A SYSTEM OF RANK INEQUALITIES

Judged by international standards, the quality of higher education in India—a few shining exceptions apart—has been unsatisfactory. Recent developments, fortunately, are showing rays of hope.

Two years ago, I had the opportunity to observe some of our universities and colleges and the institutions that govern them as a member of the TSR Subramanian New Education Policy drafting committee (201516). That the report never surfaced is an old story. Even so, the shortcomings we observed (then) were disheartening. Degree shopping, rote learning, mindless regurgitation—often bolstered by cheating—were the bane of the higher education system. Teachers’ unions held principals to ransom and students did not care if lectures weren’t held. The magnitude of political interference at the state level was staggering and seemed to be ruining the quality of education even in wellendowed and established institutions.

Many private universities and colleges, professional or otherwise, functioned under the patronage of influential promoters backed by money power. They only had a commercial mindset and little interest in education. The regulatory environment was sluggish and complaints of corruption were allpervasive across the professional education sector—medical, engineering and management mainly.

Given this backdrop, we were sceptical about the usefulness of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) the HRD ministry launched in September 2015. Measurement using technology, I was certain, is the only answer to eliminating human bias while assessing and evaluating institutions. But who was going to cover the enormous range of institutions and declare results?

But India is full of surprises—in three years, a grading process for ranking both universities and colleges has taken root. NIRF has been ranking institutions within five broad generic parameters—teaching; learning and resources; research and professional practice; graduation outcomes; outreach and inclusivity; and perception. Despite many not caring to join the process, a technologybased ranking that covers the General, Engineering, Management and Pharmacy streams of higher education and the top 100 colleges is easily available at the touch of a button.

Here’s what ranking does. NIRF has ranked Miranda House College in Delhi University first across India for two consecutive years. I asked its principal, Pratibha Jolly, what backed MH’s success. As an alumnus of nearly 55 years’ standing, I had watched a college that was once first among equals lose its shine and slip both in public perception and student preference. But in the last 10 years, I have also seen the college seizing every opportunity to reclaim its lost glory—be it academics, sports, library, cultural events, greenery, even housekeeping.

“We had to document extensive data to justify our claims,” says Jolly. “Whatever we put down had to be truthful and verifiable. The best thing has been the journey—just the rigour has taught us how to painstakingly record each facet of every accomplishment. That’s been our biggest achievement, the outcome is secondary.”

Another personal nugget underscores this. As chairman of the governing body of Dyal Singh college for three years, I’d see unions fighting the principal daily. A volley of complaints would ensue if demands for ignoring nonexistent attendance and fail marks were refused. Today (many years later), Dyal Singh ranks 25th in the list of top 100 colleges. Says principal I.S. Bakshi, “Somewhere, the realisation dawned

that rank counts.”

At a higher level, and in select universities, educational attainment is largely measured by the impact of published research. The citations earned by Bengaluru’s Indian Institute of Science or Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University run into thousands—justifying their first and third ranking. The challenge now lies in motivating more institutions to value published research and understand the difference between measuring high quality and no quality. The fact that UGC has recently axed over 4,000 journals from its approved list shows that the truth behind humbug research publishing has slowly been discovered. (Whether some timehonoured journals have also been junked in the process is still not known.)

The good news about ranking universities and colleges becomes less impressive when one finds that, currently, NIRF’s ranking represents just 11 per cent of UGClinked universities, and that there are insurmountable numbers still to be appraised. The country’s 900 universities and 40,000 colleges might take decades to get covered at the current rate of progress. Considering this magnitude, NIRF should only define the ranking methodology, seek applications from credit rating agencies, prescribe application fee and exercise oversight. Otherwise, a commendable initiative will benefit only the cream among higher education institutes.

Dr V.S. Chauhan, who has been involved with NIRF from its inception (and is also a member of the UGC), told me something unrelated but no less important. “The number of students going abroad for higher education is more than ever before,” he said. “A very large number of Indian students are easily securing admissions in wellknown universities in the UK, USA and, more recently, even in many universities in Europe. In fact, it is common that an Indian student has admission offers from more than halfadozen universities. The only catch is they have to be fullypaid students with the means to pay for very high tuition fees and living expenses. Clearly, Western universities, even the best ones, are now competing to attract fullypaid students; digital technologies have made this process facile both for the universities as well as for the educationseekers. Increasingly, parents are also willing to pay the high cost of such higher education, seeing it as an investment in their children’s future.”

It is estimated that more than Rs 30,000 crore is spent annually to pay for foreign education. Which begs the question: shouldn’t we be giving Indian parents and children some

more information before their children join the foreign education bandwagon at such an exorbitant cost? Ought not every educational institution at least be accredited on some broad parameters even before being ranked? India’s accreditation process has taken too long.

Started in 1994, it was initially aimed only at institutions seeking NAAC funding. Unravelling data from the website is slow and frustrating. Unless accreditation is made mandatory and there is more information about individual programmes, it won’t help make an informed choice about institutions and courses. Even before ranking, accreditation and not just ABC assessment must become nonnegotiable.

The growth of all higher education institutes calls for greater oversight. Today, 77 per cent of our colleges run in the private sector. While this takes pressure off governments, accountability for maintaining standards is essential. Privatelyrun universities having very poor infrastructure and highly deficient faculty abound. Even so, a few comparatively new universities like Shiv Nadar and Jindal and the older Manipal and Venkateshwara (Tirupati) universities have been well rated. The Ashoka University may not have joined the process yet but has earned a good name in a comparatively short span. None of these, though, are anywhere near the IISc, IIMs, IITs and JNU which undoubtedly have had the benefit of history, tradition and public funding. An emerging silver lining is that a slew of other private universities, once ridiculed for their hardsell blitzing, have begun investing in highly educated faculty and promoting research.

Overall, the domination of arts and general courses is a matter of concern. Enrolment in agriculture and veterinary science courses is less than 1 per cent when the bulk of rural India is engaged in cultivation and cattlerearing. In law, though the national schools at Bengaluru and elsewhere are producing firstrate lawyers, the rounding off that comes with multidisciplinary grounding seems to be missing. It’s time the vertical silos of law, and even of botany and zoology, are replaced by departments that look at real problems germane to India and grapple with finding local solutions. “Our education system,” says Indu Shahani, a former UGC member and eminent educationist, “should become multidisciplinary and applica tionoriented, focus on the changing dynamics of the real world. We should move towards giving a strong foundation of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths), A (Liberal Arts), ED (Entrepreneurship & Design Thinking). We should educate to develop job creators—along with jobseekers.”

Finally, viewing the big picture, a few positive developments need mention. Women’s enrolment in higher education has been phenomenal in the last two decades—almost catching up with the men. Most women, however, join arts courses. A larger number are opting for science, but most pursue home science. For women to become economically independent, they must acquire financial and legal literacy. To get more girls to pursue science and mathematics, adequate women teachers are needed to teach these subjects.

India’s higher education sector is improving only incrementally, and much too slowly. If the government lacks funds, it must facilitate the upgradation of promising institutions, introduce more selffinancing courses and encourage paid consultancies through industryacademia linkages. The private sector has begun to invest in establishing research foundations and schools of governance. Once a culture of making endowments and establishing university chairs is perceived as laudable, the higher education sector will become more soughtafter and competitive.

Adam Grant, an American psychology professor, is reported to have said, “The mark of higher education isn’t the knowledge you accumulate in your head—it’s the skills you gain about how you learn.” The real success will come when our policymakers, teachers and students start to understand this.

The writer is a former secretary, GoI; chief secretary, Delhi; and member, TSR Subramanian National Education Policy drafting committee