Did you know? - Harvard gets $9 bn in federal grants !

Harvard is,perhaps, the richest university in the US with over $50 bn in endowment funds. It is a private university. And yet it gets $ 9bn in federal funds, according to this report in the FT! This  includes $256 mn in contracts and $8.7 bn in grants.

That is certainly news to me. I was aware of government funding for projects and funding through agencies such as the National Science Foundation. I was not aware of outright grants. I read also that Columbia gets $400 mn in grants and $5 bn in other forms. 

The Trump administration is asking universities to review their policies on anti-semitism, DEI (diversity8, equity and inclusion), etc. in order to qualify for funding. Columbia university announced its willingness to fall in line with the government's demands. It appears there was a severe backlash from faculty and students which resulted in the president of the University announcing her decision to step down.

My concern here is not with the problems American universities are having with the government. It is about the financing of higher education. The combination of endowments and government funding allows America's private universities to massively subsidise their courses. The fee charged does not cover costs. At the undergrad level, there are tuition and other waivers- Harvard has said that for 2025-26, undergrad education would be free for all students whose family income is below $100,000. 'Free' means the university would cover tuition, food, housing, health insurance, and travel costs. 

In India, courses at government universities are subsidised but not those at private universities. The IIMs have relatively small or no endowments and the leading IIMs do not get government funding, so they recover costs plus margins through enormous fees. The same goes for engineering and medical courses at non-government colleges.

The failure to subsidise higher education in India across a wide swathe of colleges has implications for inclusion, the financial well-being of students who pay for courses and the cost of services such as health for the average person. Much of Europe offers free or subsidised education for its citizens. So does Canada. Our model is seriously flawed and needs to be revisited. 

Silicon Valley CEO's high praise for IIT Madras

 Vivek Wadhwa, a successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur, has high praise for IIT Madras in this article:

When I visited IIT Madras earlier this year, I was blown away by the talent, world-class facilities, and their ability to connect with top scientists across India. I was so impressed that I decided to outsource the development of breakthrough technologies for my company, Vionix Biosciences, to them. Frankly, I told my friends and VCs in Silicon Valley where I live, that IIT Madras puts MIT, Duke, Stanford - and the Valley itself - to shame in terms of intellectual capacity, scale, ambition and  readiness to collaborate.

I've been more than amazed by the progress IIT Madras has already made in building technologies that could never be built in the West. The last company that tried to develop what we're doing was Theranos, which burned through $1.4 bn on medical diagnostics that are nowhere near the advanced solutions IIT has already created - at a tiny fraction of the cost.

Wadhwa goes on to make suggestions about the sort of research that Indian educational institutions must focus on:

India must avoid the pitfalls of the US research system, which, despite vast investments in basic research, is often disconnected from real-world applications. The US spends over $130 bn annually on academic research. Yet, much of it remains locked in the 'Valley of Death', where promising research never transitions into marketable solutions. As former dean of engineering at Duke University, Tom Katsouleas had told me, based on his work with the US National Academy of Engineering, 'Only about 1% of university patents are ever commercialised.'

I do not know how IIT Madras evaluates faculty. Do commercial applications carry as much weight in tenure and promotion decisions as publications in journals? If they do, then IIT Madras will find it difficult to improve its ranking in international ratings of institutions of higher education.

But then if research publications alone matter, institutions such as IIT Madras may lose out on applications. Wherein lies the balance between pure research and impact on practice? The answer has implications not just for IITs but also the IIMs and other places. 

Should the IIMs be trying to influence  practice through executive training, consulting and participation in policy-making by using the available research? Or should they try to catch up on research with the top institutions of the world, an objective that will remain elusive in the foreseeable future?

 

IIM Bill 2023- new rules notified

The government has notified new rules for the IIMs consequent to the IIM Bill 2023 being passed in Parliament last July, that is, within four months of the Bill having been passed.

That is quite striking. It is not common for bills to be passed or notified so quickly. In the case of IIMs, any changes to rules would take a fairly long time to happen. First, there would be consultations with the directors of the leading IIMs, if not all IIMs. Then a discussion paper would follow with the public invited to respond. After that changes would be negotiated with the IIMs.

Not so with the IIM Bill 2023. It was introduced in Parliament in July 2023. The next week, the Lok Sabha passed it. The following week the Rajya Sabha passed it. The changes were duly notified in the government gazette mid- August. No discussion, no negotiation, no waffling.

This is decisiveness of an order not seen in government. What could be the explanation? I believe the government sensed that a governance emergency had arisen in the IIM system, one that required a swift response if the IIM brand was not to suffer lasting damage.

Ever since the IIM Act came into force in January 2018, accountability in the IIM system had flown out of the window. Directors and boards at various places behaved as though they were accountable to none. At least two leading IIMs, IIMA and IIMC, witnessed turmoil of a sort not seen during the long years when government had better control over the IIMs.

In the new scheme of things, the government, through the Visitor (the President of India), can dissolve an IIM board on three grounds- if it was satisfied the board was not performing its duties, failed to carry out directions given by the Visitor or in the public interest. It can also remove any director without reference to the board. It will have the final say in the appointment of Chairmen and directors of IIMs.

I believe the government has grounds to proceed against several of the IIM boards under the powers it has assumed. The overwhelming majority of the IIM boards have failed to comply with the requirement under the IIM Act of having an independent review done within three years of the passing of the IIM Act. The couple of review reports I have seen are pathetic documents- they sound more like official brochures than an independent management audit. Many IIMs have been non-compliant with the Constitutional requirement of reservations for designated categories in faculty recruitment.

We have to wait and see. In the meantime, the ushering in of a modicum of accountability into the IIM system deserves three cheers.

 

 

IIM salaries and fees: what are the larger implications?

TOI carried a story saying IIM placement salaries had not kept with rising fees for the two year  MBA programme. 

The story quotes a director as saying that the rule of thumb was that the fee should not exceed the average annual salary. The fee seems to have exceeded the average salary at only two IIMs. But that is not the correct measure.

The correct measure is how many years it takes to repay student loans. Taking into account costs in the large cities, I was told this takes seven to eight years-  using average salaries. For those earning less than average, which would be half the cohort, the time taken would be a lot more. 

Moreover, one should not confine the analysis to the leading IIMs. The leading IIMs' fees are the benchmark for lesser IIMs and non-IIMs. At the latter, the pain felt by students would be more.

There are a few fundamental points about IIM fee pricing that tend to get overlooked.

First, what is the basis for the fee charged? IIMA used to charge Rs 4.8 lakh until 2007. Surely, costs cannot have multiplied five-fold since! The fee clearly is not based on cost-plus pricing but simply what the market can bear. If 450 students can pay Rs 25 lakh or more, why not charge that much?

Is that responsible pricing? At top B schools in the US, the fee typically does not even fully recover the cost. So there is an element of subsidy in the fee. On top of that, the schools offer a few scholarships based on merit and financial need. B schools in the US bear the cost of subsidy through large endowments, consultancy, executive programs and the rest. In other words, the fee at US B Schools is not intended to include a profit margin.

At the IIMs, there is not only a profit margin but the margin but must be obscenely large. What are the profits used for? The IIMs are structured as non-profit, non tax-paying trusts. So, they can have a surplus of only 20 per cent over cost. Any surplus above that has to be used. Typically, they have been using the surplus for infrastructure- more and better buildings, better facilities for faculty and students, etc.

The IIMs have also introduced variable pay for faculty (and, to a lesser extent, for non-faculty staff). Some of the surplus goes towards that. A portion of the fee is thus a straight transfer from students to the pockets of faculty. 

Secondly, the fee at IIMs has implications for the choice of employer or jobs. If students take out a large loan for the MBA program, they will be under pressure to take up only the highest paid jobs. That rules out most of the public sector, where there is a crying need for superior managerial skills. It could also preclude entrepreneurial ventures on the part of graduating students- risk-aversion amongst students will be the norm. Is that what the economy needs? Are the IIMs intended solely or mainly to produce talent for Big Tech, the international consulting firms and the top Indian business houses?

Thirdly, the fee have implications for the student profile. It is reasonable to expect that steep fees would deter the disadvantaged sections from applying, given the risk that repayment of loans could stretch out over a very long period when the family looks to the MBA candidate to take care of it. In other words, steep fees dis-favour inclusion.

There is a more important consequence of high fees at IIMs. Many of the graduates at IITs and NITs have offers from the same companies that go to the IIMs. They also have other opportunities such as going abroad from higher studies in engineering or management. High fees create incentives for students at IITs and NITs to pursue alternative opportunities instead of applying to the IIMs. This is certainly happening because the proportion of graduates from IITs and NITs has been falling over the years at the leading IIMs. The IIMs no longer attract the "cream of the cream" although they like to parroting that. Does this not have implications for the brand equity of the IIMs in the long run?

Unfortunately, there seems to have been  no discussion of the larger implications of high fees at the Governing Council or among the faculty. The IIMs keep rubber-stamping five per cent increases in fee ostensibly "to cover the cost of inflation"! So much for research-based policy making at the IIMs!

Unfortunately, after the IIM Act of 2017, the government has let go of all monitoring of IIMs. It seems happy that it does not have to fund many of the IIMs any more. The IIMs are accountable to Parliament, so government needs to shed its hands-off approach and look carefully into the functioning of the IIMs. 

India's private universities fail to make a mark

Shiv Nadar, Aziz Premji, O P Jindal, Munjal, Bennett.... we have quite a few universities started by private industrialists. Yet, none has made a mark thus far as a quality institution, notes Anjuli Bhargava in BS.

That's true of professional colleges as well. There's no engineering institution that can match the IITs, hardly any that match the IIMs and the AIIMS or even other prominent government medical colleges.

Why so? One reason that Bhargava mentions is the lack of high quality admission standards. Indeed, many of these universities go all out to woo student candidates, something no self-respecting institution would do. Another is that they are far too focused on hardware and too little on software, namely, faculty and research. And a third is that promoters run them as they do their own businesses- by calling the shots and not giving enough leeway to professional educators.

I guess all of this is true. But another crucial factor is that most private universities have a profit motive in mind- they are looking for returns, preferably quick returns. Whereas the striking thing about private universities in the US and some other places is that these are non-profit in orientation and are sustained by large endowments.

No educational institution that aims to generate surpluses out of its operations- mostly running degree programmes and, in some cases, consultancy and executive training- can be expected to produce high quality in the long run. There's a view that, ever since the IIMs have been left to set their own fee, they too are focused on revenue generation. Their reputation was built in a period when they were sustained by government funding and did not have think about surpluses.

Worldwide, the combination of quality and access is possible only when there's a large element of subsidy built into higher education. In India, it's public universities that conform to this model. The worry about IIMs now must be whether they will end up in the same bracket as private universities.

Sudha Murty, IIIT Dharwad and institutional autonomy

This is one item I have been following with disbelief- and, of course, I am assuming that ET has got the facts right.

The story, as you can see for yourself, is that IIIT Dharwad has plans for constructing buildings which were to be financed by MHRD (50%), the state government (35%) and Keonics, a state PSU (15%). After Sudha Murty was appointed Chairperson, she proposed that Keonics be replaced as a partner by Infosys Foundation. In return for the funds that Infosys Foundation would provide, the buildings at IIIT would be named after Infosys.

The MHRD referred the proposal to the law ministry. The law ministry objects on grounds of conflict of interest involving Ms Murty. I have a more fundamental objection: how can an institution funding 15% of a project want its name to be assigned to the project? At best, there could be a plaque in the buildings thanking Infosys Foundation for its contribution.

The story doesn't end there. Ms Murty apparently wants the mentoring institution, NIT Suratkal, to be replaced by IIIT Bangalore of which she happens to be a board member- another conflict of interest.

This little episode reinforces a point that I have long been making and that readers will be familiar with: it is most unwise to leave the governance of public educational institutions entirely to boards of governors in the name of autonomy. Those sitting on these boards have little stakes in these institutions and cannot be expected to take care of the long-term interests of the institutions. The government needs to keep a watchful eye through its own representatives and by requiring the institutions to obtain government approval in important matters.

This is the reason I favour the IIM Bill. TOI reports the Bill is being held up following objections raised by the PMO to certain provisions. The PMO does not want the HRD minister to head the IIM council and it also has reservations about the President being the Visitor to the IIMs. The PMO does not think that the IIT model is appropriate for the IIMs.

I'm afraid the PMO is mistaken on these counts. Matters cannot be left to the IIM boards- there has to be an independent authority to oversee the boards of the IIMs. This is because there would otherwise be no checks and balances otherwise on the functioning of the boards. Boards are ineffective even when they are subject to the discipline of the financial market. Where market discipline is absent, boards can become seriously dysfunctional and harmful.

This is not just my view. Matters haven't been put to vote at the leading IIMs but my sense is that a majority of faculty feel that way. We feel that faculty autonomy is better safeguarded by having the ministry watch over the boards than by leaving matters entirely to boards. Our greatest apprehension is that faculty autonomy will be undermined if matters are left to IIM boards as, in practice, this would result in unchecked powers for the directors of the IIMs. We see the government as the saviour and protector of faculty autonomy, not as a threat. As long as we are governed by the rules of service of the government of India, we believe we can express ourselves freely as academics.

It would be worthwhile for MHRD and the PMO to engage faculty at IIIT Dharwad and at the IIMs in these conversations. The PMO may be well-intentioned but it seems unware of the facts on the ground. It would benefit by eliciting faculty views on these matters.

IIM Bill: what's the fuss about?

The ministry of HRD is embroiled in yet another controversy involving the IIMs. Such confrontations have been going on since 2004 when Murli Manohar Joshi, then HRD minister in the NDA government, wanted the IIMs to reduce their fee for PGP to Rs 30,000.

Every time, there is a run-in with the government, the IIMs contend that their autonomy is under threat. Legions of alumni are mobilised. An adulating middle class and a media that believes that government can do no good rush to the support of IIMs. Politicians and bureaucrats beat a hasty retreat. We have seen this played over and over again.

Thus, in 2007, the government advertised the post of director of IIMA. Faculty and alumni went to town saying this was a threat to autonomy! One would have thought that they would have insisted on the widest advertising and search for the post.

In 2005, IIMB wanted to set up a campus in Singapore. The then minister, Arjun Singh, stalled this, saying they needed to create more seats in India in the first place, not an unreasonable point. IIMB claimed its autonomy was under threat. There was a huge ruckus. In 2010, Kapil Sibal called their bluff. He said they could go ahead. Nothing has been heard of the proposal since.

On another occasion, the government advised the IIMs to reduce their board size from an unwieldy 25 to around 15- a perfectly sensible suggestion. Again, the war cry of 'autonomy in danger' was raised before the IIMs came around to accepting the proposal.

I happen to have studied the history of IIMA and written about it (Brick by Red Brick). In the course of my research, I was struck by the fact that no chairman or director of IIMA had ever complained about lack of autonomy for nearly four decades until the early 2000s. That was a period in which IIMA and other IIMs were heavily dependent on government for funds- and yet there was no talk of government interference. If anything, those at the helm of IIMA had showered praise on the government for its support and restraint.

Things began to change in the early 2000s once the leading IIMs ceased to depend on government of funds- thanks, initially, to burgeoning consulting income and, later, to steep increases in the fee charged for various programmes. Some directors reckoned that since they were not taking money from government, it suited them not to be subject to government oversight. (Going by this logic, ONGC and SBI should also be resistant to government oversight- not only are they not taking money from government, they hand in generous dividends!).

That's how the clamour for autonomy started. Some of the IIMs articulated their position on autonomy through Position Papers. What do they mean by autonomy? The leading IIMs, notably IIMA and IIMB, would like to become board-driven institutions, with the government only setting very broad objectives. All major appointments- the chairperson, board members and the director- would be done by the boards. The board would decide the fee. The board should also be free to delink compensation from government so that the IIMs could become globally competitive (a privilege not granted to ONGC or SBI, which are commercial entities).

It astonishes me that those who make these proposals should show lack of understanding of the legal position. There was report on the IIMs prepared by V K Shunglu, former CAG, in 2004. He said that the concept of autonomy espoused by IIMA was simply not supported by the Articles of Association of the Institute. Shunglu cited a Supreme Court judgement that upheld the government's right to regulate admissions, fees and service conditions of employees even in private aided institutions.

If the IIMs come to be covered by an Act of parliament, it will be even harder,legally speaking, for government to adopt the hands-off approach that the IIMs want. After all, the government is accountable to parliament. It is just not possible for the government to leave all matters, including matters of governance, to the IIM boards. The self-perpetuating board- with the chairperson and members being appointed by the board, as also the president of the university- is a feature that obtains in private universities abroad, not in public universities. What the leading IIMs propose thus amounts, in effect, to an attempt at privatisation of the IIMs.

Legalities apart, there's the question of who will enforce accountability in the IIMs if the government were to withdraw. The IIM boards consist of people with little stake in the institutes. So when people say that matters should be left to IIM boards, they mean, in effect, that matters should be left to directors. Government withdrawal would thus result in a dangerous governance vacuum at the IIMs.

One last point. If I can write freely today not only about IIM matters but also on matters of public policy, it's because I'm protected by the service rules of the government of India . Government is thus the saviour and protector of my autonomy. I must confess that the prospect of being at the mercy of an all-powerful board - and, by implication, an all-powerful director - fills me with more than a little trepidation. 

More on the IIM Bill in my article in the Hindu, No reason for IIMs to be alarmed.

Teaching economics in today's world

FT has an article on how the teaching of economics to today's students can be made useful and relevant. What is taught apparently does not help students to relate to stuff such as the Eurozone crisis. Students want to know about climate change, financial instability and economic disparities- the author says we have the tools to address these in economics.

That's fine. What I would like to know is how these topics can be incorporated in basic courses in Micro or Macro-economics. I look forward to seeing the curriculum the author says her Centre proposes to make available on open access. I have a suggestion: just take the core course outline of any leading institution and tell us what new topics you would like to incorporate - and how you want these taught at the basic level. 

Let me add that I'm also tired of people telling us how B-school curricula need to change to cope with the new world. We are constantly being told that the courses are not relevant,  they don't provide soft skills, they don't deal with the organisation of tomorrow. Alright, so please take the curriculum of IIMA or any other leading B-school and tell us the following: which courses to delete, which courses to add, and how existing courses need to be modified. Please do this session by session and mentioning topics and text books/ references. Now, that would be a serious contribution.

Any takers?

How IIM came to Ahmedabad

How an IIM came to be located in then obscure and small-town Ahmedabad and not in Bombay (as it was then called) has been much written about. The automatic choices were the two leading industrial cities of the time, Bombay and Calcutta. The latter got an IIM, the first to be set up; a few months later in 1961, the second IIM came up, not in Bombay, but in Ahmedabad.

The official version (which I have reported in my book on Ravi Matthai- IIMA) is that Bombay University dragged its feet over the idea as it not comfortable with an autonomous institution within its fold. Vikram Sarabhai, with the backing of industrialists in Ahmedabad, used his clout in government to claim the IIM for Ahmedabad.

In his memoirs (A book of memory), well-known pscyho-analyst Sudhir Kakar has a different story to tell. He contends that Sarabhai got an IIM created in Ahmedabad primarily in order to retain Kamla Chowdhry, an academic then working at ATIRA, with whom Sarabhai had a long and intimate relationship. (Chowdhry happened to be Kakar's aunt).

Chowdhry, Kakar says, began to get uncomfortable in the triangle that had Sarabhai and Mrinalini at the other two ends.  She began to toy with the idea of accepting an offer from DCM in Delhi which was similar to the work she was doing at ATIRA. Sarabhai "used every means at his disposal to persuade her to stay back in  Ahmedabad". He dangled the prospect of a directorship of a research centre on group dynamics, funded by an American foundation.

This didn't work out and three years later, Chowdhry envisaged a move to ASCI in Hyderabad or to Bombay University. This time, Sarabhai offered her a chance to work with a branch of UK's Tavistock Institute in Ahmedabad. This too did not happen.

Finally, as Kakar puts it, "To keep Kamla in Ahmedabad, Vikram Sarabhai successfully lobbied the Indian government to locate one of the two postgraduate institutions of management ....... in Ahmedabad rather than Bombay." Not only that, since Sarabhai and Chowdhry both had connections with Harvard, the original collaborator with IIMA, the University of California, came to be replaced by Harvard.

Kakar bases his narrative on the private papers of Chowdhry. The conclusion he draws is illuminating:

"The letters (from Sarabhai to Chowdhry) are also cautionary for any historian who still believes that decision-making in institutions, whether private or those of the state, is independent of the personality and the emotional needs of the actors, that the public record is sufficient to fully explain the course of a historical event......the location of the IIM at Ahmedabad rather than in Bombay and its collaboration with the Harvard Business School.... had as much to do with the demands of the relationship between Vikram and Kamla (if not more) as with the rational deliberations captured by the public record."

Hogwash on dilution of the IIT brand

A section of the media has gone to town on the subject of some 700 odd students turning down IIT offers. This is construed as a dilution in the IIT brand for whatever reason: poor quality of infrastructure and faculty at the newer IITs, the impact of quotas for SC/STs and OBCs, or the availability of other institutions that are better (although I would myself be hard put to identify these).

This is plain hogwash, as Dinesh Mohan makes clear in an article in BS. He points out a number of reasons why some offers may not be getting accepted:

Students have become acutely aware that all disciplines do not offer challenging or rewarding jobs after graduation (such as civil, production, textile, and many others). Therefore, some of them may prefer to go to an NIT closer to home that gives them an opportunity in a discipline of their choice. Studying at an IIT for undergraduate students can cost about Rs 20,000 a month, not a small amount for a middle-class family. Some of those declining may have opted to spend less by studying at a local NIT instead of a new IIT and save on hostel expenses.
A significant proportion of the students entering IITs know from day one that they are not interested in an engineering career, but do so under parental and societal pressure or a lack of choices for obtaining decent education. If there was a good supply of excellent liberal arts and science colleges with hostel facilities, applications to IITs may drop by a third. It is possible that some of those declining an admission to IIT have gained admission to good law schools, design schools or science colleges that have made a name for themselves in recent years.
Lastly, there would be a group of young men and women who would prefer to spend much more money and go to an institution in the US, Australia, Singapore or the UK, even a second-rate one, than take admission in a discipline and IIT location they don't like. Therefore, the fact that many applicants have opted out of the IIT system may be a good sign, showing that we have more choices and the system is maturing. It certainly does not reflect on the standing of IITs as academic institutions in India. 

The proposition that the entry of newer IITs is diluting the IIT brand would be strictly true only if the older and more reputed IITs fail to fill their seats because of a perception that IITs are not what they were. Nobody has argued that this is the case. We need data on how many seats at which IITs were rejected.

A similar apprehension was raised in respect of the newer IIMs. It's a fact that many of the new IIMs could not place all their students in the last round of Placement. Has this impacted IIMA, the market leader? Not one bit. IIMA achieved 100% placement. The newer IITs and IIMs will take a while to establish themselves. That is very different from saying that the IIT or IIM brand will go into decline because of them.

Incidentally, Dinesh Mohan's article last year on why the JEE should be abolished is also worth reading.

Peer evaluation for IITs, IIMs

The IIT Council has said that all IITs will be subjected to evaluation by peers every five years, TOI reports. Apparently, the government intends a similar review for IIMs. I welcome the move- I had myself advocated external audit of the IIMs in my book on Ravi Matthai- IIMA, Brick by Red Brick, published in 2011.

An external audit is required for two reasons. One, we do not have sufficient competition for the IITs and IIMs and, therefore, it cannot be left to market forces to arrive at a judgement, reflected in applications for admissions. Given the acute scarcity of quality colleges in engineering and management in relation to demand, the market cannot be expected to deliver judgement. An alternative mechanism would be the Board of Governors of IITs/IIMs but this mechanism has simply not functioned. One reason is that those appointed to these boards have very little stakes in the institutions and cannot be expected to devote the attention necessary to keep management on its toes. Besides, for the Board itself to monitor effectively, an effective market for higher education needs to exist; as mentioned, it does not.

As a result of poor monitoring, the IITs and IIMs today are places where there are few checks and balances on the office of director. The scope for discretion is enormous and there is virtually no accountability. Whether a director performs or not performs, whether he abuses office or not has no bearing on his completing his term and even getting another term.

This is an unhealthy state of affairs. All public institutions should be accountable- in the case of the IITs/ IIMs, directors as well as faculty. And such accountability can be established only through an independent management audit. Indeed, the principle of independent audit needs to be applied to regulators and other public authorities, such as RBI, SEBI, the CAG, CEC, etc. No public institution should be beyond the pale of public scrutiny of their activities, decisions and performance.
 
The modalities of the independent audit are important. It appears the expert committee will be chosen by the minister of HRD from a panel of 10 names submitted by the Board of Governors of an IIT. This is not the most desirable state of affairs. The Boards cannot provide names for the audit panel because the boards themselves need to be audited. It would be better to create a collegium of distinguished academics (including NRIs) who would propose names to the ministry.

Secondly, the audit must not be based on meetings with top management of IITs/IIMs or on published documents alone. The audit panel must meet all stakeholders: faculty, students, staff, alumni, the corporate world. Not only the actual outcomes (placement, publications, number of doctorates, etc) need to be reviewed but the internal processes and important decisions. It should be open to any faculty member to submit written documents for consideration by the audit panel. It is only by shining the light on the internal processes and governance of these institutions that improvements can be brought about.

Lastly, the audit reports must be placed in the public domain. In today's world, we can expect the reports to be commented on not only in the mainstream media but also in the social media. Audit and disclosure are the keys to accountability at public institutions.

It is striking that the gurus of governance at the IIMs did not think of subjecting themselves to a peer review all these decades; it was left to their bete noire, the ministry, to initiate this proposal. 

How to find a B-school dean?

Well, I wish I knew but it's useful to know that two French B-schools have brought in heads from the university system. FT reports:

ESCP Europe has become the latest French business school to look to the university system for its next dean. History professor Edouard Husson, who for the past two years has been the Vice-Chancellor of the Universities of Paris, has been appointed dean of ESCP from September 1. ESCP, like HEC Paris, comes under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Paris.

 

......In March 2013 another French business school, EMLyon, announced the appointment of meteorologist Philippe Courtier, director of the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), the engineering school in Paris, as its next president (dean). He took up the position in July.

 

A history professor and a meteorologist as b-school deans- that's serious out-of-the-box thinking! European B-schools have also not hesitated to look outside academia: they have brought in people from industry. So did ISB in India when it appointed Ajit Rangnekar as dean. There's no need to be fixated with the idea that the head of a B-school has to be an academic and, of course, still less with the idea that it has to be an insider.

A good start is to advertise the position and advertise widely. The ad must mention that people of eminence are free to make nominations: the worst thing any search committee can do is to expect highly talented people to put in applications, complete with covering letters and CVs. ('I am a professor of Marketing with a creditable record of publications and exposure to consulting and I write to ask that I be considered for the post of Dean at......'.)

Publishing in top journals

Indian academics are being exhorted these days to publish in top journals, many of them US-based. That's how you build knowledge, become thought leaders, we are told. Now, however true this may be for the pure sciences, one has always had reservations about applying this philosophy to b-schools. B-schools teach management, which is the application of knowledge, preferably, to the local context. How arcane research can contribute to this objective has always been an issue.

It is refreshing, therefore, to come across a different point of view being urged by Britain's universities minister, David Willetts. Andrew Hill, writing in his blog in the FT, quotes Willetts as saying that publishing in US peer-reviewed journals mostly involves analysing US data- and Willetts can't see how that will help the UK. He also faults the 'rarefied and recherche' nature of much management research. So, we come back to very basic - and still unanswered questions. What is meaningful research at b-schools? What relative weights do we accord to teaching and research in b-schools?

The sooner India's leading b-schools find answers to these questions, the better. It should not be that they recast incentives in favour of publishing abroad only to find themselves of diminishing relevance in their own environment.

Reviews of my book on Ravi Matthai- IIMA: Update

I reproduce links to the following reviews of my book on Ravi Matthai- IIMA (Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad; Rupa Publications) that I have seen so far:

• Wall Street Journal
• The Sunday Guardian
• The Hindu
• Anuradha Goyal's blog
• Seminar
  
• Edu Tech magazine, column by Rishikesha T Krishnan of IIM Bangalore
  
• Vikapa (October, 2011)
  
• The Smart Manager (Sept-October 2011- Interview and book excerpt)
  
• Hindu Business Line
  
• Business Standard
• The Tribune
• Review in Biblio magazine (July-August 2011)
  
• My response to EPW review
• MBA Universe.com
• Financial Express
• Economic and Political Weekly
  
• Business India
• Uday's Weekly
  

NRN on IITs

N R Narayana Murthy has been quoted as saying that 80% of students at IITs are of poor quality. My first reaction is to ask: what would be the comparable figure for NITs and private engineering colleges? 95%? And what would that say about the quality of hires at Infosys, most of whom are drawn from second- and third-rung colleges?

Although an ex-IITian myself, I am not in a position to judge whether there has been any decline in standards in students at IITs as I have little contact these days with IITs or engineering. How do we test such a statement? We could use a number of indicators:

• Acceptance of IIT students at foreign colleges and their performance there
• Success rate of IIT students appearing for the IIM entrance test
• Acceptability of IIT students to employers in India

Are fewer IIT students going to the US? Are companies now reluctant to visit IIT campuses for recruitment? I would like to know from readers.

NRN also comments on the poor English speaking skills of IITians:

The Infosys mentor also lamented the poor English speaking and social skills of a majority of IIT students, saying with Indian politicians "rooting against English", the task of getting good English speaking students at IITs gets more difficult.

I can readily respond to this comment. Some of the best performers in my time at the IITs were from vernacular schools. Their English was poor but this took nothing away from their brilliance- they were among the toppers at IITs and went on to make a mark in the US. I met some of them a few years ago at an IIT Bombay reunion and their English was now as good as anybody else's. The great change at IIT was not counting English marks in the entrance exam. This opened up IITs to some great brains in the interior of the country. To judge the calibre of IIT students by their English speaking skills makes no sense at all.

NRN, in his New York speech, has also advocated doing away with the tenure system at IITs; he wants faculty on five year contracts instead. If this is what is required for producing quality, how is it that US universities have a tenure system and produce great quality? The tenure system was created precisely to give academics the sense of security that is needed in order to produce high quality output over a long period.

I have a suggestion. Let NRN and a few other businessmen pool their resources and set up their own engineering college. They can set their own norms for admission, faculty, fees etc. They can then realise their dream of creating in India the equivalent of MIT and Stanford.

Are sprawling IIM campuses justified?

The IIMs have campuses that sprawl across 100 acres of more or land. They produce less than 3000 MBAs put together, says Nirmalya Kumar in an article in ET. He believes this is inefficient use of a scarce resource, land. Is this true?

There are two components to this point. One, the IIMs don't need sprawling campuses in order to meet their educational objectives. Two, given that they have so much, the IIMs can produce more postgraduates or doctorates.

To take the first point, Kumar argues that London Business School operates on less than 5 acres and graduated 1000 students this year. Why can't the IIMs do likewise? Maybe they should sell off most of the land they are sitting on?

I am not sure this is a valid argument. Both faculty and students in London (and other western cities) can easily rent apartments over a wide range of rentals. In Indian cities, it is rather more difficult, so there is a case for a campus that will obviate the need for people to look around for a place. Public transport in many places is nowhere as good as in London and there can be difficulties in commuting to work as well. Many cities may not be as safe those in Europe or North America. So, for the smooth functioning of the school, a campus may be required.

Secondly, the IITs and IIMs are governed by the Pay Commission framework and are restricted in the pay they can offer faculty. Campus accommodation is a valuable perk and we know from experience that for NRI faculty wanting to relocate to India, it's a big attraction. One would, therefore, make out a case for a campus on grounds of promoting academic excellence.

Having said that, there remains the question of whether the IIMs are producing enough graduates to justify the land on which they are sitting. One reason often trotted out is that the IIMs are unable to attract quality faculty. I do not entirely buy this argument. As Kumar points out, it should be possible to bring in visiting faculty from overseas. This does not happen, nor is recruitment of faculty vigorous enough, because it suits the IIMs to limit the intake. This enhances the scarcity value of an IIM product and hence the value of the IIM brand itself, and it limits competition to existing faculty. I have made a reference to this issue in my recent book, Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad.

It does appear to me that the IIMs work backward from a high average salary in determining what should be the intake of students. Whereas the need of the country is for a large number of MBAs. In recent years, the IIMs have had to increase their capacity by 54% consequent to the introduction of OBC quotas- this is the most significant scaling up in the IIM system since they were set up! So they could do it when they were driven to by law. Why can't they scale up on their own as well- and provide better justification for the land they are using?

Book on Ravi Matthai - IIM Ahmedabad

My book on Ravi Matthai- IIM Ahmedabad, published by Rupa Publications, is out (Brick by Red Brick: Ravi Matthai and the Making of IIM Ahmedabad). ET carried a story on it a couple of weeks ago.

The book is timed to coincide with IIMA's golden jubilee and is meant to celebrate the remarkable effort at institution-building in the Institute's formative years. IIMA stands out in the Indian education landscape for one reason: it is that rare institution that has been at the top for most of the five decades for which it has been around. There is an Iron Law that operates in Indian education and that dictates that institutions of higher education, started with great fanfare, must go to seed in about thirty or forty years' time. IIMA is a noteworthy exception.

My book attempts to explain IIMA's success and to answer the questions: what sets IIMA apart in the IIM fraternity? why does it enjoy a premium rating? I also devote a chapter to the governance issues in the IIM system today and make suggestions on how to inject greater accountability into the system.

The answer to the above questions, which I came to grasp only after I had spent some five years at IIMA, lies in the culture and processes that Vikram Sarabhai, its founder, and Ravi Matthai, its first full-time director, put in place. That something, which is intangible but which makes all the difference to an academic institution, has been solid enough to sustain IIMA for five decades now.

When IIMA was founded, Ahmedabad was a small town. The infrastructure at the Institute was very basic, they did not have today's IT and the connectivity it provides, communications were poor. And yet IIMA quickly made an impact on the nation as a centre of excellence. Can you imagine an IIT or IIM being set up in Tirunelveli or Patiala making a similar impact today? That is a measure of the achievement of IIMA's founding fathers.

Matthai was all of 38 years old when Sarabhai and others chose him as the first full-time director. He was not an academic by training, he had been a corporate executive. He achieved what he did in just seven years' time. His appointment as director was not a contractual appointment, and yet at the age of 45, he chose to step down. He spurned numerous lucrative offers and turned his energies towards a novel experiment in rural education in Jawaja, a small block in Rajasthan. It was a story waiting to be told. I am privileged to have had the opportunity to tell it.

PS: The book is expected to reach the market in about a week's time but it can be ordered from flipkart. com or from Rupa's website.

IITs say no to greater autonomy!

Going by a report carried by BS, the IITs don't really want greater autonomy, at least as envisaged by the Anil Kakodkar committee report on IITs.

The Kakodkar committee has favoured devolving greater powers to the IIT boards, with decisions on salaries, recruitment etc being largely left to them. Towards giving IITs greater operational freedom, it has suggested a substantial increase in fee from Rs 50,000 to Rs 2-2.5 lakh per annum. The IIT directors that BS spoke to had a different point of view from that expressed by the Kakodkar committee.

IIT Madras director MS Ananth is quoted as saying, "“In my personal opinion IITs have adequate autonomy. As an institution funded by tax-payers, I do not expect to be handed more on a platter." The IIT directors and also some faculty see any government withdrawal as coming in the way of the IITs' future growth:

“While the whole idea of the Kakodkar Panel is rooted in providing us more autonomy, I am not so sure that this will provide us with the prospects of growth that we need in the immediate future and in the long run,” said an IIT-Kharagpur professor on the condition of anonymity.

Gautam Barua, director, IIT Guwahati, expresses the view that key decisions should be taken by the IIT Council, which includes all IIT directors, rather than being left to the individual boards; leaving it to the boards would mean the absence of uniformity across IITs and the dilution of the IIM brand.

The attitude of the IIT directors is in refreshing contrast to that of some IIMs. The IITs have less autonomy on paper than the IIMs as the former are governed by an Act of Parliament whereas the latter are not. And yet the IITs believe they have all the autonomy they need while some of the IIMs keep bleating about lack of autonomy.

The older IIMs have been saying just the opposite of what the IITs are saying. They say they need to be financially independent of the government; they want more power be given to the boards; they have resisted moves to evolve a common policy across the IIMs through a pan-IIM board and other means; and they would rather have individual IIMs promoting their own brand.

So who has got it right on autonomy? The IITs, whose brand is better known worldwide than the IIMs, or the IIMs? I leave it to you to judge.

World class or not?

One of the pleasures of writing this blog is the high quality of responses it evokes. One anonymous reader talks of lack of ethical standards and even corruption at the IIMs. I cannot, for obvious reasons, comment on that. Most comments fault me for not addressing the core issue of whether the IITs and IIMs produce world-class research or not. They are right- I did not address this issue because it's difficult to deal with in a short post. Let me take a stab at it.

Perhaps, I should begin by posing some counter-questions. Is Infosys in the same league as Microsoft? Is ISRO equivalent to NASA? Are the IB and RAW comparable to MI5 and Mossad? Are our business dailies as good as Financial Times and Wall Street Journal?

There's no end to these comparisons and they will take us nowhere. No non-commercial institution in India needs to justify itself by comparing itself with somebody else who is regarded as best in class and then coming to conclusions as to its worth or utility. If that is the yard-stick, we will see mass hara-kiri.

The key issue is the impact the institution makes on its environment. Is it adding substantial value in the environment in which it operates? When the question is posed in these terms, the dimensions on which performance is measured change. You would not judge an IIT or IIM only on one dimension, namely, publication in international journals but on several dimensions: quality of students, interface with industry, impact on important sectors of the economy, inputs for policy-making, etc. The founding fathers of IIMA never talked about becoming 'world-class'. They spoke about two things: striving for excellence and striving for relevance. I guess I am talking about the same things.

The top American university is a marvel that has evolved over some three hundred years. It is supported by enormous private funding and it has put in place culture and processes that are not easy to replicate. Not just India but the rest of the world lags behind considerably: even the top European universities cannot hope to rival Stanford, Harvard, MIT and Princeton. In higher education, as in defence, the US stands alone.

The quest for improvement and reform must be eternal and the IITs and IIMs must be held to account for higher and higher levels of performance. But to condemn them by comparison with the icons of American education, which is what "world class" is all about, can only demoralise faculty and undermine whatever good can come out of our system.

Do IITs, IIMs add value ?

When it is said that the IITs, IIMs owe their eminence entirely to students, not to faculty, it is implied that they do not add value. True or false?

Well, an IIMB director answered this effectively a few years ago when some in the corporate world had made similar statements. He made an offer: he would make public the admissions list the moment it was finalised. Corporates could come and recruit anybody on the list right away. If the IIMs did not add value, neither the students nor the corporates should have a problem doing this. There were no takers. The companies' bluff had been called.

There is another way of responding to the contention that faculty do not contribute. The IITs and the IIMs admit a small fraction of applicants. An IIM would call for interview around 1000 students. Anybody familiar with the admissions process would know that there is very little difference in terms of the CAT score between a student ranked 800 and a student ranked 2500 in CAT. The former may make it to an IIM; the latter is left out and goes to some other B-School. If the difference in student quality, that is, the input is negligible, how come there is such a huge difference in output or outcome? How is it that the IIM student is hugely sought after while the non-IIM student is not? Ditto for the IITs. QED.