Dear Editor,
Simply Google ‘Teaching Universities’ and the contribution “Interviewing at a Teaching-Focused University” by Professor Donald E. Hall appears. Hall has had some experience in hiring faculty for the teaching-focused, English Department of California State University at Northridge, and he provides the standard position: “…teaching institutions should never be considered a refuge from research. Granted, we do not require a book for tenure and do not really want to hear about ambitious research agendas that are wildly inappropriate for the realities of life juggling a heavy teaching load and the usual service expectations. However, we certainly expect research for tenure, and if candidates are wholly unable to talk about their research plans in concrete ways, we will probably rule them out immediately.”
Sherwood Lowe ended his initial contribution (‘UG should emphasize teaching not research’ SN, 7.7.09) arguing that to make research “the main order of business for UG is to ignore the Guyana context,” and it is useful that he has further clarified that position (‘The biggest obstacle to…’ SN, 14,7.09). Nonetheless, his contribution suggests an alternative vision for UG that appears to be at odds with the conventional view.
In 2003, the late Vice Chancellor of UG, Professor Dennis Irvine outlined what still appears to be the prevailing view (‘Higher Education and Economic Renewal-A Critique and Alternative Proposal’). He argued that, in the final analysis, the prerequisites for a top-class university are top-class staff and top-class facilities and that UG should make its first priority the recruitment of quality staff, the professional development of existing staff and the rehabilitation of the physical facilities, especially the library and laboratories. According to him, “This is something the government should be prepared to fund, and in discussion with the relevant authorities the University should make it clear that the developments which it envisages, and which it sees as making a significant contribution to socio-economic development, will only be possible if the University has the kind of solid foundation on which to build.” What is “top class” and the level of funding that should be expected from the government are of primary importance.
In our context, “top class” and the hankering after “cutting edge” research (SN editorial, 12.7.09) should not be confused with ‘world-class.’ After all, as Jamil Salmi in The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities indicated, establishing a world-class institution far exceeds the capacity of countries such as ours. According to him, world-class universities are the product of a combination of abundant resources, concentration of talent, and favourable governance, and even developed nations that can only achieve two of the above three factors fail to make the very top echelon of world universities. He suggested that many nations do not need a comprehensive world-class university until more fundamental needs, such as the establishment of tertiary education systems that best serve the overall needs of that nation, are satisfied. The few nations that already have world-class universities also support world-class technical colleges, community colleges, distance education institutions and other variants. “In other words, world-class systems support world-class universities.” (‘University World News,’ book review by Tony Sheil, May 24, 2009).
All agree that funding is a major problem for UG; the institution needs to enhance its facilities and personnel. Though not a perfect data set for our concerns but given the emphasis on attracting good academic staff, in 2007 the Boston College Center for International Higher Educa-tion conducted a survey of 15 countries and one territory (Argentina, Australia, Can-ada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the UK, the US and Palestine), which showed that in the more developed countries monthly faculty incomes are about 1.4 to 2.2 times above their country’s GDP monthly per capita income. In countries such as South Africa and Colombia academics make salaries over 5 times their countries’ monthly GDP per capita, but in India average faculty salaries are 8.7 times. Guyana has an average monthly per capita income of about US$100 and average academic income of about US$700 or 7 times the country’s average monthly per capita income. In Barbados, monthly per capita income is about US$900 and average UWI (Cave Hill) academic income is about US$6000 per month – 6.7 times the monthly per capita. So even if UG salaries were doubled, they would still not be competitive in Caribbean terms.
I am not for one moment suggesting any crude correlation between the level of salaries and the quality of an institution. For example, the Boston College study found that overall average monthly salaries ranged from US$1,182 in China to US$6,038 in Canada, with an international average of US$4,856 per month. Yet UWI is not listed among the world’s top 400 universities (US News ‘World’s Best Colleges: Top 400; 2009’), while China and India , both of which pay much less, have a number of institutions listed.
The usual quarrel with ranking systems is understood but to add some perspective to the discourse, the following is the ranking of the top 2 universities in the region/countries that are of traditional study interest to Guyana:
*No Cuban university is ranked.
All kinds of political, organisational and cultural factors must be taken into account in any attempt at assessment or reorganisation. On the issue of political interference mentioned in the SN editorial, I believe that it is unavoidable in a small country with a single institution that receives substantial public funding. That said, the degree and style of that intervention will depend upon the quality of leadership at both levels.
We could fairly conclude then that Guyana is in no position to develop a ‘world-class’ university and that the level that can be achieved should be properly defined, taking into consideration the economical, political, organisational, cultural, and other factors. I sympathise with the traditional view, and given Jamil Salmi’s contribution, wonder if UG’s research could not be economically enhanced if sensibly institutionalised across the entire academic, public and private sectors. The issue of increases in student fees, long on the table, needs to be addressed, for whatever the vision, it appears that UG will require a large injection of additional funding, particularly since salaries – although they are said to take up some 66% of the university’s income – are still extremely uncompetitive.
The Boston study also noted that “a global market for talent means that more competitive salary packages may be necessary to compete with overseas employment offers. If not, brain drain will continue to beleaguer many already struggling poorer nations.” Herein lies the major challenge!
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
