Business Standard / New Delhi Mar 19, 2010, 00:06 IST
The opening up of Indian higher education to foreign competition by allowing foreign universities to start campuses in India has the potential to have the same impact as the post-1991 opening up had on the overall economy. A final assessment of the move has to await the enactment of the legislation and the shape it eventually takes. The best case scenario is global best practices coming in and forcing Indian higher education to reform in the face of competition. The worst case scenario is second-class institutions coming in and that too only in areas with good revenue potential, taking away some of the good teachers from leading national institutions and eventually having little impact on the overall scene in terms of quality or quantity (seats). Some of the leading institutions in the world have indicated that they are in no hurry to come, but this is just the beginning of a long process and the attractiveness of India as a market for higher education and catchment area for good students will only grow over time.
The conflicting perception of what the government move portends is best highlighted by the views of two IIM Ahmedabad directors, the current incumbent sounding pessimistic and the former sounding optimistic on the assumption that the government will now do what needs doing and thereby set the ground for positive results. The pessimism stems from the feeling that the best national institutions will be locked in an unequal combat. They have neither the autonomy to do what needs doing nor the resources to retain the best teachers. In short, Indian institutions need a level playing field to effectively compete with foreign institutions. They must get it. There is a lot of hope in HRD Minister Kapil Sibal allowing extensive functional autonomy, but the issue is, ministers will come and go and an institutional mechanism needs to be put in place to ensure that the politician-bureaucrat nexus does not claw back what it has had to give up at one stage.
The issue of resources can be more difficult to resolve. To get good teachers, the best institutions which already have substantial vacancies, will have to pay better. As the government’s ability to keep footing a rising deficit is limited, higher fees should not lead to some of the brightest youngsters being unable to afford the best education. There are two solutions to this. One, raise fees but increase the scope of assistance and cheap educational loans so that the system becomes more or less means-blind. Two, improve the academic atmosphere, particularly for research, as that, as much as good pay, attracts the best teaching talent. This is squarely in the court of the institutions’ leadership. The IIM-A director also feels that having to live with quotas in intakes places Indian institutions at a disadvantage. Yes and no. The foreign institutions will be no different from domestic private unaided ones, which also do not have to abide by quotas. Besides, it can be argued that quotas do not automatically imply a handicap. The IITs and IIMs have to live down the criticism, made more often against the IIMs, that they produce the best because they take in the best, with little value addition by them. The best teachers are those who create the best out of the second best.
Sir,
Thanks for highlighting the issue of level playing field.
We also need to highlight that there is no clear policy for allowing private universities. It has been reported that people like Narayan Murthy, Azim Premji or Shiv Nadar have asked for permission to set up universities but are held back due to red tape.
They also deserve a level playing field.
The current bill looks more like a favoritism statement than a policy statement.
Content Guide
