Kumar David Writes "Pros and cons of a Postgrad University"
Sunday 09 September 2012
There have been newspaper reports that the two ministers in charge of education are preparing a cabinet paper proposing the establishment of a postgraduate university (PGU). This is premature; any such initiative must be preceded by an extended period of study by a suitable committee which will draft a green paper for public consultation, to be followed by a white paper, and only then should legislation be considered. I do admit that I am worried that the ministers will rush into things, the full impact of which they cannot grasp, and take steps that are harmful and irreversible. I am writing this piece to argue for a careful, consultative and measured approach.
Sunday 09 September 2012There have been newspaper reports that the two ministers in charge of education are preparing a cabinet paper proposing the establishment of a postgraduate university (PGU). This is premature; any such initiative must be preceded by an extended period of study by a suitable committee which will draft a green paper for public consultation, to be followed by a white paper, and only then should legislation be considered. I do admit that I am worried that the ministers will rush into things, the full impact of which they cannot grasp, and take steps that are harmful and irreversible. I am writing this piece to argue for a careful, consultative and measured approach.
Let us get some meat on the plate first; what is a postgraduate university? It is a university where enrolment will be for ordinary “taught Master’s” degrees (MA, MSc, LLM, MBA and similar), research Master’s (MPhil) which are thought of as about half to two thirds as onerous as a doctorate, and of course PhD research degrees. The other aspect of a PGU is that it is an intensely research active institution. So the blanket definition is that in a PGU, research predominates over teaching, while in these days of mass enrolment, teaching has to predominate over research in a conventional university though the old formula is that both are equally important.
Pros, cons and effects
Establishing a PGU will have a profound effect on the existing universities in terms of sharing of research funds (the cake in Lanka is very small), staff relocations, disbursement of research students and notions of elitism. Another important concern is that the PGU will not have adequate staff resources, unless it is enormous which it cannot be, to service Master’s programmes and an adequate complement of taught course that these days forms the foundation portion of a research degree. In olden times when ancients like me did PhDs, I well remember Professor Cory threw me into the lab, and said, “You must be that fellow, David, from Ceylon. That’s the lab, here is your desk, come see me in three years when you’ve written your thesis.” Well, not quite, but almost. These days there are lots of coursework and many foundation subjects to give candidates a broad-base in the domain before delving into a narrow thesis topic. The new way is better since today’s mass PhD is not a reward of an original contribution to knowledge but recognition of training in research methodology. I guess this is more aligned to the needs of the times.
The taught components will make the PGU dependent on staff expertise spread out in existing universities since it cannot include a wide range of expertise. Take communication and computing as a broad PhD field that the PGU wants to develop. The coursework component must provide, apart from three or four modules in advanced communication theory and computer networking, for subjects like photonics, microprocessor applications, advanced mathematics and statistics, software engineering, energy systems, design and industrial engineering. It is out of the question to expect a PGU in little Lanka to have in-house expertise to dish out what Harvard or Cambridge can ferret out from somewhere inside the university. Our PGU will have to draw upon other universities for this range of expertise.
This is not peculiar to technology. Take economics as another example. Say the PGU wants to develop macroeconomics as an area of excellence. The taught components will have to include economic history, classical economics, Marx, Austrian garbage, Walrus, Marshal, mathematical economics, Keynes-Sraffa-Minsky, the monetarists, trade, investment, business and international economics. On a Lankan scale it is not possible to get this collection of expertise within one roof. However if one trawls across the system one may find a goodly portion of it scattered around. My point from both the technical and economics examples is this; the PGU and the existing universities must be in close symbiosis. It is not that this cannot be done but that it has to be achieved by careful planning (teaching schedules, payment, availability, travelling) and must not be prematurely rushed by cabinet ministers who have little background in what they are doing.
Methodical planning essential
I only took one topic to illustrate that methodical planning is essential. Other obvious matters that spring to mind are concerns such as, will the setting up of a PGU result in existing universities being starved of research students and research funds; how will areas of expertise be identified and focussed, avoiding expensive duplication; will existing universities be turned into pure teaching factories and if so what will be the character of the graduate output; how will staff exchanges and short term assignments be arranged. None of these are insurmountable obstacles and I am not in principle opposed to, or at this stage supportive of a PGU. My case is for a careful, consultative and measured approach.
Staff exchanges and staff allocations between the PGU and the existing universities must be so arranged that not even a shred of elitism is allowed to raise its head. In no way must the notion be allowed to gain ground that research is superior to excellence in teaching. This is a hard battle to win in a class and status blinkered oriental society!
The casual reader would be justified if he suspected that I was an excellent teacher but have little research under my belt; unfortunately this is not the case. My career has been more research than teaching oriented and I have supervised and graduated over a score of PhDs/MPhils, written stacks of papers in coveted journals and even hoodwinked the awardees into letting me have an IEEE Fellowship, which is said to be for jilmart contributions to knowledge. Enough of that, the point is that I speak as one from the research active rather than the teaching excellence side of the academic stables in advocating a measured approach to the PGU concept. So trust me, I have no axe to grind.
Let knowledgeable persons, not uninformed ministers and their immediate bureaucratic stooges, meet in committee and prepare a green paper. Let the university community and the nation at large comment and be consulted extensively; let us have a white paper next. Let not any decision be rushed through in less than two years.
Pros, cons and effects
Establishing a PGU will have a profound effect on the existing universities in terms of sharing of research funds (the cake in Lanka is very small), staff relocations, disbursement of research students and notions of elitism. Another important concern is that the PGU will not have adequate staff resources, unless it is enormous which it cannot be, to service Master’s programmes and an adequate complement of taught course that these days forms the foundation portion of a research degree. In olden times when ancients like me did PhDs, I well remember Professor Cory threw me into the lab, and said, “You must be that fellow, David, from Ceylon. That’s the lab, here is your desk, come see me in three years when you’ve written your thesis.” Well, not quite, but almost. These days there are lots of coursework and many foundation subjects to give candidates a broad-base in the domain before delving into a narrow thesis topic. The new way is better since today’s mass PhD is not a reward of an original contribution to knowledge but recognition of training in research methodology. I guess this is more aligned to the needs of the times.
The taught components will make the PGU dependent on staff expertise spread out in existing universities since it cannot include a wide range of expertise. Take communication and computing as a broad PhD field that the PGU wants to develop. The coursework component must provide, apart from three or four modules in advanced communication theory and computer networking, for subjects like photonics, microprocessor applications, advanced mathematics and statistics, software engineering, energy systems, design and industrial engineering. It is out of the question to expect a PGU in little Lanka to have in-house expertise to dish out what Harvard or Cambridge can ferret out from somewhere inside the university. Our PGU will have to draw upon other universities for this range of expertise.
This is not peculiar to technology. Take economics as another example. Say the PGU wants to develop macroeconomics as an area of excellence. The taught components will have to include economic history, classical economics, Marx, Austrian garbage, Walrus, Marshal, mathematical economics, Keynes-Sraffa-Minsky, the monetarists, trade, investment, business and international economics. On a Lankan scale it is not possible to get this collection of expertise within one roof. However if one trawls across the system one may find a goodly portion of it scattered around. My point from both the technical and economics examples is this; the PGU and the existing universities must be in close symbiosis. It is not that this cannot be done but that it has to be achieved by careful planning (teaching schedules, payment, availability, travelling) and must not be prematurely rushed by cabinet ministers who have little background in what they are doing.
Methodical planning essential
I only took one topic to illustrate that methodical planning is essential. Other obvious matters that spring to mind are concerns such as, will the setting up of a PGU result in existing universities being starved of research students and research funds; how will areas of expertise be identified and focussed, avoiding expensive duplication; will existing universities be turned into pure teaching factories and if so what will be the character of the graduate output; how will staff exchanges and short term assignments be arranged. None of these are insurmountable obstacles and I am not in principle opposed to, or at this stage supportive of a PGU. My case is for a careful, consultative and measured approach.
Staff exchanges and staff allocations between the PGU and the existing universities must be so arranged that not even a shred of elitism is allowed to raise its head. In no way must the notion be allowed to gain ground that research is superior to excellence in teaching. This is a hard battle to win in a class and status blinkered oriental society!
The casual reader would be justified if he suspected that I was an excellent teacher but have little research under my belt; unfortunately this is not the case. My career has been more research than teaching oriented and I have supervised and graduated over a score of PhDs/MPhils, written stacks of papers in coveted journals and even hoodwinked the awardees into letting me have an IEEE Fellowship, which is said to be for jilmart contributions to knowledge. Enough of that, the point is that I speak as one from the research active rather than the teaching excellence side of the academic stables in advocating a measured approach to the PGU concept. So trust me, I have no axe to grind.
Let knowledgeable persons, not uninformed ministers and their immediate bureaucratic stooges, meet in committee and prepare a green paper. Let the university community and the nation at large comment and be consulted extensively; let us have a white paper next. Let not any decision be rushed through in less than two years.
