Coaching Classes: A parallel universe of education

It is unregulated, unorganised, and its profits can be the envy of some of the best and the biggest business houses in the country. And though it does not officially bear the tag of an ‘industry’, its growth, even during times of recession, can make the most pampered sectors in the corporate sector see green. There are no official estimates, but insiders say the total revenue in their business is close to Rs 10,000 crore which, incidentally, is only for class room coaching; home and online tutoring is said to be worth another Rs 20,000 crore. This is the world of shadow education in India — a segment that’s emerging stronger and larger with every passing year.

The coaching classes market, or ‘sweat schools’ as they are often referred to, consists largely of private tuitions and entrance test-preparations. But the sector, though huge, is highly fragmented and regional in nature. There are a handful of players (three to four) who are known to have an all-India presence and are worth more than Rs 100 crore.

Another 10-odd can boast of revenues in the range of Rs 10-100 crore. The rest, and the number runs into thousands even if we do not take into consideration the small momand-pop enterprises doing home tutoring, make healthy revenues of several lakhs.

Not surprisingly, even as the existing players are trying to consolidate, international ones - like Educomp - are jumping into the fray, hoping to expand in a big way as they are in a position to make more substantial investments.

UNLISTED, IN THE SHADOWS

Listed players in this segment, however, are still just a handful — Aptech, Career-Point, NIIT and Everonn - and have captured only about two per cent of the private education market. Interestingly, not all players are looking merely at private tutoring or coaching; many of them provide information technologies to schools or build brick-and mortar schools and colleges.

A large part of this sector continues to operate in the shadows. No regulatory restrictions on profitability, low capital intensity and a quick payback period of two-five years are the main growth drivers on the supply side. On the demand side, shortage of jobs, cutthroat competition for higher education, parental aspirations combined with underperforming mainstream educational infrastructure have led to the ever-growing appetite for supplementary education.

But whatever its name and nature - home tuitions, classroom coaching, study material source or online classes - demand seems to be on the rise for these ‘cram’ shops. No stream is sacred, no area untouched. Name an entrance exam and there is coaching available to help you ‘crack’ it. Engineering, medicine, management and civil services may be the more popular exams for which students undergo training, but think of any possible career, or the most obscure test, and chances are there will be some institute offering ‘training’ for it.

Even creative fields like art, where you would think coaching would be of little use, throw up a proliferation of trainers. Be it the prestigious National School of Design or, for that matter, even fashion designing, you can get coached for it. And it’s not just college and school going students who are the clients, even tiny-tots are in the net, getting ‘coached’ to make the right moves and noises to get admission into nursery classes of reputed schools.

BIG COSTS, LITTLE GUARANTEE

In the race to get ahead, everyone wants to maximise their potential, and this is where the coaching industry steps in. But none of this is easy on the purse; it comes at a substantial investment and with little or no guarantees of a positive outcome. One can even end up paying more in coaching fees than in expenses for the actual course one is preparing for. In fact, the amount spent on coaching and various affiliated needs may be higher than what they have to pay in terms of fees at, say, an IIT, which is about Rs 50,000 a year.

Students start training for engineering and medical entrance examinations from class XI onwards, sometimes earlier at class IX. While some go from bigger cities to training institutes in smaller places like Kota and Pala that have become coaching hubs, there is a parallel trend that sees students from small towns trudge to metros in search of better institutes.

Similarly, private tuitions at the school level are equally prohibitive. And, ironically, this sometimes happens when it is the same teacher holding forth both at the child’s school and tutorial. A number of such teachers double up as tutors after school hours — and going by the accounts of some of the students, teaching skills improve considerably in the latter. What is worrisome, though, is that some teachers penalise students in various ways for not availing of the tuition facility.

Though, in a certain way, coaching centres can be seen as something that helps break the hegemony of elite academic institutions by allowing access to students from humble backgrounds to better course material and training — thus allowing for a level-playing field — the high costs involved can put some of the same students at an immediate disadvantage, leading to further inequity in the system.

HYPER-DEMAND FUELS RACE

In all this, the hyper-demand for better learning ensures there is coaching even to get into some sought after coaching institutes which, in turn, hold their own examinations and screen students before admitting them. Just to give an idea in terms of numbers, the All-India Engineering Entrance Examination, one of the largest such exercises in the world, is taken by about 12 lakh students, 80 per cent of whom take some sort of coaching for it.

After engineering, it is the medical and management streams, along with civil services and tutorials for SAT and GRE (examinations required to study in the US), that garner the most number of students. There are several others forming a smaller part of the pie.

Matching the growing number of students in search of the ‘right’ coaching centre are the institutes, making it difficult for many to home in on the perfect ones. Compounding this are the blatantly false claims doing the rounds; students can never be too sure what they are getting into. In June this year, the battle between two Mumbai based institutes escalated so much that it reached the police. It happened after one of them put out an advertisement saying some students who had failed to clear entrance examinations after enrolling in other institutes (which they named) did so after being trained by them. In another case last year, two competing institutes training MBAs took their differences to the Advertising Council over false claims. Again, this year, human resource development minister Kapil Sibal had to intervene and order an inquiry regarding claims made over the success of a 2009 IIT topper.

Students have few avenues for recourse in case anything goes wrong. More often than not they are asked to pay upfront for the entire duration of the session; they cannot change their mind midway and ask for a refund. Many talk about the interesting modus operandi some of these classes adopt. Through internal selection, they pick out the brighter students and form a separate class which is mentored and tutored by their best teachers.

The others, meanwhile, are taught by mediocre teachers who are mere graduates or have failed to clear the very examination they are tutoring others for. Though selective tutoring helps institutes raise their ‘success rate’, bringing in more numbers, the larger group of students suffers.

For teachers, at least a majority of them, it is a win-win situation. Many on an average make up to Rs 2, 000 an hour. The best among them are known to command a staggering Rs 5, 000 an hour. Teaching for 10 hours a day, that’s a neat package of Rs 50, 000 per day. But this pales in comparison to the money the institutes make from every batch that may have anywhere from 35 to 150 students. The market for civil services coaching - an exam in which around 1.5 lakh candidates from all over India appear - in only Delhi is estimated to be about Rs 100 crore with students paying Rs 30, 000-45, 000 for a three to five month course.

BASIC EDUCATION GAP

Problems notwithstanding, it is easy to see what drives this phenomenal bazaar - the yawning gap between the learning imparted through our basic education system and the level of entrance examinations. “We operate in the valley that has been formed between academic standards in the mainstream system and the competitive standard of entrance examinations of various professional courses,” says the head of a coaching institute.

Occasionally, there are voices of opposition against this parallel universe of education, protesting the larger principle of it and the way it operates and impacts the mainstream education system. Both government and educationists grumble about it and say things that suggest the monster will be tamed and regulated. But on the ground it remains business as usual.

In 2006, IIT-JEE — the joint entrance examination held for Indian Institutes of Technologies — changed its test pattern after it was felt that students were spending too much time in coaching classes and ignoring their class XI and XII examination, negatively impacting their chances for other avenues. It was also found that almost 70 per cent of students who cleared the IIT-JEE in 2005 had dropped a year or more. Faculty at IIT's added that students who qualified for these institutes were burnt out by the time they entered the class rooms due to the years of preparation, and did not eventually perform well.

Starting next year, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) will ring in changes in the civil services exams that will reduce the importance of coaching by introducing an aptitude test instead of a subject-specific test.

But none of this seems to have made much of a dent on the coaching sector. True to its ‘shadowy’ character, it morphs and adapts accordingly, and continues to flourish. In anticipation of the UPSC change, coaching institutes have already started advertising and conducting classes for the aptitude test. They claim they can “bring out” the aptitude in students who don’t know “how to gauge it”. As for the JEE, the government is planning to increase the weightage given to performance of students in class XII. It is even considering an aptitude test for screening purposes before holding intense subject-specific exams.

NEED FOR REGULATION

But there is little else that is being done on the regulation front. Despite its formidable size and expanse, something that can bring the government good revenue, the sector functions mostly in an unregulated manner. The fact that these coaching shops do not qualify as educational institutions means they do not need to register with the government and can operate off the radar, unchecked and unquestioned. The government accepts it is concerned about the impact of this industry, but hasn’t done much.

Till such time that the concern translates into action, the world of shadow education will continue to attract in unending hordes students both desperate and ambitious, hoping for success in a new India that rewards like never before.

Sathyabama, SRM

Let's start with some facts:

First, AICTE swoops down on institutions offering programs in engineering, issuing them a notice demanding that they get its approval by March 7, 2006 or else. The students panic, go to their respective colleges or university administrations, and seek a clarification about meaning of this AICTE notice. When they don't get a straight answer -- or worse, when they do get one, with all its nasty implications -- they organize protests, some of which lead to violence. Things get pretty rough, particularly at Sathyabama and SRM (both deemed universities).

And then, there is a lull on the streets, and the tussle between AICTE and the colleges/universities is fought in the courts. Both the parties plot their next legal moves. The colleges are set to reopen soon. In the meantime, a student of Satyabama was reported to have commiteed suicide.

Some observations:

• Several people commented on the timing of AICTE notices. It appeared that the institutions were issued these notices a long time ago, but the notices were stayed by a court, and the stay order was revoked sometime in October of 2005. So, this issue had been simmering for a while, and appeared to have reached a flash point. It was not clear if AICTE did anything to make it flare up, but I did not see anything untoward in AICTE's actions; being a bureaucracy, it was (probably) just following routine procedures.
• I don't think there was any dispute about how, after they obtained the 'deemed university' status, these institutions expanded their intake of students by as much as 5 times and introduced new programs. Their case that their status as Deemed Universities gave them these rights -- and that they were not fettered by other regulatory authorities such as AICTE -- was utterly laughable. From a legal viewpoint, AICTE was on a strong wicket; except, of course, that the legal process were to be subverted.
• If AICTE did prevail, the institutions and their managers should have been given strong, exemplary punishments. However, their students -- victims, really -- should have been allowed to transfer to other institutions. Both were unlikely.
• I expected the market for engineering programs were not going to be a sellers' one in the coming years.
• Finally, the highly deplorable role of UGC -- the organization that granted these less-than-stellar institutions the status of a Deemed University -- should have come under harsh scrutiny. I don't know who should have done it, but I certainly did not see our mainstream media doing it. Sigh! 

It is amazing how well our students do in the corporate world despite “education” in our colleges and universities…

AICTE: Waking up from 61 years of slumber

May a million flowers bloom, said Chairman Mao. And one day, on a whim, he went and razed the garden.

In India, flowers and gardens remain scarce but a million other things bloom. Illegal construction. Unregulated educational institutions. Until one fine day, someone wakes up and commands, "Hatao!"

But this is not China, so people take to the streets in protest. Like the students of Satyabhama engineering college and SRM Institute of Science and Technology - both deemed universities. Hundreds of students of these colleges held demonstrations demanding to know the status and validity of their degrees.

This followed a notice from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) which apparently stated that B.Tech degrees awarded by deemed universities would not be recognised, unless the courses were approved by the council.

Students of the Dr. MGR Deemed University and Bharat Engineering College had gone on strike for four days on the same issue, a few days ago.

The colleges were battling it out in court, and said that since they had UGC approval they did not come under the purview of AICTE.

What took so long?
The sad part was, in all these ‘technical’ discussions of eligibility and approval, the fate of thousands of students who took admission in good faith hung in balance.

We do need a regulatory body but clearly, AICTE is like an old and toothless ayah running around and shouting, “Children, don’t be naughty.” What else could one say about a regulatory body which, Kumbhakaran-like, awakes from its stupor once every 5 decades or so?

Did you know that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was first set-up in November 1945??!!! Yup, that’s what it says on their website and honestly it was news to me.

AICTE was meant to be: "a national level Apex Advisory Body to conduct survey on the facilities on technical education and to promote development in the country in a coordinated and integrated manner."

But something, somewhere went awry. So…

The Government of India (Ministry of Human Resource Development) constituted a National Working Group to look into the role of AICTE in the context of proliferation of technical institutions, maintenance of standards and other related matters. The Working Group recommended that AICTE be vested with the necessary statutory authority for making it more effective, which would consequently require restructuring and strengthening with necessary infrastructure and operating mechanisms.

Wonderful. Is that why AICTE was suddenly getting so active? Er, not exactly. These recommendations were made in 1987 !! The AICTE Act came into force a year later…

The statutory All India Council for Technical Education was established on May 12, 1988 with a view to proper planning and coordinated development of technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith.

Phew – quite a mouthful. But no one had a clue where AICTE was in the 1990's when engineering, management and medical colleges were mushrooming all over the country.

Many of these colleges were started by politicians, and flouted every conceivable norm (‘technical institutes’ in sheds with tin roofs for example – that was the state of some colleges in New Bombay when they first came up). Money and muscle power ensured AICTE looked the other way.

Now, the powers that be were keen to rectify the situation. AICTE was publishing notice after notice in newspapers imploring technical institutes to apply for accreditation – and threatening legal action against those who do not comply. But colleges are thinking, we’re all in it together – can they really shut down hundreds of us?

Well, Amity Business School’s flagship PGDM course actually lost its AICTE accreditation in September 2005 after failing to meet prescribed norms. Amity also lost the subsequent case in the Allahabad High Court challenging the AICTE order.

But surely in the course of an entire year it could not have been the only institute found unworthy of accreditation? Why was so much speed shown in revoking Amity’s accreditation while others received only threats and warnings??

The point being that unless AICTE was perceived as being fair, impartial and speedy in its actions it would never be taken seriously.

Secondly, however badly a college may have sinned revoking accreditation in the middle of an academic year was senseless. All such announcements must be made before the start of a session and must apply to new admissions – not students already enrolled!

The Tamil Nadu tangle
I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the scene in Tamil Nadu but I do know that SRM and Satyabhama were – at least till a couple of years ago – well respected colleges. Students rated them in the top 10 in the state and SRM even produced ‘state rank holders '.

Then, they became deemed universities and according to this news report, went in for reckless expansion

The Tamil daily Dinamalar, in its report dated 2 September 2003, had highlighted the massive expansion of capacity by the SRM Engineering College: "on obtaining the deemed university status, SRM Engineering College has admitted 2000 students netting in Rs.300 crore. In the much sought-after ECE course, 600 students had been admitted. A complaint on this had been sent to the chief minister's office, which has initiated an enquiry."

The complaint pointed out that the college, which until 2005, had a total strength of just 2000, had admitted more than 2000 fresh students that year. Against the optimum strength of around 50 per class, that year, it had admitted 80 students in each section for the ECE course collecting Rs.2 lakh per student. It is gathered that the principal had opted to resign unable to cope with this crowd.

Can current students throw some further light on the situation? Are they satisfied with their course?? And if all is above board what is the institute’s problem in applying for AICTE accreditation anyways???

AICTE cannot take action against Deemed Universities: HC
The Madras High Court ruled that the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) had the authority to inspect deemed universities but any action against them could be only taken by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan made the observation while quashing a public notice issued by the AICTE in February last, warning of stringent legal action against Deemed Universities which conducted new courses and programmes, without its prior approval.

Disposing of petitions filed by about 20 deemed universities in Tamil Nadu, the judges pointed out that according to a UGC communication, "the AICTE may visit the university department or constituent college and send its final report to the the UGC for final approval".

Noting that the AICTE team conducting any inspection of deemed universities had the representation of the UGC, the bench said if the UGC did not depute such a member within a reasonable time, the AICTE could proceed to conduct the inspection and forward its report to the UGC for action.

Referring to the notices sent by the AICTE and the UGC calling for information regarding the courses offered and those introduced after being declared Deemed Universities and whether UGC approval had been taken, the bench directed all universities to respond to the notices within four weeks if they had not done so.
The Madras High Court, in an interim direction relating to the regulatory jurisdiction of the AICTE and the UGC over deemed universities, has instructed the former to issue a public notice advising students to attend classes.

Reserving its final order, a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan said the AICTE in its advertisement should mention that students must return to their colleges, since failure to attend classes would result in their losing an academic year.

It must be published in English and Indian language newspapers, the judges said.

The bench indicated that orders would be pronounced in the third week of May and observed that all deemed universities must take prior permission from the UGC before starting new courses.

The AICTE could be part of the inspection team mandated to visit deemed universities, the judges added.
The Madras High Court had asked AICTE to furnish details based on which it issued a press notice on February 16, 2006 stipulating that all institutions offering technical education should apply for AICTE approval on or before March 7, 2006.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice Prabha Sridevan, hearing a batch of petitions relating to the regulatory jurisdiction of the AICTE and the UGC over deemed universities, also asked counsel for the AICTE as to why it issued such a press notice only in respect of deemed universities located in Tamil Nadu.

During the course of arguments, the Bench also observed that there seemed to be an "overlapping of interests" in the Anna University Vice-Chancellor holding an additional charge of the Chairman of the Southern Regional Committee of the AICTE.

In his submissions, K. Chandru, senior counsel for the UGC, contended that the AICTE should give its inputs about the infrastructure and intake of deemed universities only when its advice is sought for. The UGC need not act on the unsolicited advice from the AICTE, he said, adding that similarly the Ministry of Human Resources Development was not bound by the unsolicited inputs from either of the statutory bodies. Such an advice was mandatory and not directory in nature, he said.

In April 2005 the UGC wrote to deemed universities calling upon them furnish information relating to academic standards, infrastructure and intake in their institutions. Maintaining that the Commission was processing the response, Mr. Chandru said if the amenities in these institutions were found unsatisfactory the UGC would recommend to the Central Government to revoke their deemed university status. If they met the requirements they would be accorded recognition, he added.

G. Rajagopal, senior counsel for the Thanjavur-based SASTRA Deemed University, submitted that the institution was open to inspection irrespective of the agency involved in the process. He said all relevant information called for by the statutory agencies had already been submitted by the administration.
The UGC and the AICTE “have no idea how to maintain standards”, said former IIT Madras director PV Indiresan. “Their culture is bureaucratic; they think that national accreditation will do. Even a simple observation of the number of responsible assessors needed to monitor 17,000 odd colleges will show that centralised accreditation is not the answer.”

In a recent survey in Businessworld, 64 per cent of the recruiters surveyed said AICTE accreditation is not important. One of the top business schools in India — the Indian School of Business (ISB) — did not have AICTE accreditation. Madras HC moved againt Anna Varsity VC for holding a sensitive post in AICTE.

Who says office of profit issue is concerned only with politicians. In the case of Anna University VC you know which one is office of profit. Remember that one of the solutions in the AICTE (All Included Commission for offering Technical Education)Vs Tamilnadu Deemed Universities was that these deemed universities loosened their deemed status and get doomed meaning affiliated to Big Brother Anna University.


Is AICTE nod obligatory for deemed university?

AICTE had been immature and in many ways unprofessional. It was time that it became a truly professional outfit for guiding the growth of technical education in the country or packup and vanish.

Although AICTE was vested with statutory powers by an Act of Indian Parliament in 1987 with the mandate to organise, plan and administer technical education in the country, Way back in September 2001, the Supreme Court of India had given a judgment that it was not obligatory for a university, created under an Act of a competent legislature, to seek and secure prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE ) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection.

The Supreme Court Bench which included Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju had set aside the verdict of the Madras High Court ( HC ) - which held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant- Bharathidasan University to secure prior approval of the AICTE to commence the specified technical courses.

The Bench, on close analysis of the relevant provisions of the AICTE Act 1987, University Grants Commission Act, 1956, pointed out that the clear intention of the legislature ( in enacting the AICTE Act ) was not that all institutions whether university or otherwise ought to be treated as technical institutions covered by the ( AICTE ) Act.

The Bench had pointed out that if that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the legislature to have merely provided a definition of technical institution by not excluding university from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words technical institutions and university in several provisions in the Act.

The Bench had also observed that the definition of technical institution excluded from its purview a university, and when by definition a university was excluded from a technical institution, to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression technical institution occured will include a university will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein.

The Bench had further added that the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned was covered by Section 10( k ) which would not cover a university but only a technical institution.

The Bench had noted that if Section 10 ( k ) of AICTE act did not cover a university but only a technical institution, a regulation could not be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to apply for universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a university and a technical institution.

AICTE had been sponsoring short term training programmes at SRM Deemed University and today AICTE says SRM degrees were good for nothing!!. Probably there was no cooperation between the sponsorship cell of AICTE and Accreditation Cell of AICTE!!. It was time AICTE was accredited by someone competent.

Although, legally speaking, no technical institution was outside the AICTE's purview, it was only by convention that the Council did not exercise its statutory powers on institutions such as IITs and IIMs. If Law is same for everyone, why are there exceptions?

AICTE and Deemed University Case for Contra Proferentum Rule:

If in a legally enforceable agreement between two or more competent agencies any ambiguity arises, the interpretation should be against the party seeking to rely on it i.e. proferer or the person who drafted the document.

War clouds had gathered over the Madras High court in the sensational case between the Deemed universities and AICTE ( All India Council for Technical Education ) for which the final verdict is awaited.

The AICTE act 1987 states "To provide for establishment of an All India council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith."

The above makes it obligatory that for proper planning and regulation of quantitative growth and coordinated development of Technical Education, AICTE act should have included that universities deemed or otherwise must be required to take its approval for offering technical education.

The Supreme Court of India Bench Judgement in September 2001 had clearly stated that the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned was covered by Section 10( k ) of AICTE Act which would not cover a university. It clearly emerged that AICTE nod was not obligatory for a university in this context.

If that was the case, then why was AICTE still claiming in its combined Regulations for Requirement of Grant of Approval which stated that "No course or programme shall be introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University or University Department or College" EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL.

However, AICTE claimed that the other Sections of the AICTE Act 1987 such as Section 10( o ) and 11 empowered the AICTE to prescribe guidelines for admissions and inspection of deemed universities.

It was clear that in the AICTE Act there was an ambiguity between the various Sections as one of them 10( k ) states that the term Technical Institution did not include University while AICTE claims that in other Sections the term Technical Institution included University.

If AICTE Act was an agreement regarding mutual responsibilities between two or more parties, then it amounted to a Contract between the Law Enforcers ( AICTE ) and the Law Abiders ( Deemed Universities ).

Contra Proferentum is the Rule that is applied when interpreting a clause, in an action that says that, where ambiguity as to a terms meaning exists, it should be read against the party who wrote it. That is, the preferred interpretation will be the one that helps the party who drafted it the least. The reasoning behind this Rule is to encourage the drafter of the agreement to be as clear and explicit as possible and to take into account as many foreseeable situations as possible.

Clearly, the drafters of the AICTE Act had failed in this account and they had to face the music of Contra Proferentum Rule and let the Deemed Universities retain their autonomy in birth as well as functioning. Whoever gave birth to Deemed University only should hold the right to ring the Death Bell for them and middle men of the AICTE kind should keep safe distance.

According to the Vice Chancellor of the Anna University Prof D Viswanathan, there were four lakh engineering graduates unemployed in Tamilnadu and the writing on the wall was clear that bulk of this number came from the so called AICTE approved Institutions in Tamilnadu and not the Deemed Universities !!!!.
Although, legally speaking, no technical institution was outside the AICTE's purview, it was only by convention that the Council did not exercise its statutory powers on institutions such as IIT's and IIM's. If Law is same for everyone, why are there exceptions? Now read the following and decide.

As per latest news, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi has been facing a severe shortage of faculty.

Twenty-four departments in IIT-D are short-staffed. "There are 72 vacant positions for professors, associate professors, and assistant professors," according to Assistant Director(administration) D.P. Kothari.

AICTE's policies regarding conformance to their academic policies are fairly rigid. It is an improper move to declare such a notice after everyone has committed themselves to an institute. I don't understand the point in removing institutes which have been successful from their inception. As said in the post, it is the facilities that need to be checked and as long as the standards are complied with AICTE should have no trouble with these insititutes.

It is not just the recognition part ,but a bigger malaise that is eating the system. Spare a thought for the faculty at such establishments. Most of the lecturers are in the transitional mode between their own graduation and a real job.

A typical visit by the AICTE team would be characterized by sprucing up of the lawns & facilities. Endless plates of Kaju and Baadam would be consumed and Cola bottles circulated. ExIIT professors ( alleged visting faculty )would mysteriously appear in full strength and disappear just as suddenly till another team arrives... .

Every year NASSCOM comes out with figures that the IT sector is falling short of qualified manpower..on the other hand we are churning out Engineers faster than bunny litter...

The solution is not in the hands of the government. The corporate sector would have to assume greater role...update the curriculum, engage the faculty and actually authenticate the utility by recruiting from the less fortunate colleges.

Expansion by itself is not a bad thing - doing so without inadequate teachers, facilities etc is what needs to be checked.

Between the out and out commercialism (of colleges) and the out and out bureacucracy (of AICTE) lies a middle ground which desperately needs to be explored.

IIM Calcutta - what happened?

Life is full of what ifs.  The earth would not have moved of course, but it was one of the reasons I paid a visit to IIM C on the net through my friends a couple of days ago. That, and professional curiosity.

IIM Calcutta is the 'original' IIM. The first one that came into existence. And yet, despite its MIT lineage, the glorious headstart and impressive enough alumni network, it is now considered to be behind not just IIM A but IIM B. What happened?

Well, I can't provide a conclusive answer but here are a few quick impressions. I know IIM A background may be held against but in my defence I would like to point out I write about B schools and hence make it my business to gather first hand information about as many as possible.

Joka, here I come
The postal address of IIM C mentions 'Diamond harbour'. In the course of a 200 buck taxi ride from Howrah station, you get the full 'experience' of Calcutta. Past the amazing British zamaane ka buildings including the Governor's mansion and the India Government Mint.

Past trams, markets and streets and streets of grimy looking structures which look like they haven't been painted since 1947. The scenery does not improve until you reach the IIM C gate.

Inside, is the most beautiful holiday resort you can check into for two years. Yes, I heard of the 'lakes' but imagined they would be ponds. This is breathtaking.

So are the flowers. I'm told they bloom, all year round.









The whole atmosphere is friendly, not intimidating. I felt awe. I felt humble, insignificant.

In time, the maze of red brick buildings became more familiar and well loved than home. But a sense of this being a larger than life institution remained. That sense is missing at IIM C.

It may sound superficial to say that architecture can make so much of a difference in making or breaking a brand but it's true. When a newspaper has to choose a stock photo to go with any article on MBA, what does he or she do? 98 times out of 100 the photogenic IIM A makes it to print.

And with many other B schools from MDI to MICA also choosing the red brick look, it's more subliminal brownie points for Brand IIM A.

Looking deeper
IIM C grads themselves admit (and proudly so!) that the institute is extremely laidback. Not just in terms of atmosphere but academics. Even in term 1 only 75% attendance is mandatory. 

In contrast no one would dream of bunking in the early weeks at IIM A. Weeks which feel like 'Survivor' episodes although it's rare for anyone to actually get 'eliminated'. But everyone has a few of those nightmares....

IIM B was also laidback and less competitive. Except it was considered to be far far behind IIM C. It was, in fact, known as the 'public sector IIM' because that's where its grads generally got jobs.

Then, several things happened. A director who was earlier a faculty member at IIM A fiddled around and made the B program more 'tough'. More importantly, Bangalore's rise as an 'IT capital' saw its stock as a city zoom while Calcutta was stagnating. Placements at IIM B caught up with A and C to a large extent.

Then, circa 2000, a Business Today survey made IIM B the 'no 1' B school in the country. A ranking no one believed but had its shock value.

The next year, A regained its no 1 position but B was now ranked ahead of C in almost every survey. Yet, IIM C and its alumni remained complacent. 'Who believes these surveys anyways?' was their defence.

Which is true but a combination of all the above factors led to a 'tipping point'. Students who had the choice started opting for IIM B to C. Guided by buzz from seniors and advice from coaching institutes.

IIM B I would say there is a sense of forward movement, new ideas, new initiatives on that campus. The PGPSEM program - a 3 year part time course for software professionals is a big hit and will soon be extended to Hyderabad and Chennai. IIM C too has several executive programs but none is a brand name as such.

IIM B has set up an Incubation centre funded by Infosys' N S Raghavan, IIM C has a centre for entrepreneurship and innovation but it seems to be a far more armchair variety than hands-on.

Bangalore being a far more happening city also has an impact in terms of attracting faculty. The faculty list at IIM C is over 90% Bong. Now you can argue that is because Bengalis are one of the few communities naturally inclined towards academics. But the faculty at both IIM A and B is far more mixed.

So it does appear as if sentimental attachment towards Calcutta might be a deciding factor for an academic choosing to work at IIM C. And that very factor may put off others. A friend who taught at IIM C for some time found the city rather dead and oppressive.

That's changing, with Calcutta - and Bengal in general - now playing 'catch up' with the rest of India. But the Joka campus also needs to join that game.

Er, world class?

 Whatever the intellectual prowess of IIM C may be, some of the infra structure sucks big time. The hostels are shocking - ancient, lower middle class looking structures.The rooms are tiny- you can barely fit in one bed, and study table. The corridors are full of wooden racks where junta's underwears and banians hang to dry.

 Yeah, one of the hostels is 'co ed' (but there's a separate wing for girls - they don' actually have rooms next to each other). That one seems to have rooms with modest balconies. But the overall impression is 1960s, Marxist style living quarters. Peeling paint, rust, lack of maintenance.

IIM A dorms are, in contrast, far better. Even there, much needs to be done to upgrade the old campus housing upto the standards of the new campus. But at IIM C I think entire hostel blocks need to be demolished and rebuilt.

Meanwhile, adding a few modern amenities like a washing machine and mini fridge wouldn't hurt. To attract international students - as IIM C hopes to - these changes will be absolutely necessary!

Bottomline
I am sure had I joined IIM C I too would have fallen in love with the place, mosquitoes et al. I too would have fine memories of the 'Howrah Bridge', friends made, times shared etc etc.

I know a bunch of you are going to be quite upset by now... And that the average IIM C grad believes he or she is special, creative and different compared to the supposedly driven, structured and soulless types from IIM A.

But, to a dispassionate and outside eye, there is a lot that can and must be done to the campus. Rankings aside, IIM C needs to regain its clout, become a leader in certain chosen spheres. Right now it appears content to follow where others dare to tread.

A general upgradation of facilities across the board, all over India is in order. I think a tour of Infosys, Wipro and other such gleaming modern campuses should do much to inspire. On the other hand, civic sense needs to improve across the board among all Indians too. Without this, a gleaming, modern, new campus will quickly die of rot.

Well, i suppose the Marxist thoughts do flow over. After all , how long can a capitalist establishment remain without being affected by the unreasonable Marxist crap being talked outside the gates. The apathy has to carry over. Its not the IIM, Kolkata itself has that image of laidbackness, pointless arguments, apathy and gloom. 20 years of Marxism , nay more of Maoism rather than Marxism.

God Bless IIM C. In fact, I hope all IIM'S do well. Wish you success. (disclaimer: i am not an IIMian)

IIM's are so overhyped that people are not even ready to acknowledge the lack of adequate infrastructure. Someone commented on what difference would infra have for a potential B School aspirant. Well wait for another 5 -8 years when many top universities around the world come and establish their campuses ! Do you guys think they would provide the same facilities you have @ IIM- C ?

Why only look at the infra .all the IIM's should dig deeper into their dens and answer some basic questions like : In its so many years of existence why hasn't IIM's produced more than a handful of world class leaders as yet. Why are only most of the CEO's hailing from the Harvard's, and Wharton's of the world ? i guess something is terribly wrong with the system. Having said that I must accept the fact that most of the students who get into any IIM are very intelligent. But once they enter an IIM for most of them as someone rightly put it is a case of " I was born intelligent but education ruined me . "

These are the attitudes of the mind. I can't understand what the point u want to put forward. These sort of comparisons are for which kind of junta......U need not feel nervous as hell about IIM - C's tomorrow. Look at the horizon and its vast expanse, get absorbed by the feeling.

A quick example: IIM A starts a PGP X program (1 year MBA for execs with 7-15 years experience), IIM C follows a few months later. Does it matter who gets there first? Hell, it does!

Perception is reality when it comes to any kind of brand. And right now IIM C seems more slothful than swift. More content to rest on past laurels than carve out a vision for the future. It's time the institute and its alumni wake up and kick some serious butt.

The other side of IIMs?

I came across this good article on what ails the IIMs. I agree whole-heartedly about students being disinterested in the second year, lack of research, infrastructure in some of the old IIMs being bad etc, but here are my add-ons to the article.

National demand of 20,000 IIM students per year:

I agree that 1,500 is a paltry number when it comes to number of pass-outs every year. But I really don’t think a 20,000 count is where we want to head. Looking at the industry recruitment trends, there is sure some room for say 2500 more, but I feel it would be a disaster to increase the number any point beyond. For one, there are other good B-schools that chip-in in the gap. Two, with that kind of a massive number, there would just be too much of difference within the IIMs. In other words, there would be a huge quality difference between the top IIM students and the bottom ones, which isn’t really good for anyone. Remember, the numero uno reason why IIMs, in general, are considered good is because of the quality of intake. If numbers swell and intake goes down in quality, it is something to worry about. And salaries are something you can’t ignore. You really wouldn’t want to pass out from an IIM only to know that some of the non-IIT Engineering pass-outs earn more than you.

About International ranking:

The other issue that comes often is how IIMs are never among the top-50 B-schools in the world. Those surveys are biased alright, but am I the only person to think that these international surveys are heavily biased against non-US B-schools? Does everyone really agree that 55 out of the top-100 B-schools are in US? Is education throughout the rest of the world that bad?

Here’s one more: 15% of the overall weightage is given to salary upon graduation, which is always measured in dollar terms. Someone go and tell them there is something called Purchase Parity adjustment and Cost-of-Living adjustment. In other words, Indian salaries don’t stand a chance when converted to dollar for rankings, but is more than enough for a king-size life in India. This 15% alone could be the deciding factor.

My point is: IIMs don’t stand a chance in these surveys even if they deserve it.

Student diversity

Agreed that 70% of IIMs are engineers, but I wouldn’t call it staid, particularly in the Indian context where Engineering is given so much of importance. It’s not that talented people from all streams are not given a chance and only engineers are pulled in. Most of the good guys go to engineering. I agree that IIMs can't stand a chance in international rankings due to the huge weightage to salary factor. another argument is that IIMs are not comparable to foreign B schools because IIMs basically impart entry-level management education to freshers. But even if you keep that aside, there is too much ailing the IIMs to score in other areas. But you would generally agree that a LOT needs to be corrected in the IIMs to even consider calling them global level. Yes, things will gradually improve and mature over time. Or maybe competition from US B schools post FDI in higher education will be that one-tight-slap to get HRD ministry to put their act together.

As for the statement that 'most of the good guys go to engineering', i think we are wise enough to see how blanket and generalising that sounds. Do consider that CAT is too superloaded on quant-skills for non-engineering applicants to show their abilities. We suck at networking and people management. We Indians can quantify things and crunch numbers like Gods but we totally suck at looking people in the eye and not speaking utter globe while trying to sell them something. No amount of MBA classes can repair that, only the real world can. So i wouldn't confuse good number crunching aptitude with good managerial/leadership aptitude.

Should IIMs go 'global' - 2

The war for 'talent'
If the IIM's wish to scale intake of students, they need additional teaching talent. And that is an extremely scarce resource...

Can IIM professors be ‘world class’ on Third World pay scales? Mukesh Ambani certainly does not think so. At a recent Board of Governors meeting he asked the institute to 'prepare the ground for compensating faculty adequately in line with other leading global business schools.'

Because, at current pay scales, an IIM professor with 20 years experience gets paid far less than what a 24 year old earns as starting salary on passing out of the institute.

As IIM Calcutta’s Prof. Anup Sinha bluntly puts it, “In India, you are either very passionate about teaching, or probably you didn't land up the job you wanted so you decide to hang around teaching in a b-school… teaching is not very financially rewarding.”
Of course, academics is not the most lucrative career option anywhere in the world. But the disparity between IIM payscales and corporate ones is so high that it definitely turns off those inclined towards the profession at entry stag. And erodes the self esteem of those who, despite it all, choose to go the academic way. Certainly not the best of HR policies!

Kellogg Dean Dipak Jain believes that the promotion system in Indian institutes need changes. " Every professor gets the same compensation as the other. Incentive system must change if these institutes have to be on global scene."

The other issue is that too much emphasis is laid on being a 'career academic'. Most IIM profs would not have significant corporate experience before doing their PhDs. In a practitioner led 'science' this is a disadvantage.

What's more, IIMs are simply not open to the idea of mid-career shifters. People who may have spent say 15-20 years in the industry and now wish to shift out of corporate life and into academics full time. Yes, there are 'visiting professors' with such backgrounds but to join full time a PhD is a minimum qualifying criteria.

And there is definitely a 'we need to protect our turf' mindset because of which this is unlikely to change. Although as J. Philip, Director XIME points out: In the first wave of Directors and senior Professors at IIMs, one would notice a good number of non-Ph.Ds, starting with K.T. Chandy and Hiten Bhaya of IIM-C, Ravi Mathai of IIM-A, N.S. Ramaswamy of IIM-B, Professors Nitish De and Iswar Dayal of IIM-C, and many others...."

Attracting international students
This brings me to the last and crucial ingredient required for a top quality institute: top quality students.

The 'global brand name' the IIMs have today rests to a large extent on the laurels of its graduates. In this, the selection and filtration process has played a crucial role. There are those who argue that inputs at the campus 'hardly matter' given the fact that this is the creme de la creme of the student population.

But I for one am not so cynical. The 'exposure' combined with 'opportunities' is what produces the X factor.

One of the only drawbacks of studying in an IIM is the lack of diversity in the student population.

A huge number of IITians and engineers, sprinkling of C A s and BComs and a tiny number of ‘others’. Any top 20 B school in the US would, in contrast, attract a far more heterogeneous and multicultural population.

Well, student exchange programs at IIMs have led to a significant ‘foreign student’ presence on campus in recent years. But would any of these students consider joining for the entire 2 year program? Probably not. Unless IIMs move up significantly in Global Business School rankings. And there - is another BIG anomaly.

Foreign rankings - far from perfect.
As detractors gleefully point out from time to time, IIMs feature 'nowhere' in the world B school rankings. For example, IIM Ahmedabad was the only Indian B school to feature in the top 100 of the Economist Intelligence Unit rankings.

Shameful, you say? Well dig a little deeper and here's what you find. If B school rankings conducted by Indian magazines are flawed - this is no better!

The Economist arrives at its rankings by studying 4 broad parameters:
1) open new career opportunities and/or career advancement (35%)
2) personal development and educational experience (35%)
3) to increase salary (20%)
4) potential to network (10%).

Each parameter has sub-parameters:
eg Open new career opportunities (33% overall weightage) is comprised of:
Diversity of recruiters (25%)
Number in jobs three months after graduation (25%)
Jobs found through the careers service (25%)
Student assessment (25%)

If you compare the ranking of IIM A (ranked 69) with Stanford (ranked 4), IMD Lausanne (ranked 5) and surprise! IESE Business School - University of Navarra, Barcelona (ranked 1) there are some shockers.

IIM A scores the HIGHEST possible rank 1 out of 100 on some criteria ('opens new career opportunities') and the LOWEST possible rank 100 out of 100 on other criteria (student quality and diversity).

As only 1% of IIM students are 'international' a low rank in 'diversity' is understandable. But quality? The applicant to places ratio at 532: 1 is the highest among all colleges! However, one component of student quality is 'average GMAT score' - which is not applicable to IIMs.

This, if guessed, means we score a zero in an area which counts for 12.5% of the "Personal Development and Educational Experience" parameter which has an overall weightage of 35 out of 100. Which is like leaving one 4 mark question in a paper of 100 marks for no fault of your own...

Then the Economist (which of all publications should know better!) uses a dollar scale to compute the 'increase in salary' parameter where again IIM A ranks a miserable 100th out of 100. Wouldn't use of purchasing power parity make far more sense?

With more global placements, exchange programs and even foreign languages being taught on campus (that is a criteria!), the IIM A rank should see a significant jump. But it will take time as the EIU methodology takes a weighted average of 2005 (50%), 2004 (30%) and 2003 (20%) data to provide a rounded picture of the school.

In the meanwhile, IIMs need to swallow their egos and do some lobbying with the Economist and other ranking agencies to correct these anomalies.And also look within to see where they can effect changes and thus improve their ranking (the alumni networking parameter for example).

These efforts should not be seen as 'beneath our dignity'. Rankings greatly affect the perception of how 'global' our institutions are. We must accept that and learn to play the game.

If that results in an IIM making it to the 'top 25', we will find both internal and external validation without having to physically go anywhere!

Making India the hub
The bottom line is, just because there is 'demand' from UAE, Sri Lanka, Mauritius or even Singapore to set up IIMs, does not mean we actually need to do so.... The mountain need not go to Mahomet.

In the interest of promoting diversity, IIMs can have a quota for international students other than NRIs (say 10%) and charge them higher rates (like state univs in the US do). But care must be taken to ensure they meet a minimum GMAT score and other stringent qualifying criteria.

The trick is to attract a big enough pool of applicants so you are able to pick up the cream. And for this a large scale communication and branding exercise would be required.

And yes, IIM B does need to worry about whether the Singapore foray will add to its aura or dilute it... If it does not have the resources to invest in a proper campus, it should take care to state upfront that it is planning a 'contact center' for its e-learning courses. Because the word 'campus' conjures quite a different image.
b
Let's also maintain a perspective on the earning potential of this exercise. According to TOI "IIM B's Singapore dream is expected to fetch the institute surplus revenues of Rs 2.5 crore over the coming years — funds that could be used to open more IIMs in India".

That kind of money is hardly sufficient to think of setting up new campuses but certainly can be employed to spruce up the existing ones to 'global' standards.

The red brick buildings at IIM A for example still look extremely photogenic. But take a closer look at the hostels and many of those 30 year old structures are in fact in bad shape. Especially when you compare the old campus with the shiny new one that's come on the other side of the connecting tunnel.

The point is that 'IIMs going global' is a case study in itself. Hope many ideas and approaches are used - simultaneously - so that the IIMs move forward and take their rightful place under the global sun!

Should the IIMs go ‘global’? - 1

IIM B Global Plans get Green Signal

Words mean different things to different people. Take the term 'global'. If you were on an IIM campus and a student commented the lecture he just attended was 'global', it would hardly be a compliment to the professor.

Global, in IIM lingo, is shorthand for general gas. And that is what appears to be dominating the current debate on whether IIMs should – ironically- go ‘global’. There is the IIMs-owe-it-to-India camp vs the India-owes-it-to-IIMs camp. But, leaving ideology aside, does globalising make sense?

Yes and no. IIMs must become players on the global stage. Whether they need to physically step out of India to do that is the question that needs to be asked.

‘Global’ campuses
Let’s start with the IIM Bangalore proposal to ‘set up shop’ in Singapore which is how this debate sparked off in the first place.

First of all, is it viable for the IIMs to set up full-fledged physical campuses abroad? I don't think so. When INSEAD entered Singapore it had committed to spend $35.5 million (60 million Singapore dollars) to set up a campus which would rival its 2.9 hectare campus in Fontainebleau. The campus was to be built in 4 phases - and will be fully completed only by 2016.

To be seen as 'world class' an IIM B satellite campus would have to do match INSEAD. Was that what they had planned? Not at all. The foray abroad is meant to be a revenue earning opportunity, not a drain on the resources of the mother brand. Way back in July 2005 www.bridgesingapore.com reported:

Now IIM-B - the business school in India's Silicon Valley of Bangalore - hopes to export its strength in business strategy and finance by offering an online EMBA programme, targeted, at its Singapore campus.

The initiative will be hosted at Bhavan's Indian International School, with the institute sharing its lecture halls, seminar and conference rooms, library and computer centre.

"The EMBA course modules would be taught online, with nearly all the faculty members, in terms of teaching staff, working out of our Indian campus," said Prakash Apte, director of IIM-Bangalore. "But we're also looking at hiring locally-based faculty members depending on demand," he added.

Such a strategy certainly makes sense but more from a ‘business’ point of view than as an institution. Dr Apte admitted that, “Although we're reaching out to the entire region, a large proportion of the students are likely to come from the Indians living and working around the region.”

The added attraction: the IIMB course is expected to cost less than those offered other foreign players in Singapore.

And that, I think is the problem. As long as IIMs continue to be seen as a value-for-money MBA education mainly by Indians – whether based in the country or overseas – IIMs will never be truly ‘global’ players.

Thought leadership
"If you look at the global environment now, India is fast becoming an economic powerhouse. There is a great interest in the knowledge of the Indian economy, in Indian companies and the peculiarities of the Indian market. And this is what we can provide better than Chicago GSB or INSEAD. Fundamentally, this is where our strong value-proposition lies."

That statement by Dr Prakash Apte summed up the opportunity for the IIMs. Suddenly the spotlight is on India. We are being seen as the Next Big Market for everything from automobiles to apartment complexes. Multinationals are dying to understand what makes India ticks. Can IIMs be the ones to enlighten them?

Take outsourcing, for example. Since India is at the forefront of this business revolution, logically, an IIM professor should have seized the opportunity to become an internationally renowned expert on the subject. It hasn’t happened – for two reasons.

Much of the research at IIMs is lacking in contemporary relevance. Some of it is also lacking in academic rigour.

Secondly, even the research output which is worthy of recognition rarely creates the desired impact. That’s because while they may teach the subject, IIM professors are loath to ‘market’ themselves or their work.

It’s a chicken and egg problem. As one IIM professor put it, "If I were to propound a management theory based on karmayoga, it would have religious connotations. If the same idea of being ‘committed to the effort, not the accomplishment’ was propounded by a professor from Harvard it might well be seen as pathbreaking."

So yes, IIMs lack in source credibility as ‘thinktanks’– hence their research is not taken seriously. But it would take just 2-3 outstanding individuals to break this perception. Of course, they would necessarily have to be not just brilliant academics but persuasive communicators and networkers as well.

Easy to advise, of course...
There are other important issues... Such as attracting quality faculty and a diverse student body. More on those and other challenges, in my next post.