The need for national policy based on ground realities in higher education

By Sujata Gamage

We often hear the lament that 120,000 students qualify and only 20,000 gain admissions for universities in Sri Lanka. The real picture is more diverse and more promising. It is high time the Ministry for Higher Education took stock of the ground reality in higher education and developed a national policy accordingly.

Higher education in Sri Lanka is no longer synonymous with a degree program at one of the 14 public universities with admissions mediated by the University Grants Commission (UGC). A healthy mix of public and private alternative have evolved and are continuing evolve.

This mix includes several public institutions that admit students outside of the UGC admission system, with the latest being the Kotelawala Defense University which opened its doors to civilians in 2011.

These public institutions charge nominal to significant amounts as tuition. Initial estimates show that the enrolments for degree or degree-comparable programs at these alternative, public or private, to be comparable to those of the UGC-mediated public university system.

Degrees awarded in 2010/2011

Figures are available for graduate output. In the 2010/2011 period, nearly 22,000 degrees and degree-comparable qualifications were awarded in Sri Lanka. Of these, 12,604 degrees were awarded by the 14 public UGC institutions. 10 public-non-UGC institutions awarded 4,229 degrees and 27 private institutions awarded 2744.

If we use the term ‘graduateship’ for degree-comparable qualifications awarded by professional institutes, 1,500+ received graduateships in various professions. The bulk of the graduateships were awarded by professional associations in accounting, marketing and human resource management.  Smaller contributions were made by professional institutes in architecture, chemistry, computer science and finance. Overall, the degrees or degree-comparables awarded by the alternative system accounted for 40% of the total.

Access to alternatives

What about access to these alternatives? Sri Lanka is now classified by the World Bank as a lower middle income country. At whatever income level, access to tertiary education is an issue for policymakers.

Private institutions obviously have to charge fees. Public (non-UGC) institutions are able to charge nominal to low fees due to the fact that state subsidies in terms of land and buildings and operational grants are available to these institutions.  Access to these for-fee institutions in Sri Lanka, at whatever level of fee, has to be viewed in terms of world-wide trends and local realities.

In developed countries such as USA, UK, Europe and USA, almost all higher education enrolments are in public or private-non-profit institutions.  For example, in USA, enrolments in tertiary institutions in 2010 were reported to be 19.4 million students with 75% in public institutions, 20% in private non-profits and 5% in private for-profits.  

In almost all developed countries, including the USA, financial support and oversight for public institutions are provided by the state but the admission process and the overall management is largely determined by the institutions themselves. Typically, about one-third of operational expenses are recovered through fees for tuition charged to students with government offering students loans on generous terms to students.

To widen access to higher education, public universities in developing countries too are adopting this model of ‘public funding with some student inputs’ from the developed world. In 1997, the Chinese government allowed their public universities to charge fees to cover 25% of operating costs. As a result, university enrolments in China tripled from 6.1 million to 19 million in the six years spanning 1997-2003.

Neighbouring India and Bangladesh too have introduced regulatory frameworks that encourage private investments. India has always had a system of private colleges affiliated with public universities. Subsequent to the enactment of private universities act in 2003, Indian UGC reported 107 private universities in 2012.

Similarly, in Bangladesh, since the enactment of the private higher education act in 1992, the percent of private institutions has risen to 62% of the total. Medical colleges in Chittagong, for example, now attract a sizeable Sri Lank student population.

What is noteworthy about policies in these countries is their astuteness in combining public and private investments to increase overall access to higher education. The policy stance of the Ministry of Higher Education and the University Grants Commission in this regard is disappointing to say the least.

‘Disappointing’ Ministry of Higher Education

The Ministry of Higher Education in Sri Lanka is yet to come up with a comprehensive policy for higher education Sri Lanka. Yes, the Government seems to acknowledge the existence of private institutions, but, there is no policy to ride on these developments to increase overall access and quality.  

There is pressure on public universities to increase intake every year with no parallel increases in funding. A national policy may consider policies to encourage private universities to offer more merit-based scholarships to low-income students by giving them tax concessions, low interest loans or land and building facilities.





We already have an example in the case of Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology (SLIIT) which received a grant of Rs. 500 million from the Mahapola fund to initiate it. Today, SLIIT operates as a highly successful non-profit, perhaps the only non-profit degree-warding private institution in Sri Lanka. National Institute of Business Management is another example. It operates as semi-autonomous public institution with partial funding from the public purse.

What we need is a national framework where higher education opportunities with a range of funding options are nurtured and monitored by the Ministry of Higher Education. Existing public institutions can continue to receive public funding with nominal or no student inputs.

Other institutions, whether public owned or privately owned, may receive public funding commensurate with their role in increasing access to low-income students or contribution to national goals. Some institutions may choose to operate with no public funding. A public perception survey is bound to show that the general public is ahead of the Government in this regard.



More details will be presented in a series to be published in the Sunday Education Times from 3 February.

(The writer holds a PhD MPA and is a Team Leader for the Human Capital Research Program, LIRNEasia – www.lirneasia.net/research/hcr)