It has been a long and intricate battle but victory looks almost certain. But with the right the mind set, the sector could have fared much better.
The greatest stumbling block, which frustrated the potential of the tertiary sector, has been the prolonged experiment of placing both short-term and long-term human resource developments on one single and predominantly academically inclined university. The one-generalist university was designed for all intents and purposes to house all faculties, to be and do everything. No need for one to pass a harsh judgement on this bold attempt because this was the beginning and the laying of the foundation needed for purposes of getting the country up on its feet. This was to answer an urgent call after suffering neglect during the 80 yearlong colonial periods.
To be frank and honest, the university acquitted itself fairly well especially in terms of supplying the man power needed to run government machinery, making it possible for the public service to achieve localisation of its human resource requirements sooner than anticipated. Nonetheless, the one nation, one university ‘policy’ was a brave and audacious undertaking but not without its limitations. There was no way of escaping the heavy weight that came with running and managing an overcrowded academic programme. Programmes obviously competed for attention. Some gained while others lost attention. There was an over investment in some areas satisfying immediate needs and under investment in other critical areas (with hindsight benefit) required for future sustainability.
The university had to fulfil pressing needs of the moment and in the process lost sight of the need to make a provision for a sustainable future.
This is explained by overproduction achieved in the humanities, law and social sciences and programmes and under production or no production in areas of research and innovation, which could be fulfilling the demands of the 21st century. Now the 21st century is upon us and its demands should be met as a matter of urgency.
The one university experiment, which ran for a long period, experienced capacity constraints, which adversely altered the future of those students who could not satisfy requirements for admission. Space became a big challenge with the one nation one university arrangement. There were many young aspiring university students who sought university space but few were chosen. To address the challenge of limited space, stringent requirements were put in place to manage the overwhelming numbers seeking university opportunities. One of the requirements was a credit in the English language. The requirement, with the benefit of hindsight, is considered unfair and somewhat ridiculous. But it made perfect sense to a nation that treated English with so much reverence. After all, society expected university graduates to walk out of the university with some degree of proficiency in English. It was inconceivable to think otherwise. The use of English language to manage the crowd seeking university education was deemed appropriate because as a second language to almost all students, English was too difficult to navigate. It was therefore an effective tool in terms of separating wheat from chaff.
Many students who had gotten good grades in other subject areas were turned away on account of achieving low grades in English. As a key enabler, the language opened doors for the selected few while painfully shutting out the majority of students hungry for university education and training. University opportunities became a privilege of the few while those who could not make the cut were relegated to a life of doom and gloom. At the time without a university qualification, securing a lucrative job was almost impossible.
The roots of poverty and deprivation could be traced to the issue of limited university opportunities. A different approach of setting up specialised universities could have quickly expanded access to universities while also addressing issues of quality, relevance and equity. Some of the stringent requirements demanded by an academically skewed university do not matter in a practical, skills-oriented institution.
The concept of specialised universities in the mould of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Harvard Graduate Echool of Education (HGSE), Harvard University of Law and others elsewhere is beginning to gain currency in our jurisdiction in conformity with the goal of achieving a transformative agenda geared towards the creation of a much more diversified and information driven economy. But specialised universities should have arrived earlier to avoid a desperate situation where now the goal of expanding employment opportunities through economic diversification is limping on account of lack of depth and skilled personnel. The frantic attempt of building a ship while busy sailing has ensued.
The establishment of specialised universities is ideal because these are data driven universities, predicated upon a desire to close identified gaps in the job market. Presently, there is a void in the fields of research and innovation, demanding increased investments in these critical fields. The one lesson learnt the bitter way is that university education and training should no longer be treated as a monopoly of the few. Drastic measures should be taken to widen opportunities on the tertiary front and the private sector should rise to the challenge and increase its participation. Universities should open doors to students gifted in one or two subjects and the focus on the point system/average performance across subjects should be swept away.
The points system is exclusive in nature. The days of heavy reliance on the government for provision of tertiary education are over and it is time for the private sector to rise and shine and occupy a huge chunk of the tertiary space. Developments would have taken a different trajectory if we had had the foresight to open the tertiary space in the formative days of our freedom as a people. But it is better late than never!
