*6 -

18. The implications of the new strategy for higher education policy are clear: "fewer, but better". The country already suffers from an excess supply of ill-trained university degree holders; at the same, technicians and university graduates who are thoroughly trained in analysis and synthesis (as opposed to rote-memorization) are very scarce. The direction of higher education policy is clear: reduce the quantity of university students and graduates, redirecting those denied admission to technical institutes, and simultaneously to upgrade the quality of education of those who remain in the universities. This is now explicit government policy, and is entirely sound. Of course, it faces some difficult constraints, which are discussed in some detail below. Reform in the higher education subsector, as in most areas of the Egyptian economy, has been slow; however, the pace of change in this sub-sector has arguably been more rapid than in areas such as macroeconomic and industrial policy. Especially given the daunting nature of the problems, policy makers are to be congratulated on the skill and courage with which they have been pursuing reforms.

# II. HISTORY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

# 19.

19. The policy innovations sketched in the preceding paragraphs can best be understood if they are placed in historical context. Many of Egypt's educational problems have deep historical roots. The ancien reL -ne (roughly, 1840-1952) did little to foster educational development for two reasons. First, the highly inegalitarian system of landownership blocked the wide diffusion of literacy. Economic hisiorical research strong'.y suggests that there is an inverse correlation between basic education and "plantation societies". Whether in Khedivial Egypt or the post-Reconstruction U.S. South, those with wealth (here, the large landowners) have little or no incentive to agree to tax themselves so that the level of education of "their" agricultural workforce can be raised. By contrast, communities of farm owner-operators are much more likely to tax themselves in order to provide the necessary public infrastructure for wide-spread education. The Egyptian land-tenure rystem which arose in the 19th century was a major obstacle to the development of human capital. (Richards, 1982; Cochran, 1986; Wright, 1980).

# 20.

20. The British occupation did little to improve matters. Because of their reliance on methods of indirect rule, the British did nothing to challenge the social dominance of the large landowners and their indifference to mass education. Further, not only did the British reduce spending on education and impose fees for primary education, but they also shaped the educational system to meet their own needs, which were for obedient governmental clerks. Independent, analytical thinking by local functionaries was discouraged by British colonial authorities, who hardly wanted Egyptians challenging or modifying British decisions.' Rote-learning and memorization (which fundamentally involves an acceptance of authority) was the educational means to produce s 'The less individuality and initiative shown by an Egyptian, the more acceptable he was likely to be to the advisor whose duty it was to train him for the bureaucracy'. (Cochran, 1986, p. 13).