This might be usefull as a gd topic so just go throught it..
it might help you some or the other time
cheers
he Indian media is full of
news these days about the country becoming a knowledge superpower in
the 21st century. This rhetoric starts from politicians down to the
common man. But every once in a while we hear an opposite viewpoint.
This is one such viewpoint.
If
one takes a look at the industrially advanced countries like the United
States, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union nations --
sharing similar political systems such India -- all of them seem to
have stable growth not just in terms of GDP alone, but in education as
well as infrastructure -- electricity, roads, airports, sanitation,
water, etc.
In India we have had
decent GDP growth in recent years due to manufacturing and information
technology boom. Yet, a reliable metric has yet to emerge. The
education sector and infrastructure are perhaps the weakest links in
the whole developmental process.
Unemployment
is still very high and the IT success which has given employment to
nearly a million people has not been matched by bold initiatives in the
science and technology education sector so that the country can move up
the value chain.
In this article, I
shall talk about education, more specifically technical education
(undergraduate and post graduate), which is the driving force behind
all advanced economies.
In India,
technical education is numerically healthy, but quality-wise it is very
poor across-the-board. Last year, India produced 250,000 engineers, US
produced 70,000 and China generated 600,000. There is no independent
verification about the numbers from China.
These
numbers are quoted over and over again in the American media in
connection with a National Academies report, which came out recently,
saying that the US strength in science and engineering is slipping. The
report proposes remedies to strengthen US science and technology
education all the way from K-12 through Ph.D. [1].
A major national effort is underway in the US to meet the challenges posed by resurgent China and India.
I
argue that Indian manpower though numerically high is short on quality.
I also propose remedies that can be implemented without recourse to
committees.
Undergraduate education
The
output of graduate engineers is healthy, but two things are missing,
namely the quality and the level of training. As a Microsoft vice
president pointed out recently in Bangalore, India produces about 50
PhDs in computer science per year, which is a normal number in an
average US public university. [2]
In
other areas of engineering, the picture is no better. Most of us know
that except for the Indian Institutes of Technology and a few other
institutions, the quality of undergraduate training is poor although
the intake from the 10+2 system is good. Basically, we not only need a
large number of graduates, but also good quality graduates. The recent
U R Rao committee report has highlighted this issue clearly [3].
So
how do we address this problem? Unfortunately officials at the Union
human resources ministry as well as academicians seem to have avoided
this problem all these years. Instead, we hear of efforts at
e-education, distance education and education via satellite and taped
videos from IITs. All these modes of education have not succeeded in
other countries in engineering, but result in waste of human and
financial resources, which India can ill afford.
We
need to concentrate on giving quality education in the traditional way
to a large number of students. Are there any other options besides
opening up new IITs? Opening new IITs is always the first option. It is
also a costly option. It requires long gestation periods, acquiring
land, infrastructure, faculty, etc and cannot be a viable option at the
moment unless the private sector comes up with a proposal.
The
second option is to upgrade existing institutions with a proven track
record to the level of IITs. Since the intake beyond the first 4,000
from JEE (Joint Engineering Examination) up to the next 10,000 is
comparable. This option is being considered seriously very seriously
and
seven institutions are being upgraded to IIT-type institutions although logistics still remain a bottleneck.
Recall
that over 150,000 students take the JEE every year. It is now well
known that the 10+2 students now coming to good institutions and
undergraduates from non-IITs perform very well. Hence the country must
expeditiously move to make room for students beyond the first 4,000 to
impart IIT-brand education. [4].
If a
state like California can have ten University of California campuses
giving comparable undergraduate education, certainly a country of one
billion can have at least 20 IITs or IIT-type institutions!
The
eligible institutions must be able to teach IIT-type undergraduate
curriculum and that is a prerequisite. One hopes that the upgradation
of the seven institutes will be the first step. They must have a high
percentage of PhDs on their faculty and simply have to be challenged to
deliver an IIT-type education.
I think
the country is ready for such bold initiatives. But, perhaps, the
politicians are not. Just as the JEE format was changed within a matter
of months, a similar bold initiative on this score can be taken.
A
third alternative, which I have been advocating for a long time is the
upward scalability of IITs, i.e. increase the intake at all IITs for
the 4-year programmes. Dual degree programmes and degree programmes in
new subjects outside of the science and technology area are not the
mission of the IITs.
Currently, the
student-to-faculty ratio at many IITs is more like 10:1, which is a
luxury, compared to the 20:1 in most US public universities. In China,
Tshinghua University alone turns out more than 2,000 undergraduates in
engineering according to their Web site.
This
scalability of IITs is something that can be implemented right away in
addition to the upgradation of the seven Institutes. This can be done
in many ways. Except for PhD scholars, rest must share rooms. If it is
already the case in some places, quick hostel facilities from
government or the alumni can be created.
The
IITs have vast spaces and they must be utilised optimally. The Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore can also join the four-year
undergraduate programme with perhaps a greater share for science
graduates. This is one way of exciting young minds about science since
they will be in the same campus as top-notch scientists.
The
experience at IIT Kanpur in the '60s of having an integrated 5-year
science degree programme, where excellent research was also done in the
sciences, should be a convincing factor. There are very few world-class
institutions excelling in research without a good undergraduate
programme and the IISc must be persuaded to fall in line.
As
for classroom space, there is plenty in all the IITs and the IISc since
one can have classes in the mornings and afternoons and the same method
applies to the laboratories.
This is
the normal practice at any American university. The old practice of
tutorials must be done away with. It was introduced in the '60s when
the country did not have enough textbooks. There are many inexpensive
textbooks now for a course and also the Internet.
Students
are more mature. Instead of tutorials, one should use postgraduate
students for grading homework and office hours by faculty, and the
postgraduate students should be enough for the students to have access
to.
The Internet can be used
effectively to communicate with students about homework, etc. There
will be opposition to this third alternative from the faculty at the
IITs since disturbing status quo is always difficult in a democracy.
But, in the larger interests of the country, the faculty will rise to
the occasion.
Postgraduate education
It
was pointed out earlier how high quality of students in large numbers
can be produced by the existing, as well as by expanding the current,
IIT system. Until now most IIT graduates have gone abroad leaving only
a few going to postgraduate studies. An increase in graduate students
from IITs as well as IIT-type institutions will feed the postgraduate
programmes.
Fortunately, in sciences,
since so many B.Sc and M.Sc students were produced since 1947, many of
them ultimately went to do PhD and then into academia and industry.
Today we produce about 7,000 PhDs in science, including agricultural
sciences, and a paltry 700-plus in engineering, annually.
It
is not going to be easy for engineering to do what has been done in
sciences. But if India has to be technologically strong, this is a
MUST. In fact, strong science and engineering PhD programmes are
precisely the catalysts for the amazing growth of China.
It
will take time and patience to do this instead of blaming it on the
poor quality of students from non-IITs. The question is how do we go
about doing this. Not by appointing more committees. We have statistics
from Thacker, Nayudama and Rama Rao committees. Unfortunately most of
them have stressed things like what courses to start, stipends, GATE,
etc. These are now minor and irrelevant issues. The British system of
starting new programmes in order to get more funding/buildings must be
done away with. As for stipends one cannot attract students for
postgraduate work by stipends alone.
An
institution has to show that quality work is being done at those places
in order to attract students as the IISc has shown. As for GATE, it is
high time it is done away with and replaced by something simpler and
similar to GRE or the new JEE-type exam. From the Rama Rao committee
report, it was shocking to read that so many seats went unfilled at the
postgraduate level. One hopes the situation is better now.
In
all this, however, the silver lining has been the Quality Improvement
Programme (QIP) that needs to be strengthened in a great measure. If we
have good tier-2 institutions today, it is thanks to the QIP programme
initiated many years ago by the ministry of education. There was no
GATE exam for those teachers!
Let us look at some of the options now:
1. Since
the quality gap between an undergraduate student at an IIT and a tier-2
institution is rapidly decreasing, the first step must be to have
postgraduate programmes in some of these institutions. The choice of
such institutions must be strictly on a merit basis and not on
geographical or any affirmative action basis. Just as IITs helped
countrywide integration, such a step will accelerate the process since
IITs have maintained the highest level of impartiality and indeed are
the envy of many countries.
2. Currently
each IIT produces on an average about 400 M.Techs and about 50 PhDs per
year in 5-6 engineering disciplines. Thus, the total number of PhDs is
very low. Good students must be able to finish the MTech programme in
one calendar year and move on to the PhD stream quickly, thus getting
seamless postgraduate education leading to a PhD degree. Those who wish
to have M.Tech terminal degree can do so.
In
fact there is every reason to scale back the M.Tech duration and define
it in terms of courses and thesis instead of fixed period of 2 years.
3. The
current method of giving stipends directly to students needs to be
looked at afresh. This practice discourages faculty members from
writing research proposals and get money from the industry or national
agencies. In addition, sponsored research projects will attract more
students and this should be encouraged.
The spirit of liberalisation must be accepted here also.
4. The
industry has a great responsibility in attracting PhDs. It is a tragedy
that unlike in sciences, the engineering industry hardly goes after
doctorates. This outdated attitude must change. Perhaps, the industry
can advertise this by creating R&D cells, instead of going in for
foreign collaborations all the time.
5. Finally
many of the institutions in large metropolitan places such as
Bangalore, Chennai, etc. must have an aggressive, evening M.Tech
programme for relevant industries. Students are hungry for knowledge to
move up the economic ladder. Some do have distance education
programmes, but their usefulness is not known as yet.
A start can easily be made for the information technology industry and the IT industry must demand such a programme.
Unlike
the undergraduate programmes, it is not an easy road to develop a good
postgraduate education programme in engineering to meet the fast
changing needs of Indian academia and industry with particular emphasis
on training a good number of competent PhD students.
The
IITs and the IISc must play an aggressive role in this regard to
produce larger number of PhDs because of their existing infrastructure
and funding levels. It is hoped that this discussion would provide a
framework to do that beginning as early as August 2006.