At this stage of UG’s development the Baldridge Model in higher education is of limited use

Dear Editor,
Higher education is a respected field of study, and it demands more than name-dropping and academic sleight of hand. It demands high standards of honesty and intellectualism.
Although it is prudent to be aware of developments that are taking place in one’s field of endeavour, it is not very insightful to adopt every new strategy or model holus-bolus without due contextualization and customization (adaptation).
We must bear in mind that the University of Guyana (UG) is a single institution in a relatively new independent poor third world country. In the U.S.A., universities have been in existence for centuries. Almost every individual state in the nation has a higher education system, consisting of universities, research institutes, colleges, community colleges not to mention the numerous private colleges, graduate schools and continuing education programmes run by various private sector corporations.
Many of these institutions have their own emphases and specialties. The components of these systems can be manipulated voluntarily, or, involuntarily, in order to maintain some congruence between higher education outcomes and environmental needs. Add to this fact that the U.S.A. is digitalized (wired electronically)…This is why universities in the U.S.A., no longer hold the monopoly of controlling where students enroll and what programme offerings are made.
Further, although nineteenth century America most probably realised the importance of higher education in social and economic development, the study of the role of higher education in the development of societies, particularly in the third world, only received scholarly attention during the latter half of the twentieth century. This is evident since insufficient thought was given to this when UG was established in 1964. The first Faculties were: Arts; Natural Sciences; and, Social Sciences. The Faculty of Agriculture was not established until nearly 13 years after (1977). This affords us a glimpse of the kind of thinking that prevailed in local circles, bearing in mind that the basis of Guyana’s economy was agriculture – fishing, forestry, rice, and, sugar.
Therefore, to direct attention to questions of efficiency (and cutbacks) alone is misguided and insufficient. The lack of efficiency at UG may be a problem, but the real issue at stake is the university’s lack of effectiveness. It is common knowledge that over the past three decades and more, there has been a tremendous chasm or disconnect between the University of Guyana’s outcomes and environmental needs. What is the point of becoming more efficient or better at doing the wrong things, or, if we are not doing the right things in the first place? Hence the limited utility of the Baldridge Model at the present time.
To cutback on UG’s subvention is to underfund the institution even more. This is not only short-sighted (or in local parlance,: “ yu cut off yu nose fuh spite yu face”), but, blatantly unpatriotic. The critical need is for an evaluation or stock-taking of the university in terms of its current utility in assisting in social, economic and cultural development of the nation it is intended to serve. Such a process would involve the analysis of data obtained from several pertinent studies and assessments, followed by a mission review, the results of which would then form the basis of subsequent strategic planning.
As I have said before, there is urgent need for the University of Guyana to consider whether it can continue to try to achieve comprehensiveness (try to be all things to all people), and thus perpetuate mediocrity, or, whether it should leave much undone (rationalise its programme offerings in consort with other regional institutions), and concentrate in areas of strength in the context of national development priorities. This should ensure good institutional health, and permit the university to define its own strong future.
In its present state, UG is incapable of meeting the needs of Guyana in terms of highly qualified manpower generally and specifically in the fields of agriculture, education and technology. It cannot carry out the needed research appropriate in terms of quality and quantity. It cannot provide the leadership and expertise necessary for national development. Guyana always has to depend on “experts” from elsewhere.
Solutions to the many problems that affect UG rest upon the collective “will” of all stakeholders. Understanding the developmental role of higher education in a poor country is not an optional matter. It is required if it is to satisfy the expectations of its society. If UG fails, it will at best remain a poorly supported anachronism, and at worst it will be destroyed. Surely, the actualization or realisation of the dream of the late President Cheddi B. Jagan deserves far greater support from his heir apparent.
What has been taking place at UG since it was established is to a large measure a reflection of the need for a better understanding of the role of university education within the wider society. Critical masses of intellectual entrepreneurs at every level and in every sector of the academic enterprise are needed for the realisation of the institution’s potential. This requires vastly superior resources than those that have been made available to the university in the past.
The University of Guyana has been inadequately funded from its inception. This is not surprising considering the state of Guyana’s economy over the past 50 years. However, within recent times, there seems to be quite a lot of money in Guyana’s treasury. It has been reported that billions of dollars have been collected in revenue by the Government of Guyana as a result of the imposition of the 16% Value-Added Tax (VAT). Is it too much to “throw out a life-line” consisting of one-sixteenth of the amount collected through VAT, and, invest it in the nation’s only university? In the long run, this investment could prove to be most prudent, enduring, and self-sustaining. It could also yield increasingly higher rates of returns in future years.
Clarence O. Perry