`Premier' engineering institutes
SESHADRI AKELLA
THE OTHER day I was watching with derision a discussion in the Lok Sabha on the number of `premier' engineering institutions like IITs that a country like India must have. The MP who started it all went on to suggest that there should be at least 1,500 of them.
Has anyone tracked the career paths of the graduate passouts from these `elite' institutions? Over 50 per cent of them shift to management courses either immediately or in due course for lucre. About 30 per cent of them migrate overseas permanently in search of El Dorado. Even among the ones who migrate, many shift to management stream mid course.
This brings us to a fundamental question of the necessity of acquiring engineering qualification from a `premier institute' if the ultimate objective is to sell soap, liquor, man an HR or finance function? Can these functions not be managed equally well, if not better, by non-technical management professionals?
Assuming that the rest of the crowd participates in mainstream engineering and manufacturing activities, are those activities of such nature that graduates from only `elite' institutions can perform them?
In terms of pure engineering content or technology transfer (not in terms of NRI deposits or aid), what has been the contribution of graduates from these `premier' institutes to the Indian economy or industry? Why are we hell bent on setting up more `premier' institutes knowing fully well that huge subsidies have to be doled out on intake of every single student, additionally burdening the taxpayer?
It is time we pondered these questions so that we can clearly map the technical skill requirements of Indian industry with the skills that are available or needed to be imparted. Given that technical education is a huge business opportunity in India, there is no dearth of private engineering colleges. The quality of education provided in most of them may be questionable but the quality of training in the rest should be sufficient to cater to the demands of Indian industry, given that most of the available technical jobs are fairly routine.
I am sure large corporate houses can take the responsibility of filling the demand supply gap by providing affordable and quality technical education and sponsoring industry research. The AICTE can control the mushrooming of colleges, which are set up purely for mercenary aims and not for quality education.
The Chinese government, I believe, sponsors thousands of its graduates to Ivy League foreign universities for higher learning. Many of these students work for foreign corporations, absorb the latest technologies, eventually to return to their homeland to share these technologies for the benefit of Chinese industry. But it is too much to expect this kind of patriotism from the Indian diaspora.
With the costs far outweighing the possible benefits of setting up these institutes, why can't the Indian government leave the business of higher technical education to the private sector and rather concentrate on primary education by ensuring proper delivery mechanisms for `Sarva Siksha Abhiyan' which is the need of the hour?
(The writer is an IIT graduate)
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
