Introduction / Context:
The question tests evaluation of governance models in higher education. We must mark the arguments that are logically strong for or against bringing all management institutes under government control.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Public control may promote standardization; autonomy can promote innovation and responsiveness.
- State capacity (funds, management) can be a constraint.
- Quality is a function of many inputs, not solely ownership.
Concept / Approach:
Arguments are strong if they state credible benefits or constraints. Asserting “only then will quality improve” is overreach.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Strong. Resource and capacity constraints are real for large-scale direct control.II: Strong. Autonomy often correlates with academic excellence when balanced with accountability.III: Strong. Government oversight can standardize minimum curricula and norms.IV: Weak. Quality depends on faculty, research, governance, and funding; ownership change alone is not a silver bullet.
Verification / Alternative check:
Mixed models (autonomous, accredited, and regulated) tend to perform well when standards are enforced by independent bodies.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“All are strong” overstates IV. Options omitting I or II ignore key feasibility and autonomy arguments.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming centralization automatically ensures quality.
Final Answer:
Only I, II and III are strong
Discussion & Comments