 shows that the difference in the rank position of the students
enrolled in the government and self financing medical colleges.
Table No. 3: Rank Position of students in Medical colleges
College Name Below
500
500 to
1000
1000 to
2000
2000 to
5000
Above
5000
GMC, TVM 58.33 25.00 8.33 8.33 0.00
CSIMC, Karakonam 0.00 10.00 35.00 35.00 20.00
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 2.44 12.20 43.90 29.27 12.20
58% of students in Government Medical College are under the category of
below 500 rank. No student got admission in the CSI Medical College under
this category. SG Medical College has only a nominal representation, ie
2.4% in this category. Table indicates that no students got admission in Govt
Medical College whose ranking position was above 5000. This includes
students falling under reservation. At the same time 16 percentage of
students got admission in self financing colleges (CSIMC, Karakonam and
SGMC, Venjaramoodu) who got category above 5000 rank. Moreover, 83.3
percentage of students in the Government College comes under below
1000 category. But it is only 10% in CSI Medical College and 14.6% in SG
Medical College in the same category. It refers to the difference in the
quality of students in the Government and self financing Medical Colleges.
The situation in the Engineering College is also similar to this
condition. Table No. 3 indicates the difference in the rank position of the
189
students in government and self financing engineering colleges. 11.9% of
students in the government college come under the category of below
1000. But no student got admission from this category in the two self
financing colleges under study. 64.2% of students in the government college
got below 10000 rank; on the other hand it is only 2.86% in the University
College of Engineering and 0% in the STIST. When we take care of students
who got rank above 15000, there are only 4.7% in the government college
and it is 31.4% in University College and 83.3% in STIST.
Table No.4: Rank Position of Students in Engineering Colleges
College Name Below
1000
1000 to
5000
5000 to
10000
10000 to
15000
Above
15000
CE,Tvm 11.90 52.38 19.05 11.90 4.76
UCE, Kariavattom 0.00 2.86 37.14 28.57 31.43
STIST, Kazhakuttam 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33
b) Marks Scored in the Qualifying Examination (Plus Two)
The quality of students in the self financing and government colleges are
also evaluated in this survey on the basis of their marks in the qualifying
examination (Plus Two). The comparison of students in the self financing
and government colleges proves the lower quality of students in self
financing colleges. Table No. 4 explains this distinction.
Table No. 5: Percentage of Plus Two Marks (Medical College)
College Name Below
80
80 to
84
85 to
89
90 to
94
95 &
Above
Govt. Medical College, Tvm 0.00 0.00 8.33 41.67 50.00
CSIMC, Karakonam 7.32 9.76 39.02 29.27 14.63
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 2.44 17.07 29.27 36.59 14.63
190
Table shows that the 50 percentage of students in the Government Medical
College scored 95% and above for their plus Two course. But it is only 14.6%
each in two self financing medical colleges. Moreover, no student in the
government medical college has below 85% and only 8.3% of students come
under 85-89 category. 91.6% are scored 90% and above in their qualifying
exam. 56.1% of students in CSI Medical College scored below 90% in their
Plus Two course and it is 48.78% in the case of SG Medical College. 7.3% in
CSI Medical College and 2.4% in SG Medical College scored below 80%.
Table No. 5 says that self financing engineering colleges failed to
attract the qualitatively superior students. 23.4% of students in the
government college got 95 and above percentage of marks for their Plus
Two course. It is 53.1% in the category of 90 and above. There is only 9.1%
in the category of below 80. In STIST 34.15% of students have marks below
80% for their Plus Two course and no students got 95% and above. 82.8% in
this college are in the category of below 85%. In the case of University
College of Engineering only 5.7% are above 95% category. But it has 45.9%
of students 90 and above category.
Table No.6: Percentage of Plus Two Marks (Engineering College)
College Name Below
80 80 to 84 85 to 89 90 to 94
95 &
Above
CE, Tvm 9.15 22.77 14.89 29.79 23.40
UCE, Kariavattom 12.57 14.29 27.14 40.29 5.71
STIST 34.15 48.78 14.63 2.44 0.00
c) Backlog
To assess the quality of students admitted, backlog of papers of the
students studying in govt and self financing colleges was taken as this
indicates the quality of students, institution and teaching. Table 6 shows the
backlog status of students and its difference between govt and self
financing institutions. Only 4% of students have backlog papers in Govt
Medical College. But its percentage in CSI Medical College is 26 and SG
191
Medical College it is 21. It is 16% in the case of govt engineering college and
38 and 55 percentage in University College of Engineering and STIST
respectively. When we compare the medical and engineering sector, the
statistics shows that the number of backlog is very high in engineering field
than medical field.
Table No.7: Backlog Papers
College Name Yes No
Govt Medical College, Tvm 04 96
CSI MC, Karakonam 26 74
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 21 79
CET 16 84
UCE, Kariavattom 38 62
STIST, Kazhakuttam 55 45
To evaluate the quality of students in the self financing medical and
engineering colleges on the basis of their rank position in state entrance
examination and the percentage of their Plus Two marks, there is a huge
difference with government colleges. Quality of students has a predominant
role to maintain the quality of institution. In that sense, it is clear that the
self financing medical and engineering colleges cannot maintain higher
quality, at least in the case of the students admitted there and their
performance in these colleges.
2. Equity, Social Justice and class character of self financing
professional education
Growth of self financing colleges is viewed differently by its critics and
supporters. For its protagonists, self financing colleges enhance quality of
education, provide job opportunities, ensure competition and encourage
investment. The opponents of this view raise questions of quality, equity
and justice as the basic concerns. They apprehended that liberalization of
professional education would wash away social justice from the education
sector and the monopolization of education by the rich.
192
The powerful middle class of Kerala which is striving for better
quality of life usually find the intervening state as a nuisance. The middle
class has strong predilections for new economic reforms and generally, this
new middle class is favouring privatization in general and privatization of
higher education in particular.
a) Capitation Fee
Capitation fee is an evil in self financing education. As it is an illegal practice,
both students and managements are not ready to reveal about the capitation
fee in any self financing institutions. Even though, the survey explore that the
practice of capitation fee is happening even now in these institutions. Table 7
indicates that capitation fee is almost compulsory to get an admission in NRI
and Management Quota. Some students got admission in open merit and
reservation categories are also revealed that they have given capitation fee for
getting admission violating all rules and regulations.
Table No.8: Capitation fee
College Name
Open Merit Reservation NRI MGT
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
CSIMC, Karakonam 0 100 14 86 32 68 38 62
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 0 100 18 82 28 72 33 67
UCE, Kariavattom 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100
STIST, Kazhakuttam 14 86 25 75 38 62 44 56
Table 7 indicates that 32% of NRI quota students and 38% of management
quota students in CSI Medical College agree that they have given capitation
fee for admission. This is more or less similar in the case of SG Medical
College also, because the table shows that 28% of NRI quota and 33% of
management quota students paid capitation fee. Engineering sector is also
not free from this practice. The students got admission in NRI (38%) and
management quota (44%) in STIST revealed that they have given capitation
fee. It does not mean that the remaining students in these colleges have not
given capitation; the reality is they are not ready to reveal this matter. It is
193
very interesting to see that no student in the university self financing
college opined that they have given capitation fee. Thus the practice of
capitation fee is happening only in private self financing sector. It is very
vital to see 14% of students got admission in open merit and 25% of
students got admission in reservation category in STIST said that they have
given capitation fee. 14% in CSI Medical College and 18% in SG Medical
College of students got admission in reservation category replied they have
given capitation fee.
b) Income Level of Parents
Income level of parents shows that the class character of the self financing
professional education, especially in management quota and NRI quota.
There is no doubt that the higher professional education, particular medical
and engineering is representing an affluent section of society. Majority of
the parents of students in these institutions belong to upper middle class.
However, the government colleges are representing the different section of
society through different methods like reservation. But in the case of self
financing institutions, NRI and management quota are not affordable to a
common man. It is very visible in the Table No 8.
Table No.9: NRI-MGT Quota Admission and Annual Income of Parents
College Name
NRI MGT
Below 0.5
Lakh
0.5 to
2.5 Lakh
2.5 to 5
Lakh
Above 5
Lakh
Below
0.5
Lakh
0.5 to
2.5 Lakh
2.5 to 5
Lakh
Above 5
Lakh
CSIMC,
Karakonam 0 0 50 50 8 46 15 31
SGMC,
Venjaramoodu 0 0 70 30 0 0 56 44
UCE, Kariavattom 0 0 90 10 43 14 29 14
STIST,
Kazhakuttam 0 0 10 90 20 0 60 20
From the above table it is clear that no student got admission in NRI quota
in these 4 institutions whose parents have less than 2.5 lakh rupees as
194
annual income. Moreover, 50% in CSI Medical College, 30% in SG Medical
College and 90% in STIST are under the category of above 5 Lakh. When
compared with other institutions, it is a good indicator that only 10% belong
to above 5 lakh category. The management quota admission also supports
the class character of the self financing education. However, the University
college of Engineering is an exception. 43% of students got admission in
management quota come under the below 0.5 lakh category. It shows the
self financing education in govt/university sector is better than the private.
Only 8% of students got admission in management quota under the
category of below 0.5 lakh in CSI Medical College and it is 0% in SG Medical
College. 80% of students in STIST come under the category of 2.5 lakh and
above. Notably, 44% in SG Medical College and 31% in CSI Medical College
have 5 lakh and above annual income. It is only 14% in University College of
Engineering and 20% in STIST. It can say that the class character of self
financing medical education is more rigid than the engineering sector.
c) Employment/Profession of Parent
Besides the annual income of the parents, their employment/profession is
also very important to understand the social status. Table No 9 analyses the
admission wise employment/profession of parent.
Table No.10: Occupation of Parent (category wise)
Name of
College Open Merit Reservation NRI MGT
Go
vt
Pri
va
te
Bu
sin
ess
NR
I
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
Go
vt
Pri
va
te
Bu
sin
ess
NR
I
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
Go
vt
Pri
va
te
Bu
sin
ess
NR
I
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
Go
vt
Pri
va
te
Bu
sin
ess
NR
I
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
GMC 63 13 25 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CSIMC 63 25 6 6 0 86 14 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 15 54 31 0 0
SGM C 52 16 16 16 0 50 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 100 0 11 22 67 0 0
CET 21 60 9 7 2 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UCE 31 50 12 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 29 57 14 0 0
STIST 61 22 17 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 8 50 33 8 0
195
Table underlines the domination of govt job in open merit both in govt and
self financing colleges. In Govt Medical College, 63% of parents of students
in open merit are the govt employees. The statistics is same in the case of
CSI Medical College. It is 52% in SG Medical College, 21% in Govt
engineering college, 31% in University College of Engineering and 61% in
STIST. Business, private job and NRI parents in the open merit is very low in
medical colleges and is comparatively high in engineering colleges except
private self financing engineering college. It is not a good sign to see that
there is no representation of farmer/agriculture sector. The representation
of farmer/agriculture is limited only in the category of open merit, that too
only in two colleges, ie. College of Engineering and University College of
Engineering; but it is only nominal, ie., 2% and 4% respectively. The
employment of parents of students, those who got admission in
management quota in self financing medical and engineering colleges,
indicates the difference with open merit.
Only 15% of parents have government employment in the
management quota in CSI Medical College and remaining 85% have private
job and business. In SG Medical College, 11% have government employment
and remaining 89% comes under private job and business. In STIST, 8% have
only government job and 83% have private job or business. Table No 10 is
capable to give an overall idea about economic background of the students
in government and self financing colleges.
Table No. 11: Annual Income of Parent (category wise)
College Name Below
0.5 Lakh
0.5 to 2.5
Lakh
2.5 to 5
Lakh
Above 5
Lakh
Govt Medical College, Tvm 16.7 41.7 31.7 10
CSIMC, Karakonam 12.4 30.8 26.1 30.8
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 14.7 34.0 24.9 26.4
CET 44.7 34.0 14.9 6.4
UCE, Kariavattom 27.3 36.4 24.2 12.1
STIST, Kazhakuttam 18.9 27.0 27.8 26.2
The above table indicates that the number of low income is high in
government sector and high income students are more accommodated by
self financing sector. It is only 10% in Government Medical College, whereas
it is 30.8% and 26.4% in CSI
respectively. In the case of
category of below 0.5 Lakh. There is only 6.4% under the category of above
5 lakh. But in the case of STIST, it is 18.9% and 26.9% respectively.
d) Education Loan
Another parameter for analysing the economic dimension of self
education is education loan. The education loan is providing an opportunity
to attain higher professional education even for poor students. The
supporters of self financing education argue that every student has equal
opportunity in self financin
who do not have economic capability can take education loan to meet their
expenditure. But the survey proves that this argument is not true. Those
who meet their expenditure by education loan are only applicabl
merit in self financing colleges. There is only a very minimum number in
management quota, actually which constitute the half of the total seats.
Following graph explain this reality.
Figure No.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Open Merit
56
78
90
CSIMC, Karakonam
UCE, Kariavattom
196
The above table indicates that the number of low income is high in
government sector and high income students are more accommodated by
self financing sector. It is only 10% in Government Medical College, whereas
it is 30.8% and 26.4% in CSI Medical College and SG M
respectively. In the case of College of Engineering, 44.7% come under the
category of below 0.5 Lakh. There is only 6.4% under the category of above
5 lakh. But in the case of STIST, it is 18.9% and 26.9% respectively.
Education Loan
Another parameter for analysing the economic dimension of self
education is education loan. The education loan is providing an opportunity
to attain higher professional education even for poor students. The
supporters of self financing education argue that every student has equal
opportunity in self financing sector whether they are poor or rich. Those
who do not have economic capability can take education loan to meet their
expenditure. But the survey proves that this argument is not true. Those
who meet their expenditure by education loan are only applicabl
merit in self financing colleges. There is only a very minimum number in
management quota, actually which constitute the half of the total seats.
Following graph explain this reality.
Admission wise Education loan in Self Financing Colleges
Open Merit Resevation NRI MGT
19
0
25
11
0
11
90
10
0
62
15
0
CSIMC, Karakonam SGMC, Venjaramoodu
UCE, Kariavattom STIST, Kazhakuttam
The above table indicates that the number of low income is high in
government sector and high income students are more accommodated by
self financing sector. It is only 10% in Government Medical College, whereas
Medical College
gineering, 44.7% come under the
category of below 0.5 Lakh. There is only 6.4% under the category of above
5 lakh. But in the case of STIST, it is 18.9% and 26.9% respectively.
Another parameter for analysing the economic dimension of self financing
education is education loan. The education loan is providing an opportunity
to attain higher professional education even for poor students. The
supporters of self financing education argue that every student has equal
g sector whether they are poor or rich. Those
who do not have economic capability can take education loan to meet their
expenditure. But the survey proves that this argument is not true. Those
who meet their expenditure by education loan are only applicable for open
merit in self financing colleges. There is only a very minimum number in
management quota, actually which constitute the half of the total seats.
Financing Colleges
MGT
0
23
SGMC, Venjaramoodu
STIST, Kazhakuttam
197
From among the total students, those who availed education loan in CSI
Medical College 56% is in the category of open merit, 19% comes under the
category of reservation and remaining 25% is in the management quota. In
SG Medical College 78% of the beneficiaries of education loan got admission
in open merit and 11% in reservation category. The remaining 11% only got
admission in management quota. In the case of University College of
Engineering, none from the management/NRI quota availed education loan.
The open merit and reservation category constitute 77% in STIST. The
remaining 23% are in management quota. Notably, there is no
representation in NRI quota in these 3 colleges as the beneficiary of
education loan.
The survey explores different class dimensions of the self financing
education, especially in medical and engineering. It evaluates the economic
mobilization of lower class and serves the interest of the upper class. Even
though liberalization of education helps to increase the number of
professional education institutions, it prevents the lower class from getting
admission, making education accessible only to wards of upper and upper
middle class. The unbridled growth of self financing colleges not only
affects the poor students, but in the long time it can pose many threats to
the society as a whole. It is true that self financing education denies the
right to education to the poor people. It also creates a situation in which the
professional education is monopolized by the affluent sections. It resembles
the time of feudalism with a subtle difference that while in the older system
caste was used for discrimination of people and denial of education to the
majority; it is the class factor which acts as the criteria of discrimination in
the contemporary times. However, in both cases denial of the basic rights is
most glaring.
3. Self financing education: Attitude of students and their awareness
The self financing professional education, particularly medical and
engineering sector, is a topic of hot debates both in academic and popular
circles. It has involved a lot of issues like legal, constitutional, political,
economic, minority rights etc. However, the students in concerned sector
are not aware about the issues well. Moreover, many students do not have
198
a minimum knowledge about the difference in the fee structure between
government and self financing. It is very important to analyse how they see
this issue and their opinion about the self financing education. Their
attitude to concerned subject and profession is also very vital.
a) Transfer
The survey asked a question: would they prefer a transfer from the present
to another institution. The question was tossed to discern information
regarding their satisfactory level. Table No. 11 tell about the satisfaction of
students in their institution.
Table No.12: Preference of Transfer
College Name Yes No
Govt Medi College, Tvm 0 100
CSIMC, Karakonam 44 56
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 25 75
CET 9 91
UCE, Kariavattom 48 52
STIST, Kazhakuttam 28 72
From the selected samples in the govt medical college, no one prefers a
transfer to any other institution. But 44% of students in the CSI Medical
College prefer a transfer to other institutions if they are given an
opportunity. 25% of students in the SG Medical College would like a transfer
if they got an opportunity. It is only 9% of students who demand a change
from their institution in College of Engineering. 48% of students in
University College of Engineering and 28% of students in STIST favour with a
transfer. The dissatisfaction of the students may be because of many
reasons like low quality of institution, lack of adequate infrastructural
facilities, high fee and any other practical inconvenience. But the fact that
199
the so called argument in favour of self financing education likes it will give
quality, efficiency and development is not correct. That is why a
considerable number of students in self financing colleges are dissatisfied
there and seek a transfer.
b) Higher Studies
The attitude of students to their profession and subject in the self financing
colleges is another matter of debate. Table No 12 shows the difference in
the attitude of students in govt and self financing colleges.
Table No.13: Higher Studies in the same Profession
College Name Yes No
Govt Medical College, Tvm 100 0
CSIMC, Karakonam 77 23
SGMC, Venjaramoodu 85 15
CET 88 12
UCE, Kariavattom 66 34
STIST, Kazhakuttam 55 45
All the students in the government medical college would like to go for
higher studies in the same profession. 23% of students in the CSI Medical
College and 15% of students in the SG Medical College would not like to go
for higher studies in the same profession. In the same matter, the number
in engineering sector is very high. Even in govt engineering college, 12% of
students do not want to go for higher education or at least in the same
profession. The percentage is very high in self financing engineering college.
It is 34 and 45 in University College of Engineering and STIST respectively.
T he result of the survey indicates that the majority of the students
support self financing institution in govt sector or controlled by the govt.
30% of students express that self financing education institutions should be
in govt sector. 13% of students support self financing institution in aided
sector. 32% opined that self financing education institutions should be
controlled by the govt. only 6% of students suppo
institutions without any governmental control. 19% did not response to this
question. The diagram given below refers the opinion of the students.
Figure No.2
When we set aside the non respondents, it is clear that only 7.4% of students
support private self financing education. The popular propagation in favour of
private sector or privatisation of education does not have a popular support
other than a microscop
The main attraction of any professional course is its employability.
The self financing professional education is also propagating a reputed job
market. But the critics argue that low quality and high quantity will
negatively affect the employability of st
education institutions, especially in engineering sector where the
competition is very high. The survey is also analysed the opinion of the
students about the employability of their course. A considerable number of
students in the self financing engineering college think their course is not
Private Sector
6%
200
in govt sector. 13% of students support self financing institution in aided
sector. 32% opined that self financing education institutions should be
controlled by the govt. only 6% of students support self financing
institutions without any governmental control. 19% did not response to this
question. The diagram given below refers the opinion of the students.
Figure No.2 Opinion about Self Financing Education
When we set aside the non respondents, it is clear that only 7.4% of students
support private self financing education. The popular propagation in favour of
private sector or privatisation of education does not have a popular support
other than a microscopic minority of private entrepreneurs.
The main attraction of any professional course is its employability.
The self financing professional education is also propagating a reputed job
market. But the critics argue that low quality and high quantity will
negatively affect the employability of students in the self financing
education institutions, especially in engineering sector where the
competition is very high. The survey is also analysed the opinion of the
students about the employability of their course. A considerable number of
the self financing engineering college think their course is not
Govt. Sector
30%
Aided Sector
13%
Controled by
the Govt.
32%
Private Sector
6%
No Opinion
19%
in govt sector. 13% of students support self financing institution in aided
sector. 32% opined that self financing education institutions should be
rt self financing
institutions without any governmental control. 19% did not response to this
question. The diagram given below refers the opinion of the students.
Opinion about Self Financing Education
When we set aside the non respondents, it is clear that only 7.4% of students
support private self financing education. The popular propagation in favour of
private sector or privatisation of education does not have a popular support
The main attraction of any professional course is its employability.
The self financing professional education is also propagating a reputed job
market. But the critics argue that low quality and high quantity will
udents in the self financing
education institutions, especially in engineering sector where the
competition is very high. The survey is also analysed the opinion of the
students about the employability of their course. A considerable number of
the self financing engineering college think their course is not
that much of employable. Comparatively, it is very minimum in medical
colleges. Even students in govt engineering college opined that they are not
sure about employment. The chart given below
percentage of students those who think their course is not employable.
Figure No. 3: Employab
No students in Government Medical College think their course is not
employable. 5% of students are belonging in C
in SG Medical College have the opinion that their course in not more
employable. Comparatively the students in engineering colleges are very
high in this matter. 15% of students are in
and 41 percentage in University College
respectively.
This chapter has highlighted the attempts of different ruling front
(UDF and LDF) in Kerala to
0%
41%
201
that much of employable. Comparatively, it is very minimum in medical
colleges. Even students in govt engineering college opined that they are not
sure about employment. The chart given below indicates the college wise
percentage of students those who think their course is not employable.
Figure No. 3: Employability of Course
No students in Government Medical College think their course is not
employable. 5% of students are belonging in CSI Medical College and 10 %
have the opinion that their course in not more
employable. Comparatively the students in engineering colleges are very
high in this matter. 15% of students are in College of engineering and 29
ntage in University College of Engineering and STIST
has highlighted the attempts of different ruling front
to contain the effects of Indian judiciary’s incursions
5% 10%15%
29%
GMC, Tvm
CSIMC, Karakonam
SGMC, Venjaramoodu
Got. Eng TVM
UCE, Kariavattom
STIST, Kazhakuttam
that much of employable. Comparatively, it is very minimum in medical
colleges. Even students in govt engineering college opined that they are not
indicates the college wise
percentage of students those who think their course is not employable.
No students in Government Medical College think their course is not
and 10 %
have the opinion that their course in not more
employable. Comparatively the students in engineering colleges are very
engineering and 29
and STIST
has highlighted the attempts of different ruling fronts
the effects of Indian judiciary’s incursions
SGMC, Venjaramoodu
202
into the higher education policy making domain of the governments. As
noted, higher education policy making involves all the three organs of the
State: legislature, executive and higher judiciary (the High Courts and the
Supreme Courts). As happened in all democracies including India, ‘the
courts have tended to move from the byways onto the highways of policy
making’ (Horowitz 1977: 9). The Inamdar Case has incontrovertibly testified
that the courts have not only laid on policy in higher education, but also
engaged in the nitty-gritty of the implementation of policies. The survey
found out the poor quality of students enrolled in self financing institutions;
lack of equity and social justice in student enrollment; and higher skewness
in student enrollment in favour of the affluent middle class.
The aftermath of this judicial interference is the absence of a
differential treatment of the weaker sections, or what John Rawls called a
‘difference principle’. When education is commodified, when the fiscal
investment in higher education sector is plummeting, when educational
qualification becomes the main factor for every youth to compete in the job
market, and when globalisation sets the law of market to determine the life
of all including the poor, merit, social justice and quality in higher education
is compromised. It should be emphasised that half of the world’s poor
dwell in India and increasing privatization/proliferation of self financing
institutions restrict poor’s access to higher education.
1 The government organized a committee, under the chairpersonship of retired High
Court judge, Justice P, A Muhammad and it known as Muhammad Committee
2 India has the biggest number of medical colleges including highest number of medical
seats. According to the census of 2000, there are 181 medical colleges in India, out of
which 26 has not been approved by the (AIME). 19,613 medical seats are available in
India per annum, out of this 64.7% in government sector and 35.3% in private sector.