Future of Higher Education in South Sudan: Fewer or More Universities for South Sudan?
Recommendations of Conference on Future of Higher Education in South Sudan, 14-15 November 2011, Heron Campsite Hotel, Juba
By John A. Akec*
(Pictured above from left to right: Professor Adil Mustafa Ahmad, University of Khartoum (keynote speaker), Professor Aggrey Awein Majok, Dr. John Garang’s Memorial University, session chair; Hon. Gabriel Kuc Abiei, Deputy Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology, opens the conference; and Professor Joseph Massaquoi, UNESCO Science Director, East African Region (Keynote speaker))The Academics and Researchers Forum for Development (ARFD), in Collaboration with the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology, the Republic of South Sudan; organized a conference on “Future of Higher Education in South Sudan” at Heron Campsite Hotel, Juba, between 14 and 15 November 2011.
The conference was opened by Hon. Gabriel Kuc Abiei Mayool, the Deputy Minister of Higher, Research, Science and Technology, on behalf of the Minister of Higher Education, the Republic of South Sudan, Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba. In his opening remarks, the Deputy Minister expressed his deepest appreciation to the organizers for the timely initiative to convene the conference on future of higher education in South Sudan. Adding that the conference is of great symbolic significance, as it embodies the very aspirations and goals of the struggle of the people of South Sudan, saying: “now is the right time for the people of South Sudan to choose the system of higher education they want in order to achieve national advancement, progress, and prosperity.” He expressed his confidence that the membership of Academics and Researchers Forum for Development is imbued with talents that will enable the fruitful generation and application of knowledge and skills to the solving of social and economic problems of the new nation; and encouraged the academics and researchers to experiment and explore both the known and unknown for the benefit of future generations. The Deputy Minister also assured the participants that the government will commit resources necessary for realization of the recommendations of the conference.
(Pictured: Justice Benjamin Baak Deng, Member of South Sudan Supreme Court (left); and Professor Joseph Massaquoi, UNESCO Science Director, East African region(Right), listen attentively to a presentation)
An International Conference
The conference was well attended by both young and heavy weight academics from South Sudanese and abroad, legal experts, members of parliament, diplomats, government ministries, and the media. The speakers at the conference came from various South Sudanese universities, the Republic of Sudan, US, Norway, United Kingdom, Egypt, South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda. About twenty one papers were presented including a paper by Dr. Lam Akol, former Khartoum University and Imperial College educated chemical engineering professor, and currently the leader of opposition party, SPLM-DC. The conference was characterized by lively discussions after each presentation. The conference also received good coverage by the national media.
(Pictured: A view of Heron Hotel Conference Hall, an International presence)
Amongst the institutions represented by the speakers were UNESCO (Office of Science, Eastern Africa region, Nairobi); Ministry of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology; Ministry of Labour, Public Services, and Human Resource Development; SPLM Democratic Change; London School of Economics (LSE), University of Bergen, University of North Texas, the American University in Cairo, University of Makerere, University of Kwa Zulu-Natal, University of Khartoum, University of Juba University, Dr. John Garang Memorial University of Science and Technology, Upper Nile University, and the University of Northern Bahr El Ghazal.
(Pictured: Participants interacting during break time)
The themes covered by the papers included: quality assurance and accreditation, networking as a method for building up human resources, consolidation of higher education, building new universities as agents of change and development, management in higher education, students accommodation, media education, building new university campuses based on American university work models, meeting the increasing demand for higher education, elitist versus mass higher education, etc.
The conference attendance peaked at 150 on the first day, and dropped to 91 on the second (final) day.
(Pctured above: Dr. Lam Akol being interviewed after delivering his paper on future of higher education in South Sudan)
Meeting the Increasing Demand for Higher Education
Many papers (more than a quarter of total papers presented) recognized the need for South Sudan to get ready for the inevitable increase in social demand for higher education in the coming years (Joseph Massaquoi, UNESCO-Nairobi Office; Marc Cutright and Beno Basheka, University of North Texas and Uganda Management Institute; Naomi Pendle, London School of Economics; John Akec, University of Northern Bahr El Ghazal; Lam Akol, SPLM-DC; and Wilfred Ochieng, South Sudanese returnee from US and independent author).
All, with the exception of Dr Akol’s paper, urged for the need to expand access to higher education. However, it was noted by this author that Akol’s position paper that advocated for fewer universities (maximum of three) was based on personal intuition and preference which sees the whole issue as a zero-sum-game; as opposed to research-informed and evidence-based perspectives bore by cohorts’ papers. The majority of these papers acknowledged the inevitable negative impact of the expected expansion on the quality of higher education in South Sudan, and proposed measures and strategies for maintaining quality and building up capacity such as using networking and partnerships, and adoption of US work college model, among others.
(Pictured above: Left Hon. James Duku, Chairperson of Educational Sub-Committe, South Sudan Legislative Assembly, presents his speech at the ARFD’s conference; Right, Professor Vanasio Molidiang, session chair)
Not surprising, the topic attracted a heated debate amongst the participants between proponents and opponents of expansion in higher education. And like it or not, the demand for higher education is going to increase rapidly in the coming years, and that widening access through the expansion in the number of higher education providers (both public and private) is not just an option but a national duty.
Preliminary Recommendations
A special secretariat was set up to capture and distill recommendations from the presented papers and discussions that followed thereof. The preliminary recommendations as perceived by the committee are still being edited and the final recommendations will be published after extensive consultation between and amongst presenters and key participants. However, the preliminary list of recommendations is given below.
(Pictured above: Pannel Discussion chaired by Professor Joshua Otor Akol(Centre))
The institutions of higher education strive to design curricula best suited to the needs of South Sudan; the national government to allocate adequate resources for research, building lecture halls, libraries, and laboratories; while consolidating the quality of the current universities, the government must also increase access to higher education through expansion; in order to develop human capital and staffing capabilities, universities must collaborate and network with chohort institutions, nationally, regionally, and globally; technical education must be developed currently with the academic higher education; government to put in place institutions and mechanism for quality assurance; the proposed Council for Higher Education in South Sudan to device a mechanism for ranking of institutions of higher education; higher education institutions to embrace values of good governance, innovation, and enterprising; government and institutions of higher education to review the students accommodation model inherited from Sudan with a view to correcting shortcomings; the forthcoming Council for Higher Education to give a special attention to regulating and licensing of private higher education; retirement of tenured professors be abolished and made optional.
Many participants advised that the government takes a second look at its policy of free higher education for all because it is not going to be sustainable with the expansion in higher education. Instead the government should devise cost recovery strategy in which students must make contribution and only financially supports those who can’t.
On the closing day, the Deputy Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology urged South Sudan academics to fight against corruption and encourage hard work, and time-keeping.
Overall, many participants expressed that the conference was a resounding success and an important milestone in the development of higher education policy for South Sudan.
READING SELF-INTEREST INTO PUBLIC DEBATE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT ACADEMIC: A RESPONSE TO DR JOHN AKEC.
By: Lam Akol, MEng, PhD, D.I.C.
A friend sent me an internet article Dr John Akec wrote recently following the conclusion of a conference on “Future of Higher Education in South Sudan” held on 14-15 November 2011, in Juba. I take exception to the following provocative assertion he made in the article. Quote.
“All, with the exception of Dr Akol’s paper, urged for need to expand access to higher education. However, it was noted by this author that Akol’s position paper that advocated for fewer universities (maximum of three) was based on personal intuition and preference which sees the whole issue as a zero-sum- game; as opposed to research-informed and evidence-based perspectives bore by cohorts’ papers.” (Emphasis is mine). Unquote.
Dr John Akec was making that comment about a paper I presented to the same conference. My paper was entitled “Tertiary Education in South Sudan”. I presented it as an academician and not in the name of my party. I stressed this distinction to the organizers and the audience when I presented the paper, but Dr John Akec would want to insist that SPLM-DC was among the participants! This is not, however, the reason why I am putting pen to paper.
This article is prompted by Akec’s allegation that my paper is just “personal intuition” and not “research-informed and evidence-based”, thus challenging my academic credentials. The insinuation is that somebody of my stature can write a paper that is not “research”ed. I wonder what research has Dr Akec conducted and how many academic papers did he ever publish in reputable journals. Since he claims to have a PhD in mechanical and manufacturing engineering, then I would certainly know the journals he could possibly publish in.
The truth is that after I presented my paper, Dr Akec followed me to lunch and he sat with me on the same table with two other lecturers from Juba University who listened and contributed to the discussion he raised. At least all of us on that table except him advocated consolidating the meagre resources we have on the only three established universities at the moment. What came out clearly from Dr Akec was a dispirited defence to keep the University he had been VC of going. I actually assured him that he should not be unduly worried as I did not have the power to implement my proposal! Dr Akec knows the two gentlemen who were with us on the same table, and if he insists on distorting facts so as to serve his personal project, I will be left with no choice but to disclose their names for the public to know.
The last four words in the quotation above do not make sense to me, much so his assertion that my paper sees the whole issue as “a zero-sum-game”. I am not sure whether Dr Akec understands what is meant by this expression. If he did he could not have used it in this context. My paper is available with the Secretariat of the conference and was also on the internet. But for the benefit of those who might not have come across it, let me summarize what I said that ruffled the feathers of the Vice Chancellor. Simply put, it says that the facts available on higher education in South Sudan at the moment lead one to the conclusion that it is better for us to consolidate the already established universities of Juba, Upper Nile and Bahr El Ghazal and not to open new ones. I underline the last part of the sentence because Dr John Akec would like to misrepresent facts. In plain English, what this means is that at the moment we should have only three universities. If our situation improves and studies support introducing more universities, this can be considered in the future. Nobody in his right mind would rule out the increase in the number of universities in the distant future.
Dr Akec opens his statement above thus: “all…..urged for need to expand access to higher education”. A preliminary year student will not fail to discern that expansion of access does not necessarily mean increasing the number of universities. It is possible to expand, if that comes as a result of a serious study, by increasing the number to be admitted to the already existing universities. As an example, in 1970, the University of Khartoum saw the biggest expansion in its history in the Science-based faculties. Admission to the Faculty of Science tripled for the Biology section and doubled for the Mathematics section. The first fed the faculties of Medicine, Pharmacy, Agriculture, Veterinary Science, etc., whereas the second fed the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, and both fed the Faculty of Science. Because Dr John Akec is preoccupied with holding tenaciously to being a Vice Chancellor, he does not see any solution to the increasing of access to higher education except through keeping or introducing more brief-case universities. Who, now, can be accused of advocating a “zero-sum-game”?
Can Dr John Akec tell us what feasibility studies were carried out to introduce, for example, Northern Bahr El Ghazal University or Rumbek University? What new faculties will be introduced in these universities that are not already there in the existing ones? How many secondary schools to feed these universities with students? etc.
My argument was based on the real difficulties facing our universities at the moment: no enough lecturers, no sufficient buildings, no research facilities, our lecturers are poorly paid, lack of accommodation for both the staff and students, etc. You cannot have a university worth the name without addressing these vital matters. Is Dr Akec denying that these problems do exist? If not, what “evidence” is he looking for? Is Dr Akec not aware that lecturers of Juba University are now on strike because they did not get their salaries for a number of months? Can Dr Akec tell us what percentage of the national budget goes to higher education?
The thrust of my argument was therefore to make use of the little resources we have to solve these problems in the running three universities. The advantage of increasing access to higher education within existing ones is that duplication in all the above areas will be avoided, thus saving resources.
Dr John Akec must be careful when peddling unfounded allegations. Everybody knows that he has no case except to defend his current position of being a Vice Chancellor. It does not matter to him what that title serves.
His article is hallow because in a conference attended by academicians and researchers, the recommendations must be scientific, concrete and clear-cut; presenting to the Ministry of Higher Education quantifiable, budgeted and implementable recommendations, not the kind of wishy-washy meaningless recommendations we read these days in the mass media. When an academician would like research to render a predetermined result, in Akec’s case a mushrooming of universities, rather than what facts lead to, then he is not worth carrying the title.
By Dr. Lam: DR JOHN AKEC’S REASONING BEGS THE QUESTION
Dr John Akec made a response to my response to his provocative comments on my paper in the just concluded conference on higher education in South Sudan. I do not intend to reply what he had to say which was full of contradictions. Rather, I will briefly focus on the crux of the matter.
Forget Dr Akec’s admission of ignorance as to the number of secondary schools in South Sudan today and ignore his reliance on figures provided by newspapers, but can Dr Akec, who claims to have made proper research on the status of South Sudan universities, give us figures or information on the following?
1. How many Professors, Associate professors, Assistant professors and Lecturers are there in all the universities in South Sudan today?
2. How many students are enrolled in these universities?
3. Is the student-to-lecturer ratio within the internationally accepted?
4. How many hours a week does a lecturer spend teaching?
5. What is the total budget of these universities combined? How does it compare with what was requested?
6. How much extra money can be made available from the national treasury?
7. How much money is needed for required buildings and equipment?
8. How much money is available for research and administrative costs?
9. Are the lecturers well paid? If not, what is the reasonable pay structure? How soon can that be met?
10. For how many hours are lecture theatres used for lectures?
Without giving answers to these questions and many more, the whole exercise turns into a pedantic argument for which I have no time. The issue is not about asking, demanding or “lobbying”. It is not also about whether one is worried or not about the high demand for tertiary education. You must have the resources to meet the demand. In higher education, the quality of the graduate is the prime essence. Whereas the ultimate wish would be to enrol as many students as possible into tertiary education, the reality is that the resources are not enough and must be optimally used in a way that will not compromise standards. The money would not come (what you call enlarging the pie) simply because you ask for it. It must be part of the national budget or generated internally. Where is it or what plans there are?
It is this optimization we are talking about. Do we spread thin the little resources we have and produce semi- illiterate graduates or do we concentrate on what we have while planning to expand? This is the question. If Dr Akec can convince us in figures (answers to the above questions) that money is not a problem, or that the money available can run efficiently 9 or 90 universities, we will applaud that. On a personal note I am for the democratization of education. But it is not convincing to assert that “we have enough resources to afford a few more universities to meet the rising demand”. What do you mean in concrete terms? Nor will I be persuaded that the learned University of Juba staff went on strike because “the delay of salaries was purely administrative. It was not because of lack of funds”, as Dr Akec opines.
It is amazing how some people claim to be opposed to Ingaz and at the same time copy its mistakes when it suits their interests. Nobody in his right mind would consider the expansion in higher education engendered by Ingaz’s “educational revolution” as an experience worth emulating. Only Dr Akec seems to buy this. The cat is now out of the bag! Under this “revolution” we saw in Southern Sudan universities Teaching Assistants becoming Vice Chancellors! We also saw “Professors” who neither published academic papers nor taught a single student in their entire life! It is the same “revolution” which makes it easy for junior staff with no lecturing or administrative experience to become Vice Chancellors! Wonders must cease. Those days, when universities were universities no member of the teaching staff other than a Professor with considerable teaching and administrative background would aspire to become a Vice Chancellor. We want to revive real university education. Yes, Upper Nile and Bahr El Ghazal universities were created by that Ingaz “revolution”. But, they have been there for more than 15 years now. So it is easier to “de-Ingaz” them than to introduce more Ingaz-like universities without proper feasibility studies. Two mistakes do not make a right.
Dr Lam Akol.
By Gordon Buay
The problem with Dr. John Akec’s response to Dr. Lam Akol is that it contradicts the very reason why the conference was organized. John Akec is the one shooting himself on the foot because his argument is that the expansion of universities is a good idea because they would be able to generate resources on their own to run themselves. That is the reason why Dr. Akec is saying that 9 universities are ok because they would be able to get their own resources in the future.
The funny part of Akec’s argument is that the universities are begging the government to fund them. If he is saying that they would be able to stand on their feet in the long run, he didn’t make a convincing case to persuade us. How many years should we wait until the universities would be able to generate their own resources? My friend Akec didn’t tell us that. We want to know for how long would the government subsidize the salary of Dr. John Akec before he generates his own income!!! Where is the research that he presented that universities in South Sudan would be able to generate their own resources without depending on government subsidies in the long run?
In the Western world, students who pay their tuition fees have three sources of income to do so. One, they borrow from the government. Two, they borrow from a bank. And thirdly, they get money from their parents. South Sudan is a poor country that majority of students’ parents have no financial capacity to finance higher education. Only corruption lords like Salva Kiir, Riek Machar and etc who looted the resources of the South may be able to finance their kids. But the percentage of the kids of corruption lords is less than 0.005% and cannot be a source of income for a university in the future.
There are no banks and government in South Sudan that would give money to students to finance their higher education. If there are banks that would give money to students to pay Dr. John Akec, I would want to know.
For the meantime, Dr. John Akec’s argument does not make economic sense at all because he himself wrote many articles begging Salva Kiir’s government to fund universities. For him to argue now that universities in the future would be able to fund themselves by generating their own resources is an intellectual joke which has no emphirical evidence to support it. I think it is a deceptive argument for one to beg a government to fund 9 universities instead of 3. The tax payers of South Sudan cannot be deceived by Akec’s argument that we should fund 9 institutions instead of 3 because, as he said, the universities in the long run would be able to generate their own income. I don’t see what John Akec is talking about. I believe many Southerners too would not see his argument as valid.
Let John Akec give us his “references” that would demonstrate to us that universities would indeed generate their own resources in the future without being subsidized by the government.
Gordon Buay
Dear John
Thank you for updating us, especially those of us who did not attend the conference. I wish I was there to participate and also make my contribution. One item that caught my eye in your report is your comment on Dr. Lam Akol’s contribution, which you refer to as, I quote ” it was noted by this author that Akol’s position paper that advocated for fewer universities (maximum of three) was based on personal intuition and preference which sees the whole issue as a zero-sum-game; as opposed to research-informed and evidence-based perspectives bore by cohorts’ papers.”
I have read his paper and I very much agree with much of what he said. Based on the realities in South Sudan today, expanding university education without building the basic educational system to feed these universities, or turning a blind eye to the fact that our current universities, all of which are under-staffed, with inadequate facilities, and lacking the infrastructure, are struggling to maintain a semblance of a higher institution, is not practical.
What more evidence-based perspectives do you require? There is hard evidence all around that our current four or five universities are operating under very difficult conditions. The staff are struggling every day to provide a decent education to our students, under very poor conditions. The fact is also borne out in that it has taken our universities months to be able to open. The issue of accommodation of the students is still up in the air, and the staff are still not being regularly paid. The list can go on and on. I am surprised that a conference with some of the best credentials in the business could not realize these basic facts. I am actually surprised that, with all these overwhelming odds pitted against higher education in South Sudan, only Dr. Akol would be the one to spot and highlight them.
I know very well your position on higher education. Your thesis that those of us who support quality higher education advocate elitism in higher education is not correct. We are all for giving our youth the opportunity of higher education, but we must be careful not to feed them with what will amount to some sort of window-dressing, and calling this quality education. No one is against having many universities. But we have to do so within our resources.
Besides, it is impractical to build a house from top down. Our primary and secondary school institutions are in dire need of resources, and these are the institutions to feed our universities. There is a need to address this deficiency head on if we are to get the students to feed our universities. And as Dr. Akol has said in his paper and I have said again and again in m y own submissions before, we do have the option of expanding present universities to accommodate more students. This will cut down on appointing more vice chancellors and robbing universities of able academics like you to teach our students. Besides, with our universities now only accepting students from South Sudan, there is ample space to accept more South Sudanese students.
I hope Dr. Akol’s contribution is not being treated as one coming from an opposition politician, but rather from a fellow academic who is as well endowed as any to make constructive contribution to the debate on higher education in South Sudan. Dr. Akol has had a distinguished career in the academia and his point of view should not be dismissed as based merely on “personal intuition and preference”.
And given his academic records, even his personal intuition should count. Anyway, I am not here to defend Dr. Akol as he can do that better than anyone else. I am only here to express my surprise that everybody at that conference except Dr. Akol should have advocated for a more measured approach to planning our higher education, and to assure others that, politics asides, he is not a lone voice.
Charles Bakheit
About Post Author
