Issues with Yashpal Committee final report
June 27th, 2009
Update2: The frontline article "University Business" explains why the Yahspal Committee is harsh on the deemed universities and on UGC.
Update: Apparently Prof. Kaushik Basu of Cornell University has issued a dissenting note to this report. Hindu reports on this. Business Standard interviews Prof. Basu.Following are some excerpts.
First, when it comes to higher education, we need to give up our licensing mentality and allow many more new colleges, deemed universities and universities to come up. We tried industrial licensing to manage our manufacturing sector and almost killed it.
I completely agree with the above. Prof. Yashpal is unnecessarily harsh on the deemed universities. I also agree with the following:
If regulatory bodies like the UGC & AICTE are replaced by a supra body (as suggested by the National Knowledge Commission too), do you believe it will still hinder granting autonomy to colleges and universities?
In itself this means very little. Everything will depend on how we specify the functions of this supra body. At one level this can be nothing but a change of names. At another, by creating such a powerful body, we can risk hurting the autonomy of colleges and universities. This we must guard against.
More excerpts from Prof. Basu’s dissent note is reported in another Business Standard article. Following is one of them.
First, the main report speaks about the need for greater autonomy for colleges and universities. However, one stumbling block for this objective is the huge power vested in the University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). There is need for these organisations to divest themselves of some of this power. Just as India gave up on industrial licensing in the early nineties (and thereby unleashed growth), the reformed UGC and AICTE should give up on the licensing of higher education
I was able to find the final report of Yashpal Committee in the web. A local copy of it is here. There are a lot of good points in the committee report. But I do have some disagreement and discomfort with the report. Here are some of the points where I am not comfortable with what the committee writes in its report.
- I find that the committee discussions and recommendations regarding Deemed Universities to be unnecessarily harsh. The committee also does not talk much about private universities and the only place it does (page 39), it badmouths them. It criticizes private institutions a lot. Most of the criticisms are valid. But considering the need of the country the tone should have been more on how to make them better rather than making them out to be evil. The only way India can have the number of universities that it wants to have in the next 5-10 years is through private participation and that includes deemed universities and private universities. My suggestion would be to have a SEBI like regulatory agency that oversees the financial aspects of the private educational institutions (including priavte universities). The regulations should require audited financial statements made available in the web. (The private universities in the US have their financial statements available in the web. Stanford’s is here.) The regulation should stipulate that all the fees should be mentioned upfront in the institution’s webpage and there should be a hotline to complain regarding any transactions beyond that is mentioned in those pages.
- The committee’s recommendation of eliminating various regulating agencies and creating a new body from scratch is not well developed. In the US there are different accreditation agencies for different educational fields. The current problem is with how the AICTE, MCI, etc. members are selected and how they operate rather than with their existence. In the proposed model, even if there is a single body, there will be still a need for different sub-bodies for accrediting different type of institutions.
- The committee also criticizes the speciality institutes like IIT and IIMs and recommends that they broaden their scope. Although broadening IITs and IIMs is a good idea, I think the committee misses an important point. Consider the National Law Schools. Prior to their establishment there were law schools in various universities. But the top students rarely thought of going to law school. It was considered an add-on degree after one does his/her Bachelors or Masters. The national law schools did two things that changed the scenario. (i) They created a brand name and (ii) They created law focused bachelors programs right after +2. So the idea behind some specialized branded institutions should be aplauded rather than criticized. Similarly consider the IISERs/NISER. By their dedicated focus on science research they are already helping in reviving interest in science among students out of high school. India being a vast country with a need for large number of institutions it is a good idea to have some branded discipline focussed institutions that will help create the interest of students on those areas. This interest will indirectly benefit the universities which have comprehensive programs in various fields. Thus I would recommend creation of Indian Institutes of Social Sciences and/or Indian Institutes of Liberal Arts with programs for students out of high school. Such a brand would attract top students out of high school to pursue liberal arts. We do need top quality students out of high school pursuing social science and liberal arts topics such as Anthropology, Economics, Psychology, Literature, etc. By having branded institutions in those fields it will suggest to interested students and their parents that these fields are worth pursuing. However, as the Yashpal committee suggested after a certain brand is established (like IITs and IIMs) they should broaden to other disciplines; but, IMHO, only after the brand is established.
Entry Filed under: India
10 Writeup
1. R.K. Ghosh | June 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Yes, the Yashpal committee report has many negative points as suggested. Specially, the recommendation concerning expansion of IITs is extremely ill conceived. IIT’s success has been due to its focused agenda on technical education. Forcing it to expand will create a vacuum in universities and simultaneously make IITs unfocused. The success of IITs can be largely attributed to close involvement of faculty in academic decision making. If IITs were allowed to expand faculty involvements will shrink, and It will lead to gradual shift the responsibilities and power to small coteries around Directors as we observe around VCs in universities. So, IITs should focus on technical education only. While institutions like IISERs, NISER, CMI, IMS, ISI, etc can continue to focus on science.
Furthermore, govt can think of creating separate national level institutes for social sciences, law and medicines as suggested by Chitta.
Multiple accreditation agencies have many good points as long as turf is well demarcated. A single agency could potentially act like a big brother. I am not sure if SEBI type body could be ideal for education sectors. Malpractices have certainly have gone down under SEBI supervisions. But financial world have different dynamics. I think a regulatory body that can work as ombudsman could be ideal. The major problem with UGC and AICTE kind of institution has been corruption and politics. There is no guarantee that a single super regulatory body will be immune from these vices. What we need badly is to get these existing regulatory bodies cleaned.
2. Kaushik Sahu | June 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I agree with Prof. Ghosh that it is faculty involvement and autonomy that takes an institute to greater heights – as in the IITs. However, persons representing even the best of IIT systems cannot make a significant difference when it comes to leading the Indian Universities.
I, therefore, agree with Prof. Yashpal that IITs have to do some out-of-box thinking for promoting multidisciplinary interactions in a world going flat. Prof. Yashpal has clearly articulated his idea of a University as a powerhouse of creativity and knowledge. However, as we all know, the regulators (appointed by the Government) have failed miserably in creating such excellent centers of knowledge. Rather we have pushed each academic entity into its own disciplinary silo and have failed in creating an enabling environment for the new start-ups to think and act differently. A one-size-fits-all approach does not help anybody and only promotes unhealthy regulation.
While Prof. Yashpal report may seem harsh on the Deemed Universities, the harsher reality at ground zero level is well known to the direct stakeholders. The report is, therefore, quite candid in this regard and has vindicated my stance to a large extent (see my blog post at http://ksahu.blogspot.com/2009/06/professor-yash-pal-on-higher-education.html).
It is important to have greater autonomy in a self-regulatory framework with a competitive environment taking care of the quality needs of the education sector – independent regulators will help to a certain extent in ensuring transparency.
3. Sanjib Karmee | June 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
IITs should do following things:
– Improve quality research
– More collaborative research (most of the IIT faculties are greedy; they are yet to realize the importance of collaboration).
– Establish centre of excellence within IITs
– More interaction between academics and industries
– Asst. and Associate Prof. position should be on temporary basis
– Transparency in faculty selection
– Incorporate faculty of medicine
Today IITs are merely engineering colleges, famous for undergraduate studies. Now it should focus more on research and PG education, along the line of MIT.
If this is done, there is no need for changing IITs to so called model varsities.
4. R. K. Palai | June 30th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I am not cent percent agerr with the report but to some extent we need change to tackle the pitable condition of the present system of eduaction. The regulatory body like UGC and NCTE and AICTE have no clear cut future vision. They are totaly controlled by the political power. The question is wheteher the supra body will execute its authority of its own?
If u take the example of NCTE which is apex body of teacher education it is playing a role of blind man judgement by allowing unlimited number colleges to run. In a state like Haryana there are 430 B.Ed colleges four times of the degree colleges existing in that state. What they people are doing there just to grant the colleges if any put a file with the sucurity mony. No there is something more than that just they are giving excuses by saying that the previous one commited the mistake. What they think how to maintain the balance between quantity and quality. Whether they have done any surveys regarding the existing colleges and the need and suply demand? They are now planning to stop some colleges why and how? If so why u did not plan before hand. Really a pitiable condition.
U.G.C. is the apex body of higher education. It changes its future planning from time to time. One bright example that how these people change the climate in the students mind by exempting NET and not exemted qota.
So the Yaspal report is a welcome one but to what extent it will be free from these activity and maintain quality is questionable.
Quality research should be done in different educational instituation.
5. Prof.Biswajit Mishra | July 5th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I agree with Sanjib on points such as improving quality research and creation centers of excellence in IITs. However, it’s not true that IIT faculty don’t do industry oriented research. What’s meant by greedy? Dose that include publishing papers (with Ph. D. students) in International journal with high impact factors? That to, unlike IISc, with huge UG teaching load? Why should IITs bother about medical education? Why not many AIMS come up in the country. Just an example here. IITs started Business schools about 15 years back, with enty trough JMET. After all these years, leave alone IIMs, these schools can’t draw any comparison with many private schools. The same thing with law. NLSUs have come up in almost all the states. Then why should IITs bother about law education? Let’s not compare with MIT or Harvard. They are time-tested extra large systems. Here, the bottomline is, if we want to everything, we end up doing nothing.
6. Sanjib Karmee | July 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I repeat again that IIT Profs are greedy. As a former IITian, I can say that, most of the IIT Profs. don’t collaborate with others (inside and out side the Institutions). Some Profs even don’t talk with other Profs about their research. I also know some Profs, who advice their students not to talk with other faculties. Because of this transfer of knowledge and broadening of expertise can not happen. One such example is most of the papers published from Indian Institutes are not multi-authored and multi-institutional. Does it mean that IITs have all the expertise? I have nothing against my gurus; but this mind set need to be changed.
The idea of incorporating Humanities, Law, Medicine and Management is to give an upper hand to IITs as compared to other Institutes in the country and around the globe. Because of this ranking of IITs have significantly increased in the past few years:
http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/asianuniversityrankings/asian_university_rankings_top_200_universities/
http://www.topuniversities.com/university_rankings/results/2008/overall_rankings/top_100_universities/
We have every right to compare IITs with Harvard and MIT; after all IITs are established along the line of these Institutions. Professor, I respect your views about the UG and PG teaching load. Don’t you think Professors in Korean, Japanese and Chinese Universities are also doing good research despite UG and PG teaching?
The way you are thinking IITs will become “engineering colleges for undergraduatesâ€.
7. Biswajit Mishra | July 7th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Unfortunately, I feel that Sanjib had a bad experience and I appreciate his concerns. But this is unfair to generalize and say that IIT Profs are greedy. IIT teachers collaborate both within their Institutes and with the outside world. One of the best examples, apart from many of such collaborations, is the IIT M. Tech-DAAD fellowship that started in 1996. In this program an M.Tech. student goes to a German university and work there upto 9 months and the German Prof becomes a co-supervisor in the student’s M. Tech. dissertation. The student submits his/her thesis in the paret IIT. A German student also avails the same Fellowship in IITs. I completely agree that knowledge has to be disseminated, although perhaps there is something to do with IPR. I’ve nothing against multi-author papers. However, I’ve seen that in some cases, mostly in Nature and Science, all six/seven authors claim equal credit. How can we justify that?
Yes, agreed, our colleagues in China, Japan and Korea are outstanding teachers and researchers. But let me remind that unfortunately we could not match the infrastructures that they have developed over the years. Prof. Desiraju, Chemistry Dept of UOH, once wrote an article in Current Science about China. It seems that at any point of time, there are about 1000 research students in the Chemisry Department of Bejing University and the number falls to 500 in a second tier Chinese university. We know our pathetic numbers. Do we have any vision for research? Let’s ask ourself first. Let me cite another example. When we could install a high end equipment like an electron microprobe (EPMA, costs about Rs. 4.5 crores) in our Department, we thought that we have achieved something at IIT Kharagpur. However, I know that my Chinese colleagues have 4 to 5 EPMA machines running simultaneously in one building. I fully agree that the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are highly motivated and very hard working and their governments rightly fund them.
The conception that IITs are “engineering colleges for undergraduates†is completely untrue. First, for the last 10 years or so the UG:PG student ratio have almost become 1:1 in most of the IITs. Second, why say that Engineering Colleges? All the IITs have excellent science departments. Let’s not forget the Chemistry department of IITK with Prof. CNR Rao as the founder chairman. The Science departments of all IITs have brought in lot of laurels to their respective Institutes, both at national and international levels. The Department of Geology & Geophysics (read: where I work), started way back in 1951ï€ not as a service Department, but with comprehensive M. Sc. programs in Applied Geology and Exploration Geophysics. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that IITs are UG Engineering colleges. Basically, it’s because of typical mind set. Its’s something like the Engineering Departments of IISc. They are excellent. However, we call the Institute as IISc (read: no technology).
8. Sanjib Karmee | July 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Please don’t assume that I had bad experience of IIT. My project was awarded as best in the Institute. If you are talking about collaboration thru DAAD, it hardly generates any paper. I studied in IIT-Madras and this Institute was build by the support of RWTH-Aachen, Germany. DAAD fellowship is basically for the PG students to give a fell about German-research; so that, later they can pursue their PhD in Germany. I know very well about it because I was a DFG-MPI fellow and I did part of my research in Germany.
Forget about Nature and Science, six/seven authors…..I have a simple question. How many Profs of your IIT collaborate with other IITs? It is very simple to put the blame on facilities for not doing good research. Why can’t IITs collaborate with CSIR and DST institutes, which have good facilities? Professor, truth always hurts. I am not saying that there are not good scientists in IITs. What I am saying is IITs research culture needs to be changed. Professors should come forward and initiative for exchange and transfer of knowledge.
IITs may have good Profs and Departments but it is difficult to do good research without collaboration. One such example is IIT KGP. The ranking of IIT KGP is going down because of low quality research. As a result of which we are not seeing many PhD candidates from IITKGP as faculty in other IITs and other good Institutions. Profs from IITs should understand that they are not competiting with each other but they are competiting with outside world.
Look at NUS Singapore, our neighbouring Institute!!!!! Will IITs match this university in future? We don’t know; but we can do a lot of things to achieve this.
I said the way you are thinking IITs will become mere “engineering colleges for undergraduatesâ€. IITs future is dependent on Profs like you. Now there is one IIT at No. 30 of Asian Univ ranking. Let’s hope in future most of the IITs will be in top 10. Also, hoping to see IIT KGP at a higher rank in future (now it is at 141).
9. Vinshu Mathur | July 13th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
1. There should be more IITs. At least 50 more in next 10 years. As India doesn’t have enough IIT-level faculties, ad hoc faculties from world renowned universities should be invited.
2. IITs can accommodate more than twice the number of candidates as it does now. They must be made to take in more students.
3. The National Commission for Higher Education is a great idea. Corrupt and non-functional education governing bodies must be scrapped. They have made this ‘recognition allocation’ thing a big business and a generally farcical practice.
4. To prevent commenter Sanjib Karmee’s fears on the downslide of the IITs, it must be made mandatory for all IIT students to do 2 semesters from 2 different IITs and exchange research scholars.
10. S. Samanta | August 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Most of the writers have posted very good thoughts. there are,
however, some very ill conceived opinions that
perfectly describe our mindset. shri r. k. ghosh writes :
“So, IITs should focus on technical education only. While institutions like IISERs, NISER, CMI, IMS, ISI, etc can continue to focus on science.”
thats the most stupid statement that appears in this forum. in
fact it is this attitude that is slow poisoning the iits. science and
technology must necessarily go hand in hand becos they complement each other. places like caltech and m.i.t will not dream of “focussing on technical education only.” they will
be finished in a decade. what is a purely scientific discovery
today is the technology of tomorrow. mr. ghosh seems to
have completely missed the point. this is the reason why the iits are looked upon as nothing but undergrad colleges.
it is a fact that in most iits, on an average the research work
done by the science departments far exceed the research output of the engineering departments. this fact is widely
acknowledged.
people like mr. ghosh must learn that without science there
is no technology. to ask iisers etc. to “focus” on science while
iits “focus” on technology will kill technology in india.
also, it is pathetic to say that the success of iits is becos of
its focus on technical education. what success ??? sending
waves of techies to do m.b.a and finally to serve the
american society like bonded labour ??? is that what he calls
as success ??? the actual success of the iits is in its
patents and journal publications. and that should be the
mantra of the future.