Break the cycle of mediocrity

Break the cycle of mediocrity

India is getting serious on physical infrastructure, time to get serious on higher education.

Two global rankings of the institutions of higher education are closely followed every year by education watchers: The Times Higher Education World University Ranking and FT Top 100 Business Schools. Each year the rankings stand testimony to the mediocrity of the institutions of higher education in India. Knowledge is power. Human history is not just a wonderful tale of war, conquest and glory; it is also a story of the evolution of knowledge, science, technology, engineering and their use for human development.Today the land of Aryabhatta, Charaka, Ramanujam, Raman and others, has nothing that can remotely compare with Nalanda and Vikramshila Universities in their heyday . It is time we examine what has gone wrong in our quest to be the global centre for learning, knowledge and wisdom. Not surprisingly, the pecking order of development in the world is paralleled by the pecking order of universities and engineering colleges. USA, UK, Germany, China, Japan, Australia, Singapore are countries whose economy manifest the inextricable interface of science, technology, industrialization and development. On the other hand, India is at the tail end of knowledge based economic development or much worse, at risk of being left out altogether in the next spiral of development. India has made strong, aggressive and purposeful strides in infrastructure, but it must be equally serious about education. If India wants to compete globally, education holds the key.

A critical criterion on the basis of which the Vice Chancellors of Central Universities, Directors of IIMs and IITs are appointed is their academic achievement ¬ publications, research guidance and teaching. It is a stupefying leap of faith to believe that academic achievements will lead someone to provide academic leadership and that, and more importantly, it will crown them with administrative acumen and managerial capabilities. Hierarchical structure, centralized decision making, jumbo sized senates and bureaucratic processes with their emphasis on control, command and compliance are some of the greatest enemies of higher education. It is time each university and institute is mandated to establish committees to periodically examine, evaluate and establish, if necessary, the vision, purpose, structure, processes and strategy of the institution and their alignment with each other and the changing context. Can one imagine a system where administrative mandarins sitting in the UGC and AICTE decide on what courses to study , the curriculum and the syllabus, the mode of delivery and the number of contact hours and also conduct admission tests, delivering any results? There is an in-built rigidity in the system, where flexibility and adaptability are demons to be exorcised. Syllabi do not change not only because the process is tedious, but also because policy makers are far removed from developments in the field and their emergent connections with other disciplines.It is this lack of relevance that has stigmatised students as no longer employable and marketable. India today yearns for knowledge, its creation, dissemination and application for resolving its problems and assisting it in the march of its development. UGC and AICTE have stymied all efforts in that direction.

The role, responsibilities, scope, vision and mission of UGC and AICTE themselves need to be freshly examined. A committee should be established to look into the detail of how these institutions are functioning. Today around 11 IIMs have no full time Directors. IIM Ranchi, for one, is being governed by an Acting Director from IIM Kolkata for the last three years and that too without any Board of Directors. The institute has virtually collapsed and in terms of administration and governance is the finest example of the erosion of the IIM brand. Then, there has been the issue of location of the new IIMs -Kashipur, Sirmaur, Gaya, Udaipur etc. Just as it is impossible for a medical college to be good unless and until it has a hospital attached to it, it is difficult to imagine how there can be good management institute far removed from the context of management--industry and the corporate world. It befuddles us what makes decision makers blind to the obvious. To lead a university, IIT or an IIM as a Vice Chancellor or a Director, MHRD has recently circulated an application form which is scholastic in nature. But one should think of criteria that combine highly impactful and acclaimed research and intense connectedness with corporate, academic and regulatory bodies with some outstanding administrative achievement such as creating and developing new academic programmes, shepherding coveted international accreditation or driving the corporate connections, placements and brand positioning of the institute.

We believe that it is the need of the hour that MHRD constitutes an advisory committee council of 7 to 9 members representing different domains of the academic world. In order to ensure continuity, this advisory body of domain experts should have a tenure of at least five years.This committee should be like Niti Aayog and be tasked with the job of advising the government and the Prime Minister on the strategy and action plan for education. As a start, this committee should request the government to create a peer review system which will examine, every five years, the institutions in their domain on their purpose, structures, systems and processes and achievements in the arena of knowledge creation, dissemination and application.