The Government is right on sciences
Apr 10, 2005
The Education ministry’s policy of sponsoring 75% scholars taking science and technology and 25% to those taking arts and other social groups is justified. Science subjects are key to the country’s development and in line with the country’s vision including Vision 2025, PEAP, PMA, and ESIP.
The Education ministry’s policy of sponsoring 75% scholars taking science and technology and 25% to those taking arts and other social groups is justified. Science subjects are key to the country’s development and in line with the country’s vision including Vision 2025, PEAP, PMA, and ESIP. Without skills in science and technology, Uganda cannot modernise.
The use of scientific ideas and technology has enabled some countries to raise their incomes and develop. It is documented that Germany, Japan, and Korea consciously programmed their economic development to include science and technology education as a centre-piece of their development strategies.
Despite the importance of science and technology to national development, the number of students taking these courses, scientists and science-based professionals is still low in Uganda. There are very few Ugandans applying for science and technology based patents.
In the current Ugandan higher education sector, there is only one science/technology student to every five arts students. About 90,000 students were ((83.4%)), by May-July 2004, registered for arts and only 17,928 (16.7%) for science and technology. Uganda’s gross tertiary science enrolment ratio was, in 1995, 13% compared to the average 36% for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, between 1987 and 1995, the gross science enrolment ratio declined due to the increased number of private tertiary institutions that do not offer science and technology. For example, most of the private universities have no facilities to offer science and technology. The enrolment bias against science and technology disciplines is reflected in a number of key skilled human resource shortages. One of these shortages is the relative scarcity of registered professions in Uganda compared to Kenya and Tanzania.
The poor showing is shocking in the face that Uganda was until the 1960’s the regional premier centre of university education. Continued neglect of student enrolment in science and technology will, therefore, invariably, widen the professional gap between Uganda and its neighbours let alone the rest the world, which will adversely impact on development of the country.
Secondly, Uganda has a very limited production annual rate of scientists. According to a World Bank report 2004 on tertiary education in Uganda, the country had, between 1987 and 1997, an annual average of 21 scientists and engineers and 14 technicians in research and development for every million people. Lastly, Uganda is a very poor producer of scientific theory and products. There were only 46 scientific and technical journal articles published. There were only seven patent applications by Ugandans, virtually none when compared to the 67,603 applications by non-residents. Such a bias favouring non-residents shows that technology is almost exclusively an import in Uganda. There can be no doubt that much of the blame for this lacklustre performance may be placed on low expenditures on research and development, which, as a percentage of income, was barely 0.57%, low compared to the 2.36% for high income countries. But funding without the trained science and technology human resources cannot make much difference. Policy encouragement of these disciplines is essential. This is what the 75.25 percentage policy is all about; to encourage disciplines that are key to economic development without stopping to fund subjects studied for leisure.
It is the higher levels of education that condition a country’s curriculum not vice versa. There is a wrong belief that it is the lower levels of the education system (the primary and secondary) that condition the whole education curriculum including the tertiary one. Because of this, the lack of science and technology students should be blamed on the bad state of science teaching at the lower levels of education, not at the tertiary and government policy levels. The reverse is true. In Uganda, as is elsewhere, it is the entry requirements set by universities and tertiary institutions that determine and condition the curriculum and syllabuses of the secondary level. Likewise, it is the secondary school entry requirements that the curriculum and the syllabuses of the primary level are tailored to fit. If Makerere and other universities required that all students do both arts and sciences in their first year, all secondary schools will tailor the curriculum around the requirements.
A decision like the one we are talking about needs both background research and bold correct political will and action. The research into this problem was massive and has involved international and local expertise for several years. Since the issue is too emotive, it can only be taken by a political leadership that understands the complexities of development and has the proper political will to do so. Timing is right because development will not wait.
The way forward is increasing students studying disciplines that are key to economic development, to stick to the 75.25 decision, to encourage all tertiary institutions to include science and technology in their offerings instead of cherry picking cheap and popular subjects that are not immediately key to economic development, to encourage our universities and tertiary institutions to take up leadership in curriculum change and innovation instead of just retaining colonial structures and to further encourage the Ministry of Education to intervene whenever there is need for structural straightening as it has just done in the 75.25 policy.
In the long run, this country, using tertiary institutions, should adopt a broad based curriculum that contains both arts and science concepts. Students should not be allowed to specialise in either arts or sciences until they know the implications of their choice. In Canada and the US and, students study both disciplines at university until their third year when they specialise in fields after thorough evaluation. I support the 75.25 Ministry of Education decision on the sponsorship of university students. The policy is long overdue and should not wait.
The writer is the Director
National Council
for High Education
The use of scientific ideas and technology has enabled some countries to raise their incomes and develop. It is documented that Germany, Japan, and Korea consciously programmed their economic development to include science and technology education as a centre-piece of their development strategies.
Despite the importance of science and technology to national development, the number of students taking these courses, scientists and science-based professionals is still low in Uganda. There are very few Ugandans applying for science and technology based patents.
In the current Ugandan higher education sector, there is only one science/technology student to every five arts students. About 90,000 students were ((83.4%)), by May-July 2004, registered for arts and only 17,928 (16.7%) for science and technology. Uganda’s gross tertiary science enrolment ratio was, in 1995, 13% compared to the average 36% for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, between 1987 and 1995, the gross science enrolment ratio declined due to the increased number of private tertiary institutions that do not offer science and technology. For example, most of the private universities have no facilities to offer science and technology. The enrolment bias against science and technology disciplines is reflected in a number of key skilled human resource shortages. One of these shortages is the relative scarcity of registered professions in Uganda compared to Kenya and Tanzania.
The poor showing is shocking in the face that Uganda was until the 1960’s the regional premier centre of university education. Continued neglect of student enrolment in science and technology will, therefore, invariably, widen the professional gap between Uganda and its neighbours let alone the rest the world, which will adversely impact on development of the country.
Secondly, Uganda has a very limited production annual rate of scientists. According to a World Bank report 2004 on tertiary education in Uganda, the country had, between 1987 and 1997, an annual average of 21 scientists and engineers and 14 technicians in research and development for every million people. Lastly, Uganda is a very poor producer of scientific theory and products. There were only 46 scientific and technical journal articles published. There were only seven patent applications by Ugandans, virtually none when compared to the 67,603 applications by non-residents. Such a bias favouring non-residents shows that technology is almost exclusively an import in Uganda. There can be no doubt that much of the blame for this lacklustre performance may be placed on low expenditures on research and development, which, as a percentage of income, was barely 0.57%, low compared to the 2.36% for high income countries. But funding without the trained science and technology human resources cannot make much difference. Policy encouragement of these disciplines is essential. This is what the 75.25 percentage policy is all about; to encourage disciplines that are key to economic development without stopping to fund subjects studied for leisure.
It is the higher levels of education that condition a country’s curriculum not vice versa. There is a wrong belief that it is the lower levels of the education system (the primary and secondary) that condition the whole education curriculum including the tertiary one. Because of this, the lack of science and technology students should be blamed on the bad state of science teaching at the lower levels of education, not at the tertiary and government policy levels. The reverse is true. In Uganda, as is elsewhere, it is the entry requirements set by universities and tertiary institutions that determine and condition the curriculum and syllabuses of the secondary level. Likewise, it is the secondary school entry requirements that the curriculum and the syllabuses of the primary level are tailored to fit. If Makerere and other universities required that all students do both arts and sciences in their first year, all secondary schools will tailor the curriculum around the requirements.
A decision like the one we are talking about needs both background research and bold correct political will and action. The research into this problem was massive and has involved international and local expertise for several years. Since the issue is too emotive, it can only be taken by a political leadership that understands the complexities of development and has the proper political will to do so. Timing is right because development will not wait.
The way forward is increasing students studying disciplines that are key to economic development, to stick to the 75.25 decision, to encourage all tertiary institutions to include science and technology in their offerings instead of cherry picking cheap and popular subjects that are not immediately key to economic development, to encourage our universities and tertiary institutions to take up leadership in curriculum change and innovation instead of just retaining colonial structures and to further encourage the Ministry of Education to intervene whenever there is need for structural straightening as it has just done in the 75.25 policy.
In the long run, this country, using tertiary institutions, should adopt a broad based curriculum that contains both arts and science concepts. Students should not be allowed to specialise in either arts or sciences until they know the implications of their choice. In Canada and the US and, students study both disciplines at university until their third year when they specialise in fields after thorough evaluation. I support the 75.25 Ministry of Education decision on the sponsorship of university students. The policy is long overdue and should not wait.
The writer is the Director
National Council
for High Education