Students pushed toward less expensive programs at the expense of ability by the New University funding scheme.
According to the government, switching to the new university funding model could have been necessary. Nevertheless, we also need to be prepared to cope with some entirely new realities that will surface after it is implemented.
Recently, I discovered something strange about how students select their desired programs. A dubious conversation between a mother and her son was overheard while selecting their university degree programs. This happened on one of my rural town’s websites approximately three months ago. Around this period, KCSE students with C+ and above were selecting their preferred courses in the KUCCPS portal.
A mother in my neighborhood was pressing her son to enroll in a “arts” program. This was despite the son qualifying for a degree in engineering, pharmacy, or medicine, on the fact that he had a flawless score on his KCSE.
The mother suggested that the son enroll in one of the school’s “affordable” courses. The family couldn’t afford the tuition for the “first class degree” programs.
The son was indignant, claiming he had worked very hard to enroll in the university’s medical school. On the other hand, the mother insisted that the family couldn’t afford it either and their hands were tied.
I was baffled and eager to perform a summary analysis to determine whether students would choose “cost-friendly programmes” rather than “merited programmes” they were eligible for at the institutions.
Students pushed toward less expensive programs at the expense of ability by the New University’s funding scheme.
First off, my research validated my concerns that our science and technology schools drew less applicants than other institutions of the arts and social sciences. This was done after our institution welcomed its new students last week.
Our school’s dean informed us that he was unaware of the reason for the sharp decline in enrolment. This is in contrast to other institutions that have seen a 100% surge in enrollment. I knew we had a serious problem on our hands.
What problems need to be fixed in the future?
Article 53(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees our kids the right to a reasonably priced and easily accessible education. The first problem is with how the CBC curriculum is being used.
15% of students must take social science courses while 15% must take courses in the arts and sports and another 60% to take STEM-related courses, according to the CBC. How might the new model assist us in achieving our goals for CBC? Is this a mistake? Has the new funding plan failed us?
Seemingly, more graduates from highly specialized professions like engineering, pharmacy, actuarial science, and others would choose for less expensive schools. This follows the fact that their families cannot afford to send them on to pursue their chosen occupations.
We therefore risk ending careers in medicine, engineering, and other highly technical sectors in favor of arts-based programs.
Cost was the primary factor in this new paradigm of university finance. Approximately 9,000 students chose private institutions versus 130,000 who chose public universities.
Have private universities finally been eradicated? Did students only take price into account while choosing their universities, rather than merit? I also think about it.
What legislative modifications are necessary?
The majority of students who obtained As and qualified for first-degree courses will choose for less expensive options. The government has however insisted that the Means Testing Instrument (MTI) will solve the problem.
![Students pushed toward less expensive programs at the expense of ability by the New University funding scheme](https://educationnewsbyte.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Screenshot_20230817-203526-300x149.png)
Students still have to specify which of the four categories they fit under when requesting loans. These categories are:
- Vulnerable
- Extremely needy
- Needy
- Less needy
Due to their worries, a lot of people have already started WhatsApp groups to “crowd-fund” their kids’ college tuition.
The government must figure out how to cope with weak students who purposefully conceal information or fabricate it when they are not as vulnerable.
Today’s universities need to learn how to deal with the sudden increase of students pursuing degrees in the arts and social sciences. An institution of science and technology is currently growing the number of its “80% arts-based students.” Is this a problem?
If we do not act immediately, we run the risk of undermining the fundamental goals of many Kenyan universities, which are the center for “science and technology,” vital to realizing the 2030 vision.
Conclusion:
Regulations to address some of these issues and separate student money from placement will not only improve equity and efficiency but also transparency in higher education funding when compared to the existing university funding paradigm.
Students pushed toward less expensive programs at the expense of ability by the New University funding scheme.