Higher Education, Social Demand, and Social Equity in India

Abstract

During more than six decades since independence, Indian higher education has undergone remarkable transformation from an elite to a mass system. Today, India possesses a very large and diverse higher education system with programmes in almost all areas of traditional and modern learning. Despite this growth, the issue of deteriorating quality and social inequity in access is still persisting. An insight into prospective higher education demand stresses an explicit focus on the supply parameters that influence the higher education from the perspectives of various stakeholders. These supply parameters include not only sources and quantity but also quality and access. With the increase in the number of students who complete higher secondary schooling, the transition rate from secondary to higher education in absolute terms is also increasing. The demand from disadvantaged groups will rise dramatically through their increased participation along with women.

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

It is widely recognized that higher education promotes social and economic development by enhancing the human and technical capabilities of society. Technical and institutional changes are key components of development, and higher education plays an important role in facilitating such changes. During more than six decades since independence, Indian higher education has undergone remarkable transformation from an elite to a mass system. Today, India possesses a very large and diverse higher education system with programmes in almost all areas of traditional and modern learning (Agarwal 2011; Powar 2011; Joshi and Ahir 2013).

In its size and diversity, India is the third largest higher education system in the world, after China and the USA. Before independence, access to higher education was very limited and elitist. However, there has been an appreciable growth in the number of universities and colleges¹ in India since independence from 25 to 700, respectively, in 1947 to 701 to 35,539 in 2013, respectively. Total enrolment increased from a meager 0.1 to 1923 million in 1947 and 2013, respectively. The number of teaching staff increased from 0.024 to 0.8 million in 1950 and 2011, respectively. The teaching staff² comprises 4 % tutors, 19 % professors, 23 % readers, and 54 % lecturers (UGC 2012). Because of this increase, the student–teacher ratio in India is approximately 24:1, which is much lower than in most developing countries.

The private rate of return to education including higher education in India has shown an appreciable increase over the years, although such studies differ in methodology and their outcomes (Duraisamy 2002; Dutta 2006; Madheswaran and Attewll 2007; Joshi 2007). The most recent measurement of the private rates of return to higher education is about 16 % (Agrawal 2011). This relatively high private rate of return suggests that for an individual there is a substantial incentive to invest in higher education.

This chapter provides an overview on Indian higher education and attempts to examine social equity in the context of access, participation, and affirmative action. It also looks at issues of employment and unemployment as well as urbanization as important factors influencing social demand. The last section discusses the status of private higher education at present and its anticipated role in the future.

2 Enrolment, Financing, and Quality in Indian Higher Education

2.1 Enrolments

The higher education system became more mass-based and democratized after 2000 with more than 50 % of enrolments coming from the lower socioeconomic strata, and women comprising more than 40 % of total enrolment (Tilak 2004 2001). The female enrolment share in total higher education enrolment in 1950 was around 11 %. In 1990, it grew up to 29 %; in 2000, it was 39 %; it reached 42 % in 2011.

As Table 7.1 shows the growth in the number of institutions and enrolment has been impressive during the last decade. The annual growth rate in total student enrolment was around 11 % and for universities, it was close to 15 %. At the same time, the colleges grew at an annual growth rate of nearly 20 %. Despite this huge growth, the gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education is only around 19 % (MHRD 2012).

Table 7.1 Growth of higher education institutions and enrolment. (Source: UGC 2013)

In terms of enrolment by the faculty of study, Table 7.2 shows that for undergraduates, the largest faculties are arts followed by science and engineering. A comparison of 2005 and 2011 data reveals that enrolment in professional programmes has increased while enrolment in “traditional” faculties has declined. For example, the share of the engineering faculty increased by 257 %. Similarly, the share of the medical faculty also increased significantly (UGC 2012)

Table 7.2 Enrolments by field of study (2012). (Source: MHRD 2012)

2.2 Expenditure on Higher Education

Expenditure on higher education as a percentage of GDP has been around 1.20. The central government has partially (not substantial enough though to make changes) increased the share for higher education but most state governments have not been able to even maintain the past allocation to higher education as a proportion of gross state domestic product (GSDP) (UGC 2012). Expenditure on education during the last decade was less than 4 % of GDP and for higher education, it has been about 1.25 %. Similarly, public expenditure as a proportion of GDP on education also showed that there had not been a great change in a recent 3-year period (Figs. 7.1 and 7.2). Household expenditure on higher education, however, also increased significantly during the last decade reflecting increased demand and rising costs. However, income from the fees has been less than 10 % in most of the public institutions. On the other hand, the demand for loans has simultaneously increased during the last 5 years, with the majority of loans for professional programmes going to middle-class families. Thus, the share of private sector financing and individual financing has been rising dramatically (Powar 2011).

2.3 Private Higher Education

Private higher education institutions are growing rapidly. The share of private institutions is currently about 59 % with a similar share of the student population. In professional courses, the share of private institutions is about 79 %. The share of student enrolment in private higher education was 32 % in 2001 which increased up to 54 % in 2007 and 59 % in 2012. Despite a rise in fees in the private sector, student enrolment is increasing (FICCI 2012). Fees in public institutions have been relatively low as well as stagnant. In some of the states, the tuition fee in private institutions is also regulated by government although the fees in private institutions are much higher. Many private institutions also levy other fees (other than tuition) and seek donations to enhance their income.

Fig. 7.1

Expenditure as percent of GDP. (Source: UGC (2013))

Fig. 7.2

Public expenditure as percent of GDP-sector wise. (Source: UGC 2013)

2.4 Quality

The quality of higher education in India varies considerably across the system and presents a huge systemic challenge. Accreditation is voluntary but many state governments have made it mandatory for all institutions. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is the main agency responsible for quality assurance in India (Stella and Gnanam 2003). Although there are two other agencies, namely, the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) and ICAR Accreditation Board, the majority of the institutions fall under the ambit of NAAC for accreditation. Unfortunately, NAAC has been able to cover less than 40 % of the institutions under its ambit. Currently, institutions are graded under four categories, viz., A, B, C, and D, denoting “very good,” “good,” “satisfactory,” and “unsatisfactory” levels, respectively. Of the total accredited colleges, 10 % have been graded as A, 66 % as B, and 24 % as C. Similarly, of the total accredited universities, 32 % have been graded as A, 52 % as B, and the rest as C.

The accreditation of NAAC has focused on institutional accreditation rather than programme evaluation. Accreditation has not been able to improve the quality drastically as it is not linked to the funding mechanism. Despite low accreditation, government has not addressed the issues of low faculty number and poor infrastructure. Similarly, government has not provided any additional incentive for good performers. The international rankings of universities also reflect Indian higher education’s dismal record. The representation of Indian institutions in the top 500 universities of the world is too low. Although scientific publications and the citation impact of papers emanating from India has increased (0.68 during 2006–2010) and the growth in absolute number has been appreciable, in comparison with other emerging economies such as Brazil and China and considering the size of Indian higher education, the number of qualitative publications is still unacceptably low. The number of noncited papers, which are not indexed in appropriate databases is still high and this must be reduced so that these publications get cited and recognized (DST 2012).

3 Higher Education Providers

Higher education is differentiated by ownership, financing, governance, and control. Figure 7.3 depicts the types of universities and colleges. The central universities are established by an Act of Parliament. The state universities are set up through state legislation. The private universities include both state private universities and “deemed” universities.

Fig. 7.3

Higher education institutions in India

The state private universities³ are set up through state legislation. A “deemed” university is set up by an executive order on the recommendation of the University Grants Commission (UGC). A deemed university is both private and centrally funded. Initially, the deemed universities were public, and institutes of national importance. But subsequently with political intervention, private providers have also been able to acquire deemed university status. Table 7.3 illustrates the number of colleges and universities by type. There are many colleges which are financed and owned by the central government. Similarly, many colleges are financed and owned by state governments. Though the state-aided colleges also known as grant-in-aid colleges have private ownership, they are given state financial support to meet recurring expenditure including salaries. In most of the states, these institutions receive maintenance grants for capital expenditure. Private unaided colleges do not receive any financial assistance and ownership is wholly in private hands.

Table 7.3 Number of institutions by type (2012–2013). (Source: UGC 2013)

The government institutions (universities and colleges—both central and state) follow the quota system in terms of government’s affirmative action policy but this does not apply to private institutions. The government aided institutions subsidize almost all students through their low-fee structure. Tuition fees, on the other hand, are much higher in private institutions. Government institutions also offer scholarships to students from disadvantaged groups.

The majority of private institutions can be termed “teaching shops” because research is not a priority. Most research from India emanates from government universities and research institutions. The research output of central universities is much higher than the state universities. The declining research in the latter group is largely due to a lack of adequate resources and poor infrastructure.

4 The Regulatory Framework

The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) is the apex body responsible for providing funding and access, and assuring equity, efficiency, and quality across the higher education sector. Both the governments at the center and in the states are collectively responsible for higher education as education under the Indian Constitution is a concurrent function. Higher education is going through a transitory phase characterized by rapid change. However, the changes are not uniform. Two contrasting trends are emerging, a rapidly expanding private sector at one end, and a public sector at the other in terminal decline. The regulatory system has failed to hold new private institutions to standards while erecting formidable barriers to competition and quality. The higher education sector is tightly controlled by the government and as a result, regulatory bodies are poor enforcement agencies. In effect, the UGC, professional councils, a few research councils and state governments are the main regulators of the higher education sector. In addition, there are almost 15 ministries/departments that establish, finance, or regulate higher education institutions (see Table 7.4).

Table 7.4 Regulatory structure of Indian higher education

The government has not empowered regulatory bodies with the powers mandated by the constitution. Thus, the regulatory bodies have failed to formulate an effective system at their own level and have not outlined apposite rules and regulations. The mechanisms of supervision and control over the institutions have been in vain. These bodies have been vulnerable owing to their lack of independence, functional and financial powers, leading to a failure in discharging their functions. The most important regulator, viz., the UGC is vested with the responsibility of coordination and provision of funds, and determination and maintenance of standards in higher education institutions. Unfortunately, the UGC does not have the means to control the quality of teaching and recruitment of faculty, ensure minimum infrastructure for all institutions, and engage in the monitoring and promotion of research. Table 7.4 illustrates the regulatory structure for higher education.

The multiplicity of regulatory mechanisms has created many problems in the functioning of higher education at the national and state levels.

5 Social Equity in Access and Participation

Indian society is characterized by a high degree of structural inequalities, based on institutions of caste and ethnicity (Thorat and Mahamallik 2005). The scheduled castes (SCs)⁴ and scheduled tribes (STs)⁵ are among the most socially and educationally disadvantaged groups. SCs and STs have different histories of social and economic deprivation, and the underlying causes of their educational marginalization are also strikingly distinct (Patni and Dash 2002; Bob 2008; Sedwal and Kamat 2008).

Table 7.5 shows GER data drawn from two National Sample Surveys. It is evident that there are serious GER differences by caste, religion, and location (urban versus rural). The GER in both surveys for disadvantaged groups (SCs, ST, and OBCs⁶) is far lower than for other groups. The same is true for Muslims compared to non-Muslims, and for the rural population when compared to urban citizens.

Table 7.5 Gross enrolment rates (18–22 years) in Indian higher education. (Source: National Sample Survey (NSS)—61st and 64th rounds)

Table 7.6 provides GER data by gender and state. The GER for the country as a whole was 15.0 in 2009/2010, up from 8.17 in 2004/2005. For males, the corresponding figures for 2009/2010 and 2004/2005 were 17.1 and 11.58, and for females, they were 12.7 and 8.17, respectively. Thus, while access for females had improved in the intervening period, there is still a significant difference between male and female enrolment in higher education. There are considerable differences by state as well. In 2009/2010, some states had a GER of 20.0 or more (e.g., Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, and Uttarakhand), while for others the GER was still in single digits (e.g., Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan). While the GER gender differential nationally was 4.4, in favor of males, in some states, this was much higher (e.g., Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Odisha). In five states, (Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Punjab, and Uttarakhand), the GER gender differential was quite small, or favored females.

Table 7.6 Gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education—by state and gender. (Source: MHRD 2011)

Enrolment in higher education increased over the period 2004/2005–2009/2010. In 2009–2010, total enrolment in higher education was roughly 17.2 million (60 % males and 40 % females, similar to the representation of males and females during 2004 to 2005) up from 9.97 m in 2004–2005. The GER of both ST and SC students increased exponentially during the period 2005/2005–2009/2010. For ST students, the GER growth rate was 16.2 % and for SC students it was 10.5 %.

5.1 Affirmative Action

Despite many common issues in the experience and outcomes of social exclusion for SC and ST groups and women, there are also some critical differences, which have led to somewhat different struggles for equal rights. The exclusion of an SC is linked to the caste ideology, but STs, on the other hand, are based on a different set of economic and cultural factors that have led to their isolation. The exclusion of women is based on both social and economic factors (Bhasin 2007). ST groups have traditionally lived in more remote areas of the country and in closer proximity to forests and natural resources (Joshi and Basu 2013). The remote and difficult geographical terrain inhabited by STs has isolated them from mainstream Indian society. They constitute the most disadvantaged group in India (Xaxa 2001).

What factors have played a role in enhancing access and participation of these disadvantaged groups? The most prominent policy for promoting access to higher education has been “reservations.” The policy of reservation in higher education is based on the assertion that the participation of disadvantaged groups has been low, and reservation would enhance their participation. Thus, the central government has reserved 7.5 % of seats in higher education institutions for STs and 15 % for SCs. The percentage of reservation varies across the states in accordance with the population of these groups. Also once the SC/ST groups complete secondary education, their decision to enter higher education is not significantly affected by their economic conditions, as is the case of poor students in the general population (Sundaram 2006). This clearly implies that reservation is helping in improving enrolment, irrespective of economic status, once the threshold of school education is crossed (Basant and Sen 2010). Reservation policies at all levels of higher education both redistribute SC and ST students upward in the university quality hierarchy, and attract into universities significant numbers of students from these groups who would not otherwise have pursued higher education (Weisskopf 2004). Along with reservation, the government provision of scholarships, special hostels, meals, book loans, and other schemes exclusively for SC and ST students have encouraged the participation (Joshi 2010).

The question of beneficiary status within the SC and ST groups has been raised in the context of reservation. It has been observed that reservations favor urban and male students, and that they disproportionately benefit a small number of subcastes within the SC group and particular tribes within the ST group. The beneficiaries of reserved seats are increasingly second-generation students from the favored groups, whose families have benefited from positive discrimination to become middle to upper class (Kirpal and Gupta 1999; Patwardhan and Palshikar 1992). Reservations or quotas as methods for promoting affirmative action are not affirmative action per se. Affirmative action is open-ended and without any fixed number. All these instruments aim at serving as a “corrective” for past governmental, social or individual bias against groups or minorities based upon caste, class, greed, or ethnicity.

Reservation for the OBCs has existed in many states for a long time. In four southern states, there has been some form of reservation since the preindependence period. The other states where reservation exists in varying degree are: Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Himachal Pradesh. In West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, and most of the North Eastern States, such reservations do not exist due to the nature of the historical evolution of the caste pattern.

The government has already implemented the policy of 27 % reservation for OBCs in higher educational institutions under the central government. Besides direct financial assistance and scholarships, there are also many other schemes existing for SC, ST, and OBC students which also include lodging. Many of the states have made higher education free for females and many of the states have provided larger subsidies in comparison to males. The issue of gender discrimination in access is persisting. Although, the participation of women is not on par with men, during the last two decades there has been significant improvement.

6 Higher Education—Potential Demand

India has the largest target market for higher education in the world, with a population of 234 million in the age group of 15–24 years (Fig. 7.4).

Fig. 7.4

Higher education market demand in selected countries. (Source: FICCI 2011)

The FICCI report (2011) observed that India is the fastest growing market for higher education as the youth population in the age group of 18–24 years is expected to increase by about 13 % by 2020. In the same period, China’s equivalent age group is expected to decline by 12 % while the world average growth rate is expected to be 4 %. If India is to meet its 30 % GER target by 2020, about 40 million students would have to be enrolled in higher education. For this to happen, a large share of funding would have to come from the private sector (Fig. 7.5).

Fig. 7.5

Growing number of students enrolled in higher secondary school. (Source: FICCI 2011 and MHRD 2011)

The number of students enrolled in classes 9–12, which is an indicator of the potential demand for higher education, has increased at an average growth rate of 6.9 % between 2000 and 2010. Similarly, the dropout rate in schools has been reduced drastically during the same period. The implementation of the “Right to Education” (RTE) Act⁷ will also result in increased enrolment as well as effective participation in school, leading to increased future demand in higher education. India needs to train 500 million skilled laborers by 2022 to meet the needs of its economy, and also for attaining the status of worldwide sourcing hub. Recognizing this, the Government of India has mobilized private business to address the issue especially as this is likely to provide profitable business opportunities of more than $ 20 billion (Sardana 2013). Thus, private sector participation in higher education through partnerships is being encouraged to address the anticipated demand. To meet higher education demand, Indian students are also seeking admissions abroad. India provides the second-largest number of international students. Student flows from India have increased substantially since the beginning of last decade growing by over 256 % (from 53,266 to 190,781 between 2000 and 2009; Mukherjee and Chanda 2012). In 2009, Indian students represented 6.2 % of all international students in higher education.

There are many reasons that have motivated these students to go abroad for higher education, the foremost being the relatively small number of in-country institutions offering quality education. Excessive competition for these few seats and the desire to have quality education motivates the students to pursue their education abroad. Besides this, students going abroad know that they will obtain internationally recognized degrees, which would also endow them with opportunities in the international labor market. In addition, the increase in the size of the middle class has influenced the growth in the numbers of students going abroad (Mukherjee and Chanda 2012).

7 Employment, Unemployment, and Education

The increase in the share of the youth population due to the so-called demographic dividend can be one of the sources of future economic growth in India. The proportion of people in the age-group 15–24 years has increased over time (Dev and Venkatanarayana 2011). This demographic dividend is expected to increase the working age group and reduce the dependence ratio (Chandrasekhar et al. 2006). However, recent studies have shown that the poor employability of the workforce due to inadequate or in appropriate educational attainment and skills may affect the anticipated advantages of the demographic dividend.

In India, the employment and unemployment situation is examined through labor force participation rates (LFPRs),⁸ the worker population ratio (WPR),⁹ and the unemployment rate (UR).¹⁰ The “Employment and Unemployment Survey” (2012) shows that the LFPR in India is about 55.6 % which is relatively low in the international context. There are rural–urban and male–female differences in LFPRs. The LFPR is higher in the rural areas when compared to urban and higher among the male population because of agriculture and its allied activities when compared to females. The LFPR is the highest in the STs category at 59.7 %, while among the SCs it is 55.9 %, and 53.3 % for the other backward classes group. In the case of the general category, the LFPR is lowest with 48.5 %. The increase in the school attendance rate for the general category (except the socially disadvantaged groups–OBC, SC, and ST) is reflected in a corresponding decline in their LFPR (Rangarajan et al 2011).

Other important parameters of the labor force are the WPR and UR (NSSO 2010; Choudhry 2011; Himanshu 2011; Kannan and Raveendran 2012). The WPR for the country is found to be 50.8 %,—this implies nearly 51 % of the population of age 15 years and above is employed.

Based on the survey results (2012), the Indian UR is estimated at 3.8 %. In the case of males, the UR is estimated at 2.9 % whereas for the females the UR is 6.9 %. In the rural areas, the UR was found to be 3.4 % compared to 5 % in the urban areas. All three socially disadvantaged groups (ST, SC, and OBC) have higher LFPRs and WPRs compared to the general category of citizens. Also, the UR of these three social groups is lower than the general category. The survey also showed that unemployment increases with the education level to 10 % at the postgraduate level. It is found that the majority of the persons are employed in the primary sector. Table 7.7 shows the UR by level of education. In both urban and rural areas, unemployment increases by education level, reflecting a serious problem of “educated unemployed.”

Table 7.7 Educational unemployment rate in India. (Source: MOLE (2012))

Unemployment among postgraduates is largely among those in the social sciences and languages. They represent more than half of the total postgraduate unemployment. The low-fee structure, in public education and distance education institutions, encourages students to pursue Master degree in these subjects even in absence of future job opportunities. It is argued also that most of the young unemployed have rather poor qualifications in terms of their performance in the examinations and have little aptitude or the capacity for the type of work to which they aspire. The disparity in employment among the different social groups and gender is also visible (Hirway and Jose 2011). Employability, however, is a more serious problem and is a major challenge to the entire educational system and the content of the curricula as well as the emphasis on theory as distinguished from practical applied training. The efforts made by the Indian state and policy makers in this area need to be reviewed carefully, but it is widely believed that these efforts have been inadequate.

8 Urbanization

In the postindependence period in India, urbanization has taken place at a rapid pace, due to population growth as well as a heavy inflow of rural migrants to urban areas (Ganguly 2009; Ledent 1982). With the rise in urbanization, the demand for higher education also increased simultaneously. The gap between the urban and rural demand for higher education has also increased. The percentage of the urban population in India which was only 17 % of the total population in 1951 is expected to jump to around 42.5 % of the total population by 2025 (Datt and Mahajan 2012). The chief causes of the heavy influx of rural migrants in urban areas due are either to the “push” forces operating in the rural areas in the form of high rates of disguised unemployment, poverty, low wages, small size of land holdings, lack of infrastructure development, or the “pull” forces working in urban areas in the form of jobs in the formal economic sector, better higher education facilities, better medical services, entertainment, high wages, the less arduous nature of work, expanding infrastructure facilities, civic amenities, and facilities (Clarke 1966; Bogue 1962; Davis 1951; Mitra 1968; Sen Gupta 1968; Zachariah 1964). The growth of higher education institutions has been either in or around the urban areas. Census 2011 shows that 64 % of the universities are in rural areas and 36 % are in urban areas, whereas 52 % of the colleges are in rural areas and 48 % are in urban areas. The majority of the private institutions is in and around urban locations and this is consistent with what one would expect and has been experienced in other developing economies. The “ability to pay’” principle has been the major reason for this characteristic.

According to the 2011 Census,¹¹ the urban population grew to 377 million at a growth rate of 2.76 % per annum during 2001–2011. The level of urbanization in the country as a whole increased from 27.7 % in 2001 to 31.1 % in 2011, respectively. The Indian economy grew at about 6 % per annum during the 1990s and at about 8 % during the first decade of the 2000s (Ahluwalia 2011). This clearly reflects the power of economic growth in bringing about faster urbanization during 2001–2011.

Table 7.8 Trends in Urbanization in India. (Source: Bhagat 2011)

Table 7.8 shows the trends in urbanization. The urban population at the beginning of twentieth century was only 25.85 million constituting 10.84 % of India’s population in 1901, which increased to 285.35 million comprising 27.78 % of total population in 2001 (Singh 2006) with natural growth contributing about 60 % and rest through migration and expansion of cities (Sivaramakrishnan et al. 2005). India’s urban population is expected to reach 550 million or 42 % of the total population by 2030 (Roberts and Kanaley 2006). With this anticipated population growth it is also expected that the demand for higher education would grow much faster. The private institutions in particular are offering programmes in new areas of learning and areas that provide better job opportunities in the urban setting. It is also expected that the flow of migration for higher education from rural areas to urban areas will increase with urbanization as more institutions with better quality and numbers are likely to be established in the urban setting or in the urban periphery.

9 Private Higher Education

Indian higher education has a long history of private institutions with heterogeneous characteristics in terms of location, nature of ownership and objectives, with the majority of these institutions subsequently getting attached to state. The preindependence period, between 1892 and 1947, has been termed the “Golden Age of Indian Philanthropy” (Sundar 2000). The funding sources have been important in the growth of Indian higher education in its initial stages of development. With growth, the scenario has changed. Reliance on the state for resources has almost doubled, i.e., from 49 % in the beginning of fifth decade to about 84 % at the beginning of the last decade of the twentieth century. On the other hand, the contribution of nonstate funding resources has declined drastically. Along with this, the demand for higher education has increased substantially with improvement in school education and anticipated labor market opportunities.

The 1990s saw major developments in the history of contemporary higher education. The decade was one of the turmoil, with an important development being the sustained efforts toward privatization of higher education. The structural adjustment policies, which envisaged macroeconomic stabilization and adjustment, led to a reduction in public expenditures and the introduction of cost recovery measures, accompanied by policy measures toward the “direct privatization of higher education” (Tilak 2001). The new economic reforms and the policy of the government is currently encouraging augmentation of resources, and exacerbating cost recovery on a larger scale. The fears expressed by many economists and educationists that with privatization, the justification for government funding would diminish, are probably premature. The public sector system, which has been built over a long period of time, will not collapse. The role of the government in funding shall remain. There has already been large-scale investment by the government, so the fear that private investment alone in higher education would be socially suboptimal is not substantiated in the case of India. Although many committees (UGC 1997, 2002) and reports (Srivatava and Sen 1997; Ambani and Birla 2001; NKC 2009) have called for cost recovery, reforms, and private initiatives, the road to privatization is still imprecise.

On the other side, the interventions by the Supreme Court from time to time and its contradictory judgments have only added to the prevailing confusion (Gupta 2004). Although many private institutions have been established, the floor toward privatization still remains indecisive in terms of the policy framework, in spite of the interest of the government to shift a larger share of the burden of higher education to the private sector. No precise policy seems to have been implemented to encourage, regulate, and monitor private higher education system.

In the light of uncontrolled expansion and limited resources, government has proposed different models of public–private partnerships in higher education. Currently, the private higher education providers consist of private aided colleges, private unaided colleges, state private universities, and private deemed universities. Private institutions are usually established and operated under the provisions of charitable societies or trusts. There are genuine not-for-profit private institutions, many even funded by the government (private aided institutions) or supported by charitable and religious trusts. A large number of private institutions run self-financing programmes meeting all of their expenses from tuition revenue and other fees. In contrast to these not-for-profit institutions, a significant number of private institutions are run as business enterprises, many among them owned by affluent families (Fig. 7.6).

Fig. 7.6

Share of private unaided institutions in the total institutions and student enrolment in private unaided institutions as a proportion of total enrolment (%)

The share of private unaided institutions in terms of all institutions has increased from 42.6 % in 2001 to 63.9 % in 2012, respectively. Similarly, student enrolment in private unaided institutions as a proportion of total enrolment in all institutions increased from 32.9 % in 2001 to 58.9 % in 2012, respectively. The number of private institutions increased at a rate of 10.3 % per annum between 2007 and 2012. Enrolment in private institutions during the same period shows an average annual growth rate of 11.3 %. During this period, the state’s private universities grew at an annual rate 38.36 %. Thus, the growth of private institutions and subsequently enrolment in these institutions grew dramatically during the period 2001–2011. However, with growth, the issue of quality remains unaddressed in the majority of institutions. A second feature of the growth story is that private unaided institutions have grown more in terms of professional programmes. The share of the private sector in engineering, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and hotel management has surpassed 90 %. Except for medicine, which requires a huge investment and is closely controlled by the Medical Council of India (MCI), the share of the private sector in all other professional courses is more than 50 %. The growing demand for higher education and the inability of government to finance higher education will provide more space for private higher education in the coming years (Fig. 7.7).

Fig. 7.7

Share of public and private institutions—professional programmes

10 Distance Education in Higher Education

Distance education has emerged as a cost-effective source for enhancing educational qualifications in India. Because of the low supply compared to the demand for higher education seats in full-time programmes, the role of distance education has increased over time. This mode of delivery has also received an impetus from those employed and wishing to enhance their educational qualifications while in work (AIU 2010; Denman 2009). About 4.2 million students were enrolled in various distance education programmes during 2012 (FICCI 2012). These students access multiple modes of delivery such as online, study centers, and correspondence. The enrolment of females has also increased under this mode of delivery along with the general increase in enrolment.

The Distance Education Council (DEC) is the regulatory body which recognizes distance education programmes in India. There were 74 distance education institutes in 2000 increasing to 197 in 2012. Similarly, enrolment in distance education was 1.38 million in 2000 growing to 4.2 million in 2012. About 22 % of the total higher education enrolment is in distance education. The enrolment figures show that about 17 % are enrolled in the Indira Gandhi National Open University, 26 % in State Open Universities, and 57 % in other institutes (FICCI 2012). Private institutes account for about 21 %. It is clear that distance education will increase much more in the coming decades and the periphery of courses offered will be enlarged (Powar 2003).

11 Conclusion

Indian higher education has grown exponentially during the past decade in terms of both institutions and enrolments. Despite this growth, the issue of deteriorating quality and social inequity in access is still persisting. An insight into prospective higher education demand stresses an explicit focus on the supply parameters that influence the higher education from the perspectives of various stakeholders. These supply parameters include not only sources and quantity but also quality and access. With the increase in the number of students who complete higher secondary schooling, the transition rate from secondary to higher education in absolute terms is also increasing. The demand from disadvantaged groups will rise dramatically through their increased participation along with women. The social and economic change along with various government measures have been the chief factors in the growth of their participation during the last 5 years and will continue in the coming years. The pressure resulting from urbanization and migration too would create a social demand for higher education. The projected GER of about 22 % by the end of 2020 will need a huge investment, in which the share of the private sector will be high. Because of growing private demand and in absence of sufficient resources, the role of the private sector has to be recognized by the government in its policy through appropriate regulatory frameworks. The increase in supply, in the context of social demand, will be effective in delivering the dividends for a knowledge economy if the quality parameters are well designed and addressed considering the labor market demand.