Kevin Baldeosingh
Defenders of the Government Assistance for Tuition Expenses (Gate) have been making at least three flawed assumptions in their arguments: (1) that state investment in tertiary education should overlook risk and returns; (2) that tertiary education is an absolute good; (3) that most people, if not all, can benefit from tertiary education.
Of course, the students and owners of private education companies cannot be blamed for embracing these assumptions, since these were the bases on which the People's National Movement established the programme in 2004, with the People's Partnership deepening the funding defects from 2010. But any useful debate on Gate has to question all these premises.
First of all, an education system which does not create an educated populace cannot pay for itself. Developed nations can get away with funding citizens to get PhDs in Personal Ornament and its Role in Social Cohesiveness in the Late Iron Age in France or Perceptions of Canadian Meeting Professionals of Environmentally Responsible Hotel Practices, because those countries have sufficient disposable revenue generated by people with qualifications in real subjects. But a small country like T&T only has that luxury when energy prices are booming–except, as the politicians only now seem to be learning, booms always bust.
A country's investment in education has to pay returns in two ways: first, by teaching marketable skills to its citizens; second, by inculcating attitudes of critical thought, including respect for diversity and democracy, which help foster social stability: all of which are also attributes needed for a prosperous progressive society. The question then becomes: how far has Gate done this? In his book The Elusive Quest for Growth, American economist William Easterly notes: "From 1960 to 1990, the median college enrolment rate of the countries of the world increased more than seven times, from one per cent to 7.5 per cent. What has been the response of economic growth to the educational explosion? Alas, the answer is little or none." This may be the case for T&T as well.
Then there's the second assumption that tertiary education is an absolute good. This is related to the question of returns, because people with higher education and no jobs create a disaffected cohort who, under the wrong circumstances, can undermine and even destabilise a society. American economist Thomas Sowell in his book Conquests and Cultures argues: "Newly educated classes have been especially likely to specialise in softer subjects and to be prominent among those fostering hostility toward more advanced groups." Historically, he notes that "many Third World societies in the 20th century became independent nations led by elites based on formal education and political charisma, but with little or no experience in economic matters and a hostility toward autonomous economic institutions and toward economically productive minorities in their own countries." This, of course, describes Dr Eric Williams and the PNM he founded to a T.
It is the third assumption, however, which precedes the other two and which may well be the most mistaken. This is the assumption that intelligence is distributed more or less evenly among the population and, if a majority of people do not get higher education, it is mainly because they lack the wherewithal to do so. In this context, we can set aside the question as to whether intelligence can be precisely defined, because what we are talking about in respect to Gate is academic intelligence. IQ tests, whatever their limitations, measure this kind of intelligence quite accurately and, in this regard, only a minority of T&T citizens have the capacity for tertiary education.
According to psychologist Richard Lynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen in their 2006 book IQ & Global Inequality, T&T's national average IQ is estimated to be 85–ie, one standard deviation below the average of 100. An individual would need an IQ around 115 to successfully complete a first degree. Using the Secondary Entrance Assessment examination as a rough proxy for IQ, statistics of the Education Ministry for the 2012 SEA show that less than five per cent of students scored above 90 per cent; 57 per cent scored 60 per cent or more; and 70 per cent score more than 50 per cent. About eight per cent of students scored below 30 per cent. From these figures, one can extrapolate that five per cent of the national populace has an IQ of 100 or more; about two-thirds have an IQ of 85; and 25 per cent have an IQ below 85.
In other words, only about five per cent of the T&T populace have the intellectual capacity for tertiary education: and, before Gate, the proportion of the population with higher education was in fact six per cent.
However, it is also true that there are people with high-IQ from the lower socio-economic bracket who will be unable to fulfil their academic potential because of financial constraints. In a 2004 survey of secondary schools, sociologist Ramesh Deosaran found that 20 per cent of students in prestige schools came from a lower socio-economic status. This might roughly indicate the proportion of the population who are cognitively gifted from birth. And a responsible government should certainly provide avenues for these people to get higher education.
That is why a rigorous means test for Gate is needed, and why upper-middle and upper-class people should be excluded from the programme.
Kevin Baldeosingh is a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a history textbook.