University Education In The 21st Century & The KNDU Debate In Sri Lanka

By Siri Gamage –JULY 27, 2021

Dr. Siri Gamage

The nature of university education in the 21st century is a topic of discussion in many countries due to a range of reasons. Access and equity issues, the nature of curriculum and teaching quality, state provision as a public service versus privatisation as a commodity, contribution to knowledge production and innovation are some of the ideas that attract public attention.  With the expanding neoliberal, market-driven economic policies and programs pursued by governments in many parts of the world, higher education in the traditional sense has also been subjected to various challenges, pressures and debates. 

In this article, I briefly comment on a few aspects of this phenomenon and associated discourse to encourage readers to examine the topic in more detail in the context of the debate about Kotelawala National Defence University (KNDU) in Sri Lanka.

Traditional University

In many parts of the postcolonial world, in particular former colonies of the global south, universities or colleges were established by the colonising powers in the shape of those that existed in metropolitan centres. For example, the university of Ceylon in Sri Lanka was established in the early 50s following the Cambridge model. In such universities Western European disciplines were introduced and taught.  For several decades research was conducted following disciplinary imperatives by academics that were trained in the metropolitan centres in the language of the coloniser. Among the disciplines were liberal arts and social sciences along with physical sciences. Engineering, medicine and management were also added in time to come.  Faculties existed along discipline lines and the difference between those who aspired to an arts or humanities subject such as literature, language, philosophy, religion, and history belonged in the arts faculties. As the interest of the policy makers attracted to science and IT areas, such disciplines also expanded. What was unique in such higher education provision was the sharp distinctions maintained between those who studied liberal arts or humanities subjects and those who perused science, medicine, engineering subjects. Not only faculties were segregated along such lines but also the students, staff and job market too were segregated.  Translated knowledge from the Western –mostly European and American- disciplines became the core inputs for teaching such disciplines and doing research.

In the case of Sri Lanka, university education expanded by way of the establishment of several new universities to cater to those who qualify but did not get a placement. These new universities also were founded largely on the Peradeniya model with some variations.  Diversity of the system in terms of course offerings, mission and vision, research did not achieve a high level because the institutions were centrally controlled via the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Ministry of higher education. As funding came from the state, there was a reason for such control but when it affected university autonomy, it becomes an issue.  However, the intent of this article is not to go deeply into such issues.

A proposal by the government to bring Kotelawala National Defence University(KDNU), funded by the Ministry of Defence under the Universities Act 1978 (which controls provision of State funded higher education through the Ministry of education and Higher education) has inspired a vigorous debate on the challenges it can bring to the provision of free education cherished by many who were educated in such institutions.  For example, the following is an extract from a recent article:

There is no issue with establishing private universities in a country by private investors under strict regulation and purview of the State. With the existing limited places, students who do not have the opportunities to study at public universities can be offered the opportunity to pursue a degree of their choice at private universities. As we all know, there is a need to strictly regulate the quality of existing private universities.

Establishing a non-regulated State system for private education is not the answer to the issue. Although it is a right of a person to study at a private university for a fee if he or she wants to, the State should not channel public money to function as a for-profit supermarket for education. It will further jeopardise the right to free education of thousands of children and youth. The government’s entry into the for-profit business of education is the first attempt to break the backbone of the policy of free education. – (Groundviews)

I elaborate my views on the subject along with several questions:

1. Is there an ideal student? In other words should the students be only those who pass HSC or should other groups be able to secure a university education?

For the state funded university system, the ideal student candidate seems to be those who pass HSC examination and leave school. Such students enter universities to do various degree programs depending on their qualifications. However, there are other universities that cater to those who like to study on a distance education basis e.g. Open University. KDNU is specifically catering to officer cadets in the security forces. There is also a vocational education university. Students in these latter categories come from diverse backgrounds with qualifications that are perhaps lower than those getting admission to State funded universities. Thus the student in these latter types may not correspond to the ideal student image applicable to state funded, UGC controlled universities like Peradeniya, Ruhuna or Colombo. 

Providing a higher education to various student groups –many with lack of access to state funded universities- should be an equity and social justice measure.  However, if one or more such institutions produce elite cohorts of students with better employment opportunities (plus state funds), then it should become a point for debate and discussion from a policy sense.

2. Should liberal arts and professional subjects be combined in university education?

On the basis of my experience in an Australian university, I can say that in professional faculties, a combination of an understanding of the society and culture was required and facilitated to students taking professional degrees.  This included those from the army, police, and fire brigade. So were the courses provided to nurses and teachers.  Because such professionals are to be employed in society- cities or regions- the logic was that they should have an understanding of various aspects of society and culture to operate effectively. The course content did not include a series of course units on the subject as in liberal arts faculties. The knowledge provided was also not for the sake of disciplines but to assist future professionals to be able to function in society without conflict and in a socially beneficial way.

So the debate in Sri Lanka about whether to provide university education merely for skill provision is a moot point.  Both aims can be secured.  An education that trains students for the jobs of the future as well as problem solving, critical thinking skills etc. can be provided under the same degree program. It is not a dilution of the content in a professional degree.  It is to make the degree more socially and culturally relevant.   What has become more controversial is the amount of funding that is spent on public universities compared to the KNDU:

The main objective of free education is to include free education in the public policy that is equally accessible to all irrespective of class, caste, ethnicity, gender, social status or any other grounds. The backbone of this policy is to provide free education up to university level. Unfortunately, only a small portion of GDP (about 2%) is allocated to education compared high allocation to the Ministry of Defence. – (Goundviews)

Read More