Saturday, April 21, 2012
Health of Educational Institutes is a Blind Alley
Possessing Health or not possessing it on the face of it looks to be a reasonably uncomplicated issue. As we scratch the surface – we realize something or someone can be apparently healthy, but it/she/he was a little under the weather not in the distant past. Clearly, the intuitive binary outlook of healthy or not healthy seems inadequate as soon as we get started.
Take for example educational institutes. They have been around since man formed groups and communities. Legends relating to some famous universities have lived a few millennia too. But millions have been decimated and millions others have not lived up to their promise. Promise! In terms of what – life, academic achievements, social impact, size, enrichment of the stake-holders etc? The conundrum begins all over once again. No it is not a binary problem, but a multi-dimensional problem. What is acceptable health is a very difficult question? We don’t even know whether it depends upon the temporal context, social context, the stake-holder context, the context of the organizational mandate or we can have a universally acceptable framework. Then we also have the questions of the human analogy of organs, samples, indicators, tests, acceptable ranges etc. They complicate the question further. One can say with a little bit more confidence that the solution or the indicators are likely to have significant bearing on the context – in many cases at least.
There are many successful institutes going by the reputation they carry. Some of them produce patents which change the face of the world, others give education that gives jobs, careers and lives to their wards, many other have a long line of aspirants and are financially viable for their promoters. Is the one-dimensional view of popular perception of health adequate. Do we need to examine in sustainability of performance against stated objectives? Again, like in business organizations do we need to weigh the achievements against resources used? Do we also look at social value created or destroyed and weigh it against other visible achievements? Similarly there are expected to many silent institutes creating enormous amount of sustainable social value but are not noticed and hence their models not scaled. This is as much as a social loss, as getting carried away by the hype of brand re-call.
What I am trying to arrive at is that, the health of an education institute is a fairly complicated question. First we need to unravel what is health? Define it, identify the continuum or the space or at least define special cases where a continuum or a space can be isolated. Then comes the problem of continued improvement. Along which dimensions, to what extent and how?
The reason that this topic has intrigued me is that, I expect many Enron’s, Arthur Andersons, Lehman Brothers in education institutes – who dress well but have cancerous cells within them and threaten go bust without due warning. Governments may not be able to bail out unsuspecting students and parents. True, such anomalies cannot be uncovered by casual analysis of publicly available material but can we identify trends – else we would already be unearthing of many such organizations regularly.
A more optimism evoking reason being, stake-holders are always keen to arrest a slide, if they know it in advance. More importantly, they are privy to critical information and can have an honest assessment if they want Thus a holistic assessment of institutes – beyond buildings, placements, infrastructure, alumni – is the need of the hour. The question is not of student performance, research publication, placements and alumni as of now; but the expectations of the same in the future for at least for a reasonable time frame.
That takes us back to What constitutes acceptable health? The next in the series – probably will make sense to understand what experts have told about it.
Bhubaneshwar
April 21, 2012
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Pointers to Choosing Ones Major
[notes for a talk]
Pointers to Choosing Ones Major
I am always inundated by questions by b-school aspirants – ‘what should I tell if I am asked my specialisation’ and b-school freshers - ‘what specialization should I take’. Which speclialisation is the best? These are very difficult questions on one hand and the simplest of questions on the other.
The answers of these questions, boils down to why we are pursuing a b-school course. What are the objectives that have drawn us to such a course? As in everything else, I would like to have the answered first, before going further.
Needless to say, the objective could be varied
• Getting a safe and comfortable career
• Becoming an entrepreneur
• Be a millionaire
• To run the family business
• For some maybe a management guru
The objective for most, - most certainly is not because of
• Passion per se to be an MBA
• Or to do social service and be good use to community
• Or any other such
Such talks are at best fooling the person in front and at worst self-delusions – which is quite damaging. This is a high investment course and we don’t do this without a direct ROI. Sometimes children of well off parents do this course just to have a good time and some others they get ready for the marriage market. We are not talking about them – because they don’t need a Major – but for a fad.
Going back to the moot point – as the decision on the specialization depends upon the objective – there cannot be one fit all specialization. Also, the objectives also need to be dovetailed into the strengths and temperament [read adaptability] of an individual.
A few points:
• If you are doing for a good career – do what you think will get you a good job.
o Type of companies coming to campus
• Temperament – relevant for only 4 years
o Extrovert – Marketing
o Number Cruncher – Finance
o People’s Person – HR
o Quiet, focused guy – Systems
• These stereotypes are the worst myths.
o At best they are relevant for only 3-4 years
o But in reality –
B-school is all about adaptability and multiple-skills. Must be well rounded to excel.
Don’t specialisations to hide from courses. Take the tough ones, confront your comfort zones. Because those courses will give you the base to get into leadership positions
Everyone needs to know everything – past 5 years in corporate world
Marketing guys – need to do more number crunching and Finance guys need to cut deals.
o Take courses to earn knowledge but gain holistic knowledge before you leave
• Have a preferences – primarily based on the job you want from the campus. And the job you think you can get from the campus – especially if you are low risk guy.
• If you are a high self-confident and a risk taker – take the courses which will land you a desired career. Not a job. You may not get the desired job from campus – but they you are prepared to slog out outside / shift jobs and take the tough path
o Even in such a case, have a back-up plan. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
o In case you don’t the job you want for a few years – your holistic knowledge and adaptability will keep you positive for a few years.
So what are the pointers for course and specialization selection:
• MBA – is a course to make money. Need to go for ROI.
• Do a specialization that will give you the best chance for the best possible career for your talent
• Don’t get stuck up with fad value – what is good for others may not be good for you. Contextualise for yourself.
• Learn everything, gain holistic knowledge. One must be strong in fundamentals in all functional areas.
• B-school grads have to adaptable and be able to grasp anything and move ahead. Do create comfort zones. Will kill leadership role chances. Career will stagnate in 5-7 years. Or you will have to go back to the books then.
• If you really believe in some specialization – go for it. Go for a career and not a job. Even if market is down, companies for such job are less.
o But be prepared for a bad phase for 2-3 years
o If you stick around for sometime you will get your due
Pointers to Choosing Ones Major
I am always inundated by questions by b-school aspirants – ‘what should I tell if I am asked my specialisation’ and b-school freshers - ‘what specialization should I take’. Which speclialisation is the best? These are very difficult questions on one hand and the simplest of questions on the other.
The answers of these questions, boils down to why we are pursuing a b-school course. What are the objectives that have drawn us to such a course? As in everything else, I would like to have the answered first, before going further.
Needless to say, the objective could be varied
• Getting a safe and comfortable career
• Becoming an entrepreneur
• Be a millionaire
• To run the family business
• For some maybe a management guru
The objective for most, - most certainly is not because of
• Passion per se to be an MBA
• Or to do social service and be good use to community
• Or any other such
Such talks are at best fooling the person in front and at worst self-delusions – which is quite damaging. This is a high investment course and we don’t do this without a direct ROI. Sometimes children of well off parents do this course just to have a good time and some others they get ready for the marriage market. We are not talking about them – because they don’t need a Major – but for a fad.
Going back to the moot point – as the decision on the specialization depends upon the objective – there cannot be one fit all specialization. Also, the objectives also need to be dovetailed into the strengths and temperament [read adaptability] of an individual.
A few points:
• If you are doing for a good career – do what you think will get you a good job.
o Type of companies coming to campus
• Temperament – relevant for only 4 years
o Extrovert – Marketing
o Number Cruncher – Finance
o People’s Person – HR
o Quiet, focused guy – Systems
• These stereotypes are the worst myths.
o At best they are relevant for only 3-4 years
o But in reality –
B-school is all about adaptability and multiple-skills. Must be well rounded to excel.
Don’t specialisations to hide from courses. Take the tough ones, confront your comfort zones. Because those courses will give you the base to get into leadership positions
Everyone needs to know everything – past 5 years in corporate world
Marketing guys – need to do more number crunching and Finance guys need to cut deals.
o Take courses to earn knowledge but gain holistic knowledge before you leave
• Have a preferences – primarily based on the job you want from the campus. And the job you think you can get from the campus – especially if you are low risk guy.
• If you are a high self-confident and a risk taker – take the courses which will land you a desired career. Not a job. You may not get the desired job from campus – but they you are prepared to slog out outside / shift jobs and take the tough path
o Even in such a case, have a back-up plan. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
o In case you don’t the job you want for a few years – your holistic knowledge and adaptability will keep you positive for a few years.
So what are the pointers for course and specialization selection:
• MBA – is a course to make money. Need to go for ROI.
• Do a specialization that will give you the best chance for the best possible career for your talent
• Don’t get stuck up with fad value – what is good for others may not be good for you. Contextualise for yourself.
• Learn everything, gain holistic knowledge. One must be strong in fundamentals in all functional areas.
• B-school grads have to adaptable and be able to grasp anything and move ahead. Do create comfort zones. Will kill leadership role chances. Career will stagnate in 5-7 years. Or you will have to go back to the books then.
• If you really believe in some specialization – go for it. Go for a career and not a job. Even if market is down, companies for such job are less.
o But be prepared for a bad phase for 2-3 years
o If you stick around for sometime you will get your due
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Engineering and Other Technical Education Colleges In Odisha Are In Dire Straits
The number of engineering colleges has more than doubled in the last five years. Despite the increase in schools however, students appearing for engineering joint entrance examinations have not grown at the same pace. As a result, all engineering colleges [read those affiliated to technical universities] are on the back foot to start with.
Even worse, only 14,000 students have accepted admission after the first phase of the admission process. This is just about thirty per-cent of the intake capacity of Biju Patnaik University of Technology [BPUT] affiliated engineering colleges. This trend is clearly unsustainable.
If one examines the issue objectively, it is obvious that a part of the problem lies in the larger issues of employability of engineering students – which ails colleges all over the country. The other part of the problem is clearly local factors, which have been escalating over the past few years.
The first problem is a case of mis-alignment of authority and accountability. The Orissa Joint Entrance Examination [OJEE] Committee, which is entrusted with conducting the admissions, lacks incentive to efficiently manage the admissions process. Many stakeholders allege that student-unfriendly systems and processes are one major factor for the same. Additionally, OJEE, which is making almost Rs. 3-4 crores through selling of admission forms, is not taking adequate steps to spread awareness of BPUT in possible catchment areas outside the state. It is time the OJEE – which was set in a time when the number of applicants far exceeded the number of seats – re-orient its functioning to meet the market realities. In a situation were local colleges are bleeding, OJEE needs to be accountable in order to be efficient. It would need to seriously introspect on all counts – awareness, application process, examination process, counseling, and admissions. It is no longer the domain of the academicians. It might be a good idea to give the responsibility to Orissa Private Engineering College Association [OPECA] or any other stakeholders [with due checks and balances] who have an incentive to do a good professional job. A point to note: Punjab Technical University’s distance education program is continuously growing because the entire admission process is handled by learning centres.
The second problem – is a deep systemic inefficiency at BPUT, which has been getting worse every year. BPUT, whose job is to conduct exams in timely fashion, declare results, focus on capacity building of faculties, and enhance employability of students, is a ways away from par score in terms. BPUT’s team does not have the necessary execution muscle and manpower to carry out its hygiene responsibilities. It is no wonder that BPUT’s other eco-system developing responsibilities are not on the radar. It is either a structural problem or a governance problem. Whatever the cause, students are starting to realize the risks involved in enrolling in the BPUT system. [One story doing the rounds is that students from Bihar who used to come in large numbers to BPUT colleges are exploring other options.]— It is time for BPUT and the Industry Department [which for antiquated reasons runs the mother department of Technical Education] to take note to do something drastic. Otherwise, even students from Odisha will stop taking admission in BPUT, much less students from other states.
There are other factors that can further hinder the success of engineering colleges: unbridled admission intake of private universities, or the second shift allowed by All India Council of Technical Education [AICTE]. But these could be less important factors. If BPUT can provide quality education, provide time exit at reasonable costs there is no reason that students will prefer more expensive education at private universities. Also, like any other industry, there will always be a segment of customers [read students] who will seek premium offerings and premium pricing – but they will always be the niche segment. So that is not a threat, as long as BPUT performs. On the issue of second shift, one must commend the industry department for issuing the no-objection certificate [NOC] to institutes. This will result in a more equitable distribution of scarce student population.
Bhubaneshwar
August 28, 2011
Even worse, only 14,000 students have accepted admission after the first phase of the admission process. This is just about thirty per-cent of the intake capacity of Biju Patnaik University of Technology [BPUT] affiliated engineering colleges. This trend is clearly unsustainable.
If one examines the issue objectively, it is obvious that a part of the problem lies in the larger issues of employability of engineering students – which ails colleges all over the country. The other part of the problem is clearly local factors, which have been escalating over the past few years.
The first problem is a case of mis-alignment of authority and accountability. The Orissa Joint Entrance Examination [OJEE] Committee, which is entrusted with conducting the admissions, lacks incentive to efficiently manage the admissions process. Many stakeholders allege that student-unfriendly systems and processes are one major factor for the same. Additionally, OJEE, which is making almost Rs. 3-4 crores through selling of admission forms, is not taking adequate steps to spread awareness of BPUT in possible catchment areas outside the state. It is time the OJEE – which was set in a time when the number of applicants far exceeded the number of seats – re-orient its functioning to meet the market realities. In a situation were local colleges are bleeding, OJEE needs to be accountable in order to be efficient. It would need to seriously introspect on all counts – awareness, application process, examination process, counseling, and admissions. It is no longer the domain of the academicians. It might be a good idea to give the responsibility to Orissa Private Engineering College Association [OPECA] or any other stakeholders [with due checks and balances] who have an incentive to do a good professional job. A point to note: Punjab Technical University’s distance education program is continuously growing because the entire admission process is handled by learning centres.
The second problem – is a deep systemic inefficiency at BPUT, which has been getting worse every year. BPUT, whose job is to conduct exams in timely fashion, declare results, focus on capacity building of faculties, and enhance employability of students, is a ways away from par score in terms. BPUT’s team does not have the necessary execution muscle and manpower to carry out its hygiene responsibilities. It is no wonder that BPUT’s other eco-system developing responsibilities are not on the radar. It is either a structural problem or a governance problem. Whatever the cause, students are starting to realize the risks involved in enrolling in the BPUT system. [One story doing the rounds is that students from Bihar who used to come in large numbers to BPUT colleges are exploring other options.]— It is time for BPUT and the Industry Department [which for antiquated reasons runs the mother department of Technical Education] to take note to do something drastic. Otherwise, even students from Odisha will stop taking admission in BPUT, much less students from other states.
There are other factors that can further hinder the success of engineering colleges: unbridled admission intake of private universities, or the second shift allowed by All India Council of Technical Education [AICTE]. But these could be less important factors. If BPUT can provide quality education, provide time exit at reasonable costs there is no reason that students will prefer more expensive education at private universities. Also, like any other industry, there will always be a segment of customers [read students] who will seek premium offerings and premium pricing – but they will always be the niche segment. So that is not a threat, as long as BPUT performs. On the issue of second shift, one must commend the industry department for issuing the no-objection certificate [NOC] to institutes. This will result in a more equitable distribution of scarce student population.
Bhubaneshwar
August 28, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Funding Factor – Diverting Focus From Academics
Thanks to statutory anomalies, a very large proportion higher education institutes in India are promoted by group of individuals or SME entrepreneurs. The AICTE guidelines for starting an Institute mislead the first generation promoters on the need for funds, while corporates who understand the capital intensity shy away from the business because of the convoluted mechanisms involved to realize returns.
Most greenfield Higher Education projects will be able to recover the initial investments only in about seven years. In that sense this is a sector with a longer payback period. Also in the first few years of the institute’s life, it does not operate at full student strength [and concomitantly student revenues]. However, financing institutions in India – as they are wont to - are giving principal and interest moratorium of about 12-18 months on the loans extended to such projects. Interestingly, in the initial years, the need for capital investments in also the highest. As a result of which, promoters are always pre-occupied to either raise funds for capital investments and / or debt servicing. This is one of the root causes of de-focus from the core objectives [i.e. of academics or excellence orientation] for most higher education institutes.
This is one of the major reasons, why even well meaning, educated and motivated promoters of educational institutes find themselves not devoting time to institute building as they are busy driving admission related activities from season to another to fill up the coffers and use the intervening time running pillar to post to either re-schedule existing loans or to seek fresh loans. The irony here is hard to miss, promoters needs funds to create assets for which they need loans. However to get the loans they need to provide assets as collaterals. Goes back to the age-old chicken egg story. The lack of depth of the financial instruments of our institutions is the bane of every MSME [Micro Small and Medium Scale Enterprise]. Especially every promoter who or enterprise that wants to follow an elegant route to wealth creation.
The higher education edupreneurs are worst hit by the apathetic lack of originality and sanity. Financiers know from day one, that additional funds will be required going forward to meet genuine needs of expansion and debt servicing. However, they collude with borrowers to ignore / hide / tweak key facts of a proposal to pass their internal norms. As a result of sometimes institutes need to change financiers midway as the earlier proposed numbers are expectedly not met and the subsequent tranches are not released – the same story is repeated with the new financier as well. This is a never ending process for the first few years.
As super-human efforts in terms of endurance and enterprise are required to basic survival, it is most unfortunate all the other priorities, values and dreams go lower down the pecking order.
We have a conservative banking system, despite that for higher education sector an answer to this problem should be easier found. There is a clear case to have specific industry specific instruments to save the sector. Firstly, ninety percent of the investments are for creating low risk physical assets. Secondly, this sector has escrowable revenues to mitigate the risks of the willingness to pay. Thirdly, the capital investments become minimal after steady state after which almost thirty to forty per cent can be ear-marked for debt servicing. In addition, if required banks can seek checks and balances in the governance of the institutes – which genuine promoters will have no problems adhering to. These tools should be enough for the banking sector to design relatively risk-free longer term loans for the education.
Till we find a sustainable solution to this problem, we will not have quality higher education institutes. We will always be struggling to have at best thirty per cent employable pass-outs. And the Indian education sector will never improve, and this will have contagion effects on the economy per-se. Time we realized that this is very serious problem and needs urgent redressal through policy and structural changes.
Bhubaneshwar
August 28, 2011
Most greenfield Higher Education projects will be able to recover the initial investments only in about seven years. In that sense this is a sector with a longer payback period. Also in the first few years of the institute’s life, it does not operate at full student strength [and concomitantly student revenues]. However, financing institutions in India – as they are wont to - are giving principal and interest moratorium of about 12-18 months on the loans extended to such projects. Interestingly, in the initial years, the need for capital investments in also the highest. As a result of which, promoters are always pre-occupied to either raise funds for capital investments and / or debt servicing. This is one of the root causes of de-focus from the core objectives [i.e. of academics or excellence orientation] for most higher education institutes.
This is one of the major reasons, why even well meaning, educated and motivated promoters of educational institutes find themselves not devoting time to institute building as they are busy driving admission related activities from season to another to fill up the coffers and use the intervening time running pillar to post to either re-schedule existing loans or to seek fresh loans. The irony here is hard to miss, promoters needs funds to create assets for which they need loans. However to get the loans they need to provide assets as collaterals. Goes back to the age-old chicken egg story. The lack of depth of the financial instruments of our institutions is the bane of every MSME [Micro Small and Medium Scale Enterprise]. Especially every promoter who or enterprise that wants to follow an elegant route to wealth creation.
The higher education edupreneurs are worst hit by the apathetic lack of originality and sanity. Financiers know from day one, that additional funds will be required going forward to meet genuine needs of expansion and debt servicing. However, they collude with borrowers to ignore / hide / tweak key facts of a proposal to pass their internal norms. As a result of sometimes institutes need to change financiers midway as the earlier proposed numbers are expectedly not met and the subsequent tranches are not released – the same story is repeated with the new financier as well. This is a never ending process for the first few years.
As super-human efforts in terms of endurance and enterprise are required to basic survival, it is most unfortunate all the other priorities, values and dreams go lower down the pecking order.
We have a conservative banking system, despite that for higher education sector an answer to this problem should be easier found. There is a clear case to have specific industry specific instruments to save the sector. Firstly, ninety percent of the investments are for creating low risk physical assets. Secondly, this sector has escrowable revenues to mitigate the risks of the willingness to pay. Thirdly, the capital investments become minimal after steady state after which almost thirty to forty per cent can be ear-marked for debt servicing. In addition, if required banks can seek checks and balances in the governance of the institutes – which genuine promoters will have no problems adhering to. These tools should be enough for the banking sector to design relatively risk-free longer term loans for the education.
Till we find a sustainable solution to this problem, we will not have quality higher education institutes. We will always be struggling to have at best thirty per cent employable pass-outs. And the Indian education sector will never improve, and this will have contagion effects on the economy per-se. Time we realized that this is very serious problem and needs urgent redressal through policy and structural changes.
Bhubaneshwar
August 28, 2011
Time to look for optimisation opportunities in Higher Education
Indian engineers have provided the people-fuel to many global giants. Indian doctors, para-medics and nurses have also played a critical role in building the healthcare resource base of many developed Anglophone countries. If not anything else, it proves that Indian resources have demonstrated that they have and they can compete with the best of the rest of the world.
But the debate, if at all there is any, is whether this demonstrated capability is because of the education system or is it despite the system. What do the macro metrics speak? Looking at per-capita indicators of engineering college seats, university seats, doctoral students Indian numbers compare very poorly with most economies. Which basically means, we need much larger numbers of educated class to meet the demands for professional resources. Equally importantly we need greater depth in our national resources to create a leadership position in the comity of nations.
The fact that India having far lesser of colleges / students than what we should be having as a nation, should mean that everyone who passes out from a university should get a red carpet treatment in the job market. The reality however is far different. Take the example of engineering graduates. Seventy-percent are unemployable! They cannot even earn 10,000 rupees a month without significant additional capacity building. That is the sad truth.
Companies are hamstrung for talent and that is one of the critical reasons that the country is not growing at 10% per annum. SMEs, who do not have the wherewithal to spend huge sums of money on fresher grade training, find themselves seriously undermined to create globally acceptable solutions and competitive prices.
Worse, the social prestige attached to degrees and not skills/employability makes students blindly go for higher professional education, irrespective of ability to cope up. The only differentiator between a person who takes up professional degree education and the person who doesn’t is affordability and not ability. As a result, students armed with expensive degrees and taking up lower paid jobs [without a modicum of a chance to get due return-on-their education] while students [the limited few] who have planned the careers well by joining the correct courses [i.e. eschewing ‘degrees’] may face a disadvantage to start with as they line-up against ‘degree’ holders.
There are a whole of other problems or manifestations of problems. But to me, these two are the most stark manifestations of the core problems in the higher education sector [post higher secondary education]. To re-articulate: one, lack of rigour in the system and two, inadequate social investment on short term certificate courses that impart respectable livelihood skills.
As a society – rigour is not our strength. Taking the easier, contented path is always acceptable. The fighter is always laughed at in school. This is clearly gravitating upwards to plague our professional/higher education students. It is very rarely that students are clear in their concepts and answer serious questions confidently. Even less often does one find students – who love to take up the gauntlet. This is an extremely serious problem. There are few institutes which have an institutionalized mechanism to churn the students to a higher level. According to me, less than 50 from the around 20,000 higher education institutes in the country will fall in this category. The premium institutes may not fall in this category. In such institutes, the churn - which can be significant - is because of extra-ordinary input quality and peer pressure. Not because of pedagogy or innovative/ committed academics or academic administration.
Till we correct this anomaly, it is no good creating expensive physical infrastructure to under-capable professionals. Worth noting that education is one of sectors with highest capital intensity [from an asset-turnover ratio and pay-back period perspective] and optimal use of such assets will come from churning out a greater percentage of employable students rather than creating new infrastructure which can produce hygiene levels of employable students.
The other problem is not creating enough skills to occupy the base of the pyramid of the corporate sector and sustainable prices. How do we encourage students to get skills early on and start earning? It is not always required to spend four years to do a degree course – especially if it does not assure a sustainable head-start in the professional career. How do we create more and more demand / supply side success stories for certificate and vocational courses is another story. Large sums of money that go for creating under-utilized higher education infrastructure and for procuring inadequate / half-baked competencies, can then actually be used for capacity creation and wealth creation. The creation of lean and globally aligned work-force.
In the future, education organizations – will benefit if they focus on these two gaps. The organizations who do these – either as facilitators or education providers - will be the ones who will create maximum wealth for the community, education sector and themselves.
Bhubaneshwar
August 23, 2011
But the debate, if at all there is any, is whether this demonstrated capability is because of the education system or is it despite the system. What do the macro metrics speak? Looking at per-capita indicators of engineering college seats, university seats, doctoral students Indian numbers compare very poorly with most economies. Which basically means, we need much larger numbers of educated class to meet the demands for professional resources. Equally importantly we need greater depth in our national resources to create a leadership position in the comity of nations.
The fact that India having far lesser of colleges / students than what we should be having as a nation, should mean that everyone who passes out from a university should get a red carpet treatment in the job market. The reality however is far different. Take the example of engineering graduates. Seventy-percent are unemployable! They cannot even earn 10,000 rupees a month without significant additional capacity building. That is the sad truth.
Companies are hamstrung for talent and that is one of the critical reasons that the country is not growing at 10% per annum. SMEs, who do not have the wherewithal to spend huge sums of money on fresher grade training, find themselves seriously undermined to create globally acceptable solutions and competitive prices.
Worse, the social prestige attached to degrees and not skills/employability makes students blindly go for higher professional education, irrespective of ability to cope up. The only differentiator between a person who takes up professional degree education and the person who doesn’t is affordability and not ability. As a result, students armed with expensive degrees and taking up lower paid jobs [without a modicum of a chance to get due return-on-their education] while students [the limited few] who have planned the careers well by joining the correct courses [i.e. eschewing ‘degrees’] may face a disadvantage to start with as they line-up against ‘degree’ holders.
There are a whole of other problems or manifestations of problems. But to me, these two are the most stark manifestations of the core problems in the higher education sector [post higher secondary education]. To re-articulate: one, lack of rigour in the system and two, inadequate social investment on short term certificate courses that impart respectable livelihood skills.
As a society – rigour is not our strength. Taking the easier, contented path is always acceptable. The fighter is always laughed at in school. This is clearly gravitating upwards to plague our professional/higher education students. It is very rarely that students are clear in their concepts and answer serious questions confidently. Even less often does one find students – who love to take up the gauntlet. This is an extremely serious problem. There are few institutes which have an institutionalized mechanism to churn the students to a higher level. According to me, less than 50 from the around 20,000 higher education institutes in the country will fall in this category. The premium institutes may not fall in this category. In such institutes, the churn - which can be significant - is because of extra-ordinary input quality and peer pressure. Not because of pedagogy or innovative/ committed academics or academic administration.
Till we correct this anomaly, it is no good creating expensive physical infrastructure to under-capable professionals. Worth noting that education is one of sectors with highest capital intensity [from an asset-turnover ratio and pay-back period perspective] and optimal use of such assets will come from churning out a greater percentage of employable students rather than creating new infrastructure which can produce hygiene levels of employable students.
The other problem is not creating enough skills to occupy the base of the pyramid of the corporate sector and sustainable prices. How do we encourage students to get skills early on and start earning? It is not always required to spend four years to do a degree course – especially if it does not assure a sustainable head-start in the professional career. How do we create more and more demand / supply side success stories for certificate and vocational courses is another story. Large sums of money that go for creating under-utilized higher education infrastructure and for procuring inadequate / half-baked competencies, can then actually be used for capacity creation and wealth creation. The creation of lean and globally aligned work-force.
In the future, education organizations – will benefit if they focus on these two gaps. The organizations who do these – either as facilitators or education providers - will be the ones who will create maximum wealth for the community, education sector and themselves.
Bhubaneshwar
August 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)