Posts
Last week, Kapil Sibal, did precisely what many feared he would. He announced that he was allowing foreign universities to come to India. Almost magnanimously — at least to the foreign universities — he also decreed that they could set up shop in India without partnering with Indian institutes.
To circumvent the entire debate in Parliament, he has chosen, quite adroitly, to be more of a lawyer for foreign universities than as a representative of India, to rope in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) to allow foreign universities come to India as Section 25 companies. This is a section which deals with non-profit companies under the Companies Act (both in its old and new forms). A Section 25 company is an alternative to forming a trust under the Charity Commissioner of the concerned state. Such a company files its income returns with the Income Tax; a trust files its returns with a charity commissioner. The former has an all-India mandate; a trust has a state mandate.
Presumably, Sibal wants to give foreign universities a national mandate, unlike the mandate most Indian universities enjoy. Except for some universities like the SNDT Women’s University that have been formed under a special Act of Parliament, and hence enjoy a national mandate, most Indian universities have regional mandates. Mumbai University has a regional mandate, so do Pune or Delhi universities. In other words, Sibal might want foreign universities to become more equal than most Indian universities!
The Section 25 bit looks okay, but only on paper. Foreign universities will have to deposit a security guarantee of Rs25 crore (lower than Rs50 crore stipulated earlier) with the government. That too sounds acceptable. They should be among the top 400 in the world according to one of the three — (i) the UK-based Times Higher Education Ranking; (ii) Quacquarelli Symonds ranking, and (iii) the China-based Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings — parameters. Good idea!
But Sibal is a lawyer. He should know that Section 25 companies can get away with just paying royalties and/or consultants who in turn can transfer profits back to the university overseas. Thus, they can circumvent the non-distribution-of-profits clause. The universities will undoubtedly find many more ways to send back the money considering that the market is worth over Rs46,000 crore annually (the ministry’s estimates).
Moreover, since foreign universities can charge their own fees and pay their teachers market-based wages, they will attract the best of teachers from existing Indian universities, thus compelling the latter to make do with second-best staff.
It is a surefire way of destroying whatever is left of the Indian academic structure.
Ideally, Sibal should have allowed domestic universities to appoint the teachers they want and pay them market-driven salaries, without government interference in either of the two conditions. Focus on outcomes; create laws permitting the government to take away universities and transfer them to better performing ones (if these private autonomous universities do not perform well academically and in placements). That would allow Indian Universities to learn to become competitive. Then, as the next step, allow foreign universities to join Indian universities. Some three years later, after Indian universities have learnt how to cope with autonomy, allow foreign universities in, on their own. That way, he would have allowed Indian universities to learn to compete, and then actually face competition.
But Sibal appears desperate to get foreign universities into India even before Indian universities have been allowed to become independent. He has opted to use notification as a means to do so slyly, without discussing the implications either with academicians or with Parliamentarians.
But then, look at his track record. Sibal’s willingness to push forth his ideas which do not make academic sense is legendary. Look at what he did to school education with his Right to Education (RTE) Act. The RTE introduced three rules that are corroding school education alarmingly. First, (in Chapter IV, 16) the RTE allows for automatic promotions till Std VIII, which removes the annual filter of 5 per cent which helps weed out students who do not qualify for the next level of learning. So, you now have students who have not learnt the previous year’s lessons, yet move into a higher class.
The second law (Chapter IV, 17) prevents schools from subjecting students to physical punishment or mental harassment. Is scolding a child for not doing his homework, or an admonishment for not paying attention, “mental harassment”?
Sibal’s RTE leaves this vague, allowing administrators tremendous leeway, and leaving schools extremely vulnerable.
Third, the RTE requires (Chapter II, 4) students to be admitted to an appropriate class according to their age, not according to their mental and academic capabilities. Thus, a boy who is 12 years old, must be admitted to Std VII, even if he has not even studied the grammar of Std II. Not surprisingly, school standards have plummeted frighteningly during the past five years.
Sadly, when Indian school students’ PISA scores fell, Sibal banned India’s participation in such tests. No news is good news, right?
Also, look what he did to the IITs. He increased the number of IITs even when there were no teachers. He changed the admission criteria as well. Not surprisingly, during his ministership, the IITs have slipped world rankings as well. IIT Delhi slipped from #181 in 2009 to 222 in 2013; IIT Bombay from 163 to 231; IIT Kanpur from 237 to 295, IIT Madras from 284 to 313 and IIT Kharagpur from 335 to 346.
Will there be no end to the damage Sibal can cause? On paper, Sibal will have shown increased enrolments in schools (automatic promotion ensures that), more colleges, more IITs and more foreign Universities. But the numbers will not show the degeneration of standards, and the systematic demolition of educational and academic standards in India. It may be good for the foreign universities, but not for India.
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/1888637/column-sibal-fiddles-education-burns
To circumvent the entire debate in Parliament, he has chosen, quite adroitly, to be more of a lawyer for foreign universities than as a representative of India, to rope in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) to allow foreign universities come to India as Section 25 companies. This is a section which deals with non-profit companies under the Companies Act (both in its old and new forms). A Section 25 company is an alternative to forming a trust under the Charity Commissioner of the concerned state. Such a company files its income returns with the Income Tax; a trust files its returns with a charity commissioner. The former has an all-India mandate; a trust has a state mandate.
Presumably, Sibal wants to give foreign universities a national mandate, unlike the mandate most Indian universities enjoy. Except for some universities like the SNDT Women’s University that have been formed under a special Act of Parliament, and hence enjoy a national mandate, most Indian universities have regional mandates. Mumbai University has a regional mandate, so do Pune or Delhi universities. In other words, Sibal might want foreign universities to become more equal than most Indian universities!
The Section 25 bit looks okay, but only on paper. Foreign universities will have to deposit a security guarantee of Rs25 crore (lower than Rs50 crore stipulated earlier) with the government. That too sounds acceptable. They should be among the top 400 in the world according to one of the three — (i) the UK-based Times Higher Education Ranking; (ii) Quacquarelli Symonds ranking, and (iii) the China-based Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings — parameters. Good idea!
But Sibal is a lawyer. He should know that Section 25 companies can get away with just paying royalties and/or consultants who in turn can transfer profits back to the university overseas. Thus, they can circumvent the non-distribution-of-profits clause. The universities will undoubtedly find many more ways to send back the money considering that the market is worth over Rs46,000 crore annually (the ministry’s estimates).
Moreover, since foreign universities can charge their own fees and pay their teachers market-based wages, they will attract the best of teachers from existing Indian universities, thus compelling the latter to make do with second-best staff.
It is a surefire way of destroying whatever is left of the Indian academic structure.
Ideally, Sibal should have allowed domestic universities to appoint the teachers they want and pay them market-driven salaries, without government interference in either of the two conditions. Focus on outcomes; create laws permitting the government to take away universities and transfer them to better performing ones (if these private autonomous universities do not perform well academically and in placements). That would allow Indian Universities to learn to become competitive. Then, as the next step, allow foreign universities to join Indian universities. Some three years later, after Indian universities have learnt how to cope with autonomy, allow foreign universities in, on their own. That way, he would have allowed Indian universities to learn to compete, and then actually face competition.
But Sibal appears desperate to get foreign universities into India even before Indian universities have been allowed to become independent. He has opted to use notification as a means to do so slyly, without discussing the implications either with academicians or with Parliamentarians.
But then, look at his track record. Sibal’s willingness to push forth his ideas which do not make academic sense is legendary. Look at what he did to school education with his Right to Education (RTE) Act. The RTE introduced three rules that are corroding school education alarmingly. First, (in Chapter IV, 16) the RTE allows for automatic promotions till Std VIII, which removes the annual filter of 5 per cent which helps weed out students who do not qualify for the next level of learning. So, you now have students who have not learnt the previous year’s lessons, yet move into a higher class.
The second law (Chapter IV, 17) prevents schools from subjecting students to physical punishment or mental harassment. Is scolding a child for not doing his homework, or an admonishment for not paying attention, “mental harassment”?
Sibal’s RTE leaves this vague, allowing administrators tremendous leeway, and leaving schools extremely vulnerable.
Third, the RTE requires (Chapter II, 4) students to be admitted to an appropriate class according to their age, not according to their mental and academic capabilities. Thus, a boy who is 12 years old, must be admitted to Std VII, even if he has not even studied the grammar of Std II. Not surprisingly, school standards have plummeted frighteningly during the past five years.
Sadly, when Indian school students’ PISA scores fell, Sibal banned India’s participation in such tests. No news is good news, right?
Also, look what he did to the IITs. He increased the number of IITs even when there were no teachers. He changed the admission criteria as well. Not surprisingly, during his ministership, the IITs have slipped world rankings as well. IIT Delhi slipped from #181 in 2009 to 222 in 2013; IIT Bombay from 163 to 231; IIT Kanpur from 237 to 295, IIT Madras from 284 to 313 and IIT Kharagpur from 335 to 346.
Will there be no end to the damage Sibal can cause? On paper, Sibal will have shown increased enrolments in schools (automatic promotion ensures that), more colleges, more IITs and more foreign Universities. But the numbers will not show the degeneration of standards, and the systematic demolition of educational and academic standards in India. It may be good for the foreign universities, but not for India.
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/1888637/column-sibal-fiddles-education-burns
0 comments:
Post a Comment