Only money and jobs will fix the mess in our university education

Education Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang'i (right) and Commission for University Education Chairman Henry Thairu during a press conference at Jogoo House, Nairobi, on January 27, 2016. The government needs to seriously address the issue of financing university education and creating employment opportunities for graduates of our science-based programmes. PHOTO | JEFF ANGOTE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The concerns raised revolve around two problems: proliferation of under-resourced (and under-performing) programmes and the strong arts orientation of university education system in general.
  • My point is to effect fundamental changes with respect to these concerns, the government needs to seriously address the issue of financing university education and creating employment opportunities for graduates of our science-based programmes.
  • If it is true that Kenya has more jobs for graduates of science-based programmes, let us stop the vilification of arts students and the courses they do at university. Let us just show the science jobs.
  • Let us employ our science graduates immediately after graduation. Let us have job adverts for science graduates, and students will troop in the direction of our science departments.

Since Dr Fred Matiang’i took on the mantle of education, newspaper columns have been awash with words of praise for his ‘Magufuli’ (no-nonsense) approach to addressing the ills facing university education in Kenya.

I have no intention of bursting his bubble, but I want to point out the fact that it will take more than a prefect approach to right what has gone wrong in our universities over the last 15 years.

My childhood experiences gave me some insight into the limits of what one can achieve in management by playing prefect in a messy situation.

For a significant portion of my time both at Kaswanga Primary School and Mbita Secondary, I was either a prefect or a head boy (maliciously defined by my fourth form classmates at Mbita as the boy with the biggest head).

Back to the mess in our university education. The concerns raised revolve around two problems: proliferation of under-resourced (and under-performing) programmes and the strong arts orientation of university education system in general.

My point is to effect fundamental changes with respect to these concerns, the government needs to seriously address the issue of financing university education and creating employment opportunities for graduates of our science-based programmes.

FINANCES

I will first address the money issue. Anyone who was at the University of Nairobi (UoN) in the 1990s will remember the dilapidated state of the physical facilities (falling ceiling boards, incomplete buildings, broken furniture, etc) that characterised the general look of the university.

I will not say much about the low morale of the poorly paid staff, the demotivating condition of the poorly equipped libraries, and the dehumanising state of the students’ residential facilities.

I happened to be a head of department those days. It was in that capacity that I was one morning told the senate was having a special meeting at the KCB Leadership Centre in Karen.

In the company of my friends (fellow members of senate) at the College of Education and External Studies (Kikuyu Campus), where I worked, I rushed to the meeting with a sense of foreboding.

Each time the senate met outside the university premises, there was something really serious to be discussed.

As soon as we settled down, the then Vice-Chancellor, Prof Francis Gichaga, in his capacity as senate chair, called the meeting to order and told us there was only one agenda item, which he asked the then Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration and Finance), Prof Raphael Munavu to tell us about.

Then, clearly and emphatically, Prof Munavu told us in no uncertain terms that the university was broke and we had only two options: close down the university or think of how to raise money.

Considering the dire consequences of closing down the university, we unanimously resolved to raise money and keep the university afloat.

As to what exactly we would do to raise money, our School of Business (Lower Kabete Campus) had a clear proposal: each department and unit had to start an income-generating activity based on its area of competence.

For most departments, that meant starting a module II (also known as parallel) teaching programme, whose essential defining characteristic was that the admitted students would be self-sponsored, bringing the much-needed revenue for financing regular university activities.

To cut a long story short, the monumental consequence of that effort is the multi-storey University of Nairobi Towers building, which is now enjoying the finishing touches of the hands of its Chinese builders.

In general, the decision made by the UoN senate at the Karen meeting has revolutionised the UoN facilities and equipment to a point that would make anyone who left UoN in the 1990s believe in the power of miracles.

The UoN story has inspired other public universities to try and raise money to meet their government capitation shortcomings in a similar manner.

This has created stiff competition for the module II money market, making it necessary for the competing universities to take their services closer to their customers (yes, students are now called customers).

It is this hard-nosed competition that is attracting the negative reactions to which Dr Matiang’i is responding.

ADEQUATE CAPITATION

My view is that the government can stop this trend in a fundamental manner only by providing adequate capitation of the approved programmes in public universities.

This means each public university will become an educational holy ground, where only the best educational practices are allowed.

The remaining task of managing operations of the private universities will be a relatively much lighter job.

Regarding the strong arts orientation in our university programmes, let us first observe the link between this orientation and the money issues discussed above.

Without adequate capitation it is much cheaper to run an arts programme than a science one.

The cost of the equipment required to teach a science course is usually overwhelming even for well established universities.

It is relatively much cheaper to provide the books, boards and chalk required for teaching an arts course.

Moreover, experience shows that arts programmes provide the financial resources needed to equip the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) programmes.

For example, equipment needed to train one dentistry student is usually too expensive for even one hundred of such students to pay for.

In a big university such as UoN, a good chunk of that money comes from the arts programmes.

In other words, arts students sponsor their ‘comrades’ in the STEM programmes.

That is why universities that start off as science and technology institutions do not usually see their first cohort of students graduating before they start admitting arts students.

Unfortunately, we do not see those science graduates being luckier in the Kenyan job market than their arts ‘comrades’.

If it is true that Kenya has more jobs for graduates of science-based programmes, let us stop the vilification of arts students and the courses they do at university. Let us just show the science jobs.

Let us employ our science graduates immediately after graduation. Let us have job adverts for science graduates, and students will troop in the direction of our science departments.

Human beings are rational even in the education market.

Professor Okoth Okombo is a lecturer in the Department of Linguistics and Languages at the University of Nairobi. [email protected]