The interviewees could not recall any problems in the financing of HE between 1962 and 1973. According to Dr. Rae Davis “… in the early days, I think, if there were any problems, they were guarded. As I stated, the early days went back to UWI and I’m not aware of any problems with the release of funds to the UGC, to the UWI and from the GOJ for the other institutions…” An examination of the UWI’s records, however, revealed that there were several concerns about the RAM for the HE system during the period. Seven consequences of the RAM were identified. The first four were associated with the regional nature of the funding mechanism and the other three related to cost efficiency, institutional autonomy and access.
First, some governments expressed the view that the financing arrangement was not facilitating their individual country’s priorities and started to finance specific programmes that would further their own interest. The Vice Chancellor in his 1972 report to the Council (M.A. 96.2, pg. 6-7 UWI Archives) made note of the departure from the principle of proportional financing with each country enjoying the privilege of participation in the offering of the university. Trinidad, Jamaica and Barbados undertook the financing of specific programmes in their territory even though the university was already offering those. Economics, Government and French were being offered at Mona, yet Trinidad started the financing of similar programmes in its own country in 1963. A similar approach was taken by Jamaica with the financing of its own management studies programme and Barbados with its offering in Biology. The expense sharing arrangement was further broken when in 1970 some countries decided against sharing in the recurrent cost.
Second, the funding mechanism was not able to support a sustainable capital development programme. The UWI Vice Chancellor in the same report expressed concern that with minor exceptions the contributing governments were unwilling to support any capital development which was outside their own country. That approach, he lamented had retarded the growth of the institution which was further exacerbated by the reducing opportunities for external grants for the HEI capital development. Table 4.1 shows that contribution of external grants had fallen from a high of 9% in 1963 to 1% in 1973.
Third, the supporting governments had reacted negatively to a perceived inequity in the levy system of allocating the cost of the university’s operations. The task force which was set up to consider alternative methods of sharing the costs of the university noted that there was a failure in the levy ratio “ to take account of the benefits obtained by the Government of a campus Territory from the presence of a campus in its territory …to relate the amounts paid by any contributing government to the benefits received by that government in the form of the number of students trained, the amount of services rendered or otherwise” (UWI VC Report 1972 pp.7-8). The perceived inequity in the cost allocation formula led to a problem with receivables as some governments refused to pay the full amount of the money that the UGC had determined as their share (ibid.). This would suggest a receivables management problem. An analysis of the financial records of the institution for the period revealed that the receivables to government contribution had increased to 15% in 1972, the worse it had been since 1964; the receivable to net assets had also increased to 4% in 1973 and to current asset it reached 57% in 1971. The year 1963 is excluded since it was during that time when the changes were being discussed and the contributing governments were unsure of the extent of their share. Details are in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 - Receivable Management Analysis of the UWI 1962 - 1973
Receivables Management (How effectively debtors were being Managed)
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 17% 9% 6% 7% 6% 7% 6% 7% 10% 11% 25% 12% 10% 11% 9% 11% 9% 11% 14% 15% 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 37% 24% 21% 29% 24% 41% 33% 40% 57% 48% 1973 Ave. Receivables/Total Income 11% 9% Receivables/Governments’ 15% 13% Contribution Receivables/Net Assets 4% 2% Current Receivables/Current 43% 36% Assets
Notwithstanding the Vice Chancellor’s concern further analyses, however, revealed that it was during the period of fee payment that the UWI enjoyed the best results with receivable management. This will be borne out in the presentation of the data of the other periods.
Fourth, the cost effectiveness of the operations of the UWI was brought into question. The Commonwealth Year Book 1965 as revealed by Alexander et al (1967) published a comparative analysis of some HEIs which suggested inefficiencies in the operations of the UWI. Appendix V shows an extended analysis of the Commonwealth Year Book study. This showed that per student cost for the UWI (the lone HEI in Jamaica) was higher than only three of the selected HEIs from the developed countries, but was less than all the
selected developing countries. The staff/student ratio followed the same pattern. This seriously challenged one of the rationales for establishing a HEI in the region which was to reduce the cost of sending nationals abroad for their HE.
To address this and other concerns, the Ford Foundation (New York) at the request of the Vice Chancellor undertook a study of a review of the university’s operations. This was undertaken by Alexander, et al who (1967 pp.13-15) argued against a comparative analysis between universities in developed and developing countries on the basis that;
a. The size of the market of universities in developed countries permitted mass- teaching and high staff/student ratios making it much easier for lower per unit costs.
b. The inadequacy in the quality, quantity and uniformity of the secondary school system in developing countries placed undue burden on the university, hence increased cost of operations.
c. There were peculiar difficulties faced by universities in developing countries that automatically increase their costs. Those were:
i. Difficulty in recruiting and retaining academic staff, hence, the need to attract expatriates with the additional costs of travel, leave arrangements and inducement allowances
ii. Non-uniformity of entry from the secondary system resulting in increased teaching load at the tertiary level
iii. Lack of qualified technical staff forced the academics to carry out the work of technicians
iv. Lack of local supply stores for books, equipment and repairs resulted in carrying of high inventory and long waiting time
v. High degree of administrative and committee work required of Deans and Heads of Department reduced the time for academic work
vi. High demand on service by academics reduced the time necessary for the academic work
vii. The largely residential nature of the universities in developing countries brought about by the wide dispersion of the population resulted in high capital and administrative expenditure
The above arguments led Alexander, et al (1967) to caution about interpreting the figures in Appendix V.
The fifth consequence of the funding model during this period was that it brought into question the autonomy of the institution. By 1968 the UWI had become concerned that the government of Jamaica was using funding to influence its management and direction. Parker (1971:377) reported from a private interview with Sir John Mordecai, Secretary, Development and Planning, University of the West Indies, July 23, 1970 that “The university did not receive its triennium grant for 1969-72 on schedule, due to the political upsets in 1968-69 and … the University awaits a decision by the University Grants Committee in September 1970 as to what it can expect in funding through 1972”. The background to the delay was about Walter Rodney who was a lecturer at the UWI and an activist for the Black Power Movement. According to Sanford in his book "New Jewel" Rodney attended a black writers’ meeting in Montreal and was prevented from re-entering Jamaica on October 15, 1968 when he tried to resume his post at the UWI. “Reaction to Rodney's banning was explosive and started with the students who used a variety of disruptive tactics. These actions spread to the streets off campus with a series of riots in Kingston city. The University was closed for a couple of weeks and debates raged on in Parliament” (http://www.multiworld.org/m_versity/althinkers/rodney.htm). The government thereafter delayed the remittances to the UWI in retaliation to the actions of the constituents of the university.
Princess Alice of Athlone, Chancellor of the University, also expressed concerns about the use of funding to challenge the autonomy of the university when she made the following remark on February 1, 1969:
Their great problem in the future is going to be how to retain their autonomy and their academic freedom while at the same time complying with the insistent demands of the community that pays for them. It is all very well to say that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but I would add that the tune must be something better than mere pop music. (Parker 1971, p.377.)
The sixth consequence of the funding model during this period was the perception that the policy did not sufficiently result in the widening of access to HE. Alexander, et al (1967, p.22) suggested that access could be increased by eliminating fees. According to them, “Tuition fees form a very small part of the University’s income, and the possibility of waiving these altogether might be explored. It would be justified if it led to a marked increase in student entry, which in turn would reduce unit costs”.
Throughout this study the simple method is used to calculate the average enrolment growth. 1963 is selected as the base year since it was the start of the triennium for the UWI. The formula used for calculating the growth average was:
{(EE
-
BE)/BE}
1/nWhere EE = Ending Enrolment BE = Beginning Enrolment n = Number of years
Table 4.3 shows that for the fee paying period by 1974 the average growth rate for Jamaicans enrolled in HE was 21%. During the period of fee paying the rate varied between 12% and 17%. Jamaica’s Growth rate in HE was also consistently below that of the region which averaged at 19% in 1974 and varied between 13% and 19% during the fee paying era.
Table 4.3 - Growth Rate in HE Enrolment during the Fee Paying Era, 1963-1973
Jamaicans at UWI UWI
Year to Year Growth Cumulative Growth Average Rate Relative to 1963/64 Year to Year Growth Cumulative Growth Average Rate Relative to 1963/64 Number of Years 1963/64 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 1964/65 14% 14% 7% 15% 15% 8% 2 1965/66 19% 36% 12% 20% 39% 13% 3
1966/67 N/A N/A N/A 7% 49% 12% 4
1967/68 N/A 64% 13% 11% 65% 13% 5
1968/69 23% 102% 17% 17% 93% 15% 6
1969/70 -7% 89% 13% 10% 112% 16% 7
1970/71 N/A N/A N/A 8% 129% 16% 8
1971/72 N/A N/A N/A 15% 164% 18% 9
1972/73 N/A N/A N/A 9% 189% 19% 10
1973/74 N/A 226% 21% 5% 205% 19% 11
N/A denotes that data was not available for calculation