Before I begin, let me say that there will be exceptions to my general statements but that's what they are, exceptions.
Let me also concede that the idea behind GATE (Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses) is a noble, well-intentioned one that I would normally support. I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with a measure that hopes to raise the level of education in our society. However, that has not happened.
The reality is that GATE has been severely abused for the enrichment of a few with little commensurate benefit to the country.
Naturally, GATE is a sensitive issue. And even though they understand its shortcomings, many people, especially politicians, are reluctant to criticise it for fear of being labelled anti-people or anti-education or anti-poor. But one does not have to be any of those labels to appreciate the problems with GATE.
The biggest problem is that many so-called tertiary level institutions are not providing tertiary education. Over many years, I've had the unhappy experience of having to teach some of their graduates (in IT, mathematics and various branches of computing) and many did not know what is typically covered in a high-school syllabus much less a real degree programme. But that's not surprising.
You cannot have failed to see the advertisements where they recruit students to read for a degree with CXC/O-Level qualifications or less. Keep in mind that most of these students would not have been good enough to get into A-Level/CAPE classes at their school. Some institutions even boast that you could "get your degree in two years."
Do you really think that in two, three or even four years, these generally weak students can learn what is taught at A-Level/CAPE (two years) plus the material in a typical three-year degree programme?
We would be lucky if, with their newly-acquired "degrees," they could pass an A-Level/CAPE subject. The end result of all this is the government is paying enormous amounts of money for students to acquire what is essentially an upper high school qualification. I challenge anyone who doubts this to put it to the test.
The only real beneficiaries are the institutions. Since student fees are guaranteed by GATE, they couldn't care less who they enrol–the more, the merrier. Of course, in order to sustain business, these students must "graduate." That's not hard since there are any number of "external" institutions willing to grant "degrees" for an appropriate fee, even going through the charade of "academic assessment" (set easy exams and mark generously).
I still recall one "principal" boasting that she registered 30 students for an IT degree; all graduated with 17 first-class honours! So how do we tell who is better at charades?
Previously, I've advocated that students should pay their own tuition fees initially (with exceptions made for the needy). On "graduation," the Ministry of Education will administer a simple test in the appropriate subject area. If a student passes, their fees will be refunded. Trust me, the test will not have to be of "degree" standard–basic subject matter will suffice.
Informally, I have administered such tests to hundreds of "graduates" over the last 20 years or so. Only a handful would have been refunded their fees. The details of how the tests will be set and administered can be worked out but I submit that it will weed out most of the abuse of the system while ensuring that those who pass through will be of some value to their employer. In the interim, we should go back to the "dollar for dollar" version of GATE.
With the advent of GATE, we do have many more people walking around with "degrees" but most know very little of what they are supposed to know. We have become a more "papered" society but not a more educated one. The tax-payer is being ripped off left, right and centre.
It is time to overhaul GATE to ensure that we get value for money.
Noel Kalicharan
