State governments have been generous in allocating land to the new IITs, reports BS. Most will have more land than the older ones. IIT Mandi in HP will have 513 acres; IIT Hyderabad 531 acres; IIT Gandhinagar 385 acres; IIT Ropar 500 acres; IIT Bhubaneswar gets 936 acres intended for 1100 faculty and 11,000 students- talk about thinking big!
Some are already operating from makeshift premises. Others plan to use research scholars for teaching until a core faculty of adequate size is in place. The build up of faculty strength so far is impressive. IIT Hyderabad already has 40 faculty.
I have never subscribed to the talk of 'faculty shortage' at the IITs and IIMs. There are ways and ways of getting faculty and I believe the newer IITs and IIMs will do a better job than the older ones because of the compulsion to deliver. Besides, there is virtue in newness- new leadership, a new campus, new ways of doing things. I believe the setting up of new IITs and IIMs is one of the best things to have happened in higher education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What about brand dilution?
Secondly, does the country really need more Institutes of Technology? I would have thought it would make more sense to have (fewer but good quality) full fledged universities with all disciplines (in the US university model).
The establishment of new IITs is welcome, these institutes were established in the 1960s and since then the student population has grown dramatically, it's only natural for more institutes to be established. People who oppose new IITs on grounds like brand dilution are acting as nothing more than petty monopolists who want to safeguard their rent seeking privileges. Given the ridiculously low number of students taken into these institutes (~3000 out of lakhs), doubling or even tripling the intake will not lead to any major dilution. Lastly the IITs are not an institute of excellence, no pathbreaking research happens their, they are just filters to identify smart students and deliver later to finance and marketing recruiters, either directly or through 2 years at an IIM.
blackadder, your latter point is exactly why it doesn't make sense to have more IITs - why not more universities, instead?
I wouldn't care about brand dilution if the brand was not weak. I agree with the latter part of your points and hence don't see the point of more IITs.
The IITs are universities so I don't see why having more universities and having more IITs is an either or choice, have more of both. The point is that the IITs are just another engineering college and no institutes of excellence so there is no dilution likely to happen.
blackadder, now you are in the stupid zone.
No "effective" dilution perhaps but you agree that there is an IIT brand out there - whether justified or not, strong or weak. why dilute it?
The either-or choice is simple - instead of establishing a tech institute would you rather establish a university which would expand in future to cover new fields, etc. Across the world, the university model has been used to cater to all fields, not merely tech.
The IITs are not universities in a completeness sense - they are institutes of technology only.
If they will be expanded to cover non-tech fields, why name a university an institute of technology - why not correct the naming convention and label them universities giving non-technical fields at the university a shot?!
I don't think I am the stupid zone, you're blabbering. The IIT brand comes not from anything the institutes do but from the examination, which acts as a filter to identify bright students. Taking your idiotic reasoning to the extreme, why have even 5 IITs, have just 1 so that there is no dilution. Lastly, the brand is not what is important, the need for education to keep up with rising demand is. This is as idiotic as saying why should McDonald's have more outlets, it leads to brand dilution because many of them may take time to reach the standards that the flagship outlets have.
The IITs are universities in the sense in which they need to be, they award degrees. Currently, they don't cover only tech, they have programs in humanities and business administration as well. I still couldn't get your second point, you want all IITs to be renamed universities or you want no specialized colleges anywhere in the academic landscape of India?
Look, I'm tired of more tech institutes. I wish that we could have the vision to build universities that focus on arts, science, engineering, education, medicine, business.. all fields. The university model in most countries is what I am comparing to.
Why?
1. Because this country has too many goddamn tech-only institutes already. Perhaps, there is an under supply of techies but that's to a huge extent because a majority of the tech institutes are pathetic. Why not fix the current tech institutes? It can also be fixed by focused training.
2. The country should commit to excellence in all fields and send a signal indicating the same (even while demand weighting them).
3. Multi-discipline universities have much better balanced campuses, provide opportunities for students to split major, minor across disciplines and do inter-disciplinary work. Many global benchmarks are at the overall university level.
4. By building more IITs, the tech career is being sold further to parents. Times change and biological sciences, or humanities or medicine, etc, etc (or inter-disciplinary work) might be where future supply is needed and where the cutting edge happens. You need a ready education infrastructure that can compete in any and all areas as times change.
5. Specialized colleges are fine... but the cookie cutter/McDonald's model of education in India could encompass all fields, or atleast try to. As an example; the US has over 150 universities where each university encompasses almost the entire spectrum of fields (including even sports, for example). There are more benefits than I can list to having multi disciplines in one campus.
"...Taking your idiotic reasoning to the extreme, why have even 5 IITs, have just 1 so that there is no dilution."
The 5 IITs are already established, who's talking about rolling back the clock? If you take any reasoning to its extreme, you are likely to end up with idiotic conclusions. That doesn't make the reasoning idiotic, it does make your act of taking it to an extreme an idiotic one.
"This is as idiotic as saying why should McDonald's have more outlets, it leads to brand dilution because many of them may take time to reach the standards that the flagship outlets have."
You pick something that is the undisputed example of the cookie cutter model and you apply it to something which is exactly not that as of today. If you have 10000 of something and you have 5 more it does not matter to the brand. And, by the way the standards of McDonald's are the same on day one as far as product quality goes.
You might say that the IIT model though can be mass copied like McDonald's - my point is not just that it can't be without dilution (because it is predicated on finding the best talent as benchmarked by its entrance test), but that its not the best thing to do. Why? read on...
"The point is that the IITs are just another engineering college and no institutes of excellence "
Right, so why build more and bother about names when we already have tons of engineering colleges? Why not create new, better brands? Why are we limited by yesterday's brands? We seem to think that naming something will automatically make it "good" which is dumb on multiple levels.
"Currently, they don't cover only tech, they have programs in humanities and business administration as well."
"I still couldn't get your second point..."
Since they have more than tech why call them institutes of tech? My very minor point is that If IITs are going to dabble in more than tech then they shouldn't be called tech institutes - its quite a minor and limited point. Really, not worth explaining.
Ultimately, my objection to more IITs/specialized institutes goes away if we are establishing atleast as many new universities. We are not and I'm assuming that we have limited resources. I would like the vision to be a wholesome, world-class university (for reasons numbered above) with all disciplines, even though the short term sub-goal might be the tech program.
"We are not and I'm assuming that we have limited resources"
The 5 main IITs were established by the 60s. The next stage of expansion happened 40 years later. 5 new institutes is hardly a crippling blow to resources. New universities have also been established in that time. I don't see why opening 5 tech institutes is creating so much of a hassle.
Your other points of creating new brands and better universities are all taken but I don't think in themselves they negate the necessity or wisdom of having new IITs. The IITs were not set up with the intention of having a brand but for supplying trained personnel for industry and having a greater industry focused research program than other institutes. Replicating that model with a measly 5 more IITs doesn't impact anything, the predication of identification of the 'best talent' is not going to be impacted because the intake as a percentage of applicants is so low that doubling it makes no difference.
Look, you are not making any points that I can accept even though I would have been willing to give up on some of my points.
You have said that the IITs have 3000 seats. The first 7 IITs had 3500 seats in 2003 and now its 6500. So, please atleast use correct numbers.
You allege that those opposing brand dilution are monopolists. But then take pains to point out that the IITs are just like any other engineering college. Can you explain the contradiction? You point out that the IIT brand has been incidental and not desirable. Are you really saying that because a brand was not created by design it should not exist anymore?
You point out that IITs were meant to be churners of technical personnel for industry. And, that is why I don't think they should be the flagships of the Indian education sector. Technical personnel for industry can be better created by vocational training, etc. IITs are now in a mixed state. They need reform.
It implies moving away from them as role models. You are ok with any and all types of progress (just because... oh there are so many Indians, we could do with more of any darn institute - why the fuss) whereas I would prefer progress where the current flawed role models are improved upon (not aspired to) and a new vision is developed. Because role models drive the rest of the sector. And, actually the new vision that I'm talking about is not even all that new.
"The 5 main IITs were established by the 60s. The next stage of expansion happened 40 years later. 5 new institutes is hardly a crippling blow to resources. New universities have also been established in that time. I don't see why opening 5 tech institutes is creating so much of a hassle."
Please don't take points to extremes again - my point that creating new IITs reduces the resources does not imply that they are a crippling blow to resources. You must note that planning for new IITs take up significant govt/public/tax resources. They want to also create IITs outside of India. Those are concrete reasons for my whining because the status quo is deemed to be the role model whereas it needs to be improved upon.
And, fine so new universities have also been created. I'll give up if and when we get one world-class university (ranked in the top 50) for every 5 IITs/IIMs that are created or for every doubling of student population at these institutes. How about that for a really reasonable compromise?
>>You allege that those opposing brand dilution are monopolists. But then take pains to point out that the IITs are just like any other engineering college
No contradiction. Nowhere did I say there is no IIT brand, the point is that the brand comes not from anything done within the IITs but from the entrance test itself which is a strict filter. Read all my posts again if you will. There is a need to separate IITs the institutions from IIT JEE the entrance exam.
>>that is why I don't think they should be the flagships of the Indian education sector
They aren't flagships based on what they do, they are flagships simply as dormitories of bright students.
>>I'll give up if and when we get one world-class university (ranked in the top 50) for every 5 IITs/IIMs that are created or for every doubling of student population at these institutes
Lack of world class institutes has nothing to do with the number of IITs established, there are systemic problems. An institute of excellence is defined as an institute of excellence on multiple parameters, mainly the research and publication output. Students are peripheral except as alumni to be lauded if and when they reach the top echelons of corporates or administration. Our university system is not incentivised to encourage research, that is a failing, not the numbers of institutes or acceptance ratios.
From your posts, I see two separate issues that you are conflating, the issue of more IITs and increased student intake to them versus the lack of acclaimed educational institutions. I don't think the two are as linked as you make them out to be. The current lack of quality institutes is caused by a perverse link in the Indian mind between education and the instrumentality of education, an education is only as good as the job it gets you. Our universities have been reduced to functioning as employment exchanges with no resources for research hence they lag truly world class universities. They are shackled from generating their own funds, of hiring quality faculty with competitive salaries, all of this is what creates a shambolic educational system, nothing else. None of these can in any way be addressed by limiting the number of IITs or renaming them as universities.
"Nowhere did I say there is no IIT brand"
Neither did I allege the same!
-----
"There is a need to separate IITs the institutions from IIT JEE the entrance exam."
Why? why bother with it? And, the IITs created JEE - it wasn't given to them. Why should they be separated from something they created? You can always create a parallel system yourself? I would like to know what your objections are and what you would like instead?
-----
"They aren't flagships based on what they do, they are flagships simply as dormitories of bright students."
So, you are explaining why they are flagships as opposed to my point about the implications of them being flagships. So, your point is relevant to my point, how?
----------
"Lack of world class institutes has nothing to do with the number of IITs established"
"I don't think the two are as linked as you make them out to be."
ok, look I've told you about limited resources. Here is concrete data that I found. This is the funding situation in the 11th 5 year plan:
750 cr per IIT over 6 years
175-200 cr per IIM over 6 years
200 cr per world class univ over 5 years (well, atleast there is a plan for 14 of these).
<150 cr per central univ over 5 years (16 new).
As I've said, I would much rather have the focus be just the WCUs (and the CUs) with more funding.
Please note that the WCUs will have tech and mgmt schools anyway. I'm not arguing that total capacity be reduced but that the focus be on WCUs instead. This is because of the various points I have listed in my previous comment for a multi-discipline WC univ over a tech-only institute. Here, I'm merely trying to point out that new IITs do indeed distract funds/resources and attention from WCUs which should be the focus and quite arguably are the need of the times.
And, so as it currently stands, how in the world are the WCUs going to be WC with so low a funding level, much lower than IITs? China spends approx $700mm on one university.
----
"Our university system is not incentivised to encourage research, that is a failing, not the numbers of institutes or acceptance ratios."
Oh good, I agree. So, who or what exactly is responsible?
-----
"They are shackled from generating their own funds"
A lot of the research funding in the US comes from having a govt research budget and govt research initiatives, via NSF, Darpa, etc, not just own funds.
-------
"...all of this is what creates a shambolic educational system, nothing else."
You seem to think that incentives are perverted because of some out of control thing or, state of mind. No, its because of bad govt policy which is what I have been harping about. Good policy's goal is to create a good incentive structure. Well, atleast there is a plan for 14 new WC Univs - that makes me happy but the funding situation and priority is impossible.
-------
"None of these can in any way be addressed by limiting the number of IITs or renaming them as universities."
Surely not by just doing that!! A five year old will tell you that. What do you expect, magic?
Can you also point out where you think I have suggested merely renaming IITs is nirvana? You have an annoying habit of taking arguments to illogical extremes. I have also not argued against limiting total capacity.
-----
You argue - why the hassle against more IITs... to which I say - why the fetish with having more IITs? They are not even ranked in the top 50 univs of the world! How about an improved vision of creating a Harvard (or choose fav top 10 world class univ here) in India instead (which would include the tech disciplines)? Btw, we do have a plan for these WCUs but as I said the priority and funding seem impossible as of today - might well be fixed in 5 years hopefully.
"There is a need to separate IITs the institutions from IIT JEE the entrance exam."
By separating I mean separate a discussion of the merits of the IITs as institutions from a discussion of the IIT JEE as an entrance exam. The JEE does what it was meant to do - identify bright students. But the IITs have not developed as institutes of excellence.
The spending on central universities is low for a number of reasons, mainly because there are many of them and they have been established mainly to equip students with higher education so that they can enter the workforce and not as centers of excellence.
However, the allocation for education as a whole needs to be increased, so that there is enough funding for both IITs and universities.
As for funding,the government in India funds research as well but the amounts spent are much smaller compared to the US. Lastly, the universities in the US are allowed to have their own corpus which can be invested and ploughed back into improving facilities and infrastructure.
"You seem to think that incentives are perverted because of some out of control thing or, state of mind
No never, they are clearly bad policy decisions. Or rather I wouldn't even say bad, would just say that they are policy decisions that do not facilitate insitutes of excellence.
Lastly, the moot point is that under the current policy environment, standalone colleges, universities, institutes, call them what you will, will never become institutes of excellence. For that a much greater emphasis of research is required which is non-existent in the entire policy landscape of this country. Our universities are not geared up to be institutes of excellence because they have almost 0 research output. India's education policy has taken the research element out of universities and handed it to specialized institutes. Am not even talking of the IITs here but places like CCMB, Is it any surprise that the UNESCO has designated the CCMB as a Global Center of Excellence? None of the WCUs you desire will ever become institutes of excellence because in our policy environment, cutting edge research is not in the mandate of a university. It is deemed serious business to be left to specialized institutes. And without research, no university will ever be called world class.
Well, I agree with most of what you said there - strangely! My hope of an increased focus on WCUs obviously implies a hope for an increased focus on research (the key component of being WC).
Your point about having enough funding for both IITs and WCUs is not practical though. There will always be constraints, and prioritization is needed. Even if funding was increased many times over, it would be a long, long time before we can have budgets in the billions (Harvard) or high millions (700mm like in China). Private money obviously can help quickly but govt policy needs to be appropriate for that to happen.
In celebration of its Golden Jubilee, the Indo-American Society (IAS) is proud to convene the first ever Indo-American Summit on Higher Education during 30, 31 July 2010 and 1 August 2010 at the Hotel Grand Hyatt, Mumbai.
The Summit will present participants with an invaluable opportunity to collaborate with key business, political and academic personalities at a national and international level and address important issues, particularly in regard to policy framing and regulations and international partnerships.
Post a Comment