Previously:
Education is Business - I
Education is Business - II
Why education shouldn't be business? I have had the opportunity to discuss this with a few friends and received fairly the same set of questions from everyone. I have tried to present my argument as to why it is already a business and why we should think seriously about educational reforms? Dunno if it made any converts. Here are the questions with the my reasoning presented in the answers.
1) The most common question of all, the most typical question which will make proud all our 'red' friends is 'Education is about equal opportunities. The system as it stands today provides equal opportunities. However, 'capitation fees' (as the Hon. Supreme Court prefers calling it) will slowly make fees so high, that no poor person will be able to afford it.' There are many variations but the gist is the same.
My answer :
I classify this as a pro-poor argument. So far, so good. But like all pro-poor, well intentioned communist arguments, it is idealistic and hardly translates into reality. Those who suffer the most in the end are the poor. What we need to recognize here is that there will be the rich and there will be the poor, and the rich will pay their way through for better facilities. I know that's going to ruffle a lot feathers but it has been so throughout history and it will be so in the future too. Altruism is always a responsibility of the next-door neighbour.
Let me take an analogy, any communist v/s capitalist one will do but my favourite is healthcare. So, there should be equal facilities. Hmm.... Why have private hospitals? We all know the really poor cannot afford it. It's the rich who benefit in the end, so abolish all the private hospitals. Let everyone live with the pathetic facilities of public hospitals. In fact, if you are all for equity, stop visiting your general practitioner. Go to a government hospital and meet the non-existent doctor there. Not a very comfortable idea, is it? Even if it were done, you would still find the rich enjoying most of the the doctor's attention. I hope I don't need to specify the reasons. If you still don't get the point let me spell it out. Socialism seeks to achieve equality for all, the rich as well as the poor. What it claims to do is give the facilities available to the rich to everyone. What happens in reality is that it gives everyone only the facilities available to the poor. So instead of making everyone rich, it seeks to make everyone poor. What it achieves in the end is only 'equal distribution of poverty'.
The hidden hand of Adam Smith comes into play everywhere. Lets see how it seeks to equalize demand-supply for education. The answer consists of two words: Coaching Classes. Though they never adverize it like this, I can imagine a Coaching Class ad ' Unsatisfied with the incomplete education you receive? Tired of the ignorant teachers and impractical lectures? Join our classes. Get value for your money.' What classes do is provide what the market wants, and they charge a premium for it. Does it pay? You bet! It's one of the most lucrative businesses presently with the turnover of major classes easily running into crores. Small coaching classes are turning up at every nukkad and chauraha. They also pay better and so attract better faculty. Does it mean I support the concept of coaching classes? No. They make a perversion of education by aiming on marks rather than on knowledge, but then if you depend on the traditional system, it niether gives you marks, nor knowledge. What the coaching classes tell me is that people are ready to pay for better education and that the present system as it stands is inequitable.
In case you love statistics, do this. In your class, find the top ten rankers, and then compare their average family income with the average family income of the class. Find the average income of people lets say a class in an IIM and a JBIMS. Or compare the income levels of the top 200 rankers in any competitive exam with the ranks from the 10000-10,200 (or the middle 200). See the results for yourself. Then think about the equity of the present system.
Also, with time we can have scholarships for the really brilliant without money. More on that in the next question.
2) 'You have no empathy yaar. I mean, at least the poor guy has a chance here. And only money will talk in the private colleges. Utter duds with bulging pockets will get in.'
My answer:
So you feel utter duds with bulging pockets aren't getting in now? Consider this rough transcript of a discussion between a prospective student and an MU engg college. This is true and the intention of the caller was just a simple enquiry.
Caller (C) : 'Hello. Is this XYZ institute of Technology.'
Engg College(EC): ' Yes'
C : 'Can I know when you release the forms for the leftover seats after the government round?'
EC: 'There's no round after the government round. You can come in through the govt. round or the management round.' Pauses. 'There's also another way. You can take a donation seat.'
C : (a bit surprised) 'What's a donation seat??'
EC: 'You will have to a give donation for that seat (duh!) '
C : 'How much?'
EC: 'Come to our office. We can discuss that.'
This was without any influence, any contacts. As the saying goes, '2 number ka dhanda bhi ekdum imaandaari se karte hain'. People who are undergoing the admission process can give you a rate list of the price of a seat in each college. It runs from 3 lakhs to even 10 lakhs. If a college comes up for the sole purpose of earning money, will it not sell seats? Yes it will! But it will not sell all the seats. It cannot for the sole purpose that building a brand name will require talented raw material. In fact, the fees taken from the 'bulging pocket' duds can be used to finance the education of the no-money-but-lots-of-brain guys. So in effect, yes seats will be sold but opportunities will also increase for the brainy guys.
Another thing is the government can continue charging low fees in its own institutions. It can continue its work at its own pace. I am not asking Mumbai University to increase its fees but what I am asking for, is permission for another autonomous university which can come up and work for profits and charge the fees it deems fit. Private and public institutions can co-exist.
3) 'Will people pay for education? Is there a market that is ready to pay a premium ?'
My answer :
People are ready to pay for classes, here and now. Also there are those who pay under the table. ( Refer the previous answers.)
The number of Indian students currently in the US of A is 74,000 and it's increasing year on year exponentially. Most of these guys have some cash in their pocket and are ready to shell it out for better education. Yes, the 'land of opportunity' attraction is there but most of these would agree to study in India if they get similar facilities at 1/8th to 1/10th of the price. Plus there is that lot that can pay 1/8th to 1/10th of the price but not the price for the US. Others might want to study in India and do not opt for the US of A. People are ready to pay if they see returns at the end of the tunnel and good education seems to be the key to a secure future (at least in public perception).
Another fact is, the market as it stands today, has no competition. A student is Mumbai has no options except for Mumbai University. Give people the power of choice. Give people the options and you will find them making intelligent decisions.
So yes, there is a market. There is need to recognize it and tap it.
(An agreeable side effect would be reduced brain drain. It might even enourage brain gain from Africa, Latin America, Middle East. That will give the country more soft power but that it entirely another issue.)
4) 'What about our tradition? The gurus in our ancient times were never mad after money. We are going against our tradition/culture.'
My answer:
Yes we had a great culture some thousands of years ago. No one was supposed to be mad after money at that time. However, times have changed. Having a desire and finding legitimate means to fulfill it is neither illegal nor against tradition. We live in a market-based society and we need to recognize that. If we do not do that, what we get is the present education system. Change is inevitable. Adapt.
5) 'This will only encourage the fly-by-night operators. Thousands of unsuspecting students will me made a dupe of. Whatever, it is, atleast the present system does not play with their careers.'
My answer :
This is where the government should come in. Give a rating to all colleges. Set up an autonomous body with prominent people from the industry for that purpose. Act as a facilitator. Provide people with the information. Even then if someone wants to join that college, its her/his choice.
Again, taking the healthcare analogy, if there are quacks existing in the society, you do not ban private practitioners.
6)' I don't agree with you. What if it does not work?'
My answer :
The present system gives a raw deal to everyone involved. Its forcing charity down the throat of a market. What if it does not work? First of all, I don't think it will not work. If at all it does not work, worse that will happen is that we revert to the present system. Public and private universities can exist side by side and if it does not work, the private universities will shut shop. End of the story.
However, if it does work, imagine the possibilities. Education is one the most important and one the least recognized components of infrastructure that India needs to invest in for a confident future. We might have the world looking to us for educational opportunities. We can attract the best Africans and South Americans like America attracts the best Indians and Chinese today. From brain drain to brain gain. Just think about it.
I think the least we can do is try it out. The present system is not working anyways.
Next:
Education is Business - III contd..
Education is Business - I
Education is Business - II
Why education shouldn't be business? I have had the opportunity to discuss this with a few friends and received fairly the same set of questions from everyone. I have tried to present my argument as to why it is already a business and why we should think seriously about educational reforms? Dunno if it made any converts. Here are the questions with the my reasoning presented in the answers.
1) The most common question of all, the most typical question which will make proud all our 'red' friends is 'Education is about equal opportunities. The system as it stands today provides equal opportunities. However, 'capitation fees' (as the Hon. Supreme Court prefers calling it) will slowly make fees so high, that no poor person will be able to afford it.' There are many variations but the gist is the same.
My answer :
I classify this as a pro-poor argument. So far, so good. But like all pro-poor, well intentioned communist arguments, it is idealistic and hardly translates into reality. Those who suffer the most in the end are the poor. What we need to recognize here is that there will be the rich and there will be the poor, and the rich will pay their way through for better facilities. I know that's going to ruffle a lot feathers but it has been so throughout history and it will be so in the future too. Altruism is always a responsibility of the next-door neighbour.
Let me take an analogy, any communist v/s capitalist one will do but my favourite is healthcare. So, there should be equal facilities. Hmm.... Why have private hospitals? We all know the really poor cannot afford it. It's the rich who benefit in the end, so abolish all the private hospitals. Let everyone live with the pathetic facilities of public hospitals. In fact, if you are all for equity, stop visiting your general practitioner. Go to a government hospital and meet the non-existent doctor there. Not a very comfortable idea, is it? Even if it were done, you would still find the rich enjoying most of the the doctor's attention. I hope I don't need to specify the reasons. If you still don't get the point let me spell it out. Socialism seeks to achieve equality for all, the rich as well as the poor. What it claims to do is give the facilities available to the rich to everyone. What happens in reality is that it gives everyone only the facilities available to the poor. So instead of making everyone rich, it seeks to make everyone poor. What it achieves in the end is only 'equal distribution of poverty'.
The hidden hand of Adam Smith comes into play everywhere. Lets see how it seeks to equalize demand-supply for education. The answer consists of two words: Coaching Classes. Though they never adverize it like this, I can imagine a Coaching Class ad ' Unsatisfied with the incomplete education you receive? Tired of the ignorant teachers and impractical lectures? Join our classes. Get value for your money.' What classes do is provide what the market wants, and they charge a premium for it. Does it pay? You bet! It's one of the most lucrative businesses presently with the turnover of major classes easily running into crores. Small coaching classes are turning up at every nukkad and chauraha. They also pay better and so attract better faculty. Does it mean I support the concept of coaching classes? No. They make a perversion of education by aiming on marks rather than on knowledge, but then if you depend on the traditional system, it niether gives you marks, nor knowledge. What the coaching classes tell me is that people are ready to pay for better education and that the present system as it stands is inequitable.
In case you love statistics, do this. In your class, find the top ten rankers, and then compare their average family income with the average family income of the class. Find the average income of people lets say a class in an IIM and a JBIMS. Or compare the income levels of the top 200 rankers in any competitive exam with the ranks from the 10000-10,200 (or the middle 200). See the results for yourself. Then think about the equity of the present system.
Also, with time we can have scholarships for the really brilliant without money. More on that in the next question.
2) 'You have no empathy yaar. I mean, at least the poor guy has a chance here. And only money will talk in the private colleges. Utter duds with bulging pockets will get in.'
My answer:
So you feel utter duds with bulging pockets aren't getting in now? Consider this rough transcript of a discussion between a prospective student and an MU engg college. This is true and the intention of the caller was just a simple enquiry.
Caller (C) : 'Hello. Is this XYZ institute of Technology.'
Engg College(EC): ' Yes'
C : 'Can I know when you release the forms for the leftover seats after the government round?'
EC: 'There's no round after the government round. You can come in through the govt. round or the management round.' Pauses. 'There's also another way. You can take a donation seat.'
C : (a bit surprised) 'What's a donation seat??'
EC: 'You will have to a give donation for that seat (duh!) '
C : 'How much?'
EC: 'Come to our office. We can discuss that.'
This was without any influence, any contacts. As the saying goes, '2 number ka dhanda bhi ekdum imaandaari se karte hain'. People who are undergoing the admission process can give you a rate list of the price of a seat in each college. It runs from 3 lakhs to even 10 lakhs. If a college comes up for the sole purpose of earning money, will it not sell seats? Yes it will! But it will not sell all the seats. It cannot for the sole purpose that building a brand name will require talented raw material. In fact, the fees taken from the 'bulging pocket' duds can be used to finance the education of the no-money-but-lots-of-brain guys. So in effect, yes seats will be sold but opportunities will also increase for the brainy guys.
Another thing is the government can continue charging low fees in its own institutions. It can continue its work at its own pace. I am not asking Mumbai University to increase its fees but what I am asking for, is permission for another autonomous university which can come up and work for profits and charge the fees it deems fit. Private and public institutions can co-exist.
3) 'Will people pay for education? Is there a market that is ready to pay a premium ?'
My answer :
People are ready to pay for classes, here and now. Also there are those who pay under the table. ( Refer the previous answers.)
The number of Indian students currently in the US of A is 74,000 and it's increasing year on year exponentially. Most of these guys have some cash in their pocket and are ready to shell it out for better education. Yes, the 'land of opportunity' attraction is there but most of these would agree to study in India if they get similar facilities at 1/8th to 1/10th of the price. Plus there is that lot that can pay 1/8th to 1/10th of the price but not the price for the US. Others might want to study in India and do not opt for the US of A. People are ready to pay if they see returns at the end of the tunnel and good education seems to be the key to a secure future (at least in public perception).
Another fact is, the market as it stands today, has no competition. A student is Mumbai has no options except for Mumbai University. Give people the power of choice. Give people the options and you will find them making intelligent decisions.
So yes, there is a market. There is need to recognize it and tap it.
(An agreeable side effect would be reduced brain drain. It might even enourage brain gain from Africa, Latin America, Middle East. That will give the country more soft power but that it entirely another issue.)
4) 'What about our tradition? The gurus in our ancient times were never mad after money. We are going against our tradition/culture.'
My answer:
Yes we had a great culture some thousands of years ago. No one was supposed to be mad after money at that time. However, times have changed. Having a desire and finding legitimate means to fulfill it is neither illegal nor against tradition. We live in a market-based society and we need to recognize that. If we do not do that, what we get is the present education system. Change is inevitable. Adapt.
5) 'This will only encourage the fly-by-night operators. Thousands of unsuspecting students will me made a dupe of. Whatever, it is, atleast the present system does not play with their careers.'
My answer :
This is where the government should come in. Give a rating to all colleges. Set up an autonomous body with prominent people from the industry for that purpose. Act as a facilitator. Provide people with the information. Even then if someone wants to join that college, its her/his choice.
Again, taking the healthcare analogy, if there are quacks existing in the society, you do not ban private practitioners.
6)' I don't agree with you. What if it does not work?'
My answer :
The present system gives a raw deal to everyone involved. Its forcing charity down the throat of a market. What if it does not work? First of all, I don't think it will not work. If at all it does not work, worse that will happen is that we revert to the present system. Public and private universities can exist side by side and if it does not work, the private universities will shut shop. End of the story.
However, if it does work, imagine the possibilities. Education is one the most important and one the least recognized components of infrastructure that India needs to invest in for a confident future. We might have the world looking to us for educational opportunities. We can attract the best Africans and South Americans like America attracts the best Indians and Chinese today. From brain drain to brain gain. Just think about it.
I think the least we can do is try it out. The present system is not working anyways.
Next:
Education is Business - III contd..
3 comments:
Very Impressive Answers.. to say the least. It sometimes does scare me to realise what exactly such a system would offer a not so brainy, average guy with high ambitions.That, I feel is also an important category that needs to be addressed.
Commercialization would bring in a lot of good things; I doubt if it would also put in the important values and ideologies in the student that our teachers and Professors do, by working in the present, dirty system. Values make a man and I don't think a 3 and a half hour lecture or a crash course which a coaching class arranges would be the right way to go about it.
But as you have said, we could always come back to the old system....Anytime.
Thanks for your comments Varun. I agree with your first point to an extent, but there's a certain amount of disagreement regarding the second point.
My arguments:
1) What this kind of a system runs on is money or brainpower counted in terms of money. So the average guy who has a bit of both will be able to achieve something at the end of it. Market dyanmics will see to that (atleast I hope so...)
2) Talking of values, the kind of environment that exists today doesn't make one exactly value-conscious.The recent ISTE paper presentation competition is a great example. Students were actually encouraged to plagiarize. Again, the whole elective fiasco for Electronics brought to fore the dictatorial politics that is the current status quo. (I have lots of other detailed examples, maybe I will write about those after the 8th semester.) If you are able to pay your way for a seat, copy in class tests or even final exams, fake papers, sign proxy attendances, spend your time trying to go around the system rather than follow it, the only question you learn to ask is 'How can I manipulate the system?' which might be a practical value-addition but isn't great value-building. The coaching class culture is having a negative impact, I agree with you. And the only way to stop this is to provide better education with better career opportunities following the degree.
Again, commercialization will get in better profs. - people who would know their subject, those who love teaching - we have some examples in our college itself. I think you will agree that they are more principled. More such people would certainly help in the ideology and growing up part I believe.
Hope I have been able to put across my ideas.
Also, glad to see that you agree its atleast worth a try.
Well-written!
Post a Comment