New Varsity Funding Model Pushes Students To Cheaper Courses At The Expense Of “Ability”
Although I believe that we needed to switch to the new university funding model, we also need to be ready to deal with certain brand-new realities that will arise once it is put into place.
Recently, when students choose their desired programmes, I noticed something odd. When KCSE kids with C+ and above were choosing their university degree programmes almost three months ago, I went to one of my rural town’s websites and I overheard a suspicious chat between a mother and her son.
In spite of receiving a perfect score on his KCSE, a mother in my community was pressuring her son to enrol in a “arts” programme rather than a study in engineering, pharmacy, or medicine.
I overheard their chat as a university professor, and the mother informed me that the family couldn’t afford the “first class degree” programmes’ tuition, so the son should enrol in one of the institution’s “affordable” courses instead.
The son was furious, claiming he had put in a lot of effort to study medicine at the university. Contrarily, the mother steadfastly maintained that the family could not afford it.
I became perplexed and eager to conduct a summary analysis to see whether students would select “cost-friendly programmes” rather than “merited programmes” they were eligible for at the institutions.
First off, I conducted my analysis after our institution welcomed its students last week, and it confirmed my fears that our science and technology schools attracted fewer students than other schools of the arts and social sciences.
In comparison to other schools that have had a 100% growth in enrollment, our school’s dean told us that he was unsure of the cause of the issue with the drastic drop in enrollment. I was aware that we were facing a significant issue.
What issues must be resolved in the future?
Our children have a constitutional right to an inexpensive and accessible education under Article 53(1)(b). What needs to be planned for? The first issue I perceive is with how the CBC curriculum is being implemented.
The CBC mandates that 15% of students take social science courses, 15% take arts and sports courses, and 60% of students take STEM-based courses. How would the new model help us realise our vision for CBC? Is this an error? Has the new funding scheme let us down? These are some of the inquiries I frequently have.
If the issue is not resolved, more students with degrees in engineering, pharmacy, actuarial science, and other highly specialised fields will choose for less expensive courses since their families cannot afford to send them on to pursue their ideal careers. At the expense of arts-based curricula, we might wind up putting a stop to careers in medical, engineering, and other highly technical fields.
Only 9000 students chose private institutions, compared to 130,000 who chose public universities, because of cost concerns, the most important element in this new university finance paradigm.
Have private universities been exterminated at last? In place of merit, did students just consider price while selecting their universities? I also ponder this.
What legislative changes are required?
While the government insists that the Means Testing Instrument (MTI) would fix the issue, inadequate implementation will cause the majority of students who received As and qualified for first-degree courses to choose more economical alternatives.
When applying for loans, students must still choose which of the four categories they fall under: vulnerable, extremely needy, needy, and less needy. Many people are already creating WhatsApp groups to “crowdfund” their children’s college education as a result of their concerns.
The government needs to figure out how to deal with vulnerable pupils who intentionally withhold information or falsify it when they are less in need.
Universities nowadays must learn how to handle the unexpected rise of students studying the humanities and social sciences. A science and technology institution is now increasing the population of its “80% arts-based students.” Is this a difficulty? If we do not take action right once, we risk destroying the original vision of many Kenyan universities, which are the hub of “science and technology,” essential to achieving the 2030 vision.
Conclusion:
When compared to the previous university funding paradigm, creating regulations to solve some of these problems and delink student placement from student funding will advance equity, effectiveness, and transparency in higher education funding.
New Varsity Funding Model Pushes Students To Cheaper Courses At The Expense Of “Ability”
