DECLARATION

I, hereby declare that the Project Report entitled Strategies & Challenges for improving HRD activites .it is an original work and the same has not been submitted to any other Institute for award of any degree. The project report was presented to the supervisor on

PREFACE
Theoretical knowledge as well as practical exposure is necessary in a professional degree. Research project help us to get familiar with real environment of business. The research project and title Strategies & Challenges for improving HRD activities is an original work. Human Resource Development activities i.e. training and development, career development,organization development, performance appraisal, coaching etc are mainly concerned for upgrading anddeveloping the employee performance and make them fit for the organization.In Minda Industry, HR department is concerned with improving employee by regular monitoringtheir performance and following different Strategies & Challenges. HRD provides various development training as per needs of the employees so that they can perform their job more efficiently through various indoor and outdoor activities for achieving the short term and long term objectives of the firm.For this project I have prepared some questionnaires and forms, which are attached in theANNEXURE, will tell us about existing procedures for various HRD activities and what kind of expectation the employees have from HR department. I have gives few suggestions for improving and making HRD activities more effective.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

The project title Strategies & Challenges for improving HRD activities is self explanatory. Strategies & Challenges means actionplan for the future after analyzing all the HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT activities i.e. training anddevelopment, organization development, career development , performance management system,coaching, mentoring etc. HRD activities are revenue enhancer in the organization not revenue user. HRD is responsible all overall performance of the organization by upgrading the employees. Training constitutes a basic concept in human resource development. Human resource development is a series of organized activities, conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change. The purpose of introducing and implementing HRD Strategies & Challenges in an organization is to develop employee to meet higher levels of performance in the modern fast changing competitive world HRD Strategies & Challenges contribute to winning employees commitment, motivation and devotion increating a self disciplined workforce and responsive organization. HRD is based on the two assumptions: _ HRD makes sense only when it contributes towards business improvement and business excellence. _ HRD also strongly believe that good people and good culture make good organizations.

HRD means building:

_ Competency in people _ Commitment in people _ Culture in the organization _ HRD function is to build competencies in each and every individual working in an organization. Competencies are to be built and multiplied in roles and individuals. _ HRD means building commitment in people. Competencies will not make sense without commitment. Think of an organization where all the employees are competent but not willing to put into use their competencies. Hence, competencies without commitment will not contribute towards effectiveness. HRD can be defined as the branch of human resources management function that endeavors to build competencies, commitment and a learning culture in organizations with the purpose of bringing in competitive advantages to achieve business excellence in all its operation. For developing Strategies & Challenges HR department must be thorough with the companys HR policies, vision, mission, objectives.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In today era, human beings are a resource to the organization as it is truly said People are organizations most important assets in todays competitive global environment. It is necessary for the organization to continuously improve the performance of employee & developed them through various HRD activities. Today it is necessary to integrate HR to business vision & mission & achieve business excellence. This project hope will be beneficial to both the organization & individual. By implementing HRD activities effectively & efficiently the organization can achieve their goals. As employees are investment to the company so it is necessary to manage & develop them from first day. So that their goals can be aligned with the organizational goals.Through effective HRD activities organization develop their employees as well as achieve long term target.

CONCEPTS OF THE STUDY DEFINITION: The identification of needed skills and active management of learning for the long range future in relation to explicit corporate and business strategy.

Strategic HRD involves introducing, eliminating, modifying, directing and guiding processes in such a way that all individuals and teams are equipped with the skills, knowledge and competencies they require to undertake current and future tasks required by the organization. Strategic HRD is development that arises from a clear vision about peoples abilities and potential and operates within the overall strategic framework of the business.

It is a business lead and the learning and development Strategies & Challenges that are established as a part of overall strategic HRD approach flow from business attains its goals.

AIM OF STRATEGIC HRD

Is to enhance resource capability in accordance with the belief that the human capital of the organization is a major source of competitive advantage. It is thereof about ensuring that the right quality people are available to meet present and future needs this is achieved by producing a coherent and comprehensive framework for developing people.

Is to develop intellectual capital and promote organizational, team and individual learning by creating a learning culture an environment in which employees are encouraged to learn and develop and in which knowledge is managed systematically.

STRATEGIES & CHALLENGES FOR HRD

Raise awareness of the need for a learning culture that leads to continuous improvement

Develop the competence of managers to become actively involved in learning that leads to knowledge creation

Expand learning capacity throughout the organization Focus on all the organizations knowledge workers, not just the key personnel harness e-learning to knowledge sharing and knowledge creation

Development steps: The steps required to develop a learning and development strategy are: 1. Agree on the strategy making team 2. Clarify organization mission and vision 3. Explore core values 4. Identify the strategic issues facing the organization 5. Agree on strategy and strategic plan Management Development Strategy:The management development strategy will be concerned overall with the organization intends to do about providing for its future management needs in the light of business plan. The strategy will be concerned with the role of the parties involved and with the approaches the organization proposes touse to develop its managers.The prime aim of these benchmarks statements is to identify the key facets that make up management development activities .they provide personnel and line managers with a means of conducting their own evaluation and analysis of the state of management development within their organization. Each facets or dimension in the statement brings together such aspects as the links between the management development plan, the assessment of skills and identification of skills gap , and the delivery of appropriate and effective training and development . The facets are broken down into four aspects of performance: Commitment to management development; Reviewing the current position of management development;

 Making progress in management development; Excellent in management development

The purpose of introducing and implementing HRD Strategies & Challenges in an company is to develop employee to meet higher levels of performance in the modern fast changing of managerial decision and actions that competitive world. Before implementing any new strategy at formulation level, top level management must first assess the viability of current mission objectives, Strategies & Challenges, policies, programs, technology, workforce and lastly the resources. They must assess the different aspects of external environment that may pose be a threat to the opportunities. Human Recourse Development:Human resource development is a series of organized activities, conducted within a specified time and designed to produce behavioral change. Human resource development is a process in which the employees of a company are continuously helped in a planned way to: 1. Acquire or sharpen their capabilities required to perform various functions associated with their present and future expected roles 2. Develop their enabling capabilities as individual ,so that they are able to discover and exploit their own inner potential for their own /or organization development purposes 3. Develop a company culture where superior subordinate relationships, teamwork and collaboration among different subunits and contribute to the company health, dynamism and pride of the employees.

Purpose of introducing and implementing HRD Strategies & Challenges:-

To develop employee to meet higher levels of performance in the modern fast changing competitive world.

HRD Strategies & Challenges relate to attracting ,engaging retaining developing , motivating and utilizing employees and their competencies to effective organizational functioning , growth and excellence.

HRD Strategies & Challenges contribute to winning employees commitment, motivation and devotion in creating a self disciplined workforce and responsive company.

HRD Strategy communication strategy: It is essential to educate and train employees about the need for change and seeking their commitment is a critical factor in success of any change management process of a company. _ Accountability and ownership Strategy : Employee accountability and ownership is vital to company intending to stay competitive employees and ownership leads to higher productivity and customer excellence Thereof fostering accountability and ownership through various HRD process and systems such as performance appraisal, career planning and development, counseling and mentoring, quality of work life etc which must be linked to business plans. _ Learning strategy: Continuous learning and development environment promote self development of employees; of self and by self .it requires HRD process and systems to focus on: 1. coaching and monitoring culture 2. self directed learning /systems Quality strategy: Quality is a mindset which needs to be fostered in the employee through training anddevelopment. TQM places emphasis on quality that encompasses the entire company and involves: 1. Continuous improvement 2. Employee empowerment, quality circles 3. Benchmarking best at similar activities, even if in different industries 4. Just in time requires quality of suppliers _ Cost reduction strategy: Cost reduction strategy plays an significant roles the company. Employees need to see waste everywhere. _ Systematic training strategy: It is based on job analysis and job performance, company mission and objectives leads to improved returns on investment the planning and company of formal on the job training and off the job training leads to improving vital employees characteristic, build and sustain appropriate work culture and brings in more professionalism in action.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scopes of the study are:1. Enhancing organization capabilities _ HRD practices for enhancing quality consciousness among employees _ Continuous improvement in performance of employees 2. Integrating human resource into business _ Promoting individual growth and development of employees _ Increase in the level of commitment of employee 3. Achieving corporate excellence _ HRD programs to facilitate group communication in the company _ Achieving organization effectiveness in terms of performance and communication. 4. To improve the current situation of the HRD activities in the organization. 5. To suggest the methods by which changes can be brought in current program. 6. To increase the performance of the employees and ultimately the organization.

MODELS FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE STRATEGY

Centralized: All learning and development activities are conducted and controlled from the centre. Key Account Holder: Small corporate centre is responsible for career management development processes, key account holder are responsible to the centre for delivering learning and training in business units. Devolved: All learning and development activities are devolved to business units. Business partners: key account holder report to business units; Shared service: Business units share common learning and development services and specify what they want to the corporate centre; Outsourced: Training outsourced to providers by the corporate centre or business units. Stakeholder: Small corporate centre engages in transformation learning activities, separate shred Facilities are used, learning and development practices act as a business partners and specialized learning is outsourced.

FUNCTIONS OF AN HRD:
PRIMARY FUNCTIONS 1. Training and development 2. Organization development 3. Career development SECONDARY FUNCTION 1. Performance management system 2. Organization learning 3. Mentoring OTHERS FUNCTIONS 1. HR planning 2. Coaching

Challenges of HRD
(a) Culture or attitude:
Different countries have different culture and as the world has become a global village HRD Professionals have to face the cultural challenges in different countries or with the employees belonging to the different countries.

(b) Technology or skills:

The pace of technological development is very high and the new technologies are replacing the older ones quickly. Same is the case with techniques and technologies use for training. An HR professional has to upgrade his skills and knowledge to meet the requirements of the new generation.

(c) Values of behavior:

The HRD professionals have to adjust themselves to the emerging new values as principle centric leadership is becoming trend in the corporate world. Values like trust credibility timeliness and the simpler rules are becoming the corners stone of many businesses.

(d) Knowledge or information:

Enhancement of knowledge is also a big challenge for HRD professional as they have to understand the different philosophies demonstrated at different places in the world. For example the philosophy related to leadership changes dramatically in organizations from different parts of the world

(e) Life style or habits:

The life style of an employee is also important for HRD professionals because they have to understand the habits of the employees and then decide the training that needs to be imparted for bringing a change in the habits of the employees.

(f) Knowledge of new practices:

An HRD professional has to be aware of the new practices adopted by the organization around globe. An HRD professional should know about the practices like dignity of individual, retention of employees, leadership by examples, clear conscience relationship with employees share holder, vendors, suppliers, customers and society at large.

(g) Environment:
An open environment is required for the success of an organization. The organizational environment should have meritocracy, fearless, justice, speed imagination and accountability. It is the job of the HRD professional to inspire the employee to perform better ones this environment is created in the organization.

EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDIA:

Introduction
Indias education system turns out millions of graduates each year, many skilled in IT, engineering and MBA. This manpower advantage underpins Indias recent economic advances, but masks deep-seated problems within Indias education system. While Indias demographics are generally perceived to give it an edge over other countries economies (India will have a youthful population when other countries have ageing populations), if this advantage is restricted to a small, highly educated elite, the domestic political ramifications could be severe. With 35 per cent of the population under the age of 15, Indias education s ystem faces numerous challenges. Successive governments have pledged to increase spending on education to 6 per cent of GDP, but actual spending has hovered around 4 per cent for the last few years. While, at the top end, Indias business schools, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and universities produce globally competitive graduates, primary and secondary schools, particularly in rural areas, struggle to find staff.

Indian governments have seen education as a crucial development tool. The first part of this paper provides a historical perspective on the development of the education system in India, highlighting the changing emphases within government policy. Since Independence, the education policies of successive governments have built on the substantial legacies of the Nehruian period, targeting the core themes of plurality and secularism, with a focus on excellence in higher education, and inclusiveness at all levels. In reaching these goals, the issue of funding has become problematic; governments have promised to increase state spending while realizing the economic potential of bringing in private-sector financial support.

The second part of this paper examines how recent governments have responded to these challenges, which have remained largely unchanged since Nehrus era, despite the efforts of past governments and commissions to reform the Indian education system. Attention will be paid to more recent policy initiatives, both those of the previous BJP-led administration and the proposals of the current Congress-led United Progressive Alliance. It will become clear that the same difficulties that existed nearly sixty years ago remain largely unsolved today for example, the need to safeguard access to education for the poorest and most disenfranchised communities of India.

Traditional Hindu education served the needs of Brahmin families: Brahmin teachers would teach boys to read and write. Under the Moguls, education was similarly elitist, favouring the rich rather than those from high-caste backgrounds. These pre-existing elitist tendencies were reinforced under British rule. British colonial rule brought with it the concept of a modern state, a modern economy and a modern education system. The education system was first developed in the three presidencies (Bombay, Calcutta and Madras). By linking entrance and advancement in government service to academic education, colonial rule contributed to the legacy of an education system geared to preserving the position and prerogatives of the more privileged. In the early 1900s, the Indian National Congress called for national education, placing an emphasis on technical and vocational training. In 1920 Congress initiated a boycott of government-aided and government-controlled schools and founded several national schools and colleges. These failed, as the rewards of British-style education were so great that the boycott was largely ignored. Local elites benefited from the British education system and eventually used it expel the colonizers. Nehru envisaged India as a secular democracy with a state-led command economy. Education for all and industrial development were seen as crucial tools to unite a country divided on the basis of wealth, caste and religion, and formed the cornerstones of the anti-imperial struggle. Following Independence, school curricula were thus imbued with the twin themes of inclusiveness and national pride, placing emphasis on the fact that Indias different communities could live peacefully side by side as one nation. The legacies of this Nehruvian approach to education are considerable; perhaps most notable is the entrenchment of the pluralist/secularist perspective in the minds of the Indian people. Subsidized quality higher education through institutions such as the IITs and IIMs formed a major contribution to the Nehruvian vision of a self-reliant and modern Indian state, and they now rank amongst the best higher education institutions in the world. In addition, policies of positive discrimination in education and employment furthered the case for access by hitherto unprivileged social groups to quality education. It has been argued that while access for some marginalized communities continues to be limited, the upward mobility of a few Dalit and tribal households resulting from positive discrimination in educational institutions and state patronage has created role models that help democracy survive in India. The Kothari Commission: education for modernization, national unity and literacy Drawing on Nehrus vision, and articulating most of his key themes, the Kothari Commission (19646) was set up to formulate a coherent education policy for India.1 According to the commission, education was intended to increase productivity, develop social and national unity, consolidate democracy, modernize the country and develop social, moral and spiritual values. To achieve this, the main pillar of Indian education

policy was to be free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of 14. Other features included the development of languages (Hindi, Sanskrit, regional languages and the three-language formula2), equality of educational opportunities (regional, tribal and gender imbalances to be addressed) and the development and prioritization of scientific education and research. The commission also emphasized the need to eradicate illiteracy and provide adult education. Indias curriculum has historically prioritized the study of mathematics and science rather than social sciences or arts. This has been actively promoted since the Kothari Commission, which argued that Indias development needs were better met by engineers and scientists than historians. The perception has remained that students only study social science or arts subjects as a last resort, though recently commerce and economics have risen in stature. The need for change: the National Policy on Education In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi announced a new education policy, the National Policy on Education (NPE), which was intended to prepare India for the 21st century. The policy emphasized the need for change: Education in India stands at the crossroads today. Neither normal linear expansion nor the existing pace and nature of improvement can meet the needs of the situation.3 According to the new policy, the 1968 policy goals had largely been achieved: more than 90 per cent of the countrys rural population were within a kilometre of schooling facilities and most states had adopted a common education structure. The prioritization of science and mathematics had also been effective. However, change was required to increase financial and organizational support for the education system to tackle problems of access and quality. Other problems also needed addressing: Indias political and social life is passing through a phase which poses the danger of erosion to long accepted values. The goals of secularism, socialism, democracy and professional ethics are coming under increasing strain.4 The new policy was intended to raise education standards and increase access to education. At the same time, it would safeguard the values of secularism, socialism and equality which had been promoted since Independence. To this end, the government would seek financial support from the private sector to complement government funds. The central government also declared that it would accept a wider responsibility to enforce the national and integrative character of education, to maintain quality and standards.5 The states, however, retained a significant role, particularly in relation to the curriculum. The central government committed itself to financing a portion of development expenditure, and around 10 per cent of primary education is now funded under a centrally sponsored scheme. The key legacies of the 1986 policy were the promotion of privatization and the continued emphasis on secularism and science.6

Another consequence of the NPE was that the quality of education in India was increasingly seen as a problem, and several initiatives have been developed since in an attempt to counter this: Operation Blackboard (19878) aimed to improve the human and physical resources available in primary schools. Restructuring and Reorganization of Teacher Education (1987) created a resource for the continuous upgrading of teachers knowledge and competence. Minimum Levels of Learning (1991) laid down levels of achievement at various stages and revised textbooks. National Programme for Nutritional Support to Primary Education (1995) provided a cooked meal every day for children in Classes 15 of all government, government-aided and local body schools. In some cases grain was distributed on a monthly basis, subject to a minimum attendance. District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) (1993) emphasized decentralized planning and management, improved teaching and learning materials, and school effectiveness. Movement to Educate All (2000) aimed to achieve universal primary education by 2010 through microplanning and school-mapping exercises, bridging gender and social gaps. Fundamental Right (2001) involved the provision of free and compulsory education, declared to be a basic right for children aged between 6 and 14 years. Other schemes specifically targeted at marginalized groups, such as disabled children, and special incentives targeting the parents within scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have also been introduced. In 1992, when education policy was re-examined, the NPE was found to be a sound way forward for Indias education system, although some targets were recast and some re-formulations were undertaken in relation to adult and elementary education.7 The new emphasis was on the expansion of secondary education, while the focus on education for minorities and women continued. The development of non-formal education Despite Nehrus visions of universal education, and the intentions of the Kothari Commission to provide all young children with free and compulsory schooling, a significant proportion of Indias young population remained uneducated by the 1970s. To address this problem, the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Non Formal Education was set up to educate school dropouts, working children and children from areas without schools. It started on a pilot basis in 1979 and expanded over the next few years to cover ten educationally backward states.8 In the 1980s, 75 per cent of those children not enrolled in school resided in these states. The 1986 National Policy on Education built upon this scheme and recognized that a large and systematic

programme of non-formal education was required to ensure access to elementary education. The NPE developed the system of non-formal education, and expanded it to urban slums and other areas beyond the initial ten states. It also revised the system, involved voluntary organizations and offered training to local men and women to become instructors. For instance, the Non-formal Adult Education for Women based in Lucknow (UP) opened 300 centres in rural areas with financial support from UNESCO. As a result of many such local programmes, literacy rates improved significantly between 1981 and 1991: male literacy increased from 56.5 per cent to 64.2 per cent while female literacy increased from 29.9 per cent to 39.2 per cent.

Primary and secondary education: access, quality and literacy Despite efforts to incorporate all sections of the population into the Indian education system, through mechanisms such as positive discrimination and non-formal education, large numbers of young people are still without schooling. Although enrolment in primary education has increased, it is estimated that at least 35 million, and possibly as many as 60 million, children aged 614 years are not in school. Severe gender, regional, and caste disparities also exist. The main problems are the high drop-out rate, especially after Class 10, low levels of learning and achievement, inadequate school infrastructure, poorly functioning schools, high teacher absenteeism, the large number of teacher vacancies, poor quality of education and inadequate funds. Other groups of children at risk, such as orphans, child-labourers, street children and victims of riots and natural disasters, do not necessarily have access to schools.10 Furthermore, there is no common school system; instead children are channelled into private, government-aided and government schools on the basis of ability to pay and social class. At the top end are English-language schools affiliated to the upscale CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education), CISCE (Council for the Indian Schools Certificates Examination) and IB (International Baccalaureate) examination boards, offering globally recognized syllabuses and curricula. Those who cannot afford private schooling attend English-language government-aided schools, affiliated to state-level examination boards. And on the bottom rung is poorly managed government or municipal schools, which cater for the children of the poor majority. Therefore, while education for all is safeguarded by the Constitution, and a majority of people can now access educational resources, the quality of the education that young people in Indian receive varies widely according to their means and background, which is a worrying and problematic trend. In Indias 600,000 villages and multiplying urban slum habitats, free and compulsory education is in fact basic literacy instruction dispensed by barely qualified Para teachers. 11

The thrust on elementary education over the last two decades and the growing aspirations of poor communities resulting from their participation in a political democracy have already led to a situation where most children at age six are enrolling in schools/learning centres and residential bridge courses. However, the poor quality of these schools and their rudimentary physical and human infrastructure often lead to children dropping out of the school system without learning or continuing in it with limited learning. An emphasis on food, livelihood and health guarantees is therefore simultaneously required to level out the initial disadvantages of the poor in the educational sphere stemming from malnourishment, poverty, and health-related debility. The present Indian government, the United Progressive Alliance, appears to be committed to confronting these challenges, as reflected in their Common Minimum Programme (see below). The introduction of a 2 per cent education cess (surcharge) on tax, a stress on employment guarantees and the establishment of a National Rural Health Mission are thus welcome developments in this respect. Indias aim of providing basic education for all stems from the empowering and redistributive impact of education. Until recently, literacy, and the related issue of access to schooling, have taken precedence over curricular content. J. Dreze and A. Sen argue: Literacy is an essential tool for self-defence in a society where social interactions include the written media. An illiterate person is significantly less equipped to defend herself in court, to obtain a bank loan, to enforce inheritance rights, to take advantage of new technology, to compete for secure employment, to get onto the right bus, to take part in political activity in short, to participate successfully in the modern economy and society. Dreze and Sen argue that the 1991 census indicated that about half of the adult population was unable to read or write. Unsurprisingly, literacy rates vary widely between states, and between genders. The northern Hindi-belt states, whose economic performance has been worse than that of western and southern states, have lower literacy rates. Female literacy varies from around 34 per cent in Bihar to 88 per cent in Kerala; male literacy varies between 60 per cent in Bihar and 94 per cent in Kerala. Rajasthan suffers the widest gender difference: female literacy stands at 44 per cent; male at 77 per cent. One of the main aims of education policy in the 1990s was to accelerate the progress of literacy and school attendance and to create an equitable system for girls, as had been planned by the Kothari Commission in 1964.15 In recent years, however, attention has shifted away from the provision of basic literacy skills and towards debates surrounding the content of school curricula. These debates have been particularly concerned with the traditionally secular emphasis within education, which has become vulnerable since the successes of avowedly Hindu political parties.

Curricula content
The BJP, which dominated coalition governments from 1998 until 2004, initially came to power with an agenda heavily influenced by Hindutva, including the introduction of a uniform civil code under Hindu law and the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.16 Since a significant proportion of the BJPs electoral constituency comes from right-wing Hindu organizations, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), it was expected that the government would further the rather chauvinist aspirations of these groups. However, in most policy fields it took a moderate stance, since it needed to maintain the support of its coalition partners, many of which were regional and secular in nature.

But the reverse occurred in the field of education. The 1999 election manifesto of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) included a section entitled Education for all, which appeared in harmony with the reforms implemented under Rajiv Gandhi. The preamble stated that State support for education has been wholly inadequate. Quality education is fast becoming the preserve of the social and economic elite of the country.

When the NDA came to power in 1999, the BJP kept control of the two most senior positions in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which included education policy. Two party hardliners, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, took the positions of Union Minister and Minister of State respectively. The former oversaw the expansion of the network of RSS schools and the appointment of RSS members or sympathizers to top national education bodies. In 2000/01, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)17 issued a National Curriculum Framework for school education under the slogan of Indianize, nationalize and spiritualize. 18 The framework called for the purging of all foreign elements from the curriculum in state schools. These included the British legacy as well as aspects of Indian culture which were seen as having been introduced by the Mogul invaders.

The Minister of Human Resource Development made a statement in parliament on 20 July 2004, promising to restore the earlier books in the next academic session. However the exercise has flagged up the flaws in the old textbooks, which were seen as too dry, and lacking narrative and emotion. While the government will try to address this in the medium term, in the short term it will focus on restoring pedagogy which

helps raise questions and prevents indoctrination.34 The curricula changes introduced by recent BJP-led governments indicated a shift from the Nehruvian tenet of secular education and diverted attention from more deep-seated structural problems in India's education system, such as the need for universal access to quality education. But for non-BJP parties, the development of a Hindu-centric education system presents a major political concern and, as is inevitable in a representative democracy, political issues take precendence over more substantive issues. The challenge for the present government will be to move past this political obstacle and push through more comprehensive reforms, rather than simply undoing the policies of its predecessor. In 2013, NOWADAYS IT is a global trend that young brains are being attracted more towards technological education. There is no doubt that science and technology are complementary in nature and have to grow hand in hand. Besides, the growth of knowledge, research in fundamental science always adds an inevitable input to the advancement of technology. Quick and highly paid job opportunities have always been an added advantage for the technology graduates. In the eighties and nineties of the last century, the best young minds were attracted more towards basic science courses; however, this situation has undergone a complete change throughout the globe recently. The loss of interest in science education is often ascribed to more job opportunities in Information & Computer Technology. If the present situation continues, there will be serious problems, mainly manpower for scientific research. Naturally, a question arises. Is the loss of interest because science has lost the charm? Definitely, the answer is No. The new scientific discoveries always prompt the mankind to think in new dimension and motivate the people to add new ideas, which always enrich our day-to-day life. Unexplained facts Especially, well-established mathematical methods, high precision measurements and the modern communication systems help a lot. Still, science could not show the revolutionary path towards some of the unexplained facts of Nature.

Even today, there are unlimited mysteries and wonders in the universe, which are to be answered by the scientific communities, than the technologists. Hence, the world still expects new path-breaking ideas, originating from the intelligent young minds of the science stream. It is a matter of concern that our education system is more inclined towards the textbook exercise. Only a very few develop the habit of thinking over a problem in their own way. Further, they are not encouraged to have crazy ideas. The current system of teaching and evaluation does not provide any opportunity for this purpose. Starting from the primary to the higher education, the present emphasis is on maximisation of the quantity of information instead of leaving room for imagination or recreation of minds.We forget that the creative mind always has no problem in acquiring information on its own.The complete division between the cultures of science and humanities and deviation of science from philosophy has reduced the sphere of scientific thought. Science educators may ponder over this problem and to a certain extent try to provide an opportunity to enlarge the sphere of scientific thoughts.

Funding and higher education

Under the Constitution, responsibility for education is shared between central and state governments. The central government sets policy, stimulates innovation and plans frameworks. The state governments are responsible for running the education system on the ground. This has exacerbated problems since states have differing resources to allocate to education. It is the inadequacy of resources that has recently become the most pressing and central issue. Allocation is another issue. When resources are scarce, what are the states priorities? In general southern, richer states do better than the poorer, northern ones. 35 According to India Together reporter Summiya Yasmeen: The Central and state governments are hard put to mobilise 4 per cent of GDP for education. (...) With 59 million children out-of-school and another 90 million in school learning very little, the common school system is not a utopian ideal dug out from the archives of the Kothari Commission, but an imperative that will decide Indias place in the comity of nations. The standard of educational facilities, and the quality of education, is generally higher in primary and secondary schools in richer states than poorer ones, such as Bihar and Jharkhand. In higher education, differing availability has itself contributed to the economic differences. The IT-based success of southern

states owes much to their higher number of engineering colleges, and consequent greater pool of graduates.The number of engineering colleges demonstrates incredible diversity, and has helped contribute to the concentration of high-technology industry in southern India. But the disparity between these states and northern states is dramatic; Bihar, for instance, has less than one engineering college for every 10 million people in the state; Tamil Nadu has almost four colleges for every million people.38 The growth of the IT and BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) industries and the concomitant spread of computer use and application in the private sector has had a significant impact on the expansion of the highly skilled labour market, and thus on higher education. In fact, private-sector education is a growing field in itself, estimated to make up nearly 2 per cent of GDP. Unfortunately, this top-quality education is restricted not only geographically to those areas where the IT industries are based (as we have already seen), but also according to ability to pay, as the private-sector educational institutions charge prohibitive fees.

Negotiating the need to share the burden of funding higher education between the public and private sectors has been a continual problem for the Indian government. For example, the 1986 reforms reinforced the independent status of higher education institutions, but led to a gradual decline in government expenditure in this area. The government faced a serious resource crunch and decided to reduce the subsidization of higher education by around 50 per cent. Two committees were set up to mobilize additional resources for universities and technical education institutions. Universities were encouraged to raise fees and to turn to the private sector for additional funding.39 Consequently, the balance between the public and private sectors becomes almost synonymous with a balance between excellence and access. While it is important for India to produce top-quality graduates, it is equally important that the opportunity to gain a degree is not restricted to privileged communities. The University Grants Commission (UGC) holds a large measure of responsibility for negotiating this excellence/equity dilemma. It does not simply provide grants to universities and colleges, it also maintains, and tries to raise, academic standards in higher education, frames policies to this end and advises the central and state governments on the subject of expanding and improving higher education. However, the proportion of the education budget allocated to higher education has gradually decreased from 24 per cent in the 1970s to around 9 per cent today. This is posing a problem as Indian universities and colleges are of varying quality. Widening access is also an issue only 6 per cent of those aged between 18 and 23 enter tertiary education. Dilip Thakore asserts in India Together: With the annual outflow of students fleeing Indias second rate tertiary education institutions showing no signs of abating and a growing number of foreign universities clamouring to establish campuses in India

even as government budgetary allocations for higher education are shrinking rapidly, UGC top brass have no option but to focus on their mandate to raise teaching and learning standards in academia and also to teach business illiterate college and university managements to gradually become financially independent. In the light of these recent trends and difficulties, the NDA manifesto pledged to ensure the independence of higher education institutions, but in fact control was centralized in the past few years. The partys proposals represented a tip in the balance away from public funding towards the private sector, but at the same time displayed a commitment to controlling the upper echelons of higher education institutions by appointing party sympathizers (including RSS members) to the top posts. In addition, pro-Hindutva policies were to have a notable impact on universities, colleges and other academic bodies, which critics argue amounted to a centralization of control over the education system.Critics claimed that vice chancellors of various universities were appointed on the sole criterion of their sympathy with the new policies: In Delhi University, while the BJP was holding the State Government, all democratic norms were flouted and the functioning and role of the statutory bodies such as the Academic Council completely undermined. Governing Bodies of Delhi Administration and other colleges were filled with known sympathizers of no academic achievements or interest in education with a view to ensuring appointment of affiliated persons as Principals for the colleges. Appointments to teaching posts were similarly ensured through this process. These RSS filled Governing bodies were openly used for undermining the autonomy of the University, and giving support to corruption and goondaism [hooliganism] on the campus. In flouting and withdrawing many aspects of the agreement arrived at with the teachers last year, the BJP government is devaluing education itself. The personnel changes were not confined to universities.44 New appointees to the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) supported the VHP campaign on Ayodhya, while RSS supporters or sympathizers have been appointed to the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies in Simla, the Indian Institute of Mass Communication and the All India Council for Technical Education. Moreover, the National Museum galleries have been renamed and the choice of items displayed reflects the Sangh Parivars view of Indian history. As mentioned above, the authority and autonomy of the University Grants Commission was undermined with regard to teachers salaries, promotion and working conditions. The UGC was being used to commercialize education and to cut state funding. Personnel at the National Institute of Planning (NIEPA) and the NCERT were also changed. The BJPs policies in this area have extended beyond educational institutions alone, and have had a considerable impact on academia as a whole. These events have led to concern within academia. Sharad

Pawar, leader of the Nationalist Congress Party, observed: Research scholars should not tarnish the image of inspiring personalities. The greatest success of the BJPs education policy has been neither the introduction of new textbooks nor the emergence of RSS activists at the helm of national education institutions. It is that the discriminatory discourse appears to have been accepted by the public, many of whom grew up with Nehrus secular ideals of constructing an inclusive Indian national identity. On top of the existing problems in the education system, the BJP added a further concern that through education Indias inclusive identity would be directly eroded.Recent statistics on the expansion of tertiary-sector education highlight the scale of the problem faced by the new government for creating and implementing policy in this area. The number of colleges and universities across the country has risen from 565 and 25 in 1953 to 15,600 and 311 respectively in 2004. Simultaneously the number of students in higher education has risen from 230,000 to 9.28 million and the number of staff from 15,000 to 462,000. India produces over 2.5 million university graduates per year.47 The commission for the Tenth Plan (20027) has set itself the target of identifying and designating 25 universities with potential for excellence across the country. These institutions will be funded at a higher level to enable them to attain excellence in teaching and research, according to the UGC concept paper.48 Along with a few hundred colleges, they will be given full academic freedom to experiment with the curriculum, introduce innovations in teaching, conduct their own examinations and award joint degrees with affiliating universities.49 In addition, quality control issues resulted in the creation of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council of India (NAAC) in 1994 with the objective of assessing and grading institutions of Higher Education on a scale from 1 to 5.These proposals appear to reflect the need to invest in higher education to attain the high quality now demanded by the growing economy. The role of the NAAC is particularly important for achieving increased accountability for publicly funded institutions. Clearly, the current government understands the need for university subsidies, but it is not yet certain whether these subsidies will be directed so as to widen access to those communities traditionally excluded from tertiary education.

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

Definition
Professional education includes any programs that improve the knowledge, skills, attitudes, or behaviors of health care providers on the importance of breast-feeding, the physiology and management of lactation, or counseling related to breastfeeding. Health care providers are defined here as physicians, nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners and other nurses, nutritionists, lactation consultants, and other members of the health care team such as pharmacists, social workers, speech-language pathologists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists.

Rationale
Health care providers have a substantial influence on a womans decision to breastfeed and on her ability and desire to continue breastfeeding. Even so, some clinicians lack the skills to manage problems with breast-feeding. Moreover, some believe that breastfeeding provides only modest benefits and that infant formula is not a significantly inferior choice. Education to improve the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of health care providers could be a key strategy for improving breastfeeding rates.

Evidence of Effectiveness
While professional education may be a prerequisite for the success of other breastfeeding interventions (e.g., lactation support services, maternity care practices), a Cochrane review found no evidence that professional education alone directly improves rates of breastfeeding initiation or duration. Intensive initial courses (as well as in-service trainings) in lactation can be effective in increasing the knowledge of health professionals and thereby be an important component of more comprehensive programs to promote breastfeeding.
3

Description and Characteristics

Educational programs on breastfeeding range from 1-hour lectures to intensive courses lasting 3 months. Building the skills to enable health care providers to deal with even routine lactation problems takes a combination of extensive formal instruction and practical experience. While short lectures are to be
encouraged for the purpose of raising general awareness and increasing acceptance of the importance of breastfeeding and lactation management, expecting clinicians to obtain the needed skills in brief, one-time lectures or events is unreasonable. All health care providers who interact with women of reproductive age or with children need a basic understanding of breastfeeding. In addition, they need to understand how the procedures they perform or the drugs they prescribe could directly or indirectly affect women who breastfeed currently or who may do so in the future. Professionals need to recognize that breast-feeding is a normal and biologically important physiologic process that is critical to infant and maternal health. Professionals working in maternity care (obstetrics, midwifery, pediatrics, family practice) need in-depth knowledge and skills directly related to breastfeeding and lactation management. In addition, a cadre of highly skilled lactation professionals is needed to deal with complicated lactation problems. Ideally, education on breastfeeding needs to be built into the curricula of medical and nursing schools and educational programs for other health professionals, as well as into the residency and fellowship training of physicians. Additionally, because many of todays health professionals did not receive adequate training in breastfeeding, in-service training or retraining for current practitioners is needed.

Program Examples
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Breastfeeding Promotion in Physicians Office Practices (BPPOP III) program educates and supports residents in pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and family medicine;

practicing physicians; and other health care professionals and public health representatives in the effective promotion and management of breastfeeding in racially and ethnically diverse populations pursuant to the achievement of national goals for breastfeeding in Healthy People 2010. An adaptable curriculum that can be integrated into medical schools and residency programs is being developed to optimally train future physicians about breastfeeding. Participation in BPPOP III strengthens and expands the number of national organizationsincluding nurses associations and organizations of allied health professionals and laypersons interested in breastfeedingthat are collaborating to increase the incidence and duration of breastfeeding and decrease racial and ethnic disparities in breastfeeding rates. Also through the program, information is provided about structured educational programs that have been found effective, behavioral counseling
1

techniques, and ongoing support of women to initiate and sustain breastfeeding. Technical assistance is provided by AAP and other experts. BPPOP III is operated by AAP in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Resource materials and further information are available through the AAP Web site (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/bf/brpromo.htm). La Leche League International sponsors an Annual Seminar for Physicians on Breastfeeding to educate physicians and other lactation specialists. AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are cosponsors, and the American Academy of Family Physicians participates as a cooperating organization. The seminar covers new and ongoing breastfeeding research, optimal clinical management, legal and ethical aspects of promotion and support, current literature and how to critically review it, and the development of physical and psychosocial support skills.

Education for health care providers on breastfeeding is needed in at least three areas: Importance of breastfeeding. In the United States, knowledge of the benefits of breastfeeding is generally high, but some health professionals believe these benefits are not substantial and that infant formula is not significantly inferior to breastfeeding. Furthermore, they are generally unclear on how long breastfeeding should continue or the importance of exclusive breastfeeding. Lactation management. Taveras et al. found that women whose physicians recommended supplementing breastfeeding with formula or who did not consider their advice to mothers on breastfeeding duration to be very important were more likely to have discontinued exclusive breastfeeding by 12 weeks postpartum.

Counseling. Health care providers need skills in talking with pregnant women and mothers about breastfeeding and how to incorporate breastfeeding into their lives.
Wellstart International has developed, with federal support, a Curriculum Guide for Faculty of Medical, Nursing, and Nutritional Programs as well as a Lactation Management Self-Study tool for use in preservice and in-service programs as well as in continuing education. Wellstart International also provides consultation for curriculum integration planning.

The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine has published evidence-based clinical protocols for managing common medical problems that may affect breastfeeding. Currently, protocols are available addressing hypoglycemia (in English, Spanish, and German); hospital discharge, mastitis, and management of peripartum breastfeeding (all in English and Spanish); cosleeping and breastfeeding; model hospital policy; storing human milk for home use; galactogogues (medications used to promote milk production); breastfeeding the near-term infant; neonatal ankyloglossia (condition in which movement of the newborns tongue is restricted by a tight lingual frenulum); and transitioning from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to home.
The International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA) provides a guide to selecting a lactation course as well as a Directory of Lactation Course Providers that lists persons available to assist hospitals and other organizations with on-site education in lactation. ILCAs Worldwide Education Calendar lists specific lactation courses around the world. The Mississippi Department of Health WIC program has developed a three-level training program, How to Support a Breastfeeding Mother, which has been adapted for use with health professionals who provide education and support to new mothers. Level 1 is designed to increase awareness of the importance of breastfeeding among all staff. Levels 2 and 3 address preventing and managing breastfeeding problems as well as maintaining breastfeeding in the midst of special situations. and managing breastfeeding problems as well as maintaining breastfeeding in the midst of special situations.

Potential Action Steps

Distribute

clinical protocols developed by the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine to local

physicians. Host a lactation course or send health professionals to such a course. Provide training to health professionals using the Mississippi WIC curriculum. Collaborate with medical school faculty to improve the quality and increase the quantity of course content devoted to breastfeeding education management. Make available and coordinate grand rounds or in-service presentations on breastfeeding by IBCLCs or other professionals with specific training in breastfeeding.

COLLEGES IN HARYANA

Guru Nanak Institute of Managment (GNIM)

University : Kurukshetra University Address : Hema Majra Road,

Town/City

Mullana

District

Ambala

State

Haryana

Website:

http://www.gni.edu.in/

Email

info@gni.edu.in

Phone

01731-274540,

275640,

Fax

01731-275640,

AICTE

Approval

yes

Start

year

2008

Institution

Type

Private

self-financed

About GNIM
Guru Nanak Institute of Management (GNIM), Mullana, is creating new dimensions in academic excellence, executive development and industry interface. The institute conducts two year, full time M.B.A. programme affiliated to Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and equips the students with managerial and entrepreneurial skills along with the knowledge of business operations.

Keeping in view, the need for economic independence and the crucial role man plays in raising the standard of living of vast strata of society,

Guru Nanak Institute of Management aims at growth of urban and rural youth. GNIM is providing career-oriented education to the students to furnish them with requisite qualification and training. The institute is fully conscious of the needs and aspirations of the student-community and keeps itself abreast of the changes taking place on the industrial front of the country.

GNIM has excellent infrastructure and facilities like a Centralized Air-Conditioned Library with latest books, journals, magazines and e-books, membership of On-line Libraries; state-of-the-art Computing facilities; smart Air-Conditioned Lecture Halls with audio-visual teaching aids such as data projector, E-pen etc.; Air-conditioned Conference Halls; Air-cooled Hostels with all the modern amenities; cultural, recreational and sports facilities. Above all students are motivated by academic environment which combines scholastic rigor with a high level of industry interaction.

The courses offered are geared towards preparing the students to meet the challenges in the highly competitive and technologically advanced business environment of today. MBA programme has an intake of 120 students pursuing one of the following combinations viz. Marketing & Finance; Marketing & Human Resource; Marketing &Information Technology; Finance & Information Technology; Human Recourse & Information Technology plus Human Resource & Finance.

Highly qualified and motivated faculty focus on providing the corporate sector with professionally competent, sophisticated and dynamic managers who have vision and capability to meet the challenges of the new millennium. Theoretical as well as practical training is facilitated at GNIM with the help of extensive industry projects, role-plays, management games, and case study to combine knowledge with the requirements of the current scenario. To provide the learners with a wide exposure, guest lectures by the eminent and renowned personalities and industry visits are made an integral part of the curriculum. In a nutshell, emphasis is laid on the development of analytical ability

and creative thinking employing discussion, presentation, seminars, quizzes and case study methods to nurture seek, search and apply attitude.

Modern Institute of Engineering & Technology

About
Modern Institute of Engineering and Technology, Mohri (Kurukshetra) was established in the year 2008 under the aegis of Maa Saraswati Educational Society & Social Welfare Trust (Regd.) Chandigarh. The sprawling 14.5 acres beautiful campus is truly equipped with world class infrastructure and top of the line faculty; it provides an excellent environment to the students towards pursuing their academic education and research. MIET is fully committed to prepare the students as successful professionals in order to cater to the needs of the industry. It offers Graduate and Post Graduate Programs in various streams. MIET is gradually being recognized by the industry as a provider of excellent Engineers and Managers ready to take the future challenges. This has been proven through the fact that 99% of our 1st Batch MBA students are placed even before graduating. Placement Services Decimal Technologies, Emerson, Vario Technologies, UTBS India, Easy Mobile India, Mansa Infotech, Passion Websoft, ASS Technologies, Webbridge, Appin Technologies, Karlika Technologies, Furnas Construction, Axis Bank, HCL, Siemens, Vibe Technologies, Vodafone, Muthoot Fincorp, Greenbucks, Etc. Source http://www.mietkuk.edu.in/ Affiliations Affiliated to Kurukshetra University Type of Institute null

Address Modern Institute of Engineering & Technology, Campus:Mohri,The.Shahabad, Distt,Kurukshetra136135 Contact No 01744308300

Challenges Facing Higher Education

The twenty-first century has brought with it profound challenges to the nature, values, and control of higher education in the United States. Societal expectations and public resources for higher education are undergoing fundamental shifts. Changes both within and outside the academy are altering its character its students, faculty, governance, curriculum, functions, and very place in society. As Clark Kerr and Marian Gade noted nearly 20 years ago, crisis and change in higher education have been the rule, not the exception. Neverthe- less, current changes are transforming higher education to an extent perhaps greater than since the end of World War II. This chapter focuses on the impact of major external influences on U.S. higher education, particularly government and market pressures, and in turn, the impact of resulting institutional decisions in matters such as program choices, tuition charges, and the conduct of research on outcomes of higher education for society at large. The five issues addressed here discuss changing answers by the public, policy makers and higher education to central questions about the value, role and control of higher education: Who pays for higher education? Who benefits? Who decides who should benefit, what should be offered, and what the outcomes should be? By necessity, of course, other significant issues are omitted from this discussion. While each of the five issues raises all three questions, for this discussion they are organized as follows:

ISSUES EXAMINED Who Pays? Growing privatization of public colleges and universities A more commercialized and politicized research system? Who Benefits? Who will attend college? Challenges to access The changing and uncertain job market for Ph.D.s Who Decides? Accountability, governance, and coordination

A common thread runs through these issues: challenges to the content of colleges and universities social contract. These challenges are apparent in ongoing conflicts over public and private benefits of higher education, equity and merit, undergraduate and graduate education, basic and commercially oriented research, or institutional autonomy and public control.

The Growing Privatization of Public Colleges and Universities States today have become minority partners in the colleges and universities that typically bear their names. On average, states now supply only a little over one-third of public colleges revenues. Yet because these funds generally pay most basic instructional costs, such as faculty and staff salaries critical to public institutions. Over the next decade, a combination of acute state revenue constraints, compet- ing demands for state resources, and ongoing changes in public attitudes toward higher education will likely result in continued shrinking and unpredictable state support for higher education. Although many private colleges are also facing serious budget difficulties due to rising costs, market limits on tuition increases, reduced private giving, and declining endowment income, public institutions, which generally have less ability to tap private sources, will be hit harder. This section addresses the far-reaching impacts of declining state support for public institutions in the U.S., which enroll three-quarters of all college students and two- thirds of all students in four-year colleges.

Shrinking State Funding for Higher Education Because higher education is the largest discretionary item in states budgets, state funding for higher educa- tion tends to rise when the economy and resulting state revenues are good and to drop during recessions. Even during boom times, funding may be less than it appears once inflation and rising enrollments are taken into account. During the U.S. economic recession of the early 1990s, states cut higher education appropriations by amounts unequalled in constant dollars since at least World War II, despite enrollment growth. In the late 1990s, state funding per student finally began returning to pre-1990 levels only to be cut almost immedi- ately during the recession early in the new century. As a result, state dollars per student in public institutions were 12 percent lower in fiscal year 2004 than they were 15 years earlier, as Figure 5.1 shows, despite an improving revenue picture in many states. Although state funding patterns varied widely, 23 states allocated less money in 2004 than in 2003, even without considering inflation or enrollment growth, with nine states reporting cuts of five percent or more.

Long-term prospects for state higher education funding are not favorable. Many experts believe that states revenue problems will persist even after the economy improves because state tax systems are obsolete for example, a growing percentage of economic activity is in non-taxed services and Internet sales and because voter-imposed limits have made raising revenues more difficult. At the same time, an estimated 40-50 percent of state expenditures is locked up in mandated program costs, particularly for K-12 education and Medicaid. These mandated costs are expected to increase, especially for Medicaid, which already consumes about 20 percent of state budgets, as the rising numbers of the elderly require more health services. Also, state actions taken during economic boom times, such as tax cuts or implementation of popular new programs, are hard to eliminate when the economy weakens. In this environment of restricted revenues and mandated expenditures, higher education funding is a tempting target to cut, not only because it is discretionary but also because colleges, unlike many other state programs, can tap other revenue sources, and because a growing proportion of the public believes that students should pay more of their college costs. Unpredictable state funding is equally problematic. In fiscal year 2003, 27 states imposed mid-year reductions in their higher education allocations, including a 16 percent mid-year cut in Colorado and cuts of five percent or more in 11 other states. Unexpected cuts made during the academic year, after faculty have been hired, programs put in place, and student fees set, leave institutions with difficult choices. Declining capital dollars for funding to construct, renovate, and maintain classroom or research buildings and campus infrastructure may be as big a constraint on institutions ability to accommodate enroll- ment growth, recruit faculty, and conduct research as are state appropriations for operating expenses. A 1995 survey (the most recent available) by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers and the National Association of College and University Business Officers estimated that higher education institutions had a $26 billion backlog in deferred maintenance of existing facilities. A new survey, to be conducted in late 2003, was expected to show that this estimate had increased by at least 25 percent. Ultimately, these repairs will cost more than if maintenance and replacement had been made on schedule. In addition, fewer state bonds for capital construction at public colleges may be placed on the ballot in the next decade if they are seen as lowering a states credit rating or as competing with bonds for other purposes, including to cover state deficits. Although many policy makers are looking to distance education and computer-based technologies to reduce space needs, technology costs remain high, and computers will not supplant the need for teaching and research laboratories.

Privatization

As institutions seek to offset declining state dollars, public colleges and universities are becoming increas- ingly privatized. For the nine-campus University of California, for example, state funds dropped from 37 percent of the total operating budget in fiscal year 1990 to 23 percent in 2004. At Pennsylvania State Univer- sity, state appropriations declined from 21 percent in 1990 to just 13 percent in 2002. Nor are these declines just at research universities. Nationally, state funds for all public institutions dropped from 46 percent of current fund revenues in 1981 to 36 percent in 2000. While the declining proportion of state funding at some institutions is due in part to success in obtaining more extramural grants and private donations as well as growth in auxiliary enterprises, nationally two-thirds of the change reflects the substitution of tuition and fee income in place of state support. In 1980, tuition and fees constituted 13 percent of public institutions cur- rent-fund revenues; by 2000, they constituted about 19 percent of revenues for all public colleges and nearly one-third of that for public non-doctoral baccalaureate institutions. Although these trends have been going on for at least 20 years, the extraordinary pressures being placed on state revenues and expenditures for compet- ing services today are likely to accelerate the move toward more reliance on private funding for public higher education unless there is a paradigm shift in public support or unless state or federal policy makers impose mandatory tuition limitations. Many public institutions are themselves pursuing privatization as a means to raise revenues or reallocate scarce state dollars. Some institutions are requiring that certain academic programs, especially high-demand, high-return professional programs like law or business, become fully or nearly fully funded by clients (stu- dents), business, or other private sources. The University of Virginias law and business schools became fully self-supporting by 2004, and many other public research universities have been exploring similar moves; most already charged business, law, and medical students much higher fees than those charged other students. Even teacher or school administrator training programs (which generally are not high-return) have been privatized

in some cases. While institution often want to use the state dollars saved for programs less able to charge high fees, the result in some cases may be a further decrease in state funds. Institutions are pursuing other Strategies & Challenges as well. Many are expanding self-supporting part-time degree programs geared to working profes- sionals. Community colleges and other institutions are expanding contract education programs with specific businesses or industries. Both public and private universities have adopted commercial technology transfer and other for-profit collaborations with industry. Colleges and universities are outsourcing many institu- tional functions to private vendors or other education institutions, including operation of residential dorms, employment training, and even academic functions such as remedial education and beginning language instruction. University hospitals have formed partnerships with both nonprofit and for-profit health organiza- tions. Other institutions have established shared-use facilities with private enterprise.

Consequences of State Funding Declines and Privatization State funding declines and resulting institutional Strategies & Challenges raise the following questions: Access, success, and diversity: How will further tuition increases affect student access to and success in higher education? Unless sufficient need-based financial aid is provided, low-income students and historically underrepresented ethnic groups may be excluded. Even if students and their parents are able and willing to pay higher tuition, some institutions and state policy makers facing fiscal pressures are preparing to cap or even reduce enrollments, despite growing enrollment demands. If so, what will happen to students unable to get in? These issues will be examined further in a subsequent section. Impacts on faculty: Over the next decade, many new faculty will be needed, both to replace the large numbers of expected retirements and to teach the growing numbers of students. How will conflicting forces of budget constraints and the need for new faculty affect how many faculty will be hired and for what types of positions? Although student/faculty ratios could rise indeed, many faculty positions were eliminated during the recession of the early 2000s, primarily by not replacing tenured faculty and not renewing contracts fornon-tenure-track faculty new faculty will nevertheless be needed. In this environment, both public and private institutions may hire an increasing proportion of faculty who are ineligible for tenure, generally at lower salaries than tenure-track faculty. In 1998, about 55 percent of all instructional faculty and over a quarter of full-time faculty at four-year institutions were ineligible for tenure. Budgetary problems andenrollment

growth may well accentuate this trend. Growing use of temporary faculty presents both advantages and problems. On the one hand, it increases institutions ability to respond to changing student demand and reduces institutional costs. On the other hand, it creates a two-tier academic labor force. According to the American Association of University Professors, the increasing reliance on parttime, temporary, and adjunct faculty threatens the tenure system and may harm the quality of higher education. Program reallocations: In a more market-driven environment, will institutions (private as well as public) respond by shifting program resources toward fields that promise tuition-paying students high-paying jobs or that bring in more external research grants? To date, the impact of budget cuts on programs appears largely unplanned. In some cases, disproportionate numbers of faculty positions in certain fields have been left vacant, leaving an imbalance between faculty expertise and institutional needs. In terminating non-tenure- track faculty, institutions have indirectly made decisions to reduce or eliminate programs such as remedial education, beginning language courses, and teacher education, which often depend heavily upon non-tenure- track faculty. Repetitive across-the-board cuts have gradually weakened once viable programs until they become obvious candidates for termination. However, as fiscal constraints continue, more institutions are intentionally reducing, consolidating, or eliminating specific programs. State policy makers have at times been the driving force behind program reallocations. In the 1990s, statewide coordinating agencies in Ohio, Virginia, and Illinois, in response to pressures from governors or legislators, encouraged or required institutions to eliminate scores of programs, especially doctoral programs, or to reduce graduate enrollments sharply. By contrast, governors in California, Oregon, Washington and other states in recent years have pushed institutions to expand enrollments in hightech fields perceived as bringing economic growth to the state.Often the programs cut have been identified as academically weak, high cost, duplicative, having low market demand, or less central to institutional mission or state need. Deciding what programs are low quality or less important may be subjective, however. Based on faculty retrenchment cases in the 1980s, Sheila Slaughter suggested that departments serving primarily women or fields unable to tie themselves to market needs may be disproportionately cut. Over the next decade, humanities and social science programs may be at risk if institutions implement budget systems that require departments to generate income equal to their costs. Or to generate revenues, these departments may increase both enrollments and teachings loads and reduce teaching costs by using more adjunct faculty. If so, this would exacerbate the difference, especially within universities, between a relatively low teachingload and highly research-oriented science and engineering sector and a relatively high teachingload and less research-oriented humanities and social sciences sector. If institutions are to prevent such imbalances from growing, they may need to consider reallocating scarce dollars

to support important areas unlikely to be sustained by extramural dollars or high tuition. Where programs are being eliminated, students should be given adequate resources or alternatives to complete their degrees. Narrowing of institutional missions: Will budget cuts result in a contraction of institutional missions? In California, after several years of increased state funding for college outreach programs to improve the academic preparation of public school students, especially in schools with low-income and limited-English students, the state slashed these funds in 2002 and 2003, undermining efforts to increase college preparation, enrollment, and graduation of disadvantaged students. The state similarly cut university funds for other K-12 and public service programs, as well as for state-funded research centers. Conflicting pressures on governance and control: Within the institution, budget constraints may lead to both greater centralization and greater decentralization of authority. Slaughter concluded that retrenchment generally undermined faculty participation in governance and faculty authority over the direction of the curriculum. At the same time, institutional decisions to require academic units, especially professional schools like business and law, to become self-supporting through tuition revenues or private gifts and con- tracts tend to shift control from central administration to more autonomous units and to diminish adherence to institution-wide missions. At the state level, many states are demanding greater and more detailed account- ability of diminishing state revenues, for example, over faculty workload, even as other states are considering reducing controls in exchange for reduced state appropriations. Impacts on the higher education system as a whole: Will declining state funding, along with government or market limits on tuition, widen the gaps between the haves and the have nots in the U.S. higher education system overall between faculty and student resources at most public institutions and those at well- endowed private institutions, between elite and less elite institutions within the public sector, between tenure- track and non-tenure-track faculty, or between science and non-science fields? The answer in many cases appears to be yes. Over the past decade, the gaps have grown between public and private institutions on a number of measures generally considered quality indicators, such as faculty salaries and student/faculty ratio, leading to questions about whether public institutions can retain past levels of instructional and research quality. This problem may be particularly severe at public two-year or four-year comprehensive institutions, which have fewer opportunities to offset declining state dollars with federal grants or private gifts. Another issue is the distribution of students among institutions. If tuition at public institutions continues to rise, will enrollments shift from public to private higher education or from four-year to less expensive two-year institu- tions? In recent years some small shifts in these directions occurred. However, enrollment shifts to public

two-year colleges assume that two-year colleges will have the resources to enroll more students and that students can afford their rising fees. If insufficient resources force institutions and students to make choices, nontraditional students, including returning adults and those whose initial preparation precludes admission at other institutions, may well be shut out of traditionally opendoor community colleges. A More Commercialized and Politicized Research System? In the past 25 years, significant changes in the nature of scientific research have occurred. These include the development of fields and techniques not even imagined a quarter century ago, growing university/industry collaboration in the commercial marketing of research discoveries, increased targeting of federal research funding for specific projects, more political involvement in funding and in prohibiting funding of research in politically charged areas, and a movement toward big science projects involving hundreds of researchers and billions of dollars.

University/Industry Collaboration Between 1980 and 2000, industry funding for university research and development (R&D) in science and engineering grew much more rapidly than any other funding source, nearly doubling as a percentage of total university research dollars, from four to almost eight percent. Although this is a small percentage of total dollars, industry support plays a much larger role in certain fields, such as biotechnology and civil engineer- ing. For example, a mid-1990s survey found that 79 percent of university faculty in engineering received at least some industry funding. During the 1990s, pharmaceutical funding for university biomedical research shot up. At a time when there are concerns that the growing national deficit together with increased expendi- tures for federal defense and security may lead to reduced federal research funding, researchers may seek industrial sponsorship much more aggressively. University/industry partnerships, where researchers in both sectors are jointly involved in research activities, have also grown dramatically over the past two decades. This trend reflects the increasing perme- ability of boundaries between the two sectors, as universities engage in more commercial marketing and as more new Ph.D.s take jobs in industry but maintain ties with their former faculty advisers. One indicator of this is the growth in the number of university-based research centers with close ties to industry, which in- creased nearly two and one-half times between 1980 and 1990. Another indicator is the increasing proportion of articles co-authored by academic and industry researchers in fields such as engineering (now more than 15 percent), as well as physics and clinical medicine. Federal and state agencies have further stimulated these

partnerships by linking research funding to industry participation; as a result, even public funding takes on characteristics of industry sponsorship. University/industry collaboration can provide additional sources of support for university research, access to a broader range of talent, and more rapid development and transfer of useful products like vaccines. However, such collaboration is also subject to potential problems. These include hindering the flow of research information and of graduate students degree completion when industrial sponsors require research- ers to delay release of potentially marketable results; suppressing undesirable results (for example, in drug tests); and skewing research agendas toward corporate interests. Nor are these impacts limited to the hard sciences and engineering. In its battle to overturn jury damage awards in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill, for example, Exxon funded psychologists, economists, law and business faculty to conduct research on the competence of juries to set punitive damages. High-profile cases where corporations have provided millions of dollars to universities in return for prior review of and right to delay presentation or publication of results or for influence in setting the research agenda have raised concerns about bias and inhibition of research, as well as the use of universities credibility to legitimize industry goals.

Commercialization A still more problematic trend is the growing involvement of university researchers and of universities themselves in the commercial marketing of scientific and technological discoveries, a trend stimulated by the 1980 passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed universities to patent inventions developed with federal research funding. During the 1980s, leading university researchers established or became associated with for- profit biotechnology and other high-tech companies based on their federally funded university research, a development that prompted Congress to enact conflict-of-interest regulations. Nevertheless, this trend contin- ued throughout the 1990s. Many universities have established for-profit technology-transfer units designed to speed the flow of scientific discoveries and products to the private sector and bring dollars to the institution. They have also encouraged spin-off companies based on faculty research and have acquired equity in the spin-off firms they generated. Universities have moved aggressively into securing commercial patents, especially in drug and other biomedical areas, as well as negotiating royalty and licensing arrangements with private companies. Between 1993 and 2002, the number of patents issued to academic institutions increased almost two and one-half times, although two-thirds of these went to just 13 universities or university systems. As the National Science Board notes, these trends reflect the confluence of two developments: a growing eagerness of universities to exploit the economic potential of research activities conducted under their aus- pices and the readiness of entrepreneurs

and companies to recognize and invest in the market potential of this research. Many of these efforts suffered a setback when the high-tech bubble burst in the economic recession at the start of the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, despite strong faculty opposition in some cases as well as the limited success of these initiatives at most universities, they are likely to grow, especially during a period of limited state and federal funding, because they promise universities increased revenues. Like industry sponsorship, commercial marketing of university research also poses threats to the research system, among them the possibility that it will create conflicts of interest for individuals and institutions, restrict the flow of information, increase the universitys fragmentation into entrepreneurial fiefdoms, and shift power to nonaca- demic personnel who typically control for-profit enterprises within the university. Critics also charge that commercialization may further shift research priorities toward more marketable areas in science and technol- ogy fields, distort traditional academic missions, and replace science dedicated to the public good with the privatization of knowledge.

Political Involvement Political involvement in universities scientific research is not new. Federal and state policy makers have long set aside research dollars for projects intended to stimulate economic development in particular business sectors or to cure specific health problems. But two recent trends highlight how political intervention may subvert the research process to serve partisan or ideological ends. First is Congresss growing readiness to earmark research monies for universities in the home districts or states of powerful legislators. In 2003, these noncompetitive earmarks, which bypass the academic peer review system intended to ensure that funding is based on merit, totaled over $2 billion more than six times the amount earmarked in 1996 and equal to about 10 percent of federal research dollars to universities. Although there have been calls to reduce such earmarks, pressures on legislators to benefit their constituents may ensure that they continue. Second is an ideological cast in some cases regarding what and who are studied. In line with views of some religious groups, for instance, President Bush in 2001 banned federal funding of research using human embryonic stem cells except in limited cases, and Bush Administration staff reportedly warned researchers that grant proposals on AIDS research that contained such terms as men who have sex with men and needle exchange would receive extra scrutiny.

In sum, these changes in how scientific research is funded, conducted and used provide opportunities for universities to develop new revenue streams and to serve economic and other public needs more effectively and for government to help meet important policy goals. However, they also pose threats to university mis- sions and priorities, academic integrity, and faculty control. The challenge for research universities and for government and private funders of university research will be to address more fully the publics legitimate needs, while implementing policies and decisions to maintain university support for core academic areas; to enforce policies and accountability mechanisms designed to prevent conflicts of interests or acquiescence to external pressures; and to take a more active role in informing and shaping public discussion about national priorities.

Who Will Attend College? Challenges to Access

The United States truly has a system of mass higher education. In 2003, over 60 percent of recent high school graduates and more than one-third of the traditional college-age population (18-24year-olds) were enrolled in postsecondary education institutions. Total enrollments have increased dramatically, rising nearly 50 percent over the past 25 years, to over 16 million students in 2003. Participation in college remains un- even, however. Moreover, shifting demographic, political, and economic forces are challenging past assump- tions about who willand even who shouldenroll in our colleges and universities.

A Changing Student Pool and Rising Enrollment Demand

Students in U.S. colleges and universities today are very different from those of even twenty years ago. A much larger proportion than in the past are older, part-time, and from ethnic minority groups. In 2000, stu- dents aged 25 years and older composed about 40 percent of total college enrollments and nearly one-quarter of full-time enrollments. Over one-quarter of all college students were ethnic minorities, up from 16 percent in 1980, with the greatest increases among Latino students, who are likely to surpass African-American enrollments in the next few years. However, college participation, especially in four-year colleges and universities, remains unequal. Despite growth in numbers, African American and Latino students remain significantly underrepresented in higher education, as Table 5.1 shows, as are Native American students. Fewer minority students complete high school, although in recent decades the gaps in high school drop-out rates among ethnic groups educated in the U.S. are narrowing. Once they graduate high school, however, only a little over half of African American and Latino graduates enter college, compared to nearly two-thirds of white high school graduates. Close to half of underrepresented students who do attend college enroll in two-year institutions. Because most of these students do not transfer to baccalaureate-granting institutions, an even smaller proportion receives bachelors or higher degrees, although these numbers are slowing rising. In 2000-01, African Americans received less than nine percent of all bachelors degrees, and Latinos received only six percent, even though together these two groups constitute one-quarter of high school graduates and one-third of the college-age population.

Poverty is the biggest barrier to college attendance. Students from poor families of all ethnic backgrounds and those whose parents did not have a college education are even less likely than underrepresented minorities as a whole to enroll in college or even to complete high school, as a result of what some critics argue is an elaborate, self-perpetuating system of social and economic class that systematically grants advantages to those of privilege. Among those who do enter college, perhaps a third or less enroll in four-year colleges, and very few enroll in the nations elite institutions. Young adults from families in the bottom income bracket are eight times less likely than others in their age group to complete a bachelor s degree. Financial burden, lower levels of academic preparation, and lower expectations all of which correlate with poverty and parental education contribute to these negative outcomes.

Demand for college will continue to grow in the next decade. The National Center for Education Statistics projects that college enrollments will increase 11 percent nationally between 2003 and 2013, even though high school graduation rates are expected to level off or decline by the end of the decade. Enrollment demand will be fueled especially by high growth in the numbers of high school graduates in such large sunbelt states as Florida, California, and Texas, as well as in other large states like Michigan and New Jersey. (By contrast, some states, mainly more rural ones, may see declines.) By the end of the decade, students of color will constitute close to 40 percent of the college-age population nationally. Demographic changes will be dramatic in some states, especially the growth of Latino populations in the Southwest and Asian populations in the West. By 2010, for example, California projects that over 40 percent of public high school graduates will be of Latino background, while just over one-third will be white. In some states, many immigrant students may have limited English proficiency, which will restrict their college options. In 200203, for example, 16 percent of Californias public high school students were identified as English Learners. Access Implications These changes will have important implications for higher education and especially for college access and completion. First, the growing demand for higher education will collide with forces limiting enrollment: budgetary demands on governments that already have limited revenues to meet other social needs, greater public readiness to consider higher education a private good, and consequent reduction in public funding for higher education. Public institutions will face pressures to enroll more students with less funding and to shift admission priorities to reduce the number of graduate students and deny admission to students needing remedial assistance, for example. Many private institutions and some public ones will have a seller s market, allowing them to become more selective. More institutions may leverage financial aid funds by directing more of their limited dollars to relatively well-off, tuition-paying students. Enrollment caps, increased selec- tivity, and targeted admissions may create what has been described as a cascading effect, where higher- income or better prepared students take the place of students who otherwise would have been admitted, who in turn enroll in those institutions one step down in selectivit y, until those at the bottom have no place to enroll. Second, rising tuition costs, if not coupled with adequate financial support, may keep low-income students from entering or from completing college. For example, for students from the bottom 25 percent of family income, total costs at four-year public colleges equaled over 70 percent of family income in 2003. Although financial aid reduces these charges substantially (and costs vary greatly among states and institutions), the net price for college (tuition and fees less average grant aid per student) has increased at both public and private institutions. Moreover, over the past 25 years,

federal, state, and institutional financial aid programs have increasingly shifted away from both grants and need-based support. Federal financial aid has moved overwhelmingly toward loans, rising from about half to about 70 percent of all federal aid, and aid eligibility has been expanded to include more middle-class students. At the state level, non-need-based merit aid, which disproportionately aids middle- and upper-income students, rose from 10 percent of state grant dollars in the early 1990s to nearly one-quarter in 2002. Low-income students are most affected by these changes because they are less willing to incur large amounts of debt to finance college and may not be eligible for merit aid, and grant programs have not increased enough to cove r the expanded pool. Third, financial support alone will not ensure access and success in college. Low-income, underrepresented ethnic minority, and first-generation students often come from schools with fewer academic resources, have less academic preparation, and may have lower expectations. In Jonathan Kozols view, the differences in the resources available to rich and poor school districts have created savage inequalities in the education their pupils receive. Unless higher education institutions work with low-wealth schools and communities to advocate for increased resources and to improve their students college readiness, U.S. society will lose the talents of a growing segment of the population. In addition, relatively few such students will attend four-year colleges and universities without active intervention. Finally, the increasingly diverse student body will continue to change the face of the campus. Colleges will need to develop ways to respond effectively espe- cially to those lowincome, first-generation African American and Latino students who do make it to college but who tend to drop out at higher rates than do middle-class white students. This may mean more academic support including remedial education where necessary and more support for English as a second language, as more non-native-English speakers enter college. It will also require college climates and curricula that welcome students differing backgrounds and perspectives as opportunities to enlarge the range of voices and experiences and to build upon students diverse language and cultural backgrounds in preparing them for a more interdependent global society.

Changing Public Expectations As noted above, higher education is increasingly viewed by both policy makers and the general public as primarily a private benefit, rather than a broader social good. Over 90 percent of U.S. adults believe that every high school student who wants a four-year college education should have the opportunity to gain one, accord- ing to a 2003 survey, and two-thirds believe state and federal governments should invest more money in higher education but nearly two-thirds believe that students and their families should pay the largest share of the cost of a college education. Given ongoing access barriers, these perceptions may make it

more difficult than in the past for historically underserved groups to enroll in college, at a time when they are becoming a larger proportion of the college-age pool. Ironically, these changed perceptions come at a time when high school students of all ethnic back- grounds are completing substantially more college preparatory and advanced coursework in science and mathematics than previous generations, as a result of higher state graduation and college admission require- ments. Having achieved higher levels of academic preparation, however, students may find themselves shut out of four-year colleges if these institutions reduce enrollments or raise admission standards further. The ongoing backlash against affirmative action is occurring in this context of changed perceptions and scarce resources. Although the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision on the University of Michigans admissions practices reaffirmed the legality of including race or ethnicity as one of multiple admissions criteria, many institutions are still prevented from considering race, ethnicity, or gender in admissions or financial aid. In California and Washington, for instance, the electorate has outlawed such considerations; elsewhere, governors or governing boards have disallowed or discouraged their use. As a result, increasing the numbers of underrepresented students will remain more difficult. Moreover, the continuing opposition to affirmative action or to admissions criteria that go beyond standardized tests and grades has radically changed the debate over equity and access. While supporters see these practices as a means to level the playing field for underserved students, recognize a broader range of qualities for admission, and enhance valued diversity, critics portray it as creating new inequities that give access to unqualified individuals and that harm those so admitted who must compete with academically better prepared students. In turn, the latter view is creating a more hostile campus climate for minorities, which could discourage some from even applying to many colleges and universities. In this environment, how colleges identify ways to maintain and increase access by all segments of the population will be a critical test. As powerful as the anti-affirmative action backlash has been in altering past consensus on access and equity, reduced public funding and changing public expectations pose even more serious threats to higher education participation. If policy makers and higher education leaders in effect change the rules just when a new generation of studentsless white, less middle classis prepared to enter college, questions are raised about equity in a democratic society, as well as risks to social stability. Reducing access to higher education also raises concerns about meeting societys economic and civic needs at a time of increasing technological, economic, social, and political complexity and interdependence. Slowing or even reversing the countrys historic movement toward universal access to higher education is especially problematic because it is being driven largely by governmental and institutional decisions made on financial grounds, rather than by explicit policy decisions on higher education access and participation.

The Changing and Uncertain Job Market for Ph.D.s

Projecting the labor market for new Ph.D.s has perhaps never been more difficult than it is in the current fluid economic, political, and demographic environment. There is ongoing debate over whether U.S. universities are training too many or too few doctorates. Among the questions being raised are these: Is the U.S. training more Ph.D.s than the labor market can absorb, leading to declining prospects for permanent employment for new doctorate recipients, especially in academe? Are we producing Ph.D.s at the expense of undergraduate access? Or is the U.S. preparing too few doctoral scientists and engineers, particularly in high-tech-oriented fields, to meet economic and technology needs? Are universities enrolling too few U.S. citizens in doctoral programs, especially too few minorities, to advance the nations educational, economic, and social well-being and to improve individuals income levels? Should those who want to pursue the life of the mind have oppor- tunities to pursue doctorates, without regard to the job market? Current Realities The job market for new Ph.D.s appears less secure today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. One measure of this is the percentage of Ph.D.s who have obtained jobs by the time they have completed their doctoral studies. As Figure 5.2 shows, in most fields a lower percentage of new Ph.D.s had jobs in 2002 than in the early 1970s or 1980s, although the situation was better than in the early 1990s, a low point in the Ph.D. market. Although this a flawed measure it does not show the much higher percentage of jobs obtained within six months of the degree, according to professional association surveys, and, conversely, it excludes the rising proportion accepting postdoctoral study rather than employment it still provides a general picture of employment trends for new Ph.D.s. The growing proportion of new Ph.D.s in postdoctoral positions is another measure of this softer job market, especially in the sciences. Nearly three-quarters of new biochemistry Ph.D.s, over half of physicists, and nearly a third of psychologists sought postdoctoral study positions in 2002, and the number of years spent in postdoctoral positions appears to be lengthening. While the rise in postdocs reflects a dra- matic change in expectations about how scientists are prepared, it is also a response to a weaker job market.

85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Phys. Sci./Math/C.S. Life Sciences Humanities Education All Fields 1972 1982 1992 Engineering Social Sci./Psych.

2002

Figure Job Placement Rates of New Ph.D.s at Time of Completing Doctorate Source: Derived from National Science Foundation, annual Survey of Earned Doctorates, accessed from NSF WebCASPAR database system: http://caspar.nsf.gov/. Notes: Base includes only those planning immediate employment (rather than postdoctoral study). Placement rates are for doctorate recipients with definite employment commitments at time of filing dissertation. All fields includes those not shown separately. The types of jobs that doctoral recipients take has undergone significant changes as well. Most U.S. science and engineering doctorates and over one-third of all social science Ph.D.s no longer work in four-year colleges or universities, once the traditional employer of most Ph.D.s. Rather, by 1991 business and industry had become the largest single employment sector for both engineering and physical science Ph.D.s, now employing about 60 percent of engineers, nearly half of physical scientists, and a growing proportion of those in other fields. By contrast, only a quarter of doctoral engineers and a third of physical scientists work in four- year institutions, including those in postdoctoral positions. Even in history, a placement survey of recent Ph.D.s suggested that about half would find jobs outside academe. In recent years, these shifts have been accelerating. Moreover, as noted earlier, the nature of academic employment is also changing. A growing proportion of faculty are in non-tenure-track adjunct or temporary positions, and increasing numbers of other Ph.D.s are in postdoctoral or other non-faculty research positions. Larger numbers of Ph.D.s are also taking positions in community colleges, which traditionally have not required the doctorate to teach. As a 1995 national study concluded, Ph.D.s are increasingly finding employ- ment outside universities and more and more are in types of positions that they had not expected to occupy. These and other trends raise several concerns. According to some studies, a majority of doctoral students in most arts and science fields continue to want faculty careers, despite the fact that the percentage of new Ph.D.s obtaining the kind of faculty position that most seek permanent tenure-track positions in four- year institutions has declined. Compared to 20 years ago, Ph.D.s take longer to graduate and longer to enter permanent career positions. In most science fields, a lower percentage of full-time faculty in the late 1990s than in the late 1980s received federal research funding, typically deemed necessary to success in these fields. In addition, for the growing number of women in the doctoral workforce, conflicts between profes- sional demands and family responsibilities may limit career options. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, a 1997 National Science Foundation survey found a relatively high level of dissatisfaction among science and engineering doctorates who had graduated one to five years earlier; for example, 24 percent of

physicists, 18 percent of biologists, 16 percent of sociologists, and 15 percent of engineers reported they would be not at all likely to choose the same field of study again. Nevertheless, many signs remain positive. Unemployment among science, social science, and engi- neering Ph.D.s remains quite low under two percent in most fields in 2001. The percentage of those invol- untarily employed part-time or outside their academic fields in 2001 was also relatively low, although some disciplines, such as physics and political science, had higher rates of five to nine percent. Conditions fluctuate with the state of the economy, however, and individual subfields may have very different trajectories from the overall discipline. Future Ph.D. Supply and Demand While trends are visible in hindsight, projecting future doctorate workforce needs is a risky endeavor. Over the past two decades, labor economists, governmental agencies and professional associations have presented analyses that disagreed not only about the scope and nature of future Ph.D. workforce needs but whether there would be shortages or surpluses. Most have turned out to be wrong, projecting shortages or, alternatively, gloomy unemployment levels that did not materialize. Their conclusions were influenced by their assump- tions and methodologies as well as by economic conditions at the time in which they were developed. In the late 1980s, for example, several influential studies predicted critical shortages of higher education faculty and other Ph.D.-trained scientists and engineers by 1997 or earlier, but by the mid-1990s, an economic downturn, the end of the Cold War, and higher production of Ph.D.s than projected dissolved the predicted shortages. Similarly, econometric model simulations of Ph.D. supply and demand based on conditions prevailing in the early 1990s predicted that about 22 percent of U.S. science and engineering Ph.D. s could fail to find suitable employment a prediction that also has not occurred. The future Ph.D. labor market is difficult to predict for many reasons. Demand will depend heavily on the state of the economy and, for faculty positions, on state budgets for higher education. Within academe, new faculty will be needed to teach growing numbers of students, but how many faculty and in which fields will depend on what disciplines students major in, the types of institutions they enroll in, and the student/faculty ratio. Unexpected external events wars, new breakthrough technologies, or changes in national and state priorities, for example could have major impacts on increasing or decreasing demand in certain fields. On the supply side, the number of doctorates in the U.S. workforce will depend on how many new Ph.D.s are produced, retirement ages of those now in the workforce, and employment of foreign doctorate recipients, all uncertain.

In addition, workforce projections themselves influence decisions by individuals, institutions, and govern- ment, thereby altering the future demand/supply ratio. In the 1970s, Richard Freeman concluded that a boom and bust cycle exists in the academic labor market. When Ph.D. jobs appear plentiful, growing numbers of individuals apply to graduate programs, but fewer apply when Ph.D. jobs are in short supply. Because a lag exists between job market needs and Ph.D. production, job shortages are inevitably followed by surpluses and surpluses by shortages. Responses by universities and departments to these trends also varies. Some depart- ments reduce graduate admissions if applicant quality declines or if they cannot provide students full financial support, but other departments dig more deeply into applicant pools or increase foreign admits to maintain enrollments. Given these uncertainties, perhaps the best that can be done is to note trends that suggest a stronger Ph.D. job market and those that portend a weaker one, as of late 2003. A number of factors do indeed suggest improved job opportunities for Ph.D.s over the next decade, especially to meet replacement and growth needs. Large numbers of faculty and other doctorate-holders in the workforce will retire in the next decade and need to be replaced. In 1999, about a quarter to a third of doctoral-level engineers, scientists, and social scientists in the workforce were age 55 or older, depending on field. Nearly one-third of full-time faculty were age 55 or older in 1998. Although Ph.D.s, especially faculty, tend to retire later than labor force participants, they do retire just two years or so later than those with bachelor s or master s degrees. Additional faculty will be needed to teach the growing numbers of students expected to enter college. Outside academe, many experts believe that demand will be high in computer-related, biotechnology, and other high-tech fields, despite what is considered a temporary economic slowdown. If historical patterns hold, the economy and with it, college hires and industry positions will improve within a couple of years. Other factors are less promising with regard to improved Ph.D. labor market opportunities. Even when the economy improves, colleges and universities, especially public institutions, may not hire new faculty in the numbers once expected. Rather, in the face of continuing public funding constraints and limits on tuition increases, institutions may continue to raise the student/faculty ratio, rely more heavily on instructional technology, and hire more temporary and part-time faculty at lower salary levels. In addition, if college access and affordability decline as the proportion of the college-age population from poor families and underrepresented minority groups increases, college participation rates could drop. In the nonacademic labor market, prospects remain uncertain as well, given new threats of outsourcing of high-skilled jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad and downsizing in private-sector R&D. On the supply side, first-year graduate enroll- ments have begun increasing in some fields often due mostly to additional foreign student enrollments after declining for several years. Although these increases may be temporary if state policy makers refuse to support expensive doctoral enrollments, they may translate into higher numbers of Ph.D.s

entering the labor market in six to ten years, unless most foreign students return to their home countries. In addition, there will be fewer openings for new doctorates from U.S. institutions if more scientists and engineers with foreign doctorates (now perhaps a quarter to a third of the total U.S. S&E doctoral workforce) come to the U.S. But a list of positive and not-so-positive trends does not give the whole picture. There is not one labor market for doctorates but many hundreds. Whether the outlook is strong or weak depends on very particular subfields and differs by type of position, type of institution, and region of the country. In many fields, employment opportunities outside academe appear stronger than academic ones. Within higher education, faculty employ- ment prospects are better in faster-growing comprehensive colleges than in research universities. Better or worse are also relative terms. Individuals (or their faculty advisers) expectations of what is an appropriate job for a Ph.D. also determines how good the job market is and how satisfied the individual is. In this regard, it is important to note that Ph.D.s not only fill existing workforce needs but also shape them, creating new labor market demand and new opportunities, as well as impacting economic, social and cultural develop- ment. Ph.D. recipients in careers that might once have been considered out of field or inappropriate have transformed those positions by bringing skills and knowledge to bear on their work, so that holding an advanced degree becomes a job requirement.

Policy Options The uncertain job market outlook for Ph.D.s, combined with competing demands for scarce public dollars, has prompted widespread demands for changes in graduate training, ranging from radical restructuring of the doctoral curriculum to sizable reductions in doctoral programs and enrollments. A number of different re- sponses have been proposed, including the following: Broaden the doctoral curriculum to prepare students for alternative careers. Many reports have recom- mended that universities prepare Ph.D.s for nonacademic (as well as academic) careers in applied R&D positions in industry, in the nonprofit sector, or in K12 teaching or science writing. To support this option, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation has provided awards to departments, students, and postdoctorates to encour- age humanists to pursue careers outside the university, and the Council of Graduate Schools has initiated a Preparing Future Professionals project. Many faculty now appear more open to such alternatives than once was true. How many additional openings there will be in such nontraditional positions remains uncertain, however. Shift the graduate balance toward master s programs. Others urge that we reinvent the master s degree in the sciences so that it serves as a gateway to science careers, rather than as a consolation prize for failed Ph.D.s. Professionally oriented master s programs, these advocates argue, hold the

most promise. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has supported start-up costs for universities to create new two-year professional science master s degree programs, although their total enrollments so far are small. Impose academic birth control. A more radical solution is zero population growth in doctoral enroll- ments and, in fields with an oversupply of Ph.D.s, a moratorium on admissions, at least until the reserve pool of unemployed or underemployed Ph.D.s is significantly reduced. Critics, both within and outside higher education, argue that unrestrained growth of doctoral enrollments and programs has been a major cause of the Ph.D. surplus. These critics argue that doctoral enrollments are driven less by workforce needs than by internal university interests in obtaining graduate students to teach introductory undergraduate courses, help faculty do their research, attract top faculty eager to work with talented professionals-in-training, and raise institutions standing in prestige rankings. Critics also charge that some government or industry leaders want to increase Ph.D. supply in order to hold down salaries. Foreign students, who in 2002 constituted over half of new engineering doctorates in the U.S., and from a quarter to nearly half of new Ph.D. s in life sciences, business, physics, and mathematics, are a particular target of those who would reduce graduate enrollments because they are seen as artificially propping up graduate programs and worsening the job market for U.S. citizens.

 Make doctoral studies in engineering and the natural sciences more attainable and attractive to U.S. citizens. If there are shortages of U.S. citizens in some fields, many policy experts argue that the U.S. must better prepare public school and undergraduate students to pursue science and engineering careers. Others argue that the main problem is not preparation but disincentives to pursue lengthy doctoral studies with vacillating career prospects. These critics argue that, among other things, foregone earnings must be lessened by reducing time-to-degree and postdoctoral periods. Eliminate weaker doctoral programs. Many favor this solution for universities other than their own. Few institutions voluntarily close doctoral programs. Still, in the face of budgetary constraints, some universities are cutting weaker programs on their own campuses, and some state agencies have forced the termination of doctoral programs judged weak or duplicative. Retain the current system, which has served the United States well, but provide students better information and hold programs more accountable. Other scholars urge caution. Unemployment rates among Ph.D.s remain low. Moreover, students entering doctoral programs now will graduate in six to ten years, when employment needs may be far different. If market difficulties are temporary and institutions turn away promising individuals, the ability of academia, industry, and government to conduct essential teaching, research, and other services could be impaired. These analysts urge that institutions take much more aggres- sive steps to advise students about current and prospective market conditions, provide data on completion rates and times, and hold departments accountable if student attrition, time-to-degree, or financial support is deemed unacceptable. Restructure demand and expand understanding of the value of the Ph.D. Finally, many in the research community argue that higher education and its allies must not only identify new roles that Ph.D.s can and should play to enhance society but must make a strong public case for the value of Ph.D.-trained professionals in contributing to national goals. Scholars advocate as well that the higher education community explain why doctoral education, like education in general, is important not only because it serves utilitarian job market or economic development needs but also because it has intrinsic value to the individual and, because it trains individuals to think and create, to society. Who Decides? Accountability, Governance, and Coordination All of the issues discussed above have significant implications for the relationship between higher education, the public, and government authorities. Higher education is costly to taxpayers and individuals, and it is important to both individuals and the broader society for economic mobility, preparation of an educated workforce and citizenry, transmission and creation of culture, economic growth and public health and social welfare. A college education may be a path to social and economic mobility, but college can also represent a barrier to mobility for those unable to gain

entrance or to gain entrance to the elite institutions that are closely tied to social class. University research provides technological advances and a better understanding of society, but some research may be seen as contrary to certain religious values, pose potential health hazards, or advance private interests at public expense. Institutional Autonomy and Accountability Given the costs and value of higher education it should come as no surprise that, as state budgets have be- come tighter and student fees have risen, governors and legislators have sought to ensure attention to state priorities, to control institutional costs by regulating academic matters such as faculty workloads, and to demand evidence of accountability regarding student outcomes such as graduation rates. The kinds of accountability that institutions must meet and the enforcement mechanisms imposed have both changed. Policy makers now demand that institutions not only demonstrate fiscal responsibility but also achieve explicit governmental performance standards such as minimum faculty contact hours and specified student outcomes, and some states have tied institutional funding to performance indicators. Such performance indicators, however, tend to measure only what is readily quantified, and these may not be the essential goals of higher education. State governments will remain the dominant players in higher education in the foreseeable future. This is because states continue to fund most of public colleges basic instructional costs, and public institutions enroll most U.S. college students. In addition, states retain extensive regulatory authority over most public colleges, ranging from authority over institutional missions and degrees to regulation of purchasing procedures. Legis- lative term limits, now in place in 16 states, also put pressure on legislators to make their marks quickly, before many can develop in-depth expertise or experienced staff. In recent years, governors and legislators have been key catalysts in the revision and restructuring of higher education in a number of states, where they implemented statewide review of degree programs, created or abolished statewide boards, or pushed institutions to redirect enrollments and research programs toward engineering, teacher preparation, or other state priorities. In some states, legislatures have enacted requirements that once would have been considered inappropriate political intrusions into academic affairs, such as requirements for student learning assessment, increased faculty teaching workloads, and standards for English-language competence for teaching assistants. Legislative regulation of faculty workloads is a case in point. By 1995, twenty-three states had mandated some kind of action regarding faculty workloads. In most states these mandates simply required institutions to report on their faculty workload policies and practices, but 10 states imposed more substantive requirements. In Ohio, for instance, the legislature mandated that the Board of Regents increase undergraduate teaching by

10 percent. The most frequent and probably most effective state approach to compel or induce institutions to pursue desired actions is through the budgetary process. Performance funding, which directly links state funding to institutions performance on specified indicators, is one tool. Others are performance budgeting, which lets policy makers consider institutions achievement on specified indicators as one factor in determining alloca- tions, and performance reporting, which seeks to use the power of information to stimulate change but is not linked to institutional funding. However, the amount of state dollars set aside for these Strategies & Challenges is very small. Much more important is the ongoing negotiation usually invisible to the public between state officials and institutional leaders in the development of budget requests. The extensive compromises and agreements between the parties on what will be expected is typically not written into the formal budget document. In addition to elected state officials, the states electorate may directly regulate higher education matters, bypassing the legislative process. In a number of states, the electorate has imposed requirements regarding academic governance, admissions, or curriculum through ballot initiatives, including prohibiting affirmative action for student admission and faculty employment in California, as part of a broader initiative against public-sector affirmative action, and re-instituting a university governance system in Florida. Some electoral initiatives would intrude into core academic decisions about what is taught, for example, the failed initiative in Oregon in 2000 that, by banning instruction that encourages ... homosexual behavior in public schools and community colleges, would have prohibited faculty from discussing gay or lesbian issues or AIDS education. Federal officials, too, are using their funding power to regulate institutional actions in admissions and other areas, under the aegis of accountability. The federal government will continue to have a major impact in shaping higher education through regulations placed on federal student financial aid (essential to virtually all institutions) and research funding (critical to research universities). This involvement may expand. During the debate leading up to the reauthorization of the omnibus Higher Education Act, expected to be enacted in 2005, influential members of Congress threatened to punish institutions that raised student tuition above certain levels. Arguing that college fee increases were pricing students and families out of the college market, and forcing prospective students to trade down in their postsecondary educational choices and rejecting arguments that a main reason for fee increases was the decline in public funding these Congress members threatened to withdraw institutions eligibility to participate in federal student aid if fees to consumers of higher education were raised too high. Regional accreditation associations have also played an increasingly important role in influencing colleges and universities, especially because of state and federal requirements that institutions be accredited to receive public dollars. Nevertheless, the threat of governmental or electoral intervention into core academic affairs should

not be overstated. To date, most policy makers demands for evidence of student learning, increased faculty workload, and institutional performance on state-determined criteria have left much discretion to institutions to determine appropriate responses, though sometimes after extended negotiations and discussion. Moreover, higher education institutions, especially universities with strong alumni support, alternative revenue sources, and complex, loosely coupled structures, have considerable ability to adopt Strategies & Challenges to help retain institu- tional autonomy. Indeed, from the state perspective, research suggests that Strategies & Challenges such as faculty workload requirements or performance funding may not be effective. Of course, when institutions voluntarily adopt actions desired by policy makers under threat of regulatory or budgetary action, it is difficult to say whether or not political authorities are wielding inappropriate influence. Three points should be noted here. First, governmental regulation and centralization of decision making in higher education tend to wax and wane over time in response to budgetary crises, salience of higher education vis--vis other social needs, and particular incidents or situations. Second, each of the fifty states will follow its own path based on its particular condi- tions and history. Some states may give institutions greater autonomy in return for reduced state funding, as Maryland and Oregon granted to selected institutions in the 1990s or may even allow public colleges to become autonomous private institutions if they agree to forego state dollars, as South Carolinas governor proposed in 2003. Third, institutional autonomy and public accountability need not be in conflict, if account- ability is broadly and appropriately defined. Given higher educations important role in U.S. society, there are legitimate public demands for institutional accountability. The challenge for higher education is a long- standing one: to respond forthrightly to public needs while establishing with political authorities appropriate expectations for institutional accountability and autonomy. Changing Approaches to Higher Education Governance and Coordination The governance and coordination of higher education in the U.S. differs enormously by public versus private control, type of institution, and state, and it differs within each of these categories as well. Historically, most higher education institutions had their own governing boards, although their powers and those of different campus constituencies varied widely. While most institutions and almost all private ones still have individual campus governing boards, most students and faculty in the U.S. now study and teach in institutions that are part of multicampus systems, a few with hundreds of thousands of students. In addition, all but a handful of states have a statewide coordinating or governing board with some degree of authority or responsibility for all public (or at least all public four-year) postsecondary institutions in the state and sometimes for the states private institutions as well. During the 1980s and 1990s, significant and sometimes unpredicted shifts in the powers and structures of governance or coordination at each of these levels campus, multicampus,

and statewide occurred. Political and budgetary forces make it likely that additional changes will occur in the next decade. The question is, what will those changes be and how might they affect the functions and control of higher education in American society? At the campus level, the past two decades have seen contrary movements toward more centralization and more decentralization of authority. College and university presidents and other top administrators have gained more authority to deal with budget pressures and external demands for accountability, and continuing pres- sures make it likely that this trend will continue. Simultaneously, a number of institutions have decentralized substantial control to individual schools and departments as a means to center accountability in the units directly responsible for instruction and research, and more institutions are exploring this option. Some units, especially professional schools, have in effect been spun off from the larger university. Decentralization and responsibility-centered budgeting, which rewards entrepreneurship and priority setting, are creating new approaches intended to increase flexibility at lower institutional levels and, in some cases, enable resource reallocation to other institutional functions or units. These approaches, however, also raise questions as to whether universitywide missions and values (for example, commitment to access) will be maintained and whether departments that typically have not had the slack that comes with large amounts of external funding will retain their priority. Shared governance between trustees, administration, and faculty is another ongoing campus governance issue. At some institutions, particularly elite universities with long histories of faculty influence, shared governance remains strong. At these institutions, except in extraordinary cases, faculty in departments and through academic senate committees retain authority to make faculty hiring and promotion decisions, select graduate students, determine the curriculum, and with administration set the broad outlines for campus priorities and directions. However, some scholars argue that at many institutions faculty have become managed professionals. Moreover, shared governance may be undermined in the future as the percentage of faculty who are not permanent increases. Governance and structures of multicampus systems (where two or more campuses have a single governing board and some kind of central administration) are in considerable flux. As with campus governance, there are conflicting trends, and generalizations are difficult because the functions, powers, and integration of these systems vary substantially. In some cases they are loose collections of very different types of institutions. In other cases, such as the University of California system, they are a set of relatively similar campuses (here, research institutions) with common admissions and faculty promotion standards, under a relatively strong systemwide board and administration. During budget crises, systemwide administrations have often been cut more extensively than those on the campuses. Some multicampus systems have been broken up; in Illinois,

for example, two multicampus governing boards were abolished in 1995 and replaced with seven local boards of trust. In other states, multicampus boards have been strengthened and their administrations expanded in the face of external demands and environmental uncertainties. In yet other states, most notably Florida beginning in 2000, multicampus systems and boards have become political footballs abolished, re-established, and bypassed in quick succession. Although budgetary problems and bureaucratic bloat are often given as rationales for changing multicampus or statewide governance structures, Michael McLendon concluded that political agendas unrelated to higher education were often the primary motive. Depending on their powers and traditions, systemwide governing boards and administrations have the poten- tial to exercise broad leverage over their campuses through budget and program review powers. Systems may act as buffers against political intervention or as channels for it. On the one hand, system boards and adminis- trations may reduce campus autonomy and flexibility if they impose inappropriately standardized priorities or expectations. Systems also increase

bureaucratization and make shared governance more difficult to achieve. On the other hand, systemwide leaders can bring to bear broader perspectives on the overall educational needs of the campuses and the state. System leadership boards, administrators and systemwide faculty committees may be especially important in matters that have relatively weak campus constituencies but are important to the system or to the state, such as undergraduate general education, teacher education, or im- provement of K12 education. They may also ensure that a last surviving program in a particular field is not eliminated through uncoordinated actions by individual institutions. Especially during tight budget periods or under political pressure, system administrations may provide incentives for intercampus collaborations that individual campuses are unable to mount for example, for programs in less studied languages. How well these collaborations survive when budgets improve is uncertain, however. Moreover, where a system office does not exercise adequate quality control, other more political actors, such as the states executive branch, may step into the vacuum. Statewide coordinating agencies or consolidated governing boards are even more buffeted by changing political and budgetary winds and whims than are multicampus systems. This is especially true for coordinat- ing agencies, which can claim no students, faculty or alumni. Following a period of generally increased budgetary and program review authority to statewide boards, state governors and legislators in a number of states beginning in the 1990s have weakened or even eliminated statewide coordination functions, most notably in New Jersey, where the governor abolished the once powerful coordinating board in 1994 and replaced it with a much weaker agency. In other states, such as California, even where the coordinating structure was left intact, severe budget cuts in 2003 left the agency unable to carry out many of its responsi- bilities. However, elsewhere, as in South

Carolina, state officials continued to pursue reorganizations that would substantially increase statewide control over public higher education. Another potential reorganization of great importance to higher education is the effort in several states, including Florida, to place higher education coordination under purview of the states elementary/secondary board of education. Such efforts reflect the failure of higher education institutions to persuade state policy makers that there is effective articulation between the public schools and higher education institutions, so that students can move smoothly from high school into college. Unless broadly conceived, however, creating a single system for all of educa- tion risks submerging higher educations unique purposes into those of the much larger K-12 system and of holding higher education to the much more prescriptive and uniform standards applied to the public schools. Even without changes in coordination, policy makers appear more willing to apply K-12 approaches to highereducation. Although in many cases these reorganizations have sought to use structural changes to solve what in fact were budgetary or political problems rather than governance or coordination ones, structure nevertheless makes a difference. James Hearn and Carolyn Griswold found that, independent of other social, educational, and economic factors, states with relatively centralized higher education structures (whether governing boards or strong coordinating boards) were more likely to adopt certain academic policy changes, such as mandatory student assessment, than were states with more decentralized structures. Like multicampus systems, statewide boards may be buffers or conduits for state influence. They may also provide leadership to ensure that the overall higher education system maintains an appropriate balance and range of programs and flexibility to respond to new needs. In any case, given external pressures and political agendas, additional structural and governance changes seem likely in the next decade, but the individual state context will largely determine whether these moves will be toward more centralization, more decentralization, or a mix of centralization and decentralization at different levels. Change itself has costs, however. Structural reorganizations disrupt settled processes and relationships and create greater uncertainty, as new players establish their authority, priorities, and rules of interaction. Conclusion: Revisiting the Social Contract for Higher Education Over 30 years ago, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education asserted that [b]enefits from higher education flow to all, or nearly all, persons in the United States directly or indirectly, and the costs of higher education are assessed against all, or nearly all, adults directly or indirectly, although benefits and costs are assigned in quite unequal amounts. Today higher education continues to confer both public and private benefits. Higher education provides high economic returns to individuals, and it develops a skilled workforce and an educated citizenry, among other public benefits.

Since the Carnegie report, however, as this chapter has discussed, there has been a marked transfer of higher educations costs from public sources to individual students and parents, as well as increased payments from commercial sources. These changes reflect the growing perception by policy makers and the general public that higher education is largely a private benefit, rather than a public good. In turn, this perception risks creating the reality of a private-oriented, market-driven system disengaged from the public interest. Policy makers who focus on higher educations benefits to individual consumers and clients have been more willing to reduce general government support for higher education or make it contingent on loans and specific outcomes. In part to make up for declining government support, in part to take advantage of what Derek Bok has argued is the enormous growth in opportunities in recent years to market higher education, institutions have raised tuition and have turned to commercial ventures that benefit private firms or narrow and short-term institutional interests. Bok has concluded that the rapid commercialization of American colleges and universi- ties where everything may be up for sale threatens to undermine academic values and standards, impair the universitys reputation for the kind of objective teaching and research essential for a democratic society, reduce public trust, and increase government intervention. Robert Zemsky has argued that when institutions become market-driven, their role as public agencies significantly diminishes as does their capacity to provide venues for the testing of new ideas and agendas for public action. This chapter has sought to highlight a set of challenges regarding the purposes and outcomes of higher education, each of which is affected by the intertwined pressures of market and government. There is much to applaud in the record of what has been accomplished in these areas, even as concerns remain. Among the accomplishments and concerns are these: Privatization of funding: In absolute dollars, more public monies (federal and state) are being allocated for postsecondary education than ever but more of the costs are being paid by individual students and parents. This is true for both public and private colleges and universities. Research mission: The university research enterprise, by any number of measures, is extraordinarily strong but growing incentives for market and commercial orientation, as well as political intervention and demands for quick, practical products from basic research, risks undermining research integrity and long-term advances in knowledge. Access: A larger proportion of the population than ever before are participating in some form of postsecondary education but college access and completion remain inadequate for traditionally underserved groups, especially the poor, ethnic minorities, and older students. The increased share of college costs being borne by individuals, so far without a similar increase in financial aid for

underserved groups or in improved public school preparation for them, continues this disparity. Ph.D. job market: U.S. doctoral education remains widely admired around the world, and U.S. doctoral students develop the skills and habits of mind to enter many different careers but most new Ph.D.s are not getting the kinds of academic positions that in many fields most still say they desire. Here, too, market pressures as well as internal priorities may influence how many students universities admit and what careers Ph.D.s expect to obtain. Accountability and governance: Because higher education is both costly and important, there are legiti- mate public policy reasons to hold colleges and universities accountable for using funds appropriately and for serving broad public interests but if political authorities or the electorate intrude into academic functions, they may undermine higher educations critical function of providing open and objective discussion of ideas and reduce institutions capability to respond to long-term social objectives. These challenges raise questions about the implied social contract between the public, elected offi- cials, and institutions of higher education. Some critics suggest that this contract has been broken by public officials who are not providing funding sufficient to ensure access, for example, or by institutions that have retreated from academic values and from the public realm. Yet the public and elected officials continue to value higher education greatly and, despite the emphasis on private returns and economic benefits, continue to voice support for access, basic research, and other broader institutional missions. For their part, college and university faculty, students, and staff continue to engage in the public realm, by working with the public schools, staffing community health clinics, and providing expertise on important policy issues, for example, and, despite some egregious exceptions, academic integrity remains high. The open question is whether, in the face of market forces and limited public resources, higher education institutions, elected officials, and the public can nevertheless commit to a revised social contract. Such a contract would acknowledge higher educations role in and responsibilities for achieving broader societal goals, governments responsibility to provide institutions and individuals the resources, autonomy and flexibility necessary to realize these goals, and the publics willingness to endorse and support these agreements and to pay higher educations costs individually and collectively.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The shift in the U.S. economy from a manufacturing powerhouse to a service-driven economy has placed a great emphasis on human capital planning within organizations in order to remain competitive in a new global economy. The link between critical business strategy and the successful implementation of strategy has been well documented in the literature. This article examines the literature surrounding human capital, human capital planning, and the implications for human resource development (HRD). The results of the review and synthesis of the literature are provided, and the implications for HRD scholars and practitioners are reported in detail. The research reports an in-depth justification and rationale for the incorporation of human capital planning into practice and research to determine the impact on HRD interventions and organizational performance through the use of a model and process for human capital planning.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The most vital function of management in an organization is to minimize risk and uncertainly through systematic decision making. Better decision result from the effectively and timely utilization of right information. So for the making effective decision, research plays an important role and provides the right information to the management Research is the systematic gathering, recoding and analyzing of data about problems. In other words we can say that research comprises defining and redefining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solution; collecting, organizing and evaluation of data; making deduction and reaching conclusion; and at least carefully testing the conclusion to the determine whether they fit the formulating hypothesis. Research is of basic three types:1. Exploratory research 2. Descriptive research 3. Experimental research _ Exploratory research is a preliminary phase and is absolutely essential in order to obtain a proper definition of the problems. The purpose of exploratory research is to determine the general nature of problems and variable related to it. The major emphasis is on the discovery of ideas and insight. Exploratory research is characterized by flexibility and informality. Exploratory research is generally carried out by three sourcesa. Literature (Secondary data) b. Experience survey (discussion with experts) c. Study of some specific case Descriptive research is used for some specific purpose. It focus on the accurate description of variables present in the problems. The data is collected in such a manner that the ambiguous nature of the cause and effect relationship in the phenomenon is reducing to maximum extent. A descriptive research require a clear specification of what, who, when, where, why and how aspects of research. Descriptive research is generally of two typesa. Case Method b. Statistical method

_ Experimental research attempt to satisfy the nature of functional relationship between two or more variable factors present in controlled environment, while all other variables constant in order to establish a casual relationship. TYPE OF RESEARCH USED IN THE PROJECT The type of research employed in the project work is exploratory cum descriptive. The exploratory research is used to define the problem and discovery of new idea while descriptive research is used for data collection and establish cause and affect relationship. AREA OF STUDY The unit selected for the purpose is colleges.

SAMPLING DESIGN A sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a sample from a given population. There are many sample designs from which a researcher can choose. Researchers must prepare/select a sample design which should be reliable and appropriate for his research only. It is very different to interview all the employees. As we know data is of two types 1. Primary data 2. Secondary data In primary data, researcher has to gather primary data afresh from the specific study that is under takenby him. Primary data can be collected by three methods a. Observation b. Questionnaire c. Interview Secondary data are those, which are gathered for some other purpose and already available in the firms internal records, manuals, commercial or publications. Here in the study both type of data primary and secondary is used. Primary data is collected by a well structured questioner, personal interview.Major source of secondary data were corporate HR manuals of the firm, Induction manuals, Informationprovided by personnel department and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) QUESTIONNAIR DESIGN

While designing the questionnaire, various type of question were put in a proper manner these weremultiple choice question and few open ended question. Proper sequencing of the question was done after each question proper space was provided. In the questionnaire, subject was not required to mention their identity in order to ensure true response. ANALYSIS OF DATA After collecting of data it was tabulated and represented in a graphical manner in and was analyzed in order to draw conclusion. STRATEGY After analyzing the datas what could be changes brought are suggested according to new environment and need of Employees.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study are:1) To prepare the organization to meet new dimensions according to the environment. 2) To adopt such plan so that alteration can be brought in the employees performance. 3) To ensure an observable output with high quality. 4) To bring about desired changes skills, knowledge, and attitude in the employee. 5) To prepare organization to meet high responsibility.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 1) Primary data collected through observation is prone to human errors. 2) Observation done only at a specified time period. 3) May be employee are biased at response 4) Sometimes respondent hesitate to provide proper information as lack of faith on outsider persists. 5) Questionnaire may be incomplete. 6) Many employee interviewed did not give proper feedback.

7) Many of the time employees refuse to fill the questioner as they think it to be time consuming.

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION TRAINING AS A PART OF ODA

Response Strongly Agree Agree Average Employee 5 11 31

Disagree Total

3 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents more than half of them say that training as a part of org. development strategy in the organization and according to rest respondent HRD activity is not a part of ODA.

ENHANCEMENT OF SKILLS & KNOWLEDGE THROUGH TRAINING

Response To great extent To some extent Not much Total Employee 12 31 7 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents maximum of them say that through training skills & knowledge are enhanced up to some extent.

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS Response To great extent To some extent Not much Total Employee 6 37 7 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents maximum of them say that training is effectiveness up to some extent and according to rest respondent training is not so much effectiveness.

SATISFACTION FROM EXISTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Response Very Good Good Satisfactory Average Poor Total

Employee 6 13 17 10 4 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents, less than half of them are satisfied from the existing PAS. And other respondents are not satisfied with the existing PAS in the organization.

CHANGE IN EXISTING PMS Response Yes No Total Employee 41 9 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents, maximum of the respondents need change in the organizations existing PMS. They are not satisfied with the existing PMS in the organization. Only few respondents are satisfied with the existing PMS & they need not change in existing PMS.

OPPORTUNITY TO GROW AS AN INDIVIDUAL Response Yes No Total Employee 11 39 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents, few of them response that company give the opportunity to grow as an individual. Maximum of the respondents says that company does not give the enough opportunity to grow as an individual.

EMPLOYEES INVOLVED UNDER CDP Response Up to 30% Up to 50% Up to 90% Total Employee 29 15 6 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents, up to 30 % of the employees are covered under career development process in the organization. Some of the respondents are not satisfied with the CDP.

CONCERN FOR INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT

Response Yes No Total

Employee 14 36 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents, maximum of the employees says that senior management & HR Department do not concerned about the individual growth. Only few of them are agree in concerned about the individual growth by HR department & senior mgt.

EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN ORGANIZATION CHANGE ACTIVITY AS WELL AS BRIEFING SESSIONS

Involved in org. change activity:Response Employee To great extent 9 To some extent 35 Not much 6 Total 50 Involved in briefing sessions:-

Response To great extent To some extent Not much Total

Employee 5 36 9 50

Interpretation:All though HRD activities is given adequate importance in the organization. But up to some extent employees response that there are involvement of employees in OCA & briefing sessions.

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY NEED CHANGE. Response Yes No Total Employee 40 10 50

Interpretation:Out of 50 respondents, maximum of them need change in Organizational Development Activity. Maximum employees are not satisfied with the existing ODA. Only few of them employees are satisfied with the existing ODA and need not change.

FINDINGS
Following are the key findings from the existing HRD Activities: 1. Organizational Development Activity (ODA) is mostly carried at middle & upper level. Lower level employee not given more concern for development. 2. Although training is provided but effectiveness of the training is less.

3. Most of the training is done internally due to which employee are less aware about the external technology & highly changing market environment & competition. 4. Training feedback & evaluation process is week. 5. Existing Performance Appraisal System (PAS) is satisfactory but there are more chances of human error. 6. The existing PAS are not much capable to give exact performance picture of the employees. 7. Formal appraisals are done at upper & senior level. 8. People are not getting much opportunity as an individual due to less external training & job rotation. 9. Only 40% to 50 % employees are considered under Career Development Process (CDP) which is mostly seniors. & juniors are given less opportunity for CDP. 10. While organizational changes, employees are given less involvement in change activities. Most of the decisions are made by senior management. 11. HR is giving briefing sessions up to satisfactory level to junior employees for organizational change.

SUGGESTIONS
The related literature is reviewed to find how the HRD activity should take place. Then the information obtained from the company regarding HRD activity at Minda is evaluated through primary and secondary data and is able to find the weakness and grey area of the policy. Finally

based on the finding following suggestion are put forth for further improving the HRD activities:1. Organization should make development plans not only for seniors but for juniors as well

lower level employee as well. 2. A proper procedure should be implemented for evaluation of training & analysis of

training needs. So that effectiveness of training can be increased 3. 4. 5. Employees should be given external training as well to update their skills & knowledge. The existing training analysis format should be changed. Existing PMS is satisfactory but to increase its effectiveness. It should be linked with job

description & job enrichment. So that a clear picture of individual performance can be obtained & training needs analysis can be done to good extent. 6. Individual should be given full involvement in all org. change activities. So that org. HR deptt. & seniors mgt. should provide proper briefing sessions before implementing

change can be implemented successfully & effectively. 7.

the changes. So that the changes are implemented effectively & efficiently. 8. All employees should be considered under CDP. This will not only develop individual but The existing ODA need more concern to be given by HR deptt. & seniors mgt to make

also will reduce exit of employees. 9.

them successfully implemented.

CONCLUSION
Human Resource Development Activity is an important part of every organization. Through HRD, organization can help employees in adjusting and accommodating themselves to the organizations & market competitive environment.

The present study has been undertaken with the objective of analyzing and evaluating the HRD Strategies & Challenges. After carefully study and survey about the policy and procedure adopted to improve organization Strategies & Challenges and observing the HRD activities conducted , it can be said that the policy is of very limited applicability. These policies need improvement, revision and extension to all employees of the company at each level. A complete and effective HRD activity and its proper implementation are very essential. A regular periodical feedback and evaluation is necessary so that it can be made more effective and well planned.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS: Kothari C.R.; Research Methodology; Wishawa Parkashan; 2nd edition; 68-84

 Rao V.S.P. ; Human Resourse Management Text & Cases, 2nd Edition (2005), Excel Books, New Delhi. Greer R.Charles.; Strategic Human Resource Development 2nd edition(2006). JOURNALS & MAGAZINES: HRM Review HRD Review Business Today 2007 News Papers Human capital magazine Human Resource Management magazine INTERNET WEBSITES: www.citehr.com www.explorehr.org www.google.com www.mindaswitches.org

Q1. Your Organization considers training as apart of org. development strategy. Do you agree with the

statement? (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Average (d) Disagree

Q2. Does the Training need analysis & assessment procedure effective? (a) To great extent ______ (b) To some extent_______ (c) Not much ______

Q3. Is the existing training procedure enhancing your skills & knowledge as required by a job profit & help to compete with external competition? (a) To great extent ______ (b) To some extent_______ (c) Not much _____

Q4. What mode of the training is used in your org.? (a) Internal Training (b) External Training (c) Conference/Discussion Training (d) Program instruction Training

Q5. Does your Org. operate a formal Performance Management System (PMS)? (a) To great extent ______ (b) To some extent_______ (c) Not much ______

Q6. Are the PMS giving a clear picture about individual employee performance? (a) Yes ______ (b) No _______

Q7. How do you rate your present PMS? (a) Very Good (b) Good (c) Satisfactory (d) Average (e) Poor

Q8.Do you think the existing PMS need change? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Cant say

Q9. Is the Company providing enough opportunity to grow as an individual? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Cant say

Q10. What %age of employee is covered under career development? (a) up to 30 % (b) up to 50% (c) up to 90%

Q11. Is senior mgt. & HR deptt. Concerned about the individual development? (a) Yes (b) No (c) Cant say

Q12. Is individual employee involved in org. change activity? (a) To great extent ______ (b) To some extent_______ (c) Not much ______

Q13. Does Hr deptt. Conduct satisfactory brief sessions for ODA & change activity? (a) To great extent ______ (b) To some extent_______ (c) Not much ______ Q14. Is ODA preparing the org. to meet orgs vision & mission? (a) To great extent ______ (b) To some extent_______ (c) Not much ______

Q15. Is ODA need changes? (a) Yes ______ (b) No _______