Just leave the IITs alone-Hindu Businessline P.V.INDIRESAN
As in other institutions, the IIT admission procedure should include
interviews
The Government, despite funding the IITs, should not decide whom the
IITs will admit, or whom they will recruit to teach.
June 15, 2012:
Is there a universal law of justice? There are people who are convinced
that theirs is the universal law. Some of them are fanatic enough to
kill to enforce their laws.
At a much simpler level, IIT Kanpur has decided to defy the directive of
the IIT council about common admission tests for all institutions under
the Central Government. Is that legal? I think it is legal, but the law
can be changed.
Alternatively, the Government may get the board of governors to overturn
the senate's view. Would that be just? That calls for making the
critical distinction between what is legal and what is just. What is
just may not be legal, and what is legal need not be just.
Whose iit?
The Government of India has probably exercised its property rights to
enforce its own ideas of ‘just' admission. Then, the real issue is who
owns the IITs.
Economists list men, material, money and management as the four factors
of supply which determine what is produced and how well that is
produced. It is a fact that the IITs would not have come up without the
money from the government.
It is also a fact that the IITs would never have acquired the reputation
they have but for the hard and intelligent work put in by the faculty.
Then, who is the real proprietor — the person who gives the money or the
one who made good use of that money?
The Government has said often — I have heard it myself — that it is
because of the large funds provided by the government that the IITs are
as great as they are. At the same time, the Technical Teachers' Training
Institutes (now called National Institutes of Technical Teacher
Training) have a per-student funding much in excess of what the IITs
get.
By all accounts, those institutions do not enjoy the kind of reputation
that the IITs do. Hence, it appears that however important money may be,
it does not necessarily determine the quality and the reputation that
institutions earn.
Material is of two kinds — buildings and equipment. In both cases, no
doubt, money came, mostly, from the Government but the choice of
buildings and of equipment was that of the faculty. Then, should we
ascribe the value of material to the Government which gave the money, or
to the faculty who spent it the way they have done?
In the case of management, both the Government and the faculty can claim
a share. The Government can say that the IITs are what they are because
of the ‘autonomy' that it let them have.
On the other hand, the faculty can claim that it is they who decided
what should be constructed and bought, what should be taught, who will
teach and to a large extent whom to teach. For the reputation that the
IITs have, to whom should we accord credit — the Government or the
faculty?
Crux of the debate
I recollect a Deputy Secretary of the Education Ministry claiming that
the IITs are tightly controlled institutions. In a way they have been so
ever since the Government introduced reservation in admissions.
Nevertheless, I tend to think that no government and no amount of
controls would have made the IITs what they are, but for the efforts put
in by the faculty. Money is necessary, but is not the faculty
important, probably more important?
That is the crux of the current debate. The faculty have not questioned
the authority of the Government to decide how much money the IITs should
get, but they want autonomy to decide whom they will admit.
Let me consider an analogy: a car has many parts — the engine, the gear
train, the fuel tank, the steering wheel and so on. Which one is
important? Can the fuel tank decide where the car should go or how fast
it should go? No one will agree. I feel that the government is like the
fuel tank, vital but cannot be the one who takes the decisions.
Charge rich more
I think that the IITs made a serious mistake when they let the Joint
Entrance Examination decide who will be admitted. It was done with the
best of intentions to protect the institutions from political
interference. However, in the past week, I had come to the conclusion
that the youth from rich and powerful families too have their own
rights. Whether we like it or not, they will have enormous influence
over how the economy will grow.
The former US President, Mr George Bush, was admitted to Yale not
because he was brilliant, but because he was the son of another former
US President.
Such youth need good education, particularly, good Indian education.
Hence, I suggest that the IITs apply the Pareto criterion — reserve 20
per cent of seats for the very rich or powerful after charging them 80
per cent of the costs. The other 80 per cent should be selected on the
basis of merit — as decided by the faculty — and get charged only 20 per
cent of the costs. Alternatively, the Government, which has the
responsibility to train the youth, pays for them. In any case, it is not
correct to charge everyone, rich or poor, the same fees.
Ideally, the Government should not decide whom the IITs will admit, or
whom they will recruit to teach. The IITs, too, should accept that they
made a mistake when they ruled that students will be admitted purely on
the basis of marks.
If the IIMs can have an interview after the CAT examination, if people
for the central services are selected after an examination and an
interview, if even a peon is selected after an interview, why should not
each IIT have the same, independent system?
This is 331st in the Vision 2020 series. The last article appeared on
June 2.
(The author is a former Director, IIT Madras. blfeedback@thehindu.co.in
and indiresan@gmail.com)
