The decision of the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) to move towards a uniform fee structure sends the wrong signals. | |
| The immediate impact will be felt at the three younger IIMs""Lucknow, Kozhikode, and Indore""all of which will be raising fees in the next academic session. |
| |
| Since the other three IIMs are exercising "restraint" in raising fees, the move has all the makings of a cartel at work. The issue is not whether the IIMs have the right to raise fees or not. |
| |
| They do. They should be allowed to charge whatever the market can bear, especially since the products pushed out by the IIMs are in demand and normally have no problems raising bank funds to pay fees. |
| |
| Charging more or less the same fees across IIMs of variable quality means the bigger brothers are trying to help the smaller ones by using their collective clout. |
| |
| This is tantamount to subsidising the IIMs that are comparatively popular with students. |
| |
| This decision needs to be seen along with another one taken to stop participating in B-school rating surveys. While there is no gainsaying the fact that B-school surveys are also of variable quality, the decision to stop participating in them sends another negative message, that the IIMs are above scrutiny. |
| |
| The IIMs would be fully within their rights to avoid participating in one or two frivolous surveys, but to say that all ratings are rubbish smacks of arrogance. |
| |
| More so when the IIMs seem keen to go ahead with participation in international surveys. It is one thing to seek improvement in the quality of surveys conducted in India; it is quite another to haughtily say that we are above local surveys, and only international ones will do. |
| |
| International ratings are not necessarily any better, as the IIMs seem to be implying by their decision. And they have little relevance when the number of international students entering the IIMs is a very small percentage. |
| |
| The net effect of the decision to stay clear of B-school ratings will be two-fold. In the short run, it will reduce the credibility of surveys done without the IIMs. |
| |
| It is impossible to think of a B-school Top 10 or 20 without the IIMs participating in them. On the other hand, it is entirely possible to rate the IIMs even without their participation since the key stakeholders in the ratings exercise are students and corporate recruiters. |
| |
| The only data missing from such surveys would be those that only the IIMs can provide. As publicly-funded institutions, the IIMs have no business hiding any of this information from public scrutiny. |
| |
| One cannot but suspect that the decision to avoid domestic ratings may have been prompted by the failure of some of the IIMs to stay in the top leagues. |
| |
| Granted, many surveys leave a lot to be desired. But the best way forward is to jointly take up the issues of contention with rating organisations that can be considered above board. |
| |
| Staying away is not an option for the IIMs if they want to retain their credibility. |
| |
