By Chula Goonasekera –

Having studied within the university system at Peradeniya, been indirectly involved with FUTA matters, and served in both academic and administrative roles, I have firsthand experience of how challenging it is to revise curricula and introduce new programs for national benefit while maintaining program quality—as the President has requested. Achieving this within the existing bureaucracy is a mammoth task, particularly given the limited institutional support and the many obstacles faced by students who are often at a disadvantage.

Revising curricula and ensuring that academic programs proceed without disruption or delay are essential to genuine progress. The quality of higher education depends mainly on how effectively the University Grants Commission (UGC) assesses programs against clear benchmarks—and whether it is willing to redirect or penalize universities that fail to meet key performance indicators (KPIs). As the President emphasized, the ultimate goal is to produce high-quality, employment-ready graduates capable of innovation, thereby attracting more Advanced Level qualifiers and equipping them with globally relevant skills.

Achieving this goal requires competent staff, motivated students, adequate facilities, and strong monitoring systems. If all graduates can secure employment, and if competition for state university places is driven by genuine demand rather than default selection, that alone would mark significant progress.

A recent survey highlighted that world-class universities with high admission demand monitor standard KPIs—such as graduate employability—annually. In contrast, Sri Lankan universities continue to struggle with graduate unemployment, in part because the UGC has long neglected these metrics, despite repeated recommendations from its own quality assurance units.

In some instances, the UGC has failed to uphold its responsibility for maintaining academic quality due to bias and inertia. Meanwhile, state universities have remained largely unaccountable for keeping curricula aligned with national needs and international standards. Bureaucratic processes—designed decades ago to preserve hierarchy and control—continue to stifle innovation.

The politicization of Vice-Chancellor appointments has further diverted focus from education to political appeasement. Positions that should embody academic leadership too often become exercises in pleasing political masters rather than advancing scholarship. It is therefore time to revise the UGC model itself, which is no longer fit for purpose in a globalized, technology-driven century.

At present, curriculum revision at the UGC moves at a glacial pace, often taking years rather than months. By the time updated programs appear in the official University Handbook, the original market needs have already shifted. Students end up enrolled in courses that no longer match industry demand. Fields like Artificial Intelligence cannot afford this delay—by the time graduates qualify, technology has already moved far ahead of their training.

It is time for FUTA to take this issue seriously and hold universities accountable for their programs, linking state funding to performance and student recruitment success. Underperforming universities should even consider recalling unemployed graduates and offering free bridging or “gap” courses to enhance their employability.

There is also an urgent need to redefine the UGC’s role. Its focus should shift toward quality assurance, benchmarking, and comprehensive evaluations that cover teaching quality, program content, student workload, feedback systems, and facilities. The UGC must publish transparent statistics on admissions, pass rates, and graduate employability, enabling prospective students to make informed choices.

Universities, in turn, must be granted the flexibility to recruit qualified lecturers—locally or internationally—and to design innovative programs that meet clearly defined benchmarks. They should be accountable for managing their own income and expenditure while maintaining high academic standards. Embracing distance and blended learning, now hallmarks of top global universities, is no longer optional for Sri Lanka—it is essential.

Allowing a small proportion of foreign students—perhaps up to 10 percent—to enrol at internationally competitive fees could enhance institutional capacity and generate funds to expand opportunities for local students. The presence of international peers would also foster healthy competition and elevate academic standards, strengthening the global reputation of Sri Lankan universities.

Unless universities are both empowered and held accountable for revising curricula to meet local and international needs, meaningful improvement will remain elusive. If, as reported, one-third of top-performing Advanced Level students remain unemployed after completing a state university education, it represents not only institutional failure but a national crisis.

Worse still, taxpayers—many of whom could not send their own children to state universities—are again burdened with supporting unemployed graduates through welfare programs. This is a grave injustice and an unsustainable cycle.

Those who deliberately disrupt university education—through ragging, violence, harassment, or politicization—must also be held accountable. Free education is a public trust, funded by families who often receive no direct benefit from it.

It is time to revise the University Act of 1978 to grant universities genuine autonomy to design and update programs while ensuring measurable alignment with KPIs. A reformed UGC should focus on admissions oversight, quality maintenance, and a transparent funding model tied to performance and student outcomes. Funding should not continue for universities that repeatedly fail to deliver results.

Producing “cabbages” when the nation urgently needs “beans” is a failure the government can no longer afford to tolerate—and it must stop accepting “carrots” as excuses.