On January 10, Education Minister Priya Manickchand referenced the phrase “full value for money” when addressing costs related to the University of Guyana (UG) now that tuition is free. She also spoke negatively of classes being held online, and starting later in the term than they should as she appeared to chide the university in advance over the funding it is expected to receive, much like a parent warning a child to use his allowance wisely – the ‘or else’ implied.
Further, Minister Manickchand was quoted as saying, “Last year when the University of Guyana said because of our November announcement, they were $1.2 billion short of what they needed to finish the six weeks in the year we gave it without hesitation.” What a preposterous statement. Where else was the money to come from once fees were abolished? The statement seems to imply that the government did UG a huge favour. Did that money come from ministers’ pockets? Or was it our tax and resource dollars at work?
Ms Manickchand also made a point of burnishing the government’s image, expounding on how much it had “worked” to make the university tuition free. One wonders whether any part of that work included a real cost analysis of providing tertiary education of value as it cannot simply be a matter of replacing the fee amounts. No university anywhere, unless it’s fully virtual, can be successfully run on just what students pay.
While this is a good move by the government, it’s not that special. There are many public universities around the world – several of them in Europe, a few in South American countries like Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay – where students are not required to pay any fees. There are even a few in the US where this exists; these are mostly community colleges, though they do offer tertiary education. In some countries, including Norway, Iceland, Germany, and Brazil, even international students are not required to pay for classes, though they have to take care of their own living and other expenses. In most cases, governments plug massive funds into these universities with the money coming from taxes or lotteries. In some instances, grants are received from philanthropic individuals and organisations. The whole concept behind these undertakings is that when a country educates its population, it uplifts its entire stature. Therein lies full value for money.
In the case of Guyana, it is well known that even with paid tuition UG struggled and has received annual subventions from the government to cover its operating costs since the 1990s. According to the history of UG published on its website, in the 1960s students paid $100 a year for tuition. However, this was abolished in 1974 and a year later participation in the Guyana National Service was introduced as compulsory for anyone pursuing studies at UG. In 1994, mandatory national service was eliminated and fees were reintroduced.
Over the next 30 years, UG waxed and waned, its downward shifts mirroring the turmoil in the wider education system. Teachers left, so did lecturers. Unable to pay decent salaries, UG turned to part-time lecturers to cover myriad courses, most of whom could only hold classes after they had completed a full eight-hour workday at their substantive jobs. For years, thousands of full-time students were forced to attend evening and night classes. Unfortunately, there was no online tuition for most of those years.
Was there any value for the money those students scraped and borrowed or their parents sacrificed and paid? Did anyone care? No Education Minister under any administration from then to now, or other government official for that matter, has ever seemed to give a hoot. Obtaining a university education was akin to a hard-fought battle for the have-nots. For those who depended on public transportation, exiting the campus late meant being left to the mercy of ruthless minibus drivers, blackouts, and bandits – not necessarily in that order – plagues that still exist today.
Unless she was grossly misunderstood, Minister Manickchand’s posture appeared to be at odds with that of an administration that claims to place merit in providing a sound, quality education for any citizen who desires it. The removal of university tuition is only the first of many steps to achieving that and by extension financial investment is not only necessary, but critical.
This is by no means advocating for money to be flung carelessly at UG. Obviously, spending has to be monitored and plans for this should have been set up and ready to go once the announcement was made. Lest we forget, this is a tertiary educational institution from where, we hope, many of the country’s future leaders, thinkers, movers and shakers will emerge. It cannot be run like a cake shop; nor should its principals be scrabbling to make ends meet. Not in this ‘fastest-growing oil economy’.