Sunday, July 31, 2011
FUTA Refuse to Withdraw Letters of Resignation
by Janith Aranze
The academics who submitted their resignation letters over 3 months ago, decided to call off their trade union action last week and are still waiting for new letters of appointment from the Vice-Chancellors.
Spokesman for the FUTA, Dr. Mahim Mendis, has said that if the academics withdraw their resignation letters it will undermine the trade union action that was carried out over the last 3 months. “We cannot withdraw our resignation letters as we have been advised that it will undermine our trade union action.
The Vice-Chancellors have come together to make a decision not to make fresh appointments as they did not accept our resignations,” Mendis explained.
“The UGC is pressurizing the Vice-Chancellors not to make fresh appointments, it is our fundamental right to resign,” he said.
When The Sunday Leader contacted the University Grants Commission (UGC) Chairman, Prof. S.V.D.G. Samaranayake, he denied the UGC was having any influence over the Vice-Chancellors’ decision. “We are not pressurising anybody, I know where you are getting these reports from but it is not true” he said.
Vice-Chancellor of Colombo University, Prof. Kshanika Hirimburegama, said that she hoped the matter will be resolved next week.
“Lectures are being conducted, and examinations are being processed, so hopefully the matter can be resolved quickly and on Monday we shall see,” she said.
UGC dissolves SE Uni Council two months before expiry
The South Eastern University Council has been dissolved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) two months prior to its expiry, amidst allegations that the move has helped cover up irregularities and malpractices.
A former council member M.M. Abul Kalam who was ousted, told the Sunday Times, “This sudden move by the UGC was consequent to a chain of events. At a COPE inquiry held last month in Parliament on the SEUSL, it was revealed that a recently appointed Council member had a conflict of interest related to procurement activities of the SEUSL”.
“We could not discuss matters raised at the COPE meeting, at the 139th Council meeting held on June 25. Hence, seven members of the Council jointly called for an emergency special meeting of the Council on June 27”, he said.
The Vice Chancellor (VC), by letter of June 29, refused to hold the scheduled meeting. “On June 30, we replied to the VC and stated that his refusal to accede to our request is a clear violation of the Universities Act. We are yet to receive a reply to this letter. Instead, all of us received letters signed by the UGC Chairman calling for our immediate resignation”, he said.
“We were shocked by this sudden decision of the UGC and the turn of events. We requested the UGC chairman to allow us to continue for the remaining two months to establish the corrective measures we took in the wake of the COPE exposure”, he said.
He said they met with Minister of Higher Education S.B. Dissnayake, and made representations.
UGC officials declined to comment on the issue
The world's top 100 universities ranked for the social science disciplines
Guardian, UK
Harvard ranks highest for accounting, economics and law according to world rankings for social sciences. Get the full QS rankings
• Get the data
• Get the QS biological sciences rankings
• Get the QS arts & humanities rankings
• Get the data
• Get the QS biological sciences rankings
• Get the QS arts & humanities rankings
The Harvard law school area on the campus of Harvard University has been ranked as the top place in the world to study law. Photograph: Chitose Suzuki/AP
It is another strong appearance for the American university which earlier this year topped rankings for biological sciences and for world reputation.
Stanford university come in top place for statistics and operational research, beating Harvard. The rankings show the best performers in the six disciplines; accounting and finance, economics and econometrics, law, politics and international studies, sociology and statistics and operational research. The Oxbridge universities are in the top ten for each subject.
London School of Economics (LSE) beat both Oxford and Cambridge universities for economics and econometrics in the rankings published by leading higher education and careers research company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). LSE are also placed ahead of University College London (UCL) for all of the disciplines.
The social sciences rankings are good news for UK universities with Oxford and Cambridge featuring heavily in the top ten for all the disciplines. Oxford university beats Cambridge at accounting and finance, economics, law and politics and international studies but comes in two places lower for statistics and operational research.
As part of the survey to compile the rankings, global graduate employers were asked to identify the universities they believe produce the best graduates overall and within a selected discipline. The results showed that graduates in business, accountancy and finance, and economics were the most sought after.
With the continuing focus on universities to bring value to the education market along with their increasing fees, graduate employability has become a growing worry for future students.
"Employability is by no means the only benefit of a university education, but with £9,000 per-year fees and 83 graduates now competing for every job, it is inevitably at the forefront of many prospective students' minds", says John O'Leary, Editor of the Times Good University Guide and member of the QS Academic Advisory Board. "The reality is that students will be paying the same amount for degrees that in practice have vastly different market values."
We have compiled these rankings and all the QS rankings so far into a spreadsheet which can be downloaded below. The university rankings feature country they are in and show the full 100 listed. Below is a table showing the top 10 in all six social sciences disciplines by subject.
Data summary
Education : My child is better than yours
Times Online
| Thanks to some serious policy bungling in the UK, higher education is all the rage at the moment. As this column has pointed out time and again, higher education and health care are the two exceptions to the rational demand theory. Both are driven by emotional factors and some investments in higher education are now taking the shape of an asset bubble. While a misguided choice architecture has now forced the British Government to revise their higher education fee schedule, the sector holds broader concerns for the future. There is a serious mismatch between demands for certain skills by industry and supply by universities. There is a global glut of entry-level Accountants, alongside Business and Arts graduates. The employment landscape has shifted dramatically with a dispersion of demand coming from skilled technical and engineering jobs (in the mining and manufacturing sectors as an example, which do not require a university education) and highly skilled engineering professions within electrical and civil disciplines. Scientists (both life and physical) are perhaps the most important graduates in society who go unrewarded. The global glut of non-technical graduates (for the lack of a better word to group these individuals) has seen a dramatic plunge in starting salaries in real terms for most white collar professions. When coupled with increasing tuition, higher education beyond a handful of global universities, is looking extremely unattractive at the moment. Most graduates over the last two years are either unemployed or “under” employed according to statistics provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This is felt even in Australia, which by most measures is the best performing advanced economy in the world. Surveys show 30% unemployment amongst all graduates, while a further 35% report being underemployed. This result is attributed to the patch-work Australian economy, where non mining related companies are struggling to keep their businesses open. Glut When a glut of highly indebted graduates with the wrong kinds of skills is unleashed on a struggling world economy, the results aren’t pretty. The solution to this problem won’t come from the higher education sector on count of the perverse incentive structures in place for these providers. A recent study in Australia showed that a handful of the most popular courses by international students drove most of the profit and cross subsidises the entire university system. These courses were management, business studies (commerce) and information technology. The most popular courses (read: profitable for providers) are becoming inversely correlated with job opportunities, and offer decreasing benefits to society. If the state of higher education was not bad enough, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in their latest assessments of secondary schools points to an increasingly widening gap between regional performances within countries. While Sri Lanka and India are not part of the study, a similar study was conducted in India where the results showed a stark dispersion in results for mathematics. According to the study, more than half of Indian school children are functionally illiterate and innumerate. While a similar study in Sri Lanka would be most revealing, it wouldn’t be too dissimilar given the discrepancies of teaching and facilities between the provinces. One count on which it would be different is the far superior access and equitability in the primary and secondary school systems available to Sri Lankan citizens, when compared to India. The low average level of educational achievement in India may come as a surprise. In the U.S., the median income of households headed by an Indian-American was $83,000 in 2007, well above that of East Asians ($61,000), and non-Hispanic whites ($55,000). And despite comprising less than 1% of the population, 8% of physicians and surgeons in the U.S. are Indian-American. While excellent higher education has made a strong contribution to India, poor policy in primary and secondary education presents a major policy challenge. The challenge for Sri Lanka is the reverse. The foundations of primary and secondary education have been strong thanks to the “Kannangara” revolution of the fifties. But support for quality higher education has been far less convincing Parents Parents faced with this unappealing mix of options have increasingly tended to opt for overseas migration as an alternative solution. But the PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) test holds some major disappointment for would be migrants. The performance of students who were born overseas (first generation migrants) tends to be worse than locals, and more worryingly those trends persists well in to the second generation. Singapore and UAE are the only exceptions, given the transient nature of most migrants to both countries. Australia is an anomaly given the large transitory East Asian population. Overseas migration has the potential to lead to unintended consequences and leave families worse-off. The Sri Lankan government has a duty and citizens have a right to demand better access to quality higher education. Part of that solution may lie in abolishing free higher education. Taxpayers should not be funding the betterment of a handful of individuals, who by and large may not contribute to the betterment of the country or her people. This is no different to bribing public officials or politicians. Instead a need-based scholarship system and inflation adjusted student loans remain the best way forward. The pettiness displayed by the government towards academics is farcical. These are the handful of individuals who have returned to the country to contribute, when they had far more attractive financial options. Most others have not had the courage of their convictions nor see the need to contribute to the system that created them. This is simply the reason why higher education needs a price. Meanwhile, most parents have made higher education into a bigger concern – and by extension a bigger problem – than it needs to be. As highlighted in these columns previously, higher pay associated with higher education is becoming less evident, beyond a certain threshold which is in decline. Some people are better off going straight to work, than spending four years in a university, especially if the said discipline has very low thresholds to entry. The most prudent higher education strategy comes down to the individual capabilities of a child, where some successful outcomes may lie in unstructured disciplines without any higher education. Sportsmen and women along with those in creative arts are the two most obvious examples. Doing the right thing Part of a successful higher education strategy is also a financial strategy on behalf of the child, where unconventional disciplines require a financial plan for the child that would see them for the first 10 years of their adult life. Contrary to popula assumption amongst most parents, successful higher education has nothing to do with how better your child is compared to someone else’s. Instead, it’s about doing the right thing for your child, based on their ability and intrinsic motivations. Having some help from the government, at a price, would be most helpful. (Kajanga is an Investment Specialist based in Sydney, Australia. You can write to him at kajangak@gmail.com). |
Saturday, July 30, 2011
No lectures-varsity stalemate continues
By Ranjan Kasthuri
The Executive Committee of the Federation of University Teachers Association yesterday (29) decided not to accept the heads of faculties posts offered to them until new appointment letters were issued to them.
As a result of the university teachers taking such a stand the stand-off between the Vice Chancellors and FUTA looks set to continue. Accordingly student lectures, and the preparation of examination programmes would also be delayed said the media spokesman of the University Trade Union Association Dr. Mahim Mendis. The University Administrators have not taken the steps necessary to end the rift that has risen or to stop the matter from going any further Dr. Mendis said.
Chairman of the Trade Union Association, Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri, said that the dispute would not end until these faculty heads are taken back and given new letters of appointment.
Friday, July 29, 2011
VCs, lecturers split hairs, while varsities remain paralysed
by Dasun Edirisinghe
Vice Chancellors of universities, who met yesterday at the Open University, Nawala, decided to request university lecturers "to resume duties in the posts they held prior to their strike action." This decision was taken to ensure restoration of normalcy in the universities, Chairman of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Directors (CVCD) Prof K. A. Nandasena told ‘The Island’.
The meeting was summoned to find ways to end the impasse that had been caused by a decision taken by the vice chancellors of the universities not to issue fresh letters re-appointing university lecturers to the voluntary posts from which they had resigned as part of their trade union action, he said.
The CVCD, at the end of the meeting issued a letter commending the decision of the Federation of the University Teachers’ Associations to suspend their trade union action. "Since the university councils which are the appointing authorities have not accepted the letters of resignation of Heads of Department submitted at the commencement of the trade union action on May 09, 2011, the CVCD is of the view that the necessity to re-appoint Heads of Departments does not arise. To ensure the normalcy in the universities, the CVCD requests all academics who were on trade union action to resume duties in the posts they held prior to trade union action," the letter said.
President of the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) Dr Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri told ‘The Island’ that they too have been sent a copy of the letter. However, the letter had two contradictory points which the academics have to consider seriously before deciding their future course of action, he said. "The letter by the CVCD commending the suspension of trade union action accepts that we had engaged in such an action. The trade union action was the resigning from the posts of heads of departments. In the meantime it says there was no necessity of issuing letters of reappointment. These two contradictions could not be ignored," he said.
Dr Devasiri said that the executive committee of the FUTA would meet this evening (29) to discuss the contents of the letter from the CVCD and decide the future course of action.
Do we need state universities?
By Chanuka Wattegama
The term ‘Free-Education’ is a misnomer. Its Sinhala equivalent ‘Nidhahas Adhyaapanaya’ is far misleading. Exempted from payment is just one meaning of the adjective ‘free’, often given towards the end of a dictionary entry. A more discernible meaning is the freedom of choice, ironically a feature largely missing in our education system.
Ideally, it should be called ‘Enforced Education’, for its inability to offer choices (Does your offspring study at the school of your choice?) or ‘Limited Education’ for deterring educational opportunities for all (Only 16% qualifies from A/Ls enter universities.) or at least ‘Half-free Education’ (An average household expenditure on education is 4-5% of the total and over 75% even in the lowest income bracket attend private tuition classes.) So let us stop contributing to the joke. Face it. Our present education system is not egalitarian and certainly not free.
Monopoly
The present higher education system in Sri Lanka is a monopoly. The universities are owned, controlled and funded by the state. The bill for this so-called ‘free-lunch’ is settled by the tax payers. The state decides the number of graduates to be produced, depending upon the budgetary allocations it can make. The corollary is that it also blocks the rest. Outdoing qualifying level is no guarantee for university entrance. Theoretically, three ‘A’ passes or 95% in qualifying examination are good only if others do not perform better. Otherwise the dreams of university entrance are carted off, more often than not with a career of choice. An aspirant engineer, who loses the third opportunity to enter one of the three engineering faculties, has little choice. She/he should either change her/his career goals or head for foreign universities, if affordable. To call that a ‘Free Education System’, one should surely have a strange sense of humor.
The flaws of state only university model are wider. Lack of competition eradicates the incentives to produce quality graduates. Libraries with outdated books, computers with outdated software and lecturers with outdated knowledge hardly make the right academic environment. Lack of choice forces a large number of arts graduates to follow courses that makes them more unemployable. Graduate unemployment is a prominent fact. According to the Consumer Finance and Socio-Economic Survey in 2004 by Central Bank of Sri Lanka, unemployment was six times higher among the graduates than among those who had only primary education. One out of every eight local graduates was unemployed. When the state finally absorbed their rejected produce the market price was as low as LKR 6,000 per month, not too different from what an Office Assistant earns in the private sector.
The irony is with all these drawbacks, a school still strongly believes not only in state providing higher education, but doing so in a monopolistic environment. Does it make any sense?
Past model
Interestingly, this wasn’t the model that we followed in the past. The feudal education model was far efficient and productive. An academy as famous as Takshila, Vikramashila and Nalanda in the ancient Buddhist world, the Abhyagiriya University was said to have hosted 5,000 student monks in its hey days according to Fa Xian, a Chinese Buddhist monk who traveled to Nepal, India, and Sri Lanka to acquire Buddhist scriptures in fifth century AD. The complex would have been larger than any of the present Sri Lankan university premises and of the same size of the ancient Anuradhapura city centre. The cost of construction and maintenance couldn’t have come only from the government. No matter how pious the kings and the subjects were, they couldn’t have made such colossal allocations from the treasury for no return. The only modes of survival were by levying tuition fees or producing outcomes of not religious, but true economic value. Probably the institution did both. Unlike Theravada, Mahayana doctrine did not prevent monks from studying non-religious ‘lay’ subjects. So it is realistic to assume it operated independently without burdening the treasury.
The state run higher education system was introduced by the suddaas. University of Ceylon was established in 1942 by absorbing the Ceylon University Collage and Ceylon Medical Collage. The intake was limited (1,600 in 1948) and the competition was not high as the rich could afford foreign education. It made sense for the state to run a monopoly as the bulk of the graduates were directly absorbed to the state machinery. The state expenditure on education was an investment, not a burden.
The monopoly was natural even during the first four decades in the post-independence period. Subsidized higher education was perhaps the only option to create the number of graduates essential for medical, engineering and administrative services, in a country with a per capita GDP of sub USD 200 figures. Fee levying universities would not have been a viable solution.
Demand & supply forces
This is not the case now. Both demand and supply conditions have changed.
Demand first. The annual intake to universities has increased to 20,000 per year, but the demand, instead of sliding, is on the rise. This corresponds to the growth of expectations. It is not uncommon even for poor parents to plan for the higher education of their offspring. Sri Lanka too is no more a low income country. In spite of heavy burden of foreign loans, the per capita GDP has shown a tenfold increase since 1970s. A sizable section of population can now support the higher education of their children. If not selected for state universities now they either enter foreign universities or follow professional courses like CIMA. Popular medical faculties in Manipal in India and Chittagong in Bangladesh, inter alia, make Sri Lanka loses both foreign currency and business opportunities to provide similar or better services.
The local supply, despite the expansions, remains a serious mismatch to this increasing demand, both qualitatively (as discussed earlier) and quantitatively. My own A/L results, with just a credit pass for Pure Mathematics, in 1986, placed me 65th in the all island physical science stream with a seat at University of Moratuwa. One needs better performance to gain university entrance now. It is heartening to note the Minister of Higher Education sees the gap. We assume his attempts to bridge it are genuine. His possible success, unlike the numerous previous efforts to free higher education from state monopoly will be crucial in national development.
Need for role change?
Then the obvious question: Should state continue its present role in higher education? In the West, a popular argument by the proponents of non fee levying universities, is that the state is most efficient to deliver common goods (rival but not excludable) and were the public to bear the cost of higher education it would be, on average higher than what they pay in taxes. This may be true for populations, if they equally shoulder the burden of taxes. In countries where the intake is badly limited, we are back to square one. The state funded education is then only a subsidy from the entire population to a small selected group. (It is not necessarily from even rich to poor. Given the tax structure in Sri Lanka it could be possible for even the poor subsidizing the higher education of the rich. This is Victor Ivan’s argument, yet to be proven.) A different question is the justification of the selection of this ‘privileged’ group, but even if agreed on the principle, state universities are not necessarily the best mechanism to pass that subsidy. The poor can be offered a far better solution in the form of full and partial scholarships at non-state universities. This increases their choice and will not force them to give up their dreams if they do not reach cut off marks. Partial scholarships will create more opportunities particularly in the middle income category. As the progress of the scholarship holders are continuously monitored and the opportunities are treated more as a ‘privilege’ than a ‘right’, it also accompanies a productivity improvement.
Then, why push for state universities? Why bring arguments against a change in the system, just for the sake of argument? In short, why do we still fear the change?
Milton Friedman said the following in a different context, but the same theory is no less applicable to education.
There is no way to justify our present public monopoly of the post office. It may be argued that the carrying of mail is a technical monopoly and that a government monopoly is the least of evils. Along these lines, one could perhaps justify a government post office, but not the present law, which makes it illegal for anybody else to carry the mail. If the delivery of mail is a technical monopoly, no one else will be able to succeed in competition with the government. If it is not, there is no reason why the government should be engaged in it. The only way to find out is to leave other people free to enter.
Sri Lanka can of course learn from the success stories elsewhere. India, with its fee leaving university colleges started even before the formal economic liberalization process in 1992-3, is far ahead. In the field of engineering, IITs and NITs have started gradually losing their competitiveness to recently established fee levying institutions. The only feather still present in the cap of state universities is the pool of trained academics. Some professors of the old school have not left largely for emotional reasons. In most other aspects, the newbies can easily beat the oldies. India Today magazine of June 28, 2010 does its annual ranking for best colleges in India and not all the top 25s are state institutions. The state universities that appear top, does more for their long term reputations than resources. It is just a matter of time the level of resources would be the same. The competition for an IIT seat will soon reroute elsewhere. Given the choice, any student will select the institute that offers the certificate with the higher recognition in the job market. Whether it is run by the state or not, is no more important.
Conclusion
To wind up, let me take the last desperate trump of the state-university lovers. It was the state-universities, they say, that created the present workforce and made Sri Lanka stand proud among its South Asian neighbours by its achievements in education. Why not continue the same model?
The first part of this argument is partially correct. The state universities have produced some of the netas and almost all babus who run the nation today. (Interesting fact: Nearly 40% of our present cabinet ministers are either products of state universities or the law collage) Still that is a frail excuse not to introduce a more efficient system. The Abhayagiriya monastery too might have produced the scholars who immensely contributed to the economy and society of the day, but does anybody justify that model for the same reason?
We have been forced to stay within an outdated model for too long. It is the time to try and adopt better models. No excuses and certainly no delays please.
Chanuka Wattegama is an independent researcher in development policy and can be contacted atchanuka@gmail.com.
The term ‘Free-Education’ is a misnomer. Its Sinhala equivalent ‘Nidhahas Adhyaapanaya’ is far misleading. Exempted from payment is just one meaning of the adjective ‘free’, often given towards the end of a dictionary entry. A more discernible meaning is the freedom of choice, ironically a feature largely missing in our education system.
Ideally, it should be called ‘Enforced Education’, for its inability to offer choices (Does your offspring study at the school of your choice?) or ‘Limited Education’ for deterring educational opportunities for all (Only 16% qualifies from A/Ls enter universities.) or at least ‘Half-free Education’ (An average household expenditure on education is 4-5% of the total and over 75% even in the lowest income bracket attend private tuition classes.) So let us stop contributing to the joke. Face it. Our present education system is not egalitarian and certainly not free.
Monopoly
The present higher education system in Sri Lanka is a monopoly. The universities are owned, controlled and funded by the state. The bill for this so-called ‘free-lunch’ is settled by the tax payers. The state decides the number of graduates to be produced, depending upon the budgetary allocations it can make. The corollary is that it also blocks the rest. Outdoing qualifying level is no guarantee for university entrance. Theoretically, three ‘A’ passes or 95% in qualifying examination are good only if others do not perform better. Otherwise the dreams of university entrance are carted off, more often than not with a career of choice. An aspirant engineer, who loses the third opportunity to enter one of the three engineering faculties, has little choice. She/he should either change her/his career goals or head for foreign universities, if affordable. To call that a ‘Free Education System’, one should surely have a strange sense of humor.
The flaws of state only university model are wider. Lack of competition eradicates the incentives to produce quality graduates. Libraries with outdated books, computers with outdated software and lecturers with outdated knowledge hardly make the right academic environment. Lack of choice forces a large number of arts graduates to follow courses that makes them more unemployable. Graduate unemployment is a prominent fact. According to the Consumer Finance and Socio-Economic Survey in 2004 by Central Bank of Sri Lanka, unemployment was six times higher among the graduates than among those who had only primary education. One out of every eight local graduates was unemployed. When the state finally absorbed their rejected produce the market price was as low as LKR 6,000 per month, not too different from what an Office Assistant earns in the private sector.
The irony is with all these drawbacks, a school still strongly believes not only in state providing higher education, but doing so in a monopolistic environment. Does it make any sense?
Past model
Interestingly, this wasn’t the model that we followed in the past. The feudal education model was far efficient and productive. An academy as famous as Takshila, Vikramashila and Nalanda in the ancient Buddhist world, the Abhyagiriya University was said to have hosted 5,000 student monks in its hey days according to Fa Xian, a Chinese Buddhist monk who traveled to Nepal, India, and Sri Lanka to acquire Buddhist scriptures in fifth century AD. The complex would have been larger than any of the present Sri Lankan university premises and of the same size of the ancient Anuradhapura city centre. The cost of construction and maintenance couldn’t have come only from the government. No matter how pious the kings and the subjects were, they couldn’t have made such colossal allocations from the treasury for no return. The only modes of survival were by levying tuition fees or producing outcomes of not religious, but true economic value. Probably the institution did both. Unlike Theravada, Mahayana doctrine did not prevent monks from studying non-religious ‘lay’ subjects. So it is realistic to assume it operated independently without burdening the treasury.
The state run higher education system was introduced by the suddaas. University of Ceylon was established in 1942 by absorbing the Ceylon University Collage and Ceylon Medical Collage. The intake was limited (1,600 in 1948) and the competition was not high as the rich could afford foreign education. It made sense for the state to run a monopoly as the bulk of the graduates were directly absorbed to the state machinery. The state expenditure on education was an investment, not a burden.
The monopoly was natural even during the first four decades in the post-independence period. Subsidized higher education was perhaps the only option to create the number of graduates essential for medical, engineering and administrative services, in a country with a per capita GDP of sub USD 200 figures. Fee levying universities would not have been a viable solution.
Demand & supply forces
This is not the case now. Both demand and supply conditions have changed.
Demand first. The annual intake to universities has increased to 20,000 per year, but the demand, instead of sliding, is on the rise. This corresponds to the growth of expectations. It is not uncommon even for poor parents to plan for the higher education of their offspring. Sri Lanka too is no more a low income country. In spite of heavy burden of foreign loans, the per capita GDP has shown a tenfold increase since 1970s. A sizable section of population can now support the higher education of their children. If not selected for state universities now they either enter foreign universities or follow professional courses like CIMA. Popular medical faculties in Manipal in India and Chittagong in Bangladesh, inter alia, make Sri Lanka loses both foreign currency and business opportunities to provide similar or better services.
The local supply, despite the expansions, remains a serious mismatch to this increasing demand, both qualitatively (as discussed earlier) and quantitatively. My own A/L results, with just a credit pass for Pure Mathematics, in 1986, placed me 65th in the all island physical science stream with a seat at University of Moratuwa. One needs better performance to gain university entrance now. It is heartening to note the Minister of Higher Education sees the gap. We assume his attempts to bridge it are genuine. His possible success, unlike the numerous previous efforts to free higher education from state monopoly will be crucial in national development.
Need for role change?
Then the obvious question: Should state continue its present role in higher education? In the West, a popular argument by the proponents of non fee levying universities, is that the state is most efficient to deliver common goods (rival but not excludable) and were the public to bear the cost of higher education it would be, on average higher than what they pay in taxes. This may be true for populations, if they equally shoulder the burden of taxes. In countries where the intake is badly limited, we are back to square one. The state funded education is then only a subsidy from the entire population to a small selected group. (It is not necessarily from even rich to poor. Given the tax structure in Sri Lanka it could be possible for even the poor subsidizing the higher education of the rich. This is Victor Ivan’s argument, yet to be proven.) A different question is the justification of the selection of this ‘privileged’ group, but even if agreed on the principle, state universities are not necessarily the best mechanism to pass that subsidy. The poor can be offered a far better solution in the form of full and partial scholarships at non-state universities. This increases their choice and will not force them to give up their dreams if they do not reach cut off marks. Partial scholarships will create more opportunities particularly in the middle income category. As the progress of the scholarship holders are continuously monitored and the opportunities are treated more as a ‘privilege’ than a ‘right’, it also accompanies a productivity improvement.
Then, why push for state universities? Why bring arguments against a change in the system, just for the sake of argument? In short, why do we still fear the change?
Milton Friedman said the following in a different context, but the same theory is no less applicable to education.
There is no way to justify our present public monopoly of the post office. It may be argued that the carrying of mail is a technical monopoly and that a government monopoly is the least of evils. Along these lines, one could perhaps justify a government post office, but not the present law, which makes it illegal for anybody else to carry the mail. If the delivery of mail is a technical monopoly, no one else will be able to succeed in competition with the government. If it is not, there is no reason why the government should be engaged in it. The only way to find out is to leave other people free to enter.
- Milton Friedman, Friedman, Milton & Rose D. Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, 1982
Sri Lanka can of course learn from the success stories elsewhere. India, with its fee leaving university colleges started even before the formal economic liberalization process in 1992-3, is far ahead. In the field of engineering, IITs and NITs have started gradually losing their competitiveness to recently established fee levying institutions. The only feather still present in the cap of state universities is the pool of trained academics. Some professors of the old school have not left largely for emotional reasons. In most other aspects, the newbies can easily beat the oldies. India Today magazine of June 28, 2010 does its annual ranking for best colleges in India and not all the top 25s are state institutions. The state universities that appear top, does more for their long term reputations than resources. It is just a matter of time the level of resources would be the same. The competition for an IIT seat will soon reroute elsewhere. Given the choice, any student will select the institute that offers the certificate with the higher recognition in the job market. Whether it is run by the state or not, is no more important.
Conclusion
To wind up, let me take the last desperate trump of the state-university lovers. It was the state-universities, they say, that created the present workforce and made Sri Lanka stand proud among its South Asian neighbours by its achievements in education. Why not continue the same model?
The first part of this argument is partially correct. The state universities have produced some of the netas and almost all babus who run the nation today. (Interesting fact: Nearly 40% of our present cabinet ministers are either products of state universities or the law collage) Still that is a frail excuse not to introduce a more efficient system. The Abhayagiriya monastery too might have produced the scholars who immensely contributed to the economy and society of the day, but does anybody justify that model for the same reason?
We have been forced to stay within an outdated model for too long. It is the time to try and adopt better models. No excuses and certainly no delays please.
Chanuka Wattegama is an independent researcher in development policy and can be contacted atchanuka@gmail.com.
An academic spring in Sri Lanka?
Island
July 28, 2011, 7:08 pmBy Camena Guneratne and Harini Amarasuriya
Open University of Sri Lanka
Open University of Sri Lanka
Continued From Thursday
Part II
Feudal character
Even a cursory analysis of Sri Lankan society reveals its deeply engrained feudal character. Despite 60 years of independence and democracy, as a society, we still remain largely dependent on feudal relationships to negotiate our everyday life. Knowing the right person, having the right connections, establishing the necessary patronage linkages is what helps us get through life fairly comfortably. Those who do not have access to those links will be left behind. This has become so much a part of our lives that we are unconscious of it. Of course, networking and building the right social connections in order to get by in life is not something that is unique to the Sri Lankan culture. Networking and relationship building form the core subject of many self improvement and professional development courses. But there is something unique about the insidiousness of the need to ‘know’ the right people and to be part of the right social or political networks in Sri Lanka, which deserves some thought. And that is the particularly feudal character of these networks and alliances. This means that establishing and maintaining these relationships include unquestioning and uncritical loyalty and obedience. Whether this is based on respect for age, authority, status, position or even friendship, these networks and social connections are highly personalised and form close, incestuous circles. The networks that exist within the universities are also based on similar relationships of patronage. Most of us working within the Sri Lankan university system are only too aware of this. While we want to ensure that we retain the best and the brightest of our graduates within the university system, this also reinforces relationships of dependence and patronage that stifles creativity, independence and that most important quality of all, autonomy. The teacher-student relationship survives far longer than necessary within Sri Lankan universities. Relationships between colleagues are mediated by the desire to please the powerful and to be aligned with the influential. Intellectual exchanges are circumscribed by the need to respect hierarchy and the fear of the consequences if you don’t; which ideas get challenged by whom depends on the guru kula you belong to rather than the legitimacy or importance of the thought. In recent times this cycle of networking and patronage becomes more ominous when it links the university system to the political sphere. This is unfortunately evident in the appointments of those holding high office in universities and related institutions.
These are perhaps some of the reasons the giant was sleeping and the academic community was in exile. The gradual erosion of academic freedom and independent thought led to situations where maintaining a low profile and not stirring up trouble became the main preoccupation of university teachers. This translated into apathy in the face of sometimes outrageous abuses of power by those in authority. In the past year or so we have seen a Vice Chancellor sending female students for virginity testing, another banning a human rights activist from speaking at a function of the university (which incidentally is a public space), yet another acquiescing in the illegal appointment of a Dean who had retired from service (the same Dean who now claims to derive his intellectual inspiration from supernatural forces), university Senates awarding honourary doctorates to politicians bypassing correct procedures. All this without a murmur of protest from the academic community at large! And we ask ourselves, "why?" Perhaps, another reason is that for many years, younger academics didn’t have role models to show them what it meant to be a part of a vibrant, energetic and intellectually stimulating environment. Those of us in the senior ranks, too, failed to adequately mentor the juniors and lead by example. Many of us were advised not to draw unnecessary attention to ourselves; to be discreet; to turn the other way if we see something wrong. If this was what was expected of us within the universities, how could we draw attention to ourselves outside?
Giant asleep, not dead
But, what this current resurgence has shown is that although the giant was asleep it is not dead. The impulses that led us to seek employment and a career within academia were clearly not economic. We all walked into the university system with our eyes wide open as to what our economic condition would be. Most of us took the plunge because we hold on to an ideal of university life where ideas matter; independence and critical skills are valued, not feared. We have listened wistfully to stories of the past of fiery debates and arguments in senates and faculty boards, of brilliant and colourful personalities stalking our corridors, of their intellectual achievements and eccentric exploits. These legends also inspired us to choose this career path. We chose academic careers because we believed in a certain way of life, a certain form of engagement with the world. Over the years what we got was under-funded and under-resourced institutions coming under increasing political control by governments to whom education was no longer a priority. Given their environment, combined with the impossibly low salaries offered, the universities no longer attracted the best minds and inevitably took a turn towards mediocrity and apathy. And with a few exceptions and while trying to maintain some standards of excellence, most of us went with the tide!
We are all responsible for the current state of the university system in Sri Lanka. But, in spite of our frustration, lurking inside all of us was the hope for something different. And it is that hope which is being stirred today. Within the last couple of months, leaders have emerged from all sides from within the different universities. Academics are beginning to show that they will no longer be silent. Academics are taking on authorities who are attempting to circumvent university procedures, influence academic decisions and interfere with teaching responsibilities. They are also supporting each other. The public protests in which university teachers marched on the streets in the past few weeks (a phenomenon unthinkable a year ago), their willingness to travel literally from one end of the country to the other to support their colleagues and the sense of solidarity and community this has generated have triggered a new found feeling of liberation. The last rally took place in Jaffna, where close to 1,000 university teachers from all parts of the country marched on the streets much to the bemusement of the local people. At that meeting a question asked by a union leader summed up in one sentence all our past failings – "Where was FUTA in thirty years of civil war?"Now academics are resisting when VCs and Deans go beyond their authority. We are finally learning that that is not the way; that we have to stand up to be counted; that VCs are also accountable to their institutions and their impunity must be challenged; that senate and faculty board meetings are not just held to rubber stamp decisions made by others, but are forums where matters are debated and decisions taken by a responsible community of people.
What next?
This is not the first (and will not be the last) regime to use political power to interfere with the autonomy of universities. But safeguarding that autonomy requires academics to take their rights and privileges seriously and to fight to protect it. We reiterate that these rights and privileges are intrinsic to our ability and our obligations to fulfil our core functions in civil society. It is important that we do not forget that this fight has to happen within as much as outside the universities. As the UNESCO Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education says, university autonomy is what enables the academic community to speak out with responsibility and independence on the ethical, cultural and social problems of their time. The current FUTA trade union action has enabled us to reflect on and act on these issues both inside and outside our institutions. The trade union action being suspended does not mean that our fight to protect our privileges and fulfil our responsibilities need come to an end. It is up to us to also hold FUTA accountable for the challenge they laid before university teachers at the seminar in Jaffna when one speaker asked us what we were going to do when our wallets and handbags were filled. The trade union action has been suspended even prior to our wallets and handbags being filled; perhaps our union leaders who have been exhorting us to keep fighting need to explain why they gave up the fight long before we were ready to do so.
The current mood of the academic community shows that it was not merely the salary issue which drew us on to the streets. The intransigence and inanity of the current regime and the humiliating treatment meted out to university teachers has had a positive effect. It has, without doubt been a significant factor in causing them to finally rise up and say enough is enough. You can push a community so far and no further. Perhaps, a more significant factor is the threat to the very future and survival of the country’s much cherished public education system. University teachers are now making it clear that they will not stand silent and watch the dismantling of this system. The demand for decent salaries is based not merely on self interest but also on real fears that the erosion of adequate funding is an insidious way of destroying these institutions from within. FUTA is also asking for adequate funding of education as a whole which is a sine qua non for sustainable development.
There are signs that the winter of our discontent is ending and spring is in the air. The response of university teachers to the FUTA union action signalled that we were ready to be mobilised and to emerge from hibernation. Now that the union action has been suspended, the next few weeks and months will demonstrate if the signs of resurgence are here to stay.
Concluded
What is the scientific process?
The Island
July 28, 2011, 7:12 pm
By Carlo Fonseka
Like all living things on earth, we humans (members of the species Homo sapiens) strive to survive and to reproduce ourselves in this world. Not knowing whence we came, whither we are hurrying or why, we find ourselves engaged in trying to avoid suffering and pursuing happiness. To succeed in this endeavour we have to interact with our environment. The brain is the organ that mediates our interactions with the world. The brain is equipped with the capacity to perceive and judge what happens in the world from a causal perspective, that is to say, to judge the way in which one thing gives rise to, or causes another. Our endeavours to avoid suffering and to pursue happiness will succeed only to the extent that the judgments we make with our brain about cause and effect relationships are true, correct and accurate. i.e. reliable.
Empirical Approach
Our judgments are based on our perceptions which themselves depend on what the world appears to be to our sense organs such as our eyes and ears. We have learnt from experience that our eyes and ears do not always give us reliable information about the world. Because of the fallibility of our senses (vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch) experience has taught us that our judgments based on perceptions must be validated by the exercise of our critical intelligence i.e. our faculty of reason. By this method –sensory experience guided by rational analysis – humanity has acquired knowledge about the world which has helped us to avoid premature death, to reduce suffering and to enjoy the experience of living in the world. A little thought suffices to a show that wherever and whenever human beings have acquired reliable knowledge about some aspect of the natural world, they had, first of all, made some observations about it. Next, they had figured out some cause-and-effect explanation for the observations. Finally, they had looked to see whether the explanation is confirmed by their experience of living. If the validity of the explanation is repeatedly confirmed on many occasions in one or more ways, the explanation (hypothesis) comes to assume the status of ‘a theory’. Thus what began with observation and was confirmed by further observation ended as a theory. Theories embody our knowledge of the world based on the facts of our experience. We may call this the empirical approach to the nature of the world. It is the essential scientific process. There may be other approaches to knowledge such as divine revelation as in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. However, the empirical, logical, rational process is the one that has given humankind the most reliable knowledge about the world which has enabled us to prevent premature death, eliminate avoidable suffering and enjoy life on earth.It was Karl Popper who pointed out that all theories are equally conjectural because for any finite set of observations there can be an infinite number of explanatory theories. Therefore mathematically the probability of any one of them being ‘true’ is zero. Although scientific theories are not wholly true and may even be false, the scientific process itself is rational because scientific theories can be improved in the light of further empirical evidence. In practice if not in theory many people who freely use computers, televisions and airplanes regard the scientific process as the most effective and reliable method available to humankind to acquire knowledge about the world in which we have to live and die.
RCKD
Let us now apply the above considerations to the problem of the Rajarata Chronic Kidney Disease (RCKD) of unknown cause. If newspaper reports are correct, the Kelaniya Group of Scientists led by Prof. Nalin de Silva claim to have figured out that the cause of RCKD is arsenic. As I understand it, to make their important claim acceptable to those who regard empirical natural science as I have described it above, three conditions have to be fulfiled. They are the necessary and sufficient conditions that must be fulfiled before their claim that they KNOW that arsenic is indeed the cause of RCKD becomes scientifically valid.
First: Arsenic must really be the cause of RCKD
Second: They must be sure that arsenic is the cause of RCKD
Third: They must have the right to be sure that arsenic is the cause of RCKD
As they believe, arsenic may indeed be the cause of RCKD. But their belief by itself is not enough to validate their claim that they know it is the cause. A second condition must be satisfied before their belief can aspire towards the status of knowledge. Why so? Because had they just guessed from a sense of inner conviction with or without divine help that arsenic is the cause of RCKD and their guess turns out to be correct, they cannot validly claim that they had true knowledge of it. For them to claim to have had knowledge of it, they had to be sure of it on the basis of some verifiable evidence, such as having observed arsenic in samples of water and rice. Even their subjective certainty, however, though necessary, in not sufficient for them to validly claim that they know that arsenic is the cause of RCKD. Why not? Because their sureness or certainty may be based on circumstances that do not entitle them to be sure. For one thing, being human beings like the rest of us, they are liable like the rest of us not only to err, but are also susceptible to illusions, hallucinations and delusions. So their subjective certainty may be based on un-checkable, unverifiable evidence. Therefore it is necessary for them to satisfy the third condition before their claim to knowledge becomes a valid one and that is the right to be sure of the reliability of the evidence.
Conclusion
To sum up: in order to claim that they know that arsenic is the cause of RCKD acceptable to the modern scientific outlook, not only must their belief that arsenic is the cause of RCKD be true; they must also be sure that it is true; and most importantly they must have the right to be sure that it is true. In the modern scientific process the right to be sure is earned in various ways, depending on the matter in question. In the case of RCKD, the essential validation of their claim to knowledge that arsenic is the cause of RCKD is that the reliability of their methodology and accuracy of their observations on which their claim is based should be capable of being verified by competent others. i.e. publicly verified. Why should that be so? Because what is not verifiable by others will become a matter of disagreement and whenever there is unsettleable disagreement, we reach a dead end. This may lead to a fight to the death based on different epistemological approaches to reality which should be avoided in the name of humanity. If the matter is a trivial one like fire-walking or hanging on hooks, the disagreeing parties can agree to disagree and go their separate ways. However if the matter in question has public policy implications, publicly uncheckable ‘truths’ are potentially dangerous. For even matters which are on the edge of private lunacy, can become matters on the edge of public policy.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Restraining order against UGC, University heads extended
By Chitra Weerarathne
The Court of Appeal yesterday extended till August 05, 2011, the restraining order, issued earlier, against the University Grants Commission, the Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, and the Heads of Departments, of the Ruhuna, Wayamba and Sri Jayewardenepura Universities.
The stay order restrained the UGC the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellors, from accepting the letters of resignation submitted by the Heads of Department. The same stay order restrained the Heads of Departments from submitting letters of resignation and keeping away from official duties.
Groups of students from the three universities had complained to the Court of Appeal that the Heads of Department handed over letters of resignation, and kept away from academic functions and thereby, the academic work of the undergrads had been interrupted. They requested the Court to prohibit the authorities from accepting the letter of resignation.
The Bench comprised Justices Sriskandarajah and Nalin Perera.
Faiz Mustapha, PC and Sanjeewa Jayawardena appeared of the petitioner students.
M. A. Sumanthiran appeared for the Heads of Department.
An Academic Spring in Sri Lanka?
By Camena Guneratne and
Harini Amarasuriya
Open University of Sri Lanka
Harini Amarasuriya
Open University of Sri Lanka
The Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA) has called off the trade union action it launched more than two months ago, somewhat unexpectedly. The blogsphere is buzzing with comments, reactions and analyses of the suspension of the trade union action. This reaction itself shows the degree to which FUTA had succeeded in mobilising university teachers. It now appears that the FUTA membership may have been a few steps ahead of the FUTA leadership; thus, the unexpected suspension of the union action, without sufficient consultation with the sister unions has created a storm. The intention of this article is not to analyse FUTA’s decision or the reaction to it, but rather, to offer a perspective on the recent mobilisation of university teachers which evolved during more than two months of university wide trade union action.
Although the FUTA trade union action originated in a demand that the government honour its undertaking to increase salaries, it has metamorphosed amongst the membership into a movement of much greater significance. After decades of invisibility the academic community is now asserting its place in Sri Lankan civil society. Emboldened by the strength and commitment of its membership FUTA’s platform has also broadened from the original demand of a salary package to ‘attract, recruit and retain’ academics within the state university system. Today the academic community is not merely demanding a salary increase and other emoluments but is questioning the fate of higher education in Sri Lanka, university autonomy, academic freedom, student rights and the need to protect democratic spaces. This signals something more than the anger of a disgruntled, under paid and unappreciated professional body, but also an awakening of a sense of social awareness and responsibility. This movement has brought together university academics from different universities, disciplinary backgrounds and political affiliations in ways not seen in recent times. FUTA suspending the trade union action when many of these demands including that of salary have not been satisfactorily addressed, has certainly shocked many university teachers who supported the union action passionately.
This activism and resurgence among the academic community has been compared to the awakening of a sleeping giant, of academics proving that they have vertebrae, of a community emerging from a long, largely self imposed silence. This suggests that prior to the events and activities of the past two months, Sri Lankan academics (by and large) have been not just asleep but somewhat irrelevant for society. University teachers who have spoken out in the recent past have done so based on political party affiliation. We have not been making ourselves heard as independent social commentators and analysts in our own right. But the signs are there that this is now changing. Picking up a newspaper in Sri Lanka during the past few weeks or browsing the web, it was evident that academics had (and will continue to have) plenty to say on a range of issues. Our intention in this article is to consider the role of the country’s academic community in this broader context and to try and understand the recent activism as well as the past silence of Sri Lankan university teachers. The changes that we have observed in our community recently, we hope, signals a reawakening that will lead us towards a critical reflection of our role in society and the establishment of the kind of university culture that would help us fulfil this role.
Role of Higher Education
If we follow the recent ‘official’ discourse on the role of higher education in Sri Lanka, one may be forgiven for believing that the sole purpose of higher education (and therefore of academics) is to solve the unemployment problem in the country. In other words, what we are expected to do is to create ‘employable graduates’. Universities and academics are under enormous pressure to produce ‘marketable’ graduates and programmes. However, this is an extremely narrow and short sighted vision of higher education. According to the Bonn Declaration adopted at the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development 2009, higher education has three core functions:
1. Research,
2. Teaching
3. Service of the community
Service of the community includes generating knowledge and advancing the understanding of issues that challenge the sustainable development of society. Our core function of teaching relates to producing ethical citizens who are committed to the values of peace, human rights and democracy. This clearly is a much broader vision of higher education than that envisaged by successive Higher Education authorities in Sri Lanka recently. The suppression (at times with the complicity of academics) of this broader mission for higher education is what has also kept Sri Lankan academics asleep and in exile during the past few decades.
The importance of academic freedom and university autonomy needs to be considered within this broader understanding of the role of higher education. In order to be able to fulfil our core functions with responsibility, universities and university teachers need to be independent and critical. They must develop the kind of culture which encourages debate and discussion, rewards academic rigour and intellectual curiosity and, most importantly, a sense of social responsibility. If we understand the role of higher education and the responsibilities of those involved in higher education in this context, then the role of academics is far removed from the mere pursuit of knowledge. Research cannot be only for the sake of promotions and career development. Teaching cannot be merely about regurgitating notes that have circulated for years among students. Our role calls for an active engagement with society, especially with our students; in fact, it calls for academics to take the lead in speaking out on issues concerning wider society. Academic freedom and university autonomy are rights that the university community enjoys in order to fulfil its social obligations in a responsible manner. We cannot fulfil our core functions if we are restrained and kept under control.
Autonomy & independence
The academic community in Sri Lanka today has recognised the need to fight for its autonomy and independence and its relevance in civil society. However, we will not be successful in our efforts to do so, if we imagine that this fight is only with external forces. This fight has to also take place within our universities. Just as much as we call upon the authorities to refrain from undermining our freedom and autonomy, we need to reflect on university culture in contemporary Sri Lanka and attempt to understand how and why we silenced ourselves and contributed to our irrelevance during the last several years. How did we get into a situation where different political regimes were able to interfere in our institutions with such impunity or politically controlled Vice Chancellors and the University Grants Commission could influence our academic spaces to the extent that they do now?
This is where it is important to consider how we should continue to mobilise and remain active outside of trade union activity. While FUTA gave us a spur, the changes we seek cannot be achieved through it—or certainly not through FUTA in its current shape and form. We need to reform our institutions, including FUTA to be in line with this broader agenda. Firstly, we need to reflect on our past silence and inaction. University culture often reflects broader cultural and political contexts; they present us with a microcosm of life outside the universities. And the politicisation of institutions as well as the growing authoritarian nature of governance systems, which has taken place in other institutions in Sri Lanka, certainly did not spare the university system. However, in this article, we would like to consider another factor which contributed to the erosion of university autonomy and academic freedom.
To be continued tomorrow
If we follow the recent ‘official’ discourse on the role of higher education in Sri Lanka, one may be forgiven for believing that the sole purpose of higher education (and therefore of academics) is to solve the unemployment problem in the country. In other words, what we are expected to do is to create ‘employable graduates’. Universities and academics are under enormous pressure to produce ‘marketable’ graduates and programmes. However, this is an extremely narrow and short sighted vision of higher education. According to the Bonn Declaration adopted at the UNESCO World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development 2009, higher education has three core functions:
Dons await fresh letters of appointment
Dailymirror 28/07/2011
By Lakna Paranamanna
The university academics said yesterday they would not withdraw the resignation letters which they submitted to university authorities and were awaiting the Vice Chancellors to issue fresh letters of appointments for the academics who resigned from their voluntary posts.
Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) President Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri told Daily Mirror that they had been advised by their lawyers to refrain from withdrawing the resignation letters. Contd. from A1
“We have been advised that if we withdraw the resignation letters, it would impact negatively on the trade union action we carried out. The letters were submitted about two and a half months ago and withdrawing them now would certainly weaken the legality of our trade union action,” Dr. Dewasiri said.
He said the FUTA was talking to Vice Chancellors with the intention of resolving this matter and resuming work at the voluntary posts held earlier.
“In spite of suspending our trade union activities, the universities are still unable to resume to academic or administrative activities,” he added.
The university academics resigned from voluntary administrative positions on May 3 as part of a series of trade union action to urge the government to grant them an adequate salary increase. The action brought to a standstill the administrative functions in all the universities. Last Thursday the academics decided to suspend their trade union action after the government agreed to accept their interim proposal.
By Lakna Paranamanna
The university academics said yesterday they would not withdraw the resignation letters which they submitted to university authorities and were awaiting the Vice Chancellors to issue fresh letters of appointments for the academics who resigned from their voluntary posts.
Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) President Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri told Daily Mirror that they had been advised by their lawyers to refrain from withdrawing the resignation letters. Contd. from A1
“We have been advised that if we withdraw the resignation letters, it would impact negatively on the trade union action we carried out. The letters were submitted about two and a half months ago and withdrawing them now would certainly weaken the legality of our trade union action,” Dr. Dewasiri said.
He said the FUTA was talking to Vice Chancellors with the intention of resolving this matter and resuming work at the voluntary posts held earlier.
“In spite of suspending our trade union activities, the universities are still unable to resume to academic or administrative activities,” he added.
The university academics resigned from voluntary administrative positions on May 3 as part of a series of trade union action to urge the government to grant them an adequate salary increase. The action brought to a standstill the administrative functions in all the universities. Last Thursday the academics decided to suspend their trade union action after the government agreed to accept their interim proposal.
Doctorate for former Minister Hemakumara Nanayakkara
A Doctorate in Agriculture was awarded to former Agriculture Minister Hemakumara Nanayakkara by the University of Peradeniya on Monday. The ex Minister is currently an adviser to the President.
The Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture (PGIA), Peradeniya University has awarded the Doctorate, for the research done by him on adopting Organic agriculture for sustainable development of agriculture in Sri Lanka.
A council of eminent persons including Prof H P M Gunasekera and Dr Saliya Silva under the Supervision of Prof Sarath Bandara led the research team. Hemakumara Nanayakkara is the first and only Sri Lankan to be awarded with a Post Graduate Degree in Organic Agriculture.
Solar Asia Research Confab at IFS, Kandy
The Solar Asia 2011 International Conference on Solar Energy Materials, Solar Cells and Solar Energy Applications will be held at the Institute of Fundamental Studies in Kandy from today (28) to July 30 2011.
Solar energy is expected to be a major supplementary power source in the very near future especially in tropical countries, like Sri Lanka. Research on solar energy materials and solar cells is a fast growing interdisciplinary branch of science and technology today. During the past many years, physicists, chemists, material scientists, engineers and industry personnel have focused their attention to develop novel materials for ‘highly efficient and low cost solar cells and photovoltaic devices.
Scientists and technologists in Asian countries continue to make notable contributions to these developments. In fact, Sri Lanka ranks among the top 10 nations with regard to research publications on dye sensitized solar cells.
The Solar-Asia 2011 conference will provide a forum for researchers from Asia and other countries to present their research, to, find out latest developments in specific areas and to network with experts in the field.
There will be about 100 research scientists and technologists from 14 countries making their deliberations at the three day conference, which will be inaugurated by Pavithra Wanniarachchi, Minister of Technology and Research on Thursday, July 28th Many senior and young researchers and academics from Sri Lanka will be making invited and contributed presentations at this conference.
The conference has been co-organized by the Institute of Fundamental Studies and the National Science Foundation.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tug o’ war on technicalities delay Unis returning to normal
By Dasun Edirisinghe
Academic activities in universities, which had been put on hold due to the trade union action by the teachers, will not commence soon despite the dons suspending their protest, university sources said yesterday.
The impasse had been caused by a decision taken by the vice chancellors of the universities not to issue fresh letters reappointing university lecturers to the voluntary posts from which they had resigned as part of their trade union action, sources said.
The university teachers who had resigned from the posts of heads of departments in the campuses demand that they be given new letters of appointment. The Vice chancellors have rejected this demand and have suggested that the teachers must withdraw their letters of resignation instead.
President of the Federation of University Teachers Associations, Dr Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri told The Island that their members would not withdraw the letters of resignation.
During the most recent discussion between the FUTA and the Secretary to the Ministry of Higher Education Dr Sunil Jayantha Navaratne where the university teachers had agreed to suspend their union action, it was also agreed that the ministry would take action to get VCs to offer new letters of appointment.
However, the VCs who met in a separate meeting have decided not to issue letters re-appointing former heads of departments but to entertain the academics to withdraw their letters of resignation, Dr Devasiri said.
Meanwhile, the University Grants Commission had revoked Circular No 956 it had issued earlier as demanded by the FUTA.
A hastily summoned meeting was held between FUTA members and the Treasury Secretary Dr P. B. Jayasundera yesterday morning.
At this meeting the Treasury Secretary had agreed to provide the Rs 600 cost of living allowance, paid to the public servants, to university teachers too. One of the demands of the FUTA was to pay this allowance separately without adding it to the basic salary of the teachers, Finance Ministry sources said.
The FUTA has also demanded, at that meeting, that the salaries of all probationary lecturers be increased by ten percent, FUTA sources said adding that the Treasury Secretary’s approval was pending.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
FUTA to resume TU action unless ... - Dr. Devasiri
The Island 26/07/2011
by Dasun Edirisinghe
University teachers who suspended their trade union action last Thursday warned the government yesterday that unless their demands were granted as promised, they would be compelled to resume their protest.
President of the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri, addressing a press conference in Colombo yesterday, said that they were well aware of the government’s way of handling trade union issues. "We are not ready to let them take us for a ride this time," he said.
Dr. Devasiri claimed that the government had a history of reneging on promises it made to university teachers since 2008. But, this time around, it would not be able to take them for a ride, he said.
According to FUTA, the government has agreed to appoint a committee to evolve lasting solutions to the university teachers’ salary issues and cancel a circular issued by the University Grants Commission preventing university dons from resigning from the posts held by them voluntarily, without giving three-months notice.
The government had also agreed to discuss the issues such as university teachers’ Research and Development Allowance and FUTA had therefore decided to suspend its trade union action, Dr. Devasiri said. FUTA wants that allowance made part of the teachers’ salaries.
He said FUTA agreed to the government’s proposal to increase the salary of a senior professor to Rs. 115,000, but it would be only Rs. 101,000 without that allowance.
Dr. Devasiri said there were only 38 senior professors in the country.
FUTA asked for a ten per cent salary increment for probationary lecturers, but the government had granted a pay hike of only 6.25 per cent. There had been no pay hikes for demonstrators, FUTA chief said.
University teachers resorted to trade union action to pressure the government to rectify their salary anomalies, with a token strike on March 15, 2011. They resigned from university administrative posts on May 09.
by Dasun Edirisinghe
University teachers who suspended their trade union action last Thursday warned the government yesterday that unless their demands were granted as promised, they would be compelled to resume their protest.
President of the Federation of University Teachers Associations (FUTA) Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri, addressing a press conference in Colombo yesterday, said that they were well aware of the government’s way of handling trade union issues. "We are not ready to let them take us for a ride this time," he said.
Dr. Devasiri claimed that the government had a history of reneging on promises it made to university teachers since 2008. But, this time around, it would not be able to take them for a ride, he said.
According to FUTA, the government has agreed to appoint a committee to evolve lasting solutions to the university teachers’ salary issues and cancel a circular issued by the University Grants Commission preventing university dons from resigning from the posts held by them voluntarily, without giving three-months notice.
The government had also agreed to discuss the issues such as university teachers’ Research and Development Allowance and FUTA had therefore decided to suspend its trade union action, Dr. Devasiri said. FUTA wants that allowance made part of the teachers’ salaries.
He said FUTA agreed to the government’s proposal to increase the salary of a senior professor to Rs. 115,000, but it would be only Rs. 101,000 without that allowance.
Dr. Devasiri said there were only 38 senior professors in the country.
FUTA asked for a ten per cent salary increment for probationary lecturers, but the government had granted a pay hike of only 6.25 per cent. There had been no pay hikes for demonstrators, FUTA chief said.
University teachers resorted to trade union action to pressure the government to rectify their salary anomalies, with a token strike on March 15, 2011. They resigned from university administrative posts on May 09.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)