The 10% question

Mandating quota for private institutions makes little sense

India’s higher education system is plagued by a host of problems, ranging from inadequate facilities to sub-par faculty, as a result of which very few make it to the top of credible global rankings. Indeed, surveys have shown that the bulk of Indian graduates are barely employable. Mandating a 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections (EWS), defined generously as a family with an annual income of less than Rs 8 lakh, is likely to exacerbate this crisis. It can be argued that the government is entitled to implement this quota in centrally-funded institutions, though the wisdom of doing so is open to debate, and has created consternation across resource-starved public universities. But to mandate the quota for private sector institutions — both aided and unaided ones — which the government plans to activate through a Bill in the upcoming session of Parliament, is to destabilise the entire eco-system for higher education in lasting ways.

 
Over the past two decades, the private sector has expanded its presence significantly in higher education, so much so that the earlier shortage of university seats for school-leavers has diminished. Though their quality is admittedly variable owing to an inefficient regulatory environment, these institutions have widened the market for higher education. Those that are autonomous do not have quota restrictions, while those affiliated to state or central universities or institutions of higher education do. Both types of institutions will now find themselves being forced to adjust, within a space of a few months, to admitting students under the EWS section. For both affiliated and autonomous institutes this expansion will mean adding seats and related facilities, both of which will entail a cost.

 
As with publicly funded and aided universities, which, too, will not be receiving money to expand their admissions to accommodate the additional quota, private institutions will probably be forced to raise fees from full fee-paying general quota students to cross-subsidise those from the EWS category. Some level of cross subsidy does occur because most private institutions of higher learning offer scholarships, subsidies or discounts for economically weaker students. The point to stress, however, is that these incentives are merit-based. An EWS quota will create a non-level playing field between such genuine merit scholars from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who enter via the quota.

 

In 2005, an 11-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled out quotas for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes in private unaided colleges. The apex court did, however, allow a 15 per cent quota for non-resident Indian students but provided the higher fees that were charged from such students were used as a cross-subsidy for poorer students. This provides a handy blueprint if the government is truly concerned about social empowerment. Expanding the range of merit-based scholarships — and the government already has a range of such incentives — would ensure that those who cannot afford high-quality education gain access to it and, more importantly, are able to complete a degree. Without providing additional funds for public universities and imposing a blanket quota on private ones, it is difficult to escape the view that this provision is focused on electoral gains rather than truly empowering economically weaker students.