ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
(Models - Affiliating Universities . Unitary Universities] In the light of our analysis and assessment of the structure and dynamics of the existing University system in the country in general, an attempt is made in this chapter to suggest alternative models. These alternatives are not to be considered as mere hybrid- mixture varieties of management, created just by permutation and combination of the current power components in the system; nor it is to be taken as the only alternative in place of the existing system. The suggested models are essentially exploratory but with a definite volition to make them viable, manageable and efficient. Thus the focus has been (a) to overhaul the existing management system under the given overall structure/type of University (affiliating, nuclear/unitary, deemed Universities/Institutes), (b) to think of such modified' versions of the existing models, which may ultimately lead to perceptible changes in the character and quality of management; and (c) to explore into the possibilities of completely 'different' model(s) at one stroke, with a definite deviation or discontinuity from the present ones.
These, models may not, however, be universally valid and applicable to all types of Universities and all regions of the country. A model which is functionally efficient in an unitary/residential institution such as IIT/IIM may be tried, mutatis mutandis, in a smaller or even a larger affiliating University, if such an adaptation can be expected to deliver goods. Similarly, for instance 'the deemed University model', mostly registered under the Societies Registration Act, may also be considered desirable for a. regular University especially in a developed region/centre; for such a changeover may provide for not only built-in flexibility into the management system, but also encourage the sustained participation of voluntary bodies/agencies (including the corporate sector) in promoting higher education, as it is envisaged under NPE. The regional socioeconomic features have also to be taken into consideration in designing the region-specific management structure and its functional style. Hence, the alternative models suggested here, have to be viewed from a wider and diversified perspective. Each of the suggested models has its own strengths and weaknesses. The strengths may overweigh the weaknesses in a particular regional- /educational context and hence the applicability of any particular alternative model depends upon the receptivity and responsiveness of the given socio- economic environment rather than on the inherent merits of the model itself.
251
18.0 ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR EXISTING AFFILIATING UNIVERSITIES The affiliating Universities can be broadly subdivided into (a) large affiliating Universities with more than 50 to 60 colleges (like Osmania, Poona, Calcutta and Madras) (b) medium-level affiliating Universities with less than 50 colleges (like Bharathiar, Bharathidasan, Bangalore, etc.), (c) small affiliating Universities which affiliate a small number of colleges, say not more than 10-15, as sometimes constituent colleges which are located in the same city and its neighbourhood (like Banaras Hindu University, Allahabad, Lucknow). In the above context it may be stated that till the 1960s or so in most of the affiliating Universities in the northern States, the P.G. teaching/research was confined almost wholly to the University Departments and only the UG Teaching was left to be conducted in the affiliated Colleges. Whereas in some of the States in the South (particularly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala), the P.G./research programmes had been largely decentralised; and many of the Colleges offered UG as well as P.G. Courses, whereas some of the Departments of the University did not offer a regular P.G. programme, butonly concentrated on research activities.The situation has, however, undergone significant change. Colleges in the North such as those in Rajasthan, U.P. and Bihar, now have Post-graduate classes,and the Universities in the South also now have sizeable programmes of Post-graduate teaching.
In suggesting alternative management models for theaffiliating University system, in addition to the above diversity in the size and structure, the power,structure and the complexities of their Authorities/bodies have also been kept in mind.
The Senate/Court (in some Universities the Academic Council also) are large sized, election-infested, and highly politicised and have, in short, outlived their original academic purpose. In some of the Universities the interface relationship amongst the University authorities (and sometimes among the Officers of the Universities including the Chancellor/Pro-chancellor) has of late, become constant source of irritation and conflict spoiling the academic environment.
18.0.1 Model I: MODIFIED 3-TIER SYSTEM This model, as illustrated in the Diagram 1 can be called a modified 3 tier model with all the three traditional Authorities of the University System retained but with substantial changes in their character, composition, interrelationship and hierarchy. The special features of this Model can be listed as follows:
252
[1) The Senate/Court should only be an advisory /recommendatory body; it needs to be divested of its supreme governing body-status and the Statute-making authority.
[2] The Executive Council/Syndicate should be the chief administrative and financial Authority; but it should not have the apex approval authority over the academic matters.
[3] The Academic Council should have the ultimate authority in enacting all academic Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations; these Statutes/Ordinances/Regulation shall only be remitted to the Executive Council/Syndicate for information and implementation.
[4] There will be a few areas where decisions could not be purely academic. There could be sizeable financial /Administrative implications. In such cases, the Statutes / Ordinance [or amendments thereto] should be initiated by the Academic Council and approved by the Executive Council after ascertaining the view of the Finance Committee, wherever necessary.
[5] Thus, there shall be no hierachical relationship among the authorities; the principle of division and separation of powers shall govern the relationship among the authorities.
[6] The Vice-Chancellor shall,in accordance with guidelines specified in the Act/Statutes, arrange for constitution of the (a.) Finance Committee, (b) planning Board, (c) Collegiate Council (d) Grievance Redressal Committee, (e) Students Welfare Committee as Statutory Bodies/Committees with well-defined roles and responsibilities:
[7] On the Academic side, besides the Faculty Councils and the Boards of Studies, the Curriculum Development Cell, the Board of Research, the Board of Evaluation, the Board of Extension, Academic Calender Committee etc.shall be established as statutory bodies to recommed to and assist the Academic Council through the Office of the Vice-Chancellor.
[8] The membership of the Authorities/Bodies/Committees shall be on the principle of rotation according to seniority. There shall be no election to any of these authorities/bodies.
[9] The size of Senate/Court should not be more than 75 to 100; Executive Council, not more than 15; and the Academic Council not more than 50 to 75.
253
[10] The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) shall assist the Vice-Chancellor in coordinating the functions of the academic bodies; and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Administration) shall assist the Vice-Chancellor in organising the functions of the administrative bodies and another Pro-Vice-Chancellor may assist him in other functions such as as extention and public Relations and mobilising resources.
[11] Among the Officers, the Registrar (Administration) shall be only the 'first among the equals' and he should have no right to interfere in the independent functioning of other Officers. To ensure that all the Officers are directly answerable to the Vice- Chancellor/Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the other officers should be re-designated as Registrar (Finance), Registrar (Evaluation), Dean (Collegiate Council), Director (Curriculum Development Cell), etc.
18.0.2 Model II: BIFURCATED SYSTEM This model, known as the Bifurcated System seeks to relieve the University Departments [Teaching and Research] from the tie-up of their curricular scheme with that of the affiliated colleges. The University faculties, it is true, must provide the academic leadership to the College Departments. But in the name of uniformity, at present the University Departments have to be contented with stereotyped syllabi applicable to the affiliated colleges. Such a situation does not provide adequate scope of designing specialised and innovative courses of study in the University Departments, taking due advantage of the specialised experts of the University faculty members. In the Senate and the Academic Council meetings also, most of the time and attention are absorbed in deliberations on college matters, both academic and general, leaving little time for discussing the specialised course patterns of the University Departments. With a view to avoiding such an incongruous situation, this model bifurcates the University management structure in the following manner (vide Diagram - 2) with the special features as noted below:
[1] The Syndicate/Executive Council remains common administrative and financial authority for both - the Colleges and University Departments;
[2] Since the Colleges and University Departmental streams are to be bifurcated, the Senate's deliberative functions are proposed to be merged with the academic functions in the respective streams and there will be no Senate or Court.
254
[3] There will be a Collegiate Council which will decide on the academic matters pertaining to Colleges and recommend actions on administration of Colleges to the Executive Council. Similarly, there will be an Inter Departmental Council (IDC) which shall decide on academic issues and recommend to the Executive Council on the administration of Departments.
[4] There will be separate Boards of Studies for Colleges and for the University Departments.
[5] The Faculties, Boards of Research and of Extension shall plan the teaching and extension programmes in the University Departments,
[6] There shall be separate Boards of Evaluation for College stream and for University Departmental stream.
[7] Both affiliated Colleges and the University Departments shall draw upon the recommendations of the common Planning Board, Finance Committee, Boards of Research and of Extension, Curriculum Development Cell, etc., all of which will be statutory bodies of the University.
One of the possibly serious limitations of the above model, of course, shall be the 'dichotomisation' of the University system into two streams: viz Colleges and University Departments. Such a possibility can be guarded against by infusing the input from the University Departments into the Collegiate Council to the extent necessary. Further, the fact that appropriate attention can be given to both the College stream and that of University Departments may more than compensate the deficiencies arising out of the possible dichtomisation, if any.
18.0.3 Model III: TWO-TIER SYSTEM This model is specially suggested for adoption in the Unitary Universities and Deemed Universities modelled on the lines of the governance of national institutes, such as IIT/IIM/IISc, etc., and most of the Professional Universities (Agriculture, Medicine, Engineering and Technology). This model can also be applied in the smaller and medium sized affiliating Universities.
There is no provision for Senate in this model. For instance, Anna University of Technology Act of 1978, UP Agricultural University Act 1958, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (1963), Punjab Agricultural University Act (1970) and University of Health Sciences Act, Andhra Pradesh (1986) have provision for Board of Management/Executive Council and Academic Council only; the
255
Senate is conspicuous by its absence. Though the IIT Act of 1961 (amended in 1963), provides for the so- called Senate, in reality it performs the functions of only the traditional, Academic Council.
In view of the experience of effective management structure in the above Institutes/Universities, with less of campus politics and more of academic concentration, it is strongly suggested that wherever possible, the Senate may be done away with. The consultative/advisory role of the society vis-a-vis the University System can be ensured by enlisting 3. few societal representatives in the Academic Council itself.
Except for the removal of the Senate, this model is almost similar to that of the Model I in all other respects, in so far as the Authorities/Bodies/Committees and Officers are concerned (vide Diagram 3).
18.0.4 MODEL IV: DECENTRALISED MODEL
PHASE 1 REGIONAL EVALUATION AND RESOURCE CENTRE This model termed as Regional Evaluation and Resource Centre Model (RERC) is suggested in the case of a large affiliating Universities with a. geographical jurisdiction of more than two or three Districts or more than 50-60 colleges. Generally, in large affiliating Universities, there is a genuine grievance among the affiliating Colleges (located farther from the University headquarters) that the University has only a remote and invisible relationship with them and that it does not contribute much to the constructive development of the Colleges. University is looked upon as a mere examination-conducting body; it does not throw open its library/equipments/instrumentation facilities within the easy reach of the distantly located affiliated Colleges. In order to overcome such a deficiency in the affiliating system, it is suggested that the Universities establish District level or zonal level Centres with adequate Core faculty, resource/facility base in terms of library, Central Instrumentation and Computer system facilities. Such regional centres will help compensate the infra-structural deficiency of the backward Colleges in rural and semi-urban areas.
In addition to establishing the Regional Resource Centre at the District/Zonal level, this model also envisages regional decentralisation of the conduct of examinations. One of the most serious drawbacks in the larger affiliating Universities happens to be inefficient and unwiedly examination machinery mainly on account of the large geographical area it has to cover and a larger number of candidates; and the declaration of results also entail undue
256
delay leading to frequent and chain dislocations in the academic calender. With a view to overcoming that bottleneck, the larger affiliating Universities may think of establishing District/Zonal level offices of Controllers of Examinations who shall be entrusted with the responsibility of administering the examination work, at the places where the Regional Resource Centre are located, in a decentralised manner. These RERCs will form the nuclei for the emergence of new Universities in due course.