ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN INDIA

Rangan Banerjee

Vinayak P. Muley

Sponsored by

Observer Research Foundation

Department of Energy Science and Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

Powai, Mumbai – 400076

December 16, 2008

i

Engineering Education in India Executive Summary India has the potential to be a global technology leader. Indian industry is competing

globally in software and even in areas such an automobiles, chemicals and engineering

equipment. A critical issue for the future success of Indian industry is the growth of

engineering education in India.

Since independence, the initial focus of government policy was to provide the engineers

required for the developing economy. The setting up of the Indian Institutes of Technol-

ogy, the Regional Engineering colleges (and their subsequent conversion to the National

Institutes of Technology) were targeted at achieving this. Indian engineers established their

reputation for engineering and design skills. Engineering in India is preferred option for

bright students at the 10+2 level. This has resulted in a spurt in engineering colleges

primarily in the private sector. Despite this, industry leaders complain about the absence of

quality engineers for their industry. This is accompanied by significant unemployment rates

amongst graduating engineers.

There is a dearth of publicly available data on India’s engineering education system. We

document the trend in the student intake, number of engineering graduates, post-graduates

and Ph.Ds. In order to obtain these we used assumptions of Output / Sanctioned strength

ratios and their trends. It is seen that is a regional disparity in engineering degrees with

Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka having the highest number of engineering

graduates per population. India awarded about 2.3 lakhs engineering degrees, 20000

engineering masters degrees and about 1000 engineering Ph.Ds in 2006. India’s doctorate

degrees are less than 1% of graduate engineering degrees. The percentages of doctorate

degrees to engineering degrees is much higher for most of the other countries studied (9%

USA, 10% UK, 8% Germany, 3% Korea).

A comparison of a few select Indian institutions – an Indian Institute of Technology, a

National Institute of Technology and a private engineering college reveals some interesting

results. An international comparison shows that most Indian institutions have not effec-

tively evolved from under-graduate teaching institutions to teaching and research

institutions. One of the biggest advantages of the top engineering colleges in India is the

high selectivity – approximately 2-3% of the applicants are selected. This is much lower

ii

than reputed international universities. However the engineering education system has

been unable to attract the best engineering students towards post-graduate studies. The

IITs and IISc contribute to less than 1% of the engineering graduates in the country, 20%

of the M.Techs and 40% of the Ph.Ds. Only about 1% (or less) of the graduating B.Tech

class of an IIT opt for an M.Tech in India, while only 2% of the graduating M Tech class

opt for Ph.D in India. About 75% of the engineering graduates are taught at the private

engineering colleges.

There are more than 1,100 private engineering colleges. However a ranking of the top fifty

engineering colleges reveals only a small percentage of private colleges. More than 90% of

the private engineering colleges are affiliated colleges that have little academic autonomy.

The existing administrative structure and nature of private colleges results in very little

financial autonomy with regulated fees and salaries accounting for 80% of the budget.

A comparison of the Indian engineering colleges with some of the leading institutions of

the world shows that it is possible for institutions to have student to faculty ratio of 15:1 or

more and yet maintain a significant research output. In the report peer reviewed journal

publications per faculty and UG engineering degrees per faculty are used as indicators of

the research and teaching output of institutions. Most Indian institutions are improving

their research output but are below the norms attained by some of the best international

institutions. The challenge for our engineering education system is to make the transition

from primarily teaching institutions to teaching and research institutions.

We developed a normative scenario that increases the output of quality engineering

graduates from Tier 1 (IITs, IISc) and Tier 2 (NITs) institutions and increases the engi-

neering Ph.D. output to 10,000 per year. This would involve the launch of a National

Ph.D. initiative. A series of initiatives are required to attract our brightest students to

pursue research. This would need partnerships and commitment from industries, strength-

ening existing Ph.D. programmes and research facilities and facilitating quality jobs for the

doctoral students. One of the biggest constraints for the development of engineering

education in the country is the shortage of quality faculty. This is linked to the issue of less

number of Ph.Ds, salaries and incentives for engineering educators. Steps to address this

must consider incentivising performance, enhanced societal and industry linkages and a

periodic review mechanism.

There is a need for the industry, government and academia to formulate a strategy for

engineering and science education in India. We need to have a mechanism to identify

iii

important areas and disciplines that should grow and develop policies and institutions that

facilitate this. There needs to be a high-level think tank that reviews the higher engineering

and science education system in India and provides direction for future growth. It is

important to understand the actual trends in numbers, placements, salaries, employability,

research output and compare and benchmark performance with other institutions. An

understanding of the reality should form the basis of policy changes that ensure that the

engineering education system meets the changing needs of the industry and society.

iv

Preface

The engineering course in India is one of the preferred choices for students who have

scored high at the 10+2 level. The competition for the top institutions is intense with

students spending a lot of time and money in coaching classes to get the added edge at

the competitive entrance tests. This increasing demand for engineering has resulted in a

mushrooming of a large number of engineering colleges in the country. Despite this, the

industry complains of an absence of trained quality engineers.

When approached by the Observer Research Foundation to examine engineering

education in India, we felt that this may be an interesting and useful exercise. We did

not anticipate the difficulty in obtaining and reconciling data. We have built up data

from primary and secondary sources and have focussed on a few sample engineering

colleges to understand the trends.

We have drawn up a list of conclusions and policy recommendations and developed a

set of alternative future scenarios for this field of studies..

We believe that there is a need for strategic policy interventions and industry-

government-academia interactions to strengthen engineering education in the country.

We hope that this report will initiate debate and discussion and help catalyse changes

that benefit engineering education in India.

v

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Observer Research Foundation for initiating this project. Shri. R. K. Mishra’s (Chairman, ORF) belief in the power of ideas and the need for a strategy for Indian higher technical education convinced us to take up this study. Prof. A. P. Kudchad-kar’s support, at every stage of this project, was invaluable to us. Mr. Vivek Sengupta, Mr. Dhaval Desai, Prof. Rakesh Basant, R. Swaminathan and several others at ORF helped us whenever needed.

We are fortunate to have received co-operation and help from several people and institu-tions in obtaining data / reports. We are grateful to them for their support: IIT Bombay: Dean R&D, Dean Planning, Dean Faculty, Dean RM, Dean Academic Programme, Registrar, Librarian, Chairman-GATE, Chairman-JEE and office staff, Prof. C. Amarnath, Prof. Subhash Babu, Prof. Moharir, Dr. Krishna Lala, Mr. M. K. Patil, Mrs. J. Swami, Mr. Punalkar, Mr. V. Arumugam, Mr. Joglekar, Mr. Gundala Ramarao, Mr. Sushant Sharma, Mr. Rohan Pradhan , Mr. Amol Gawale, Mr. Ajay More, Mr. M. Prakash, Mr. Sarag S.

Others: Dean Academic Programme - IIT Madras, IIT Delhi, IIT Kanpur, IIT Kharagpur, IIT Guwahati, IIT Roorkee. Dean (R&D) - IIT Madras, IIT Kanpur, IIT Delhi. Registrar - IISc Bangalore, IIT Guwahati, IIT Rourkee, IIT Kanpur, IIT Madras and Librarian - IISc Bangalore. Directors and Registrars - SVNIT, NIT Durgapur, NIT Hamirpur, NIT Rourkela and NIT Warangal, VJTI Mumbai, Thapar University, DAIICT Gandhinagar, MIT Manipal. Institute of Applied Manpower Research- Dr. Prasad and NTMIS staff DST - Dr. Rajeev Tayal and staff of NSTMIS AICTE - Dr. Damodhar Acharya, Prof. Rajneesh Srivastava.

We have also benefited immensely from discussions, ideas and feedback from several people on an interim draft:

Prof. J. Vasi, Prof. S. P. Sukhatme, Prof. U.N. Gaitonde, Prof. K. Sudhakar, Prof. P. P. Parikh, Prof. H. Narayanan, Prof. K. P. Madhavan and several others at IIT Bombay.

Prof. Kirit Parikh (Planning Commission), Prof. M. A. Pai (UIUC), Dr. Vivek Wadhwa (Duke University), Dr. Naushad Forbes (Forbes Marshall), Mr. K. Subrahmanya (Tata BP Solar), Mr. K. B. Pande (Thermax), Dr. Pramod Solanki (L & T), Dr. R. Bandyopadhyay (CASAD), Mr Ranjan Banerjee, Dr. D. K. Ghosh, Prof. R. Natarajan.

We have been encouraged by the responses received in the workshops organised by ORF at Mumbai for industry on May 31, 2008 and at Delhi for policy makers and academics on August 21, 2008. The keynote address provided by Dr. R. Chidambaram at the Mumbai workshop provided us useful insights.

We are indebted to Mr. Balkrishna Surve for putting in special efforts to format and edit the final version of the report.

Rangan Banerjee

Vinayak P. Muley

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do notrepresent the views of IIT Bombay or of the Observer Research Foundation.

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page No.

1 Analysis of Indian Trends 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Review of past reports 1

1.3 Framework for Analysis 4

1.4 Engineering Graduates 6

1.5 Postgraduate Output 14

1.6 Doctorates 17

1.7 Discipline wise Growth in Sanctioned Intake 19

1.8 Regional Distribution 21

1.9 Women Engineers in India 26

1.10 International Comparisons 26

1.11 Summary and Conclusions 32

2 Analysis of IITs and IISc 33

2.1 Case Study of IIT Bombay 34

2.1.1 Student output 34

2.1.2 Campus Placement 38

2.1.3 Faculty 42

2.1.4 Faculty Output 45

2.1.5 Administration 50

2.1.6 Space 51

2.1.7 Government Grants 52

2.1.8 Enthusing the engineering students 55

2.2 Outputs of the IITs 57

2.2.1 Graduates 57

2.2.2 Post graduates 58

2.2.3 Ph.D. Output 59

2.3 Selection Process 61

2.4 Grants Received and Publications 63

2.5 Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 65

2.6 Summary 68

vii

3 National Institutes of Technology and 69

Private Engineering Colleges

3.1 Introduction 69

3.2 Case Study of SVNIT, Surat 70

3.2.1 Student output 70

3.2.2 Enrolment 72

3.2.3 Campus Placement 73

3.2.4 Faculty 74

3.3 Summary of other NITs 75

3.3.1 Admissions to NITs 75

3.3.2 Outputs of other NITs 76

3.4 Other Government Engineering Colleges 77

3.4.1 College of Engineering Pune (COEP) 77

3.4.2 Veermata Jijabai Technology Institute (VJTI) 79

3.5 Private Engineering Colleges 82

3.5.1 Case Study of Manipal Institute of Technology 82

3.5.1.1 Student output 82

3.5.1.2 Enrolment 84

3.5.1.3 Campus Placement 85

3.5.1.4 Faculty 85

3.5.1.5 Admission 86

3.5.2 Thapar University Patiala 87

3.5.3 Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information 90

and Communication Technology

3.6 Other Private Engineering Colleges 91

3.7 Summary and International comparisons 91

4 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations 95

4.1 Scenarios for Engineering Student Degrees 95

4.1.1 Business as Usual Scenarios 95

4.1.2 Normative Scenario 98

4.2 Achieving the Normative Scenario 99

4.3 National Engineering Ph.D Initiative 100

viii

4.4 Faculty Issues 103

4.4.1 Attracting Quality Faculty 103

4.4.2 Faculty Numbers 104

4.4.3 Incentivising Performance 106

4.4.4 National Engineering Faculty Initiative 106

4.5 Strengthening Masters Programmes 107

4.6 Industry Linkages 108

4.7 Strengthening Science Departments 108

4.8 Curriculum Reform 109

4.9 Societal Linkages 109

4.10 Periodic Review Mechanism 110

4.11 Faculty Quality Improvement 110

4.12 Continuing Education / Skill Up gradation of 111

Existing engineers in economy

4.13 Engineering Database 111

4.14 Journals, Conferences and Academic Press 112

4.15 Engineering Schools in Quality Universities 112

4.16 Administrative Structure 112

4.17 Strategy and Vision 112

References 114

Bibliography 117

Appendices 119

ix

List of Figures

Figure No. Title Page No.

1.1 Time Line of Indian Engineering Education 2 1.2 Schematic of Inputs and Outputs for Engineering Education 5 1.3 Growth of Sanctioned Intake of Graduates 1947-2007-8 9 1.4 Total Output of Engineering Graduates 1947-2006 10 1.5 Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees per Million Population for US 10 1.6 Engineering graduates per Million Population in India 11 1.7 Growth of Degree Institutions 1950-2007 12 1.8 Average Sanctioned Intake per Institute 1950-2006 12 1.9 Population and GDP Growth for India during 1947-2006 13 1.10 Engineers per Million Population to Real GDP per capita 14 1.11 Masters Output from 1947-2006 15 1.12 Percentage of Masters Output to Graduate Engineers output 16 1.13 Engineering Doctorate Degrees Awarded in India 17 1.14 Percentage of Ph.D. Output to Graduate Engineers Output 18 1.15 Science Doctorate Degrees Awarded in India 18 1.16 Discipline wise Breakup of Sanctioned Intake for Engineering 20

Bachelors in India in 2001 1.17 Discipline wise Breakup of Bachelors Degrees Awarded in the US in 2006 21 1.18 Region wise Distribution of Sanctioned Intake (2007)[5] 24 1.19 State wise Sanctioned Intake per million Population and 25

Number of Institutions 1.20 Growth Rate of Graduate Engineers for Different Countries 27 1.21 Engineers per Million Population for different countries 28 1.22 Growth Rate of Graduate Engineers for Different Countries 28 (2004 or the most recent year) 1.23 Engineering Doctorates for Different Countries 29 2.1 Total IIT Bombay’s Student Output 1962-2006 34 2.2 IIT Bombay’s Graduate Students Output 1962-2006 35 2.3 M.Tech degrees awarded 1962 to 2006 36 2.4 Science and Engineering Ph. D. output 36 2.5 Percentage of Engineering PhDs to the Graduate Engineers Output 37 2.6 Ratio of Engineering postgraduates (M Tech and PhD) to 37

total engineering Degrees (B Tech, M Tech and PhD) 2.7 Number of Faculty 1974-2006 42 2.8 Student-Faculty ratios 1991-2006 43 2.9 Undergraduate Student-Faculty ratios for USA 43

x

2.10 Distribution of Faculty according to place of Ph D 45 2.11 Number of Publications 1996-2006 46 2.12 Number of Patent Applications filed 1990-2006 46 2.13 Number of Journal Publications per Faculty 1997-2006 47 2.14 Funding for Sponsored and Consultancy Projects 1988-2006 48 2.15 Total Amount of Sponsored & Consultancy Projects Per Faculty 48

(in constant 2006 Rupees) 2.16 Continuing Education Programme (Courses and Participants) 49 2.17 Number of M Tech Admissions through QIP 49 2.18 Number of Ph D Admissions through QIP 50 2.19 Ratio of Staff to Faculty 51 2.20 Academic area to students enrolled 52 2.21 Government Grants received 53 2.22 Government Grants received per Student (in constant 2006 Rs.) 53 2.23 Annual tuition fees 54 2.24 Funding and Number of Student participants in Techfest 56 2.25 Graduate students output 1955-2006 57 2.26 Share of IITs in National Graduate Output 1954-2006 58 2.27 Postgraduate students output of IITs 1985 to 2006 58 2.28 Share of IITs in National Postgraduate Output 1985-2006 59 2.29 Ph D output of IITs 1974 to 2006 59 2.30 Share of IITs in National Engineering PhD Output 1974-2005 60 2.31 Ratio of engineering postgraduates (M.Tech and PhD) to total 60

engineering Degrees (B.Tech, M.Tech and PhD) 2.32 Percentage of Seats to Registered Applicants for JEE 62 2.33 Trend in number of candidates for GATE 63 2.34 Grants Received for all IITs 63 2.35 Total Publications for all IITs 64 2.36 Number of publications 66 2.37 Government grant received for IISc 67 3.1 Share of engineering colleges based on intake (2006) 69 3.2 Graduate students output 1985-2006 71 3.3 Masters Degrees awarded 1985 to 2006 71 3.4 Total Engineering Degrees Awarded 72 3.5 Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for B. Tech 72 3.6 Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for M. Tech/ME 73 3.7 Number of Faculty 2001-2006 74 3.8 M.Tech and B.Tech output of NIT Warangal 76 3.9 Graduate Degrees Awarded by VJTI 1985-2006 80 3.10 Masters Degrees awarded by VJTI 1985 to 2004 80 3.11 Total Engineering Degrees Awarded by VJTI 81

xi

3.12 Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for B. E. 81 3.13 Graduate Degrees Awarded 2002-2006 83 3.14 Masters Degrees Awarded 2000 to 2006 83 3.15 Total Engineering degrees awarded 84 3.16 Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for B. Tech 84 3.17 Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for M Tech/ME 84 3.18 Number of Faculty 2001-2006 85 3.19 B.E./B Tech Student Output from 1990-2006 87 3.20 M Tech Student Output from 1990-2006 88 3.21 B.E./B Tech Student Sanctioned Intake and 88

Enrolment from 1990-2006 3.22 Publications and UG student output for select institutions 94

xii

List of Tables

Tables Title Page No.

1.1 Summary of Major Committees and Recommendations 3

1.2 Number of Institutions and Intake Approved 2007-8 7

1.3 Calculated E/S Ratio for Graduates 1991-2004 from ATMRs 8

1.4 Calculated O/S Ratio for Graduates 1992-2004 from ATMRs 8

1.5 Out-turn of Postgraduate Students 16

1.5a: 1995 AICTE Survey

1.5b: Shrivastava, 1996

1.6 Discipline wise Growth in Sanctioned Intake in India 19

1.7 Discipline wise Growth in the Bachelors Degrees Awarded in the US 20

1.8 Region wise Distribution of Sanctioned Intake and 22

Number of Engineering Institutions (NOI)

1.9 State wise Number of Institutions and Sanctioned Intake 23 per Million Population (2007)

1.10 Percentage of Engineering PhDs to Bachelors Engineering Degrees 29 1.11 U.S. Science and Engineering Doctorates from Asian Countries 30 1.12 International Comparison of Academic Output 31 1.13 Comparison of Growth Rates of Academic Output 32 2.1 Students on roll at IIT Bombay 1991 to 2006 35 2.2 Students Output at IIT Bombay 1991 to 2006 38 2.3 Department-wise details of number of students pursuing 39

MS/MS+PhD/PhD (Batch passing out in 2007) 2.4 Break-up of Job offers for 2006-7 39 2.5 Sector wise percentage placement 40 2.6 Programme and Sector wise Average Salaries for 2005-2006 40 2.7 Programme wise Placement at IIT Bombay for last Five Years 41 2.8 Average starting salaries for a few US universities 41 2.9 Faculty Salaries for 2006-2007 for IIT Bombay 44

2.10 Ratio of Professor to Assistant Professor Salary for 45

US Universities in 2005-06

2.11 Students Admitted under QIP for 2005-06 50

2.12 Annual Receipts and Payments for IIT Bombay for 2005-6 54

2.13 Statistics on Techfest 55

xiii

2.14 Ratio of Postgraduates to Total Engineering Degrees 61

2.15 Degrees Awarded from 1993-2005 65

2.16 Strength of Teaching Staff and Support Staff 65

2.17 Students Enrolled and Student Faculty Ratio 66

2.18 Research Funding from Sponsored and Consultancy Projects 67

2.19 Annual Receipts and Payments for IISc Bangalore 67

3.1 Programme wise percentage placement 73

3.2 Programme wise Average Salaries 73

3.3 Sector wise Placement 74

3.4 Total Students on roll and Student-Faculty ratio from 2001-6 74

3.5 Distribution of sanctioned intake among all NITs 75

3.6 Student Output and Number of Faculty for five NITs 76

3.7 Sanctioned Intake, Enrolment and Output for B.Tech Programmes 78

3.8 Sanctioned Intake, Enrolment for M.Tech Programmes 78

3.9 Year wise and Programme wise Percentage Placement 78

3.10 Year wise and Programme wise Percentage Average Salary per Year 78

3.11 Sanctioned Intake and Enrolment for B.Tech 79

3.12 Programme wise Salary Details 82

3.13 Percentage Placement for B Tech 85

3.14 Programme wise Average Salaries 85

3.15 Student Faculty ratio for MIT, Manipal 86

3.16 Programme wise Annual Fees 86

3.17 Year wise Grants Received (Rs. in Lakhs) 86

3.18 Programme wise Percentage Growth Rates 89

3.19 Student Placement Percentages 89

3.20 Enrolment and Output of B.Tech and M.Tech in DAIICT 90

3.21 Comparison of Indian Engineering Institutions 92

with select International Universities

4.1 Annual Growth rates for different programmes 95

4.2 Results of Scenario BAU 96

4.3a Annual Growth rates for different programmes in IITs and IISc 96

4.3b Annual Growth rates for different programmes in NITs 96

4.4 Results of Scenario BAU for IITs and IISc 97

4.5 Share of IITs and IISc in BAU scenario 97

xiv

4.6 Results of Scenario BAU for NITs 97

4.7 Share of NITs under BAU Scenario 98

4.8 Results of Normative Scenario 98

4.9 Starting salary for engineering graduates and after 20 years 103

4.10 Total Faculty numbers BAU Scenario 105

4.11 Additional faculty requirement under BAU Scenario 105

4.12 Faculty numbers for normative scenario in 2017 106

1

Chapter 1 Analysis of Indian Trends

1.1 Introduction India has the potential to be a global technology leader. The Indian economy has been

growing at the rate of 9% per year. The Indian industry has also become globally competi-

tive in several sectors and can increase its global market share. A critical factor in this will

be the success of the technical education system in India. The objective of this study is to

review the higher engineering education system in India.

The review examines time series trends in engineering education in India and highlights

issues and policy recommendations. A major effort in this study has been in compiling data

on engineering education in India from various primary and secondary sources. Conclu-

sions are drawn from the data for engineering education. First, we present a summary of

past reports and analysis of India’s engineering education.

1.2 Review of past reports

Engineering education in India started during the British era and focused mainly on civil

engineering. A brief history of engineering education in India is available in the Rao

Committee report [1] and the Ministry of Human Resource Development website [2]. The

College of Engineering, Guindy, Madras (Started as a Survey School in 1794), Engineering

College at Roorkee (1847), Poona Civil Engineering College at Pune (1854), Bengal

Engineering College at Shibpur (1856), Banaras Hindu University (1916), Visvesvaraya

College of Engineering (1917) and Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur (1920).

In 1945 the Sarkar Committee [3] was appointed to suggest options for advanced technical

education in India. The Sarkar committee recommended the establishment of higher

technical institutes based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the four regions

of India. This resulted in the setting up of the five Indian Institutes of Technology at

Kharagpur (1950), Bombay (1958), Kanpur (1959), Madras (1960) and Delhi (1961) (Delhi

was added on to the original four). The All India Council for Technical Education was set

up in 1945, to oversee all technical education (diploma, degree and post-graduate) in the

country.

2

Figure 1.1 provides a timeline showing the establishment of some of the major engineering institutions in the country. There have been several official committees set up to review and revitalise engineering education in the country.

Indian Engineering Education Developments

IISc Bangalore(1909)

NIT Warangal(1959)

IIT Roorkee(2001)IIT Guwahati (1994)

IIT Delhi (1961)

IIT Kanpur (1959)IIT Bombay(1958)

Woman Students Permitted First Time

IIT Kharagpur(1950)

Industrial Schools-50

The Madras Survey School (1794)

Hindu College Bengal (1817)

Elphinstone Institution Bombay (1844)

Saharanpur School (1845)

Roorkee Engg College (1848)

Universities at Bombay,Calcutta,Madras

Poona Civil Engg College

VJTI

Engg Colleges-4 Survey & Technical Inst-20

IIT Madras (1960)

1790 1810 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

6 New IITs Started(2008)

Figure 1.1: Time Line of Indian Engineering Education [1]

Table 1.1 provides a listing of some of the major committees and their recommendations. There has been a significant increase in the number of engineering institutions and in student output. Engineering is a preferred career choice for a large number of students at the 10 + 2 level in India. Many of the reputed engineering colleges (IITs and NITs) are highly selective in their admission process with the number of available seats being only 1-2% of the number applying. A large number of private engineering colleges have been set up. Though there is a mechanism for accreditation (National Board of Accreditation) and an umbrella agency, the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) set up to monitor and control engineering education, the quality of engineering education in many institutions is suspect.

Has the engineering education system been able to provide the engineers required for the growth of the Indian economy? Has the engineering education system provided the research and development leadership required for our industry? In the context of globalisa-tion, is there a need to modify the higher engineering education system in India? There are no clear-cut answers to these questions. It is clear that since Independence, India has produced a large number of competent, qualified engineers who have contributed to the success of many Indian companies and industries. A large number of our engineering graduates have also made an impact in the corporate world internationally. Despite these positive outcomes, a critical analysis of trends is required before we can attempt to make any recommendations for the future.

3

Table 1.1: Summary of Major Committees and Recommendations

Committee Title Year Recommendations

Sarkar

Committee

Higher Technical Institu-

tions for the Post-war

Industrial Development

1945 Setting up of Indian Institutes of

Technology

Thacker

Committee

Postgraduate Engineering

Education and Research 1959-1961

Funding for 100 PhDs annually

Nayudamma

Committee

Postgraduate Education in

Engineering & Technology 1979-1980

PG minimum qualifications for

industry, R&D, etc…

Nayudamma

Committee IIT Review 1986

Greater flexibility in Academic pro-

gramme, Focus on engineering

research, Faculty mobility

P. Rama Rao

committee

Reshaping Postgraduate

Education in Engineering

& Technology

1995

21 months M.Tech, Increased scholar-

ship amount, Assured employment for

M.Techs, National Doctoral Pro-

gramme

R.A. Mashelkar

Committee

Strategic Road Map for

Academic Excellence of

Future RECs

1998

Conversion of RECs into NITs with

the status of a Deemed to be

University and structural changes in

governance

U. R. Rao

Committee

Revitalising the Technical

Education 2003

Regional inequity to be removed,

Faculty shortage to be addressed, Need

for planning and coordination in the

working of AICTE

P. Rama Rao

Committee IIT Review 2004

Increase UG output of IITs, Fund

infrastructure increase, Add new IITs

but maintain quality

4

1.3 Framework for Analysis

How do we assess the engineering education system in India? Unlike a broad-based

education in the arts or the sciences, the engineering education system is designed to train

engineers for the engineering profession. Hence it has to meet the challenges and needs for

engineers in the economy. As the nature of technology and industry changes, the education

system needs to be responsive and adapt to the changing demands. There is a need for

engineering educators to be conversant with existing practices in industry while also acting

as agents to bring in innovation and improvements.

Initially the focus of the engineering education system in India was to produce engineering

graduates to implement operate and manage the growing industry that mainly relied on

imported technology. Subsequently as the economy grew, there emerged a need for

technology development and then for research and development. The engineering institu-

tions that were primarily set up for undergraduate teaching started emphasising research

and evolved Masters and doctoral programmes.

We analyse the data for the entire country and compare with other countries. This analysis

focusses mainly on the numbers. Figure 1.2 shows the inputs and outputs for engineering

education. A direct indication of the growth in engineering education is the number and

quality of graduates and post-graduates. A proxy for quality would be the employability,

salary and feedback from industry and society. In the following chapters we focus on some

sample engineering institutions to understand the trends, outputs and quality indicators.

The focus in this chapter is on the aggregate national trends in the output.

5

Figure 1.2: Schematic of Inputs and Outputs for Engineering Education

The trend in the actual numbers graduating should be relatively easy to quantify. However

we found that this is not available for India. We have three variables – sanctioned intake

(S), the enrolment (E) and the Output or Out-turn (O). These are defined as follows:

(a) Sanctioned Intake - The AICTE approves the sanctioned intake of different engi-

neering colleges in each state. This is for a given year. The U R Rao [1] committee

report provides data on sanctioned intake for 1990-2003.

(b) Enrolment - The actual number enrolled (joining the course) may differ from the

sanctioned strength. In many institutions all seats may not be filled. Enrolment

data is available for some years for some of the states in the Annual Technical

Manpower Reviews (ATMRs) [4]

(c) Outturn / Output - The numbers that graduate each year. This is not reported on

an all India basis. In some of the state reports (ATMRs) the annual output is re-

ported for a few years.

Graduates (B.Tech/B.E.) Post Graduates PhDs

Publications Journals Books Patents

Education

ResearchTechnology

Outputs Engineering

Education

Society

Linkage

Linkage

Industry

Students

Faculty

Infrastructure Equipment Building Space

Money/Funds

Inputs

6

1.4 Engineering Graduates

Table 1.2 shows the sanctioned intake break-up for 2007-2008 as per AICTE [5]. This does

not include the IITs. If these are included the total number of sanctioned seats for UG

engineering education in India is about 6, 57,500. This includes the sanctioned intake of

720 in the six new IITs (IIT Gandhinagar, IIT Punjab, IIT Patna, IIT Rajasthan, IIT

Bhubaneswar, IIT Hyderabad).

Since the data on sanctioned strength (S), enrolment (E), outputs (O) are available from

different sources for different years; we attempted to correlate the parameters. It is ex-

pected that the output will be a fraction of the number admitted four years earlier (since

the B.E. course is of four years duration). Hence we define a ratio (O/S) as the output in

the tth year O (t) to the sanctioned strength when that batch was admitted S (t-4)

)4()(

−=

tStO

SO

Where O (t) - output of tth Year

S (t-4) - sanctioned intake of (t-4) th Year

Since it is easiest to get the sanctioned strength data we use this as the basis to compute the

output. Data on enrolment is relatively scarce. The ratio of the enrolment to sanctioned

strength is (E/S) shown in table 1.3. The weighted average of E/S is about 0.9. There

seems to be some fluctuation/uncertainty in the E/S ratios. Appendix-I shows the trend in

sanctioned strength, enrolment and output for Delhi and Haryana. Though there is some

uncertainty in the data, it seems that there is a reduction in the E/S ratio where there have

been rapid increases in sanctioned strength in the few years. However for instance the

growth in sanctioned strength for Maharashtra for last four years is about 1.2 % per year

and the average E/S for 2005-06 is about 0.9. The E/S ratio is maintained above 0.9 where

the growth in sanctioned strength is low. The table for Maharashtra is shown in Appen-

dix-II

Table 1.4 shows the ratios of )4(

)(−tStO for different states. The O/S ratio is expected to

vary over the years due to failure rates. Hence we average out the data. Also the data does not show any discernible trend or change in this ratio. The weighted average of the avail-able data for the different states and over the different time periods provided an O/S ratio of 0.8. We used this to compute the output (wherever it was not known)

)4(8.0)( −= TSTO

7

Table 1.2: Number of Institutions and Intake Approved for 2007-8 (as on 31-8-2007)

Engineering Degree

Region State Number of Institutions

Sanctioned Intake

Average Intake per Institute

Madhya Pradesh 104 41747 401 Chhatisgarh 17 7006 412

Central Gujarat 45 17408 387 Mizoram 0 0 0 Sikkim 1 465 465 Orissa 53 17817 336 West Bengal 55 16968 309 Tripura 2 490 245 Meghalaya 1 240 240 Arunachal Pradesh 1 210 210 Andaman & Nicobar 0 0 0 Assam 4 870 218 Manipur 1 115 115 Nagaland 0 0 0

Eastern Jharkhand 10 3438 344 Bihar 6 1690 282 Uttar Pradesh 136 51775 381

Northern Uttaranchal 13 4523 348 Chandigarh 5 788 158 Haryana 62 22750 367 Jammu & Kashmir 6 1401 234 New Delhi 18 6943 386 Punjab 48 18879 393 Rajasthan 59 20683 351 North-

West Himachal Pradesh 8 1807 226 Andhra Pradesh 319 130669 410 Pondicherry 6 2670 445

Southern Tamil Nadu 268 123232 460 Karnataka 141 62149 441 South-

West Kerala 93 29790 320 Maharashtra 183 65958 360 Goa 3 809 270

Western Daman & Diu, Dadar,N.H. 0 0 0

Grand Total 1668 653290 392

(Source: AICTE: Handbook for Approval Process [6])

8

Table 1.3: Calculated E/S Ratio for Graduates 1991-2004 from ATMRs [4]

State 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Karnataka - - - - - - - - - - - 0.86 - -

Tamilnadu - - - - - - - - - - 0.82 0.89 - -

Maharashtra - - - - - - - - 1.05 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.96

Delhi - - - - 1.12 1.09 1.11 1.14 0.89 0.82 1.08 0.70 0.84 0.87

West Bengal - - 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.91 - -

Himachal Pradesh - - - - - - 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.94 0.87 0.80 0.93 0.89

Haryana - - - - 1.02 1.01 0.79 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.65 0.72 0.82 0.79

Assam - - - - - - 1.05 - - - 0.91 - - -

Rajasthan - - - - - - - - - 0.95 0.99 0.97 - -

Arunachal Pradesh 0.94 - - - 0.56 0.70 0.73 0.85 0.71 0.80 0.70 1.02 1.00 -

Manipur - - - - - - - - 0.76 1.00 0.44 0.57 - -

Tripura 1.03 - - - 1.00 1.00 1.15 1.00 0.87 1.06 1.05 1.00 0.87 -

Table 1.4: Calculated O/S Ratio for Graduates 1992-2004 from ATMRs [4]

State 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Karnataka - - - - - - 0.63 0.61 0.62 0.6 0.59 0.56 - Tamilnadu - - - 0.76 0.86 0.74 0.69 0.72 0.73 0.7 0.75 0.77 - Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - 1.11 - Andhra Pradesh - - - - - - - 0.97 0.94 0.93 0.75 - - Kerala 0.84 0.82 0.78 0.9 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.81 0.75 Delhi - - - - - - - 0.94 0.9 0.82 0.74 0.64 0.57West Bengal - - - - - 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.06 0.88 - - Himachal Pradesh

- - - - - - - - - 0.66 0.82 0.78 0.61

Chandigarh - - - - - - - - 0.85 0.75 0.83 0.8 - Orissa - - - - - - - - - - - 0.89 0.98Haryana - - - - - - - 1.09 1.2 0.53 0.83 0.37 0.32Assam - - - - - - - - - 0.74 - - - Gujarat - - - - - - - - - - - 1.03 -

9

Figure 1.3 shows the variation of sanctioned intake strength for B.E. / B.Tech in India

from 1947 to 2007. The sanctioned intake has increased from 2500 in 1947 to 6.53 lakhs in

2007. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the period 1947 to 2007 is 9.7%. In

the last ten years 1997-2007 the sanctioned strength grew from 1.15 lakhs to 6.53 lakhs

(CAGR of 19% per year).

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

70000019

47

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Year

San

ctio

ned

In

take

Figure 1.3: Growth of Sanctioned Intake of Graduates 1947-2007-8

The number of Bachelors degrees in engineering (B.Tech, B.E.) graduating every year is

computed using the O/S ratio based on the sanctioned intake and is shown in figure 1.4.

The number has increased from 270 in 1947 to 2.37 lakhs in 2006 (corresponding to a

compound annual growth rate of 12%). We expect the total number of engineers required

in an economy to be related to the population. We compare the growth in India’s engineer-

ing degrees with the trend in Bachelors degrees in engineering in the U.S. per million

population [7]. This is shown in figure 1.5. The U.S. trend shows a cyclic pattern. The

present value is around 250. (Maximum of 350 during late 1940s – post World War II and

mid 1980s of 325). In India the number of engineers per million populations increased

from about 1 in 1947 to 213 in 2006 and is given in figure 1.6. If we use the same O/S

ratio we obtain an estimate of 2.9 lakh engineering graduates in 2007 and 3.5 lakh engineer-

ing graduates in 2008.

10

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1947 1958 1968 1978 1986 1994 1998 2002 2006Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 1.4: Total Output of Engineering Graduates 1947-2006

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995Academic Year

Figure 1.5: Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees per Million Population for US [7]

11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1951 1956 1960 1966 1970 1975 1979 1985 1987 1989 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Year

En

gin

eers

Per

mill

ion

Pop

ula

tion

Figure 1.6: Engineering Graduates per Million Population in India

The number of degree granting institutions in India increased from 50 in 1950 to 1668 in

2007 (CAGR of 6.2%). Figure 1.7 shows the variation in the number of engineering degree

granting institutions in India with time. The average sanctioned intake per institute in-

creased from 74 in 1950 to 392 in 2007 (CAGR of 3% per year). Figure 1.8 shows this

trend. An examination of the trend indicates a change in the trend from 1995, with a larger

number of degree granting institutions being set up. The growth in sanctioned intake from

1995-2007 corresponds to a CAGR of 17.9% per year. The bulk of this increase has been

achieved by setting up of new institutions (CAGR of new institutions during this period is

13.2%). The average sanctioned intake per institute increased from 242 to 392 (CAGR of

3.3%). This has implications for quality since 1197 [1] new degree-granting institutions

have been set up in the last ten years.

12

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f In

stit

uti

ons

Figure 1.7: Growth of Degree Institutions 1950-2007 [1]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year

Ave

rage

San

ctio

ned

In

take

Figure 1.8: Average Sanctioned Intake per Institute 1950-2006

How many engineering graduates does India need?

If supply and demand for engineering graduates is to be balanced, it is expected that the number of engineering graduates required would depend on the growth of the economy and the population. Figure 1.9 shows the population and real gross domestic product (in constant 2006 prices) trend for India during 1947-2006. [8]

13

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1951

1958

1966

1974

1979

1986

1989

1996

1999

2002

2005

Year

Val

ues

GDP in Thousand Crores

Population in Million

Figure 1.9: Population and GDP Growth for India during 1947-2006 [8]

We attempt to correlate the number of engineering graduates with the population and the GDP. A plot of the number of engineering graduates (E) per million population to the real GDP per capita is shown in figure 1.10 and reveals a linear trend. The best fit equation obtained is:

E/Pop = A+ B GDP/Pop

Where A= -51.034 and B= 0.081

The table of t and F statistics is shown in Appendix-III.

The R2 value obtained is 89% and the model is not rejected based on the t and F statistics.

This model can be used to make future estimates for engineering graduates from India.

There seems to be a deviation from this trend in the last few years. Appendix-IV shows the

partitioning of the data into two parts and fitting of two different trends. It is felt that there

is an artificial increase (greater than the actual demand for engineers). This is likely to show

up in a number of sanctioned seats remaining vacant. The ratio of E/S is likely to decrease.

This may also reflect in larger unemployment rates for engineering graduates.

14

y = 0.0812x - 51.034R2 = 0.895

0

50

100

150

200

250

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

GDP/Population

Eng

inee

rs P

er M

illio

n P

opul

atio

n

Figure 1.10: Engineers per Million Population to Real GDP per capita

1.5 Postgraduate Output The post-graduate degrees commonly offered in engineering in India are the Master of

Technology (M.Tech) and the Master of Engineering (M.E) (both are equivalent). At

present these courses are of two-year duration and normally include a thesis (masters’

project) component. In the past the masters programme has been of one and a half year

duration. The sanctioned intake as per AICTE is about 30000 in 2005. However a large

number of seats remain unfilled. The Rama Rao committee [9] indicated that the ratio of

the output to the sanctioned intake varied from 0.48 (AICTE Survey) to 0.6 (Shrivastava’s

study). This report also indicated that Tier I Institutions (IITs and IISc) had an output to

sanctioned strength O (t)/S (t-2) ratio of 0.9 while Tier II and Tier III institutions (Techni-

cal University, University Departments and Regional Engineering Colleges) had an O/S

ratio of 0.6. The other institutes had lower O/S ratios (0.55). This data is shown in table

1.5. The weighted average of all the institutions except IITs and IISc (O/S 0.57) based on

table 1.5 b is used to calculate the M. Tech output of these institutions. This is added to the

output of IITs and IISc to get the total masters’ output. Figure 1.11 shows the variation in

the Masters output with time for India. The masters’ output increased from about 30 in

1947 to almost 20000 in 2006 (CAGR of 11.6 %). In the last five years the M Tech/ ME

output has increased from about 14000 in 2001 to almost 20000 in 2006 (CAGR of 7.5%).

There is some uncertainty in this data since it depends on the O/S ratio used. Assuming

15

the recent growth rates to persist, the number of masters degrees in engineering awarded in

2008 is estimated to be about 23000. Appendix-V (A5.1) shows the trend of the engineer-

ing masters output of the USA.

02000400060008000

100001200014000160001800020000

1947

1950

1956

1960

1966

1970

1975

1979

1985

1987

1989

1995

2001

2003

2005

Year

Out

put

Figure 1.11: Masters Output from 1947-2006

Figure 1.12 shows the percentage of Masters’ output to the graduate engineers output. It is seen that the percentage increased to a high of 15-17% in the 1980s and has now reduced to 8.5 %. Compared to this, the US had about 70,000 engineering graduates and 35,000 post-graduates (Masters) in engineering in 2002-3 (50% of the graduate output).

16

Table 1.5: Out-turn of Postgraduate Students [9]

1.5 a: 1995 AICTE Survey Intake Out-Turn Sanctioned Capacity

Actual Percentage of Sanc-tioned capacity Actual Percentage of

Sanctioned capacity 6004 4734 79 2857 48

1.5b: Shrivastava, 1996 Number (percentage of total out-turn) Category of

Institution No. of Institutions

1987-89 1990-92

Out-turn/ Sanctioned Capacity

I 6 5038 (41%) 5064 (29%) 0.9

II 11 1429 (12%) 3455 (20%) 0.6

III 12 1241 (10%) 1643 (9%) 0.6

IV

V

VI

102

4571

(37%)

7272

(40%)

0.55

Total 131 12279 (100%) 17434 (100%)

Average Out-turn per year 4093 5811

0

4

8

12

16

20

1947

1954

1958

1964

1968

1974

1978

1984

1986

1988

1995

2001

2003

2005

Year

Per

cen

tage

Figure 1.12: Percentage of Masters Output to Graduate Engineers output

17

1.6 Doctorates There is some uncertainty in the statistics on engineering doctorates (PhDs) granted

annually. The difference in the estimates available from various sources has been reported

by Rai and Kumar [10]. We relied on the statistics documented in the Rama Rao Commit-

tee for review of the post graduate engineering education in India and added the recent

data from the UGC annual reports. The annual number of engineering PhDs is less than

1000. Figure 1.13 shows the trend in the engineering PhD degrees awarded in India. The

overall growth rate from 1954 to 2005 has been at 8% per year. However in the mid-80s

the number of PhDs was around 600. Since then there has been a reduction in the growth

rate. The CAGR from 1985-2005 is only 2.9%. The percentage of Ph.D. output to the

graduate engineers’ output is shown in figure 1.14. The Ph.D. percentage fluctuates with a

maximum of 1-3%, but the present value is less than 1% of the engineering graduates. The

exact numbers of engineering doctorates in 2007 is not known. It is estimated that this

ranges between 1000-1100 (similar numbers are expected in 2008). Appendix-V (A5.2)

shows the trend of the engineering doctorates output of the USA.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1954 1960 1968 1975 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Year

Doc

tora

tes

Figure 1.13: Engineering Doctorate Degrees Awarded in India

18

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1954

1958

1964

1968

1974

1978

1984

1986

1988

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Year

Per

cen

tage

Figure 1.14: Percentage of Ph.D. Output to Graduate Engineers Output

The related trend that impacts the engineering research and development is the science doctorates. The trend is shown in figure 1.15. The growth in science Ph D output is reasonably this consistent with a CAGR of about 7 % from 1954-2005. The output in 1954 was 164 and increased to 5549 in 2005. The ratio of engineering doctorates to science doctorates is about 1:5 in 2005.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1954

1958

1964

1968

1974

1978

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2004

Year

Ph

D o

utp

ut

Figure 1.15: Science Doctorate Degrees Awarded in India

19

1.7 Discipline wise Growth in Sanctioned Intake

For bachelors degrees the discipline wise growth of sanctioned intake for 1990-2001 in

India is shown in table 1.6. The growth of sanctioned intake is mainly in computer engi-

neering and information technology (37.7% CAGR) followed by electronics and electrical

engineering. About 32% of the sanctioned strength in 2001 was in computer engineering

and information technology. For 2006 Computer Science and Information Technology

accounted for 34% of the total, 39% for Electronics and Electrical Engineering, 12 % for

Mechanical and 4% for Civil Engineering. Figure 1.16 shows the discipline wise break up

of sanctioned intake in 2001 for India.

Table 1.7 shows the trends in the degrees awarded in the US. In the US, the highest growth

rates are for Biomedical Engineering (16.3%), Aerospace (12.8%) and Computers (7.7%)

Figure 1.17 shows the discipline wise break up of degrees awarded in 2006 for the US.

Table 1.6: Discipline wise Growth in Sanctioned Intake in India [11]

Year Chemical

Engg. Civil Engg.

Comp/IT Electrical Engg.

Electronics Mechanical Engg.

Others Total

1990 4590 13546 12143 10155 17337 17696 11592 87059

1991 4590 13546 12263 10155 17547 17718 11912 87731

1992 4590 13606 12303 10275 17787 17928 10010 86499

1993 4690 13606 12693 10615 18297 18318 12382 90601

1994 4950 12606 13493 11295 19267 19218 12572 93401

1995 5440 13706 14793 12,435 20747 20578 13272 88536

1996 5520 13706 14853 12495 20847 20698 13332 101451

1998 6472 13852 22623 18961 26707 33160 12920 134695

2001 7552 13806 73497 24498 49448 40044 17639 226484

CAGR 1990-2001 4.6% 0.2% 17.8% 8.3% 10.0% 7.7% 3.9% 9.1% CAGR 1996-2001 6.5% 0.2% 37.7% 14.4% 18.9% 14.1% 5.8% 17.4%

20

Mech/Prod18%

Electrical11%

Chemical3%

Electronics22%

Comp/IT32%

Others8%

Civil6%

Figure 1.16: Discipline wise Break-up of Sanctioned Intake for Engineering Bachelors in India in 2001

Table 1.7: Discipline wise Growth in the Bachelors Degrees Awarded in the US

Year Aerospace Biomedical Chemical Civil Computer Electrical Mechanical Others Total

1999 1,174 1,016 6,199 10,020 7,294 13,329 16,383 6138 61,553

2000 1,296 1,156 6,023 9,241 9,482 13,337 16,547 6738 63,820

2001 1,558 1,138 5,740 8,537 10,581 13,540 16,395 6711 64,200

2002 1,711 1,315 5,529 8,531 11,562 13,999 16,822 7312 66,781

2003 2,011 1,628 5,233 8,708 14,395 14,776 17,570 6844 71,165

2004 2,232 2,019 4,801 8,718 14,994 15,200 17,972 6957 72,893

2005 2,371 2,410 4,521 8,981 13,874 15,383 18,594 7468 73,602

2006 2,722 2,917 4,452 9,663 12,231 14,740 19,727 7734 74,186

CAGR 1999-2006 12.8% 16.3% -4.6% -0.5% 7.7% 1.4% 2.7% 3.4% 2.7%

21

4% 4% 6%

13%

16%20%

27%

10%

Aerospace

Biomedical

Chemical

Civil/ Environmental

Computer Engg/Sci.(inside Engg)Electrical

Mechanical,Industrial/Manufacturing Others

Figure 1.17: Discipline wise Break-up of Bachelors Degrees

Awarded in the US in 2006

1.8 Regional Distribution Table 1.8 shows the sanctioned intake and the number of engineering institutions, the

sanctioned intake and the compound annual growth rate in sanctioned intake and number

of institutions. The maximum number of engineering institutions and the sanctioned intake

is in the South. A break-up of the number of institutions and sanctioned intake per million

population for the different states is shown in table 1.9. Region wise distribution of

sanctioned intake for 2005-6 is shown in figure 1.18. Figure 1.19 shows the distribution of

sanctioned intake per million population and number of institutions all over the India for

2006. It is clear that there is a disproportionate growth in engineering colleges and output

in a few states (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka).

22

Table 1.8: Region wise Distribution of Sanctioned Intake and Number of Engineering Institutions (NOI)

(Source: AICTE Reports)

Regionwise UG Degree Institutions & Sanctioned Intake 1996 1998 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007-8

CAGR 1996-2007

Region NOI Intake NOI Intake NOI Intake NOI Intake NOI Intake NOI Intake NOI Intake NOI

In-take

Central 31 6565 8315 82 25914 112 37195 115 39434 147 49238 166 66161 16.5 22.3 Eastern 24 4547 3862 99 24019 114 34016 110 33343 121 36437 128 40613 16.4 23.1 North 37 5684 8597 99 26356 106 32298 107 34748 140 43613 155 57988 13.9 22.6 North-West 45 7627 11294 119 32042 153 50645 155 51295 169 58304 206 73251 14.8 22.6

South 112 28195 40884 471 145372 496 165757 502 178637 523 196013 593 256571 16.4 21.4 South-West 68 23964 28869 184 58243 207 70788 206 72063 221 77972 234 91939 11.9 12.5

West 99 24869 33074 154 47775 158 48990 160 49867 175 55441 186 66767 5.9 8.3

Grand Total 416 101451 571 134895 1208 359721 1346 439689 1355 459407 1496 517018 1668 653290 13.7 17.7

23

Table 1.9: State wise Number of Institutions and Sanctioned Intake

per Million Population (2007) [5,12]

Region State Number of Institutions

Intake Population Intake per million Popula-tion

Central Madhya Pradesh 104 41747 67.5 618 Chhattisgarh 17 7006 23.1 303 Gujarat 45 17408 55.3 315Eastern Mizoram 0 0 1.0 0 Sikkim 1 465 0.6 798 Orissa 53 17817 39.3 453 West Bengal 55 16968 86.4 196 Tripura 2 490 3.4 142 Meghalaya 1 240 2.5 96 Arunachal Pradesh 1 210 1.2 178

Andaman & Ni-cobar 0 0 0.4 0

Assam 4 870 29.3 30 Manipur 1 115 2.6 45 Nagaland 0 0 2.1 0 Jharkhand 10 3438 29.4 117North Bihar 6 1690 91.7 18 Uttar Pradesh 136 51775 185.9 279 Uttranchal 13 4523 9.3 486North-West Chandigarh 5 788 0.9 876 Haryana 62 22750 23.3 978 Jammu & Kashmir 6 1401 11.8 119 New Delhi 18 6943 16.4 425 Punjab 48 18879 26.2 722 Rajasthan 59 20683 63.1 328 Himachal Pradesh 8 1807 6.5 280South Andhra Pradesh 319 130669 80.9 1614 Pondicherry 6 2670 1.0 2741 Tamil Nadu 268 123232 65.6 1879South-West Karnataka 141 62149 56.5 1100 Kerala 93 29790 33.8 882West Maharashtra 183 65958 104.9 629 Goa 3 809 1.6 518 Daman & D. Dadar 0 0 0.4 0

Total 1668 653290 1123.6 581

24

Central10%

Eastern6%

North9%

North-West11%

South40%

South-West14%

West10%

Figure 1.18: Region wise Distribution of Sanctioned Intake (2007)[5]

25

Figure 1.19: State wise Sanctioned Intake per million Population and

number of Institutions

26

1.9 Women Engineers in India In 1970 the enrolment of women engineers was 910. This increased to 26, 4370 in 1995 (a

CAGR of 14.4%). The share of women in the engineering enrolments increased from 16%

in 1995 to 22% in 2001. In 2001, 22% of the students admitted to B.Tech / B.E. pro-

grammes in India were women. The corresponding percentage for M.Tech / M.E. was

16% and PhD was about 17%. In the US the percentage of bachelor’s degrees in engineer-

ing awarded to women in 2006 was 19.3% of the total, masters degrees were 22.5% of the

total and doctoral degrees were 20.2% of the total [13]. In the UK in 2003-4 about 14% of

the full time undergraduates in Engineering were women while 20% of the postgraduates

were women [14]. The percentages of women engineers at the IITs and the NITs are

significantly lower than the national average [15]. In 2005 at IIT Bombay the percentage of

women graduates to the total is about 8% at the Bachelors (B.Tech) level, 9% at the

masters (M.Tech) level and about 17% at the Doctoral level (including science, humanities

and management [16]. Similar disparities exist in the faculty. As an example, about 10% of

the IIT Bombay faculty are women. Gender disparities in engineering exist around the

world and special efforts are being made by institutions, governments and professional

organisations to rectify these [17]. There are several examples of initiatives taken by leading

universities to increase the diversity in the student body and the faculty, for example the

Rensselaer School of Engineering include a ‘Women in Engineering’: programme to recruit

talented women and a special mentor programme [18]. Some Indian states have provided

incentives like free tuition for women studying engineering.

1.10 International Comparisons

A comparison of graduates, masters and PhD outputs in engineering for different coun-

tries shows some interesting trends. Figure 1.20 shows the growth in graduate engineers

for different countries.

27

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

Year

Engi

neer

s

China

Japan

South Korea

US

UK

Germany

India

Figure 1.20: Growth in Graduate Engineers in Different Countries [19]

The number of graduate engineers per million population for most recent years is shown in

figure 1.21. The growth rate of graduate engineers for the period 1985-2004 is shown in

figure 1.22. India clearly has one of the highest growth rates. Are these high growth rates

impacting quality and resulting in unemployment/ under employment of fresh engineering

graduates? It is estimated that about 30% of the fresh engineering graduates are unem-

ployed even one year after graduation (based on ATMRs [4] of a few states). Several

industry leaders complain about the shortage of quality engineering graduates. Though

there is no conclusive statistics, it seems that the present growth is impacting quality.

Figure 1.23 shows the engineering doctorates granted annually in different countries.

28

340

214

765

1435

335

331

246

160

674

377

0 500 1000 1500 2000

China (2004)

India (2006)

Japan (2004)

South Korea(2004)

Germany (2004)

United Kingdom (2004)

United States (2006)

Brazil (2002)

Australia (2005)

New Zealand (2004)

Figure 1.21: Engineers per Million Population for different countries [19]

9.9

1.6

5.9

-1.0

3.9

0.9

10.4

-2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

China

Japan

South Korea

US

UK

Germany

India

Figure 1.22: Growth Rate of Graduate Engineers for Different Countries

(2004 or the most recent year) [19]

29

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Doc

orat

es

Germany (2005)

UK

US

China

India

Japan(2005)

South Korea

Figure 1.23: Engineering Doctorates for Different Countries [19]

The percentage of engineering PhDs to bachelors engineering degrees granted annually is given in Table 1.10. The Indian percentage is 0.66 (less than 1%) while Germany, UK, US maintain rates of 7-9%. China has increased engineering PhD output significantly in the last few years.

Table 1.10: Percentage of Engineering Ph Ds to Bachelors Engineering Degrees[19]

Country 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004

Germany 4.41 4.70 5.39 5.23 8.66 7.66 7.70 8.05 8.87 8.92 8.97 6.81 7.99United Kingdom 0.11 11.11 12.84 13.75 14.89 7.66 6.02 7.65 8.22 9.78 9.08 9.17 10.31United States 0.04 4.08 4.99 6.79 8.38 9.09 9.48 9.81 8.94 9.28 8.36 8.93China 0.09 0.15 0.65 0.67 0.88 1.11 1.51 1.67 2.11 1.98 1.82Japan 0.02 1.93 2.01 2.30 2.32 2.67 2.87 3.31 3.80 3.68 3.79 3.81 0.58South Korea 0.84 0.98 1.47 1.52 1.99 2.65 2.80 3.11 2.93 2.92 4.00India 2.21 2.13 2.03 0.58 0.40 0.93 0.87 0.83 0.66 2.90

In the U.S. more than a third of all Ph D degrees in science and engineering and almost

half of all doctorates in mathematics and computer science are awarded to non-US stu-

dents. Asian countries earned more than 60% of-non-US science and engineering

doctorate degrees in the US universities for the period 1998-2001. Indians accounted for

about 10% of science and engineering doctorate degrees awarded in the US. Table 1.11

30

shows the Asian Doctorates in the U.S. universities for 1986-1995. Asian countries ac-

counted for about 33% of the total science and engineering doctoral degrees in the US in

1995.

Table 1.11: U.S. Science and Engineering Doctorates from Asian Countries [19]

Place of origin 1986-95 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 China 14088 198 293 480 620 1150 1793 2045 2227 2531 2751Hong Kong 952 73 87 81 93 94 121 109 109 95 90India 7554 469 503 520 536 711 752 861 933 1065 1204Japan 1276 111 83 104 106 147 125 132 132 182 154South Korea 8821 402 549 621 753 979 1114 1126 1123 1150 1004Taiwan 10276 709 790 786 857 1012 1127 1242 1213 1301 1239Thailand 956 109 95 98 76 111 93 87 77 97 113Other Asia 1008 68 73 72 58 111 114 123 129 128 132Total 44,931 2,139 2,473 2,762 3,099 4,315 5,239 5,725 5,943 6,549 6,687

31

Table 1.12 shows the comparison of academic output for different countries for the most recent year.

Table 1.12: International Comparison of Academic Output

Year of Data 2006 2006 2004 2003 2003 2004 2002 2005

Country India USA Japan China UK South Korea

Germany Australia

Academic Output Bachelors 237000 74200• 98400 351500 19500 69400 32800 13500Masters 20000 39000 -- 35000+ 5000* 13500 -- 3100

Science 5500 14200 2900 32000 4800 1100 6800 1300Engineering 1000 8400 3900 4300 2000 1900 2000 600Doctorates Total 6500 22600 6800 36300 6800 3000 8800 1900Masters/Bachelors 8.4% 52.6% -- 10% 25.6% 19.4% -- 23.2%Percentage Doctorates/Bachelors 0.4% 11.3% 4.0% 1.2% 10.4% 2.9% 6.2% 4.7%

Bachelors per million Population 214 246 770 272 331 1344 397 674Number of Institutions 1511 -- -- -- -- -- --Faculty 67000 26700 -- -- -- -- -- --Publications Science and Engg (2003) 12774 211,233 60,067 29,186 48,288 13,746 44,305 15,809

* For UK the total masters in science and engineering was about 8000. We estimated the engineering masters graduates to be about 5000. + For China the data is taken from Wadhwa [20] • The US numbers do not include computer science graduates which would account for an additional 30000 bachelors degrees. US and others Data [19]

Australian data is taken from the website of Department of Education, Science and Training, Government of Australia (DEST) URL: http://www.dest.gov.au

32

Table 1.13 shows the growth rates of student output for different countries for the most recent year available.

Table 1.13: Comparison of Growth Rates of Academic Output [19]

Country Year Bachelors MastersDoctorates (Science)

Doctorates (Engineering)

1996-2006 12.5% 10% 0.8% 11.1%India 2001-2006 20.3% 7.5% 0.8% 6.1%

1995-2006 1.4% 2.9% -0.2% 3.1%USA 2001-2006 4.6% 8% 0.1% 8.8%

1995-2004 0.1% -- 4.7% 5.2%Japan 2000-2004 -0.5% -- 2.4% -0.1%

1995-2004 10% -- (1991-2001) 23.6% (1991-2001) 18.9%China 1999-2004 12.5% -- (1997-2001) 8.0% (1997-2001) 13.2%

1993-2003 -0.2% -- 2.3% 2.9%UK 1999-2003 -3% -- 0.8% 2.8%

1993-2002 7.8% -- 8.6% 12.5%South Korea 1997-2002 9.5% -- 7.5% 10.4%

1993-2002 2% -- 0.3% 0.7%Germany 1997-2002 3.4% -- -2.3% 0.1%

1996-2005 3.4% 12.5% 3% 5%Australia 2000-2005 3.9% 20.2% 2.6% 6.2% 1.11 Summary and Conclusions India awarded about 2.37 lakh engineering degrees, 20,000 engineering masters degrees and

1000 engineering PhD’s in 2006 (a total of 2.58 lakh engineering degrees of all types). India

has about 1500 engineering institutions with about 67,000 faculty. In 2008 it is estimated

that 3.5 lakh engineering degrees, 23000 engineering masters degrees and about 1100

Ph.D’s were awarded in India. Table 1.12 & 1.13 shows a summary comparison of India’s

engineering education with a few other countries for which data was available. India’s

growth rates for engineering degrees is higher than the other countries. China has high

growth rates for the PhD degrees. India’s doctorate degrees are less than 1% of its graduate

degrees. This is significantly higher for all the other countries.

India produces more computer science and IT engineers than other disciplines. In

this chapter we quantified trends in the overall numbers of engineering degrees and

compared them with other countries. In the next two chapters, we examine trends from

select engineering colleges in India and compare them with a few select international

institutions.

33

Chapter 2 Analysis of IITs and IISc

We have examined the trend in the student output for the Indian engineering system.

What is the quality of the output? This is a more difficult question to answer. We will

analyse data on the performance of different institutions before making overall recommen-

dations/ conclusions. We examine the following trends:

(a) Student output – number of degrees granted and growth rates.

(b) Ratio of postgraduates (Masters and Ph.Ds) to total degrees.

(c) Student to Faculty ratio – A lower student to faculty ratio implies more personal-

ised attention to students and would normally result in better quality. However

there may be an optimum student – faculty ratio below which there may not be

further improvement in quality. The student to faculty ratio is compared with in-

ternational numbers.

(d) Selectivity – The percentage of those who seek admission that are admitted. A

high selectivity implies strong competition for admission and is likely to result in

good input quality of students.

(e) Placements – The percentages of campus placements, the average salaries and the

job breakup (by sector) indicate the market response to the programme and is an

indicator of the reputation (and quality) of the programme. The ratios of average

salaries of Masters and Ph.Ds to graduate salaries are used to indicate the attrac-

tiveness of post-graduate education. This ratio is compared with the ratios for a

few US universities.

(f) Faculty Salary – An important criteria for the success of any engineering institu-

tion is the ability to attract high quality faculty. We examine the existing faculty

salaries and the increase in the faculty salary over the entire career span. We com-

pare the ratio of the Professor to Assistant Professor Salary with the ratio for a

few US universities.

(g) Publications – A key parameter that indicates the research output of an institution

is the peer reviewed journal publications.

(h) Funding and Fees – We examine the total funding received as grant in aid from

the government, the annual fees charged from the student and the research fund-

ing received.

In addition to these criteria we discuss the administrative structure of the institutions.

34

The following institutions are discussed:

a) Indian Institutes of Technology

b) Indian Institute of Science

c) National Institutes of Technology and other Government Engineering Colleges

d) Private Engineering Colleges

In this chapter we discuss the IITs and IISc. The locations of all IITs are shown in

Appendix-VI. We have selected IIT Bombay as representative of the IITs and included this

as a case study. This is also due to the intrinsic advantage that we had in obtaining and

verifying IIT Bombay data.

2.1 Case Study of IIT Bombay The IITs are generally recognised as the leading engineering institutes in India. We discuss

the detailed trend for IIT Bombay and then show the summary for all IITs and IISc. IIT

Bombay was set up in 1958 and has entered its 50th year.

2.1.1 Student output Figure 2.1 shows the increase in the total student output (UG and PG engineering and

science degrees granted) from IIT Bombay. IIT Bombay’s total student output increased

from 171 in 1962 to 1227 in 2006 corresponding to an annual growth rate of 4.7% per

year. The growth rate in the last 10 years has been 4% per year. The total number of

students enrolled has increased from 2830 in 1991 to about 5000 (4997) in 2006 (a CAGR

of 3.9%)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 2.1: Total IIT Bombay’s Student Output 1962-2006

35

Table 2.1 shows the students on roll from 1991 to 2006.

Table 2.1: Students on roll at IIT Bombay 1991 to 2006 [21]

Year B.Tech. M.Sc. M.Tech. Ph.D. Others Total 1991 1110 197 734 735 54 2830 1992 1163 200 701 726 52 2842 1993 1096 188 720 790 52 2846 1994 1104 178 738 715 60 2795 1995 1214 208 807 731 71 3031 1996 1221 223 838 634 102 3018 1997 1314 245 849 611 146 3165 1998 1348 264 1045 596 156 3409 1999 1367 252 1136 558 161 3474 2000 1322 287 1424 622 181 3836 2001 1204 246 1704 711 230 4095 2002 1271 279 1668 771 321 4310 2003 1277 339 1953 763 268 4600 2004 1265 308 1797 1028 221 4619 2005 1312 306 1870 1056 217 4761 2006 1341 330 1985 1149 192 4997

* Others include M. Phil, Management, M Des, PG DIIT students

The number of Bachelors (B.Tech.) students graduating every year is shown in figure 2.2.

The number has increased from 72 in 1962 to 422 in 2006 with a CAGR of 4.2%. (The

spurt in 1985 is due to two batches the last five year and the first four year batch graduat-

ing together). The growth rate has been 3.6% per year over the last ten years.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Year

Out

pu

t

Figure 2.2: IIT Bombay’s Graduate Student Output 1962-2006 [21]

Two Batches’ output in 1985

36

The Masters of Technology degrees awarded in 1962 were 101. This increased to 581 in

2006 (CAGR of 4.1%) Figure 2.3 shows the growth trend of postgraduate students from

1962 to 2006. At present the M.Tech output consists of the two year M.Tech and the Dual

Degree (five year integrated B.Tech-M.Tech).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1962 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003

Year

Out

pu

t

Figure 2.3: M.Tech degrees awarded 1962 to 2006 [21]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004Output

Yea

r

PhD (Science)PhD (Engineering)

Figure 2.4: Science and Engineering Ph. D. output [21]

Figure 2.4 shows the trend of science and engineering PhD output from 1964 to 2006. The first doctorate degree was awarded in 1964. The total number of PhD degrees awarded increased at an annual growth rate of 11.5 %. The science PhD growth rate is 9.4% while

37

that of engineering is 10.1% annually. IIT Bombay has produced about 1421 engineering and 1095 Science PhDs till 2006. The ratio of the science to engineering PhDs is about 0.8.

The percentage of the engineering PhD output to the graduate engineers output is shown in figure 2.5. The Ph.D. percentage fluctuates between 10-20% with the current value around 13% of the engineering graduates. Figure 2.6 shows the trend of the ratios of engineering PG to total engineering degrees. The ratios vary over the period but the average ratio is about 0.5 with the current value of 0.6.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Year

Per

cen

tage

Figure 2.5: Percentage of Engineering PhDs to the Graduate Engineers Output [21]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004

Year

Per

cen

tage

Figure 2.6: Ratio of Engineering Postgraduates (M Tech and PhD) to Total Engi-

neering Degrees (B Tech, M Tech and PhD) [21]

The total student output for IIT Bombay is shown in Table 2.2. For 1991-2006 the

growth rate of total student output is 4.5%. The total degrees awarded in 1991 are 664 and

in 2006 is 1284.

38

Table 2.2: Student Output at IIT Bombay 1991 to 2006 [21]

PhD Year B.Tech M.Sc M.Tech Science Engg Total MBA M.Phil Total

1991 200 72 320 37 35 72 6641992 228 64 309 33 30 63 6641993 327 85 310 28 54 82 8041994 281 75 331 33 41 74 7611995 298 78 361 43 62 105 - 10 8521996 296 82 386 35 60 95 - 6 8651997 298 105 432 46 52 98 31 11 9751998 281 96 361 36 57 93 31 7 8691999 343 107 423 26 60 86 34 9 10022000 315 102 389 37 52 89 33 7 9352001 356 89 503 25 47 72 36 9 10652002 403 92 574 24 50 74 68 10 12212003 414 111 562 29 50 79 70 11 12472004 398 92 531 22 45 67 58 11 11572005 417 116 644 46 73 119 68 12 13762006 422 128 581 40 56 96 47 10 1284

2.1.2 Campus Placement

In general almost IIT graduates and postgraduates get jobs before they graduate.

What do IIT graduates do after they graduate? An analysis of IIT alumni during 1973-77

and in the 1980’s [14] revealed that the brain drain was about 21% (Alumni who settled

down permanently in US normally after doing higher studies in the US). The percentage of

engineering graduates opting for higher study in US (immediately after graduation) was

around 30-40% in the 1980s and early 90s. This trend seems to have changed. At present

the percentage of graduates who opt for higher studies is about 16%. Table 2.3 provides

the data on students opting for higher studies from different departments. It is seen that

for different departments the percentage of B.Tech students opting for higher studies

ranged from 3.7% (Aerospace) to 32.4% (computer science) and 44.4% (Engineering

Physics). The corresponding percentage for Dual Degree is lower with an average of 8.7%.

39

Table 2.3: Department-wise details of number of students pursuing MS/MS+PhD/PhD (Batch passing out in 2007) [21]

We analysed the data from the campus placement records for 2006. A total of 159 compa-

nies visited IIT Bombay for campus placement. These companies were classified into

engineering, software, finance, consulting and others (service sector etc.) as shown in Table

2.4

Table 2.4: Break-up of Job offers for 2006-7[21]

Category Number of Companies

Offers % Offers

Engineering 75 367 46 Software 30 113 14 Consulting 21 131 16 Finance 25 167 21 Others 8 26 3 Total 159 804 100

The sector wise placement is shown in Table 2.5. The largest sector is engineering jobs

accounting for about half (367 offers or 46%) of the total offers. The finance sector

accounts for the second largest category of jobs (167 or 21%). About a decade earlier,

software jobs predominated. However at present the software industry accounts for only

14% of the total job offers. Table 2.6 shows the average salaries offered by the different

sectors in 2005-06. It is clear that job offers in finance offer the highest salaries (average of

Rs 7.2 lakhs per year). This is 34% higher than the average engineering salary, which is Rs

5.4 lakhs per year. On an average the Dual Degree (B.Tech and M.Tech) students have the

highest salaries with an average of Rs 5.9 lakhs (15% more than the average B.Tech salary

Department B.Tech (Pursuing MS/MS+PhD)

Students on roll

Percentage Dual Degree (Pursuing MS+PhD)

Students on roll

Percentage Country

Metallurgy 3 39 7.7 3* 23 13.0 USA

Engg. Physics 8 18 44.4 -- -- -- USA, Germany

Mechanical 6 47 12.8 3 49 6.1 USA Electrical 7 38 18.4 4 38 10.5 USA

CSE 11 34 32.4 1 16 6.3

USA, Canada, France

Civil 5 41 12.2 0 10 0.0 USA Aerospace 1 27 3.7 1 13 7.7 USA

Chemical 10 67 14.9 2 12 16.7 USA, Germany

Total 51 311 16.4 14 161 8.7

40

of Rs 5.1 lakhs). The average M. Tech salary (Rs 4.2 lakh) is lower than the average B.Tech

salary.

The PhD numbers are misleading since only five PhD students were placed through

campus placement in 2006. We obtained data for a sample of 31 engineering PhD students

graduating in 2007. In 2007, 19 job offers were made through campus placements to

graduating PhDs. Of this, 15 offers were to students with engineering background. The

annual salaries ranged from Rs 4 lakhs to 18 lakhs. The average salary for this sample (of

31 PhDs) was about Rs 7 lakhs. This is about 37% higher than the average B.Tech salary.

The placement statistics for the last five years is given in Table 2.7. Table 2.8 shows the

ratio of average starting salary of graduates to Masters and Doctorates for MIT USA and

University of Illinois Urbana Champaign USA for 2005. The average Masters salary is 22-

26% higher than the Bachelor’s salary and the Doctorates salaries is 45-58% higher than

the Bachelor’s salary.

Table 2.5: Sector wise percentage placement [21] Programme Engineering % Finance % Consulting % Software % Others TotalB.Tech. 88 35 56 23 45 18 45 18 14 248 D D 65 50 27 21 19 15 14 11 4 129 M.Tech. 164 57 11 4 13 5 78 27 21 287

Table 2.6: Programme and Sector wise Average Salaries for 2005-2006 [21] Average salary

Programme Engineering Finance Consulting Software Others

513000 B.Tech. 550000 661000 449000 509000 395000591000 Dual Degree 614000 906000 515000 501000 421000418000 M.Tech. 529000 521000 334000 387000 320000458000 Ph.D. 517000 400000 517000 Average salary 539000 722000 424000 416000 351000

41

Table 2.7: Programme wise Placement at IIT Bombay for last Five Years [21]

Year Program B.Tech. M.Tech. Dual Degree. Registered 275 335 131 Placed 171 186 102 2002-03 % Placement 62 56 78 Registered 258 282 144 Placed 202 197 122 2003-04 % Placement 78 70 85 Registered 249 388 134 Placed 218 307 131 2004-05 % Placement 88 79 98 Registered 265 330 149 Placed 239 291 131 2005-06 % Placement 90 88 88 Registered 314 374 166 Placed 263 321 144 2006-07 % Placement 84 86 87

Table 2.8: Average starting salaries for a few US universities [23]

Institute Salaries Bachelors Masters Doctoral Average Salary $59391 $74885 $86183MIT

USA Ratio to Bachelors Salary 1.00 1.26 1.45Average Salary $53,600 $65,300 $84,500UIUC

USA Ratio to Bachelors Salary 1 1.22 1.58

In general, IIT graduates do not opt for M.Tech or PhD at IIT (barring a few exceptions).

Though we have no exact data on this, we expect that only about 1% of the graduating

B.Tech class opt for an M.Tech.

We have analysed the background of the 226 PhD students who were admitted to the PhD

programme in the academic year 2006-2007. Of this 138 students (61%) were in engineer-

ing. Among the engineering PhDs, 29 (21%) had M.Techs from IIT Bombay, 16 (12%)

from other IITs and IISc. About 33% of the engineering PhD students admitted were

from the IITs/IISc. If we consider the total number of students (including Science,

Management and Humanities) 61 students were from IITs (37%) of the total. Of the

engineering PhD students admitted in 2006-7, 14 were M.Techs who graduated in 2006.

This implies that about 2% of the graduating M.Tech students opt to continue directly for

a PhD.

42

2.1.3 Faculty

IIT Bombay currently has faculty strength of 418 (192 Professors, 106 Associate Profes-

sors, 96 Assistant Professors). Figure 2.7 shows the trend in the number of faculty. It is

clear that the faculty numbers have gradually increased from less than 300 in the mid 70’s

to 418 at present (2007). There is some fluctuation due to a large number of retirements

during some years. The growth rate from 1958 to 2006 has been at 4.7% per year. During

the last ten years (1986 to 1998), the Institute has been recruiting faculty but has only been

able to offset the reductions due to retirements. There has been only a slight increase in

faculty during this period (from 389 in 1996 to 402 in 2006 corresponding to a CAGR of

0.3% per year).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

Year

Fac

ulty

Figure 2.7: Number of Faculty 1974-2006 [21]

The student- faculty ratio for IIT Bombay is shown in figure 2.8. The student strength has

grown at a faster rate than the faculty strength resulting in increase in the student-faculty

ratio. The approved student-faculty ratio for IITs/ IIMs is 9:1 [24]. The present value for

IIT Bombay of this ratio is 12.4:1. In order to maintain a ratio of 9:1 IIT Bombay’s present

faculty strength should have been 555. Of course, it is possible to have ratios higher than

9:1.

43

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Stu

den

t-F

acu

lty

Rat

io

S/F for TotalS/F for UG

Figure 2.8: Student-Faculty ratios 1991-2006 [21]

Figure 2.9 shows a comparison of undergraduate student-faculty ratios at some of the

reputed engineering colleges in the USA [25]. The average of the top 50 US colleges of

Engineering is 12.8 and the US publicly funded colleges is higher (15.8). The actual ratios

of the total student faculty will be higher since they include MS and PhD students.

Figure 2.9: Undergraduate Student-Faculty ratios for USA [25]

44

Even if slightly higher ratios are acceptable, it is clear that a major constraint to the growth

of the IITs is the difficulty in increasing the faculty base. The faculty salaries at present are

given in Table 2.9. The annual salary at the starting scale for an Assistant Professor is Rs

2.95 lakhs per year (without the house rent allowance). All faculty are provided accommo-

dation in the campus, low cost school education for children, medical facilities and perks

like leave travel allowance, telephone re-imbursement etc. If these are monetised and added

to the salary, an approximate amount of Rs 2.4 lakhs gets added to the starting salary (80%

of the gross salary). This factor has been included to compute the effective salary. This is a

conservative estimate, as we have not included pension and post-retirement benefits. The

average salary for Professors is Rs 9 lakhs while the average Assistant Professor salary is Rs

6.7 lakhs. The ratio of these salaries is 1.34. Table 2.10 shows the comparable ratios for

selected US universities. This ratio ranges from 1.65 to 2.63. It is clear that the expected

percentage salary increases over the career of an IIT faculty are much lower than the US

counterparts.

We compare the ratio of the average assistant professor salary at an institution to the

average salary of the bachelors engineering graduate starting salary. For MIT, USA this

ratio is 1.43 (Average Assistant Professor salary of $85000 is 43% higher than average

engineering degree starting salary of $59000). The ratio for IIT Bombay is 1.21 (Average

Assistant Professor salary of Rs 6.7 lakhs is 21% higher than average engineering degree

starting salary of Rs 5.5 lakhs).

Table 2.9: Faculty Salaries for 2006-2007 for IIT Bombay [21]

Annual Designation Monthly Basic Without HRA With HRA Effective Salary

Starting 12000 295200 360000 531000 Assistant Professor Highest 18300 448296 547116 807000 Starting 16400 402120 490680 724000 Associate Professor Highest 20000 489600 597600 881000 Starting 18400 450720 550080 811000 Professor Highest 22400 547920 668880 986000

Figure 2.10 shows the background of the existing faculty at IIT Bombay, based on the

place of the Ph.D. Around 60% of the faculty have PhDs from, Indian institutions (45%

form the IITs and IISc). 28% of the faculty have PhDs from the US.

45

Table 2.10: Ratio of Professor to Assistant Professor Salary for US Universities in

2005-06 [26]

Figure 2.10: Distribution of Faculty according to place of Ph D 2.1.4 Faculty Output

Apart from the student output, the faculty research output can be quantified by publica-

tions, patents, research funding. We searched the Scopus database [27] to obtain the annual

publications of peer reviewed papers by IIT Bombay faculty. We expect this to be reasona-

bly accurate to indicate trends though this would not include publications in conferences

and may exclude journals that are not yet established. Figure 2.11 shows the trend of

publication numbers. The number has increased from 336 in 1996 to about 560 in 2006 (a

CAGR of 20% per year). The number of publications per faculty has also increased and is

currently around 1.4 shown in Figure 2.13.

University Ratio of Professor to Assistant Professor Salary

Cornell 1.65 MIT 1.69 Harvard 1.93 North Western 1.73 Chicago 2 Berkeley 1.7 Stanford 1.8 USC 1.69 UCLA 2.63 Columbia 1.79 NYU 1.84

59%28%

3%

4% 6%

IndiaUSUKOthersUnknown

45% IITs & IISc

14% Other Indian Universities

46

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1996 1997  1998 1999  2000  2001 2002  2003  2004  2005 2006

Year

Pub

licat

ion

s

Figure 2.11: Number of Publications 1996-2006 [27]

4

2

4 4

6

1

5

9 9

15

10

1211

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990-94 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Num

ber

of P

aten

ts

Figure 2.12: Number of Patent Applications filed 1990-2006 [21]

Figure 2.12 indicates the number of patent applications filed since 1990. In the last ten years, the faculty awareness on intellectual property (IP) rights and issues has increased. This has been facilitated by the Industrial Research and Consultancy Centre at the Institute. About 10-15 patent applications are filed each year. A number of faculty members (ap-proximately 20 or 5% of the total faculty) are involved in start up companies based on IP developed at IIT Bombay. This is facilitated by the Society for Innovation and Entrepre-neurship, a Technology Business Incubator set up by the Institute. Flexible rules at the Institute allow interested faculty to take a sabbatical and focus on their start up.

47

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

ers

Figure 2.13: Number of Journal Publications per Faculty 1997-2006 [27]

The annual research funding has increased from Rs 4.7 crores in 1987-88 to Rs 52 crores in 2005-6 (CAGR of 14% per year). This includes sponsored and consultancy projects. Normally sponsored research is long term and open ended while consultancy involves short-term specific problem solutions. The sponsored research amount increased from Rs 4 crores in 1987-88 to Rs 40 crores in 2005-6 (CAGR of 14% per year). The consultancy project amount increased from Rs 58 lakhs in 1987-88 to Rs 12 crores in 2005-6 (CAGR of 18% per year). Figure 2.14 shows the growth in the funded research amounts. In order to compare these on the same basis, we need to adjust for inflation. In constant 2006 Rupees the total research funding increased from Rs 15.7 crores in 1987-88 to Rs 52 crores in 2005-6 (CAGR of 7% per year). The annual research funding per faculty in constant 2006 Rupees is shown in figure 2.15. The annual research funding per faculty at present is Rs 12.9 lakhs/ year (with a real growth of 6.2% per year). Faculty also can earn an additional income through consultancy. In 2006-7, 119 faculty participated in consultancy projects earning a total income of Rs 8.4 cores. Only about 30% of the faculty are involved in consultancy projects. The average income per faculty (for those who take up consultancy) is Rs 7 lakhs. (Average numbers were Rs 4.6 lakhs in 2004-5 and Rs. 6.4 lakhs in 2005-6). The average faculty consultancy income is about 90% of the average effective faculty salary.

48

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

Year

Am

ount

in R

s. L

akh

s

Sponsored ResearchConsultancyTotal

Figure 2.14 Funding for Sponsored and Consultancy Projects 1988-2006 [21]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

Year

Tot

al A

mou

nt R

s. L

akh

s

Figure 2.15: Total Amount of Sponsored & Consultancy Projects Per Faculty

(in constant 2006 Rupees) [21]

Continuing Education Programme (CEP): The number of CEP courses is increased from

61 with 1075 participants in 1995 to 162 with 4038 participants in 2006. Average number

of CEP courses per year for 1995-2006 is more than 100. The trend is shown in figure

2.16.

49

0

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Y e a r

Nu

mb

er o

f P

arti

cip

ants

0

3 0

6 0

9 0

1 2 0

1 5 0

1 8 0

Nu

mb

er o

f C

ours

es

P a r tic ip a n tsC o u rse s

Figure 2.16: Continuing Education Programme (Courses and Participants)

QIP: For the year 2005-6 students admitted to Ph D and ME/M tech under QIP at national level and IIT Bombay are shown table 2.11. Contribution of IIT Bombay is about 11% to Ph D programme and 9% to M Tech programme. Figure 2.17 and Figure 2.18 show the trend in the admissions to M Tech and Ph D through QIP. At an average 12 Ph D and 14 M Tech students were admitted annually to IIT Bombay under QIP from 1985-2005.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

M T

ech

Figure 2.17: Number of M Tech Admissions through QIP

50

024

68

101214

161820

22

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Ph

D

Figure 2.18: Number of Ph D Admissions through QIP

Table 2.11: Students Admitted under QIP for 2005-06

National Level IIT Bombay % Contribution Ph.D. 175 19 10.9 ME/M.Tech 189 17 9.0

2.1.5 Administration

A Director heads the IITs. The Director has a team of faculty members – one or more

Deputy Directors (IIT Bombay has one Deputy Director, IIT Delhi has two), several

Deans and Associate deans to help in managing the Institute. The Director is assisted by

the Registrar who heads the administration and has a team of Deputy Registrars and

Assistant Registrars. At IIT Bombay the total senior administration is about 30 (excluding

the Heads of Departments and centres). The ratio of senior administrators to students is

about 1:170. The average ratio of administrators to students in US universities is about

1:70. However comparisons are difficult because it is not clear what is included under

administrators. A presentation made by Vasi [28] at IIT Bombay, made a case for strength-

ening the governance (Ratio of senior administrator: student is 250:1 for the University of

Florida, 120:1 Stanford, 40:1 CalTech). In the case of IITs several routine functions of

campus management, building, and administration are also the responsibility of Institute

administrators. The organizational structure for IIT Bombay, a NIT and a few US universi-

51

ties is provided in Appendix -VII. At present the Deans are selected from within the

Institute and are part time administrators for a fixed tenure (3 years). The organizational

structure in most IITs is similar (number of Deans may differ). In 2008 IIT Bombay

modified its governance structure to include a new Deputy Director, a few more Dean’s

and Associate Dean’s. The administration of IITs is tricky since to ensure faculty flexibility

and freedom, the attempt is to minimize hierarchy. Yet a functional hierarchy is desirable

for organizational efficiency.

The number of staff at IIT Bombay has reduced from 2149 in 1991 to 1390 in 2007. The

ratio of staff to faculty has reduced from 5 in 1991 to about 3.3 in 2006. The trend is

shown in figure 2.19.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Rat

io

Figure 2.19: Ratio of Staff to Faculty [21]

2.1.6 Space

IIT Bombay has a campus area of 550 acres. The actual built up academic area was 128,000

m2 in 1980. This increased to an area of 171,000 m2 in 2006-7 (CAGR of 1%). The aca-

demic area has increased from 143000 m2 in 1990 to 171,000 m2 in 2005-6 (CAGR of

1.2%). The trend is shown in figure 2.20.

52

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500Students Enrolled

Aca

dem

ic A

rea

(m2)

Figure 2.20: Academic area to students enrolled [21]

2.1.7 Government Grants IIT Bombay receives funds from the government under two categories- Plan and Non-Plan. The non-plan grants are for the annual expenditures mainly to cover the salaries of faculty and staff. The plan grants are for capital expenditure – new buildings, major equipment etc. Figure 2.21 shows the trend in variation of the plan, non-plan and total grant received from the government for IIT Bombay. The total grant has increased from Rs 22 crores in 1986-87 to Rs 119 crores in 2006-07 (CAGR of 8.8%) [21, 29]. During the same period the non-plan grant increased from Rs 7.5 crores to Rs 72.4crores (CAGR of 12%). The non-plan grant has been almost constant for the last 5 years (declining in real terms after adjusting for inflation). The plan grant shows yearly fluctuations depending on the new plans submitted by the Institute and approved by the ministry.

53

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

1986

-87

1988

-89

1990

-91

1992

-93

1994

-95

1996

-97

1998

-99

2000

-01

2002

-03

2004

-05

Year

Rs

in L

akh

s

Non Plan GrantTotal GrantPlan Grant

Figure 2.21: Government Grants received [25, 29]

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

Year

Rs

in L

akh

s

Figure 2.22: Government Grants received per Student (in constant 2006 Rs)

[25, 29]

We examine the trend of the total grant received per student (number of students enrolled

in that year), after adjusting for inflation (in constant prices 2006-7 Rupees). This is shown

in figure 2.22. Interestingly the grant per student has been relatively constant around the

average of Rs 2.3 lakhs per year. If we assume that the entire grant is for education (ex-

clude research and other outputs) the total cost to the government per IIT B.Tech is Rs 9.2

lakhs, M.Tech Rs 4.6 lakhs, Dual degree student Rs 11.2 lakhs, and PhD Rs 9.2 lakhs

(assuming four year tenure). The annual tuition fees for students are shown in figure 2.23.

54

The annual tuition fee at present (in 2008) is Rs. 50000 for B.Tech and Rs. 10000 for

M.Tech.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

Fee

s (R

s)B.TechM.Tech

Figure 2.23: Annual tuition fees [21]

Table 2.12 shows the annual receipts and payments for IIT Bombay for 2005-6 (Source:

IIT Bombay Annual Report for 2005-6). The total annual expenditure (excluding capital

expenditure and R &D expenditure) is Rs 116 crores. The major component of this is

salary and allowances (Rs. 42 crores or 36% of the total annual expenditure) and retirement

benefits (Rs. 21 crores or 18%). The R&D expenditure is separately accounted and was

about Rs. 79 crores. Capital expenditure for new buildings and equipment was about Rs. 31

crores. The total expenditure during this period was about Rs. 226 crores.

The grant-in-aid receipts from government were about Rs.119 crores. Fees and other

receipts from the students accounted for only Rs 12 crores (about 10% of the total annual

expenditure)

Table 2.12: Annual Receipts and Payments for IIT Bombay for 2005-6[30]

Payments Amount (Rs. Lakhs) Receipts

Amount (Rs. Lakhs)

Grant-in-aid Salary and Allowances 4189 Plan 4650Retirement Benefits 2079 Non Plan 7240Other Operating Expenses 5293 Total Expenditure 11561 Fees and Other Receipts 1159R&D Expenditure 7861 R & D Projects 10244Capital Expenditure 3133 Total 22555 Total 23293

55

2.1.8 Enthusing engineering students

A challenge facing engineering education in India is getting students excited and enthused

in engineering. The focus of the curriculum / education system is on analysis and mathe-

matical formulations. Students often do not appreciate the hands-on component of

engineering components / systems. There have been initiatives by individual faculty to

bring in these linkages through special classes, laboratory sessions and technical competi-

tions.

One of the initiatives that has been successful at IIT Bombay is Techfest in Technical Competitions. Techfest is the IIT Bombay's Annual Science and Technology festival organised by students and faculty at the institute. This is Asia’s largest Technology Festival that attracts large number of engineering students from all over the country. Since the last few years interest of students in participation the technical events and competitions, has increased. The statistics on Techfest is as shown in Table 2.13. The number of students participating in Technical Competitions increased from 10 in 1994 to 13982 about 14,000 in 2007 (CAGR for 2002-2007 of 69%.). There is significant growth in the funding from 1994, which increased from Rs. 10000 in 1994 to 75 lakhs in 2007. Figure 2.24 shows funding and number of student participants in Techfest.

Table 2.13: Statistics on Techfest

Year Number of

Competitions Number of

students Finances in

Thousand Rs.

1994 1 10 10 1995 1 30 10 1996 1 80 35 1997 1 120 50 1998 3 200 200 1999 3 250 250 2000 3 300 300 2001 3 320 300 2002 7 1000 600 2003 14 3000 2500 2004 20 5000 3000 2005 22 9000 5000 2006 22 7500 6000 2007 20 13982 7500

56

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Fu

nd

ing

(000

Rs.

)

Funding Number of Students

Figure 2.24: Funding and Number of Student participants in Techfest

57

2.2 Outputs of the IITs The IITs are similar in their structure, organisation and output. Hence detailed trends of

each IIT would be similar to the case study of IIT Bombay. In this section we aggregate

the data from all the IITs.

2.2.1 Graduates

The number of engineers (B. Tech.) graduating every year from the IIT system is shown in

figure 2.25. The number increased from 169 in 1955 to 2316 in 2006 with a CAGR of

5.3%. During 1955 to 1975, the growth rate was high (10.5%) as the IITs were being set up

and establishing the UG programme. In the next twenty years, there was a slight increase in

the output (less than 1% per year). Since 1995 the growth rate increased to 4.2% per year

mainly due to the addition of IIT Guwahati and IIT Roorkee. The growth rate of the IIT

system has been slower than the overall growth of the engineering education system.

Figure 2.26 shows the share of IITs of the total Indian engineering graduates. The share of

the IIT system increased to values ranging from 5-8% of the total in the 1970s-80s. Since

then the share has been gradually declining with the IITs contributing less than 1% of

India’s engineering graduates.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1955

1958

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f G

rad

uat

es

Figure 2.25: Graduate student output 1955-2006 [26]

58

0

2

4

6

8

10

1954

1958

1964

1968

1974

1978

1984

1986

1988

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

IIT

s O

utp

ut

(%)

Figure 2.26: Share of IITs in National Graduate Output 1954-2006 [31]

2.2.2 Post graduates

The postgraduate output of IITs (Masters) in 1985 was 1013 and increased to 3449 in 2006

(CAGR of 6%). Figure 2.27 shows the growth trend of postgraduate students from 1985 to

2006. The share of the IIT s in the Masters output is significant but declining as shown in

figure 2.28. It was 31% of the country’s output in 1985 and has reduced to about 14% of

the total in 2006.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 2.27: Postgraduate student output of IITs 1985 to 2006[31]

59

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1995

1999

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Ou

tpu

t (%

)

Figure 2.28: Share of IITs in National Postgraduate Output 1985-2006 [31]

2.2.3 Ph.D. Output

Figure 2.29 shows the trend of Ph D degrees awarded from 1974 to 2006. In 1974 Ph D output was 184 and 2006 its 565. Ph D output for 1974-2006 is increasing with 4% annu-ally. The percentage share of IITs in the national engineering Ph D output for 1974-2005 is shown in figure 2.30. IITs share in national output is 32.3% in 1974 and 24.5 % in 2005. The trend shows variations yearly, but an annual average share of IITs to the national output of Ph Ds is about 43.8 %. The ratio of the postgraduate output to total engineering output is almost constant as 0.55 over the period 1985-2006. The trend is shown in figure 2.31. This ratio in 2006 for different IITs is as shown in Table 2.14

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Ph

D O

utp

ut

Figure 2.29: Ph D output of IITs 1974 to 2006 [31]

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

1974

1978

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Per

cent

age

Figure 2.30: Share of IITs in National Engineering Ph D Output 1974-2005 [30]

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Perc

enta

ge

Figure 2.31: Ratio of Engineering Postgraduates (M Tech and PhD) to Total

Engineering Degrees (B Tech, M Tech and PhD) [31]

61

Table 2.14: Ratio of Postgraduates to Total Engineering Degrees

Institute Ratio of Postgraduate to Total Engineering Degrees

IIT Kharagpur 0.67 IIT Bombay 0.60 IIT Madras 0.66 IIT Kanpur 0.55 IIT Delhi 0.60 IIT Guwahati 0.40 IIT Roorkee 0.67

2.3 Selection Process Admissions to the IITs are based on performance in a competitive examination. For the

B.Tech and the Dual Degree programme the criteria is performance in the Joint Entrance

Examination (JEE). The number of students registered for the JEE has increased from

about 80,000 in 1990 to about 300,000 in 2006 (CAGR of 8.7%). During this period, the

total under-graduate seats at the IITs have increased from 2035 to 5444 (CAGR of 6.3%).

If we consider only the general category seats, the number of students registered has

increased from 74000 in 1990 to 270,000 in 2006 (CAGR of 8.4%). The number of general

category seats at the IITs has increased from 1938 to 4217 (CAGR of 5%) during this

period. The percentage of seats to registered candidates (for the general category) is shown

in figure 2.32. The average value has been 2.5%. Since the number of applicants is increas-

ing at higher rates than the number of seats, this percentage has been declining (present

value 1.6%). The low percentage has resulted in a coaching class industry that thrives on

training students for JEE.

62

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Per

cen

tage

Figure 2.32: Percentage of Seats to Registered Applicants for JEE [21]

Post-graduate admissions are through the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE).

However unlike the under-graduate admissions, different departments and IITs have

different procedures for admissions. The screening is based on GATE. Some departments

offer direct admissions based on the GATE score. Others use GATE as a filter and then

carry out a test and interview. The selectivity here is also between 2-3% for most academic

programmes.

Figure 2.33 shows the trend in the number of candidates appearing for GATE. The

number of students registered for GATE has increased from 63000 in 2001 to about

184000 in 2006 (a CAGR of 24%). A large number of engineering graduates appear to be

interested in post-graduate qualifications.

63

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

ers

RegisteredAppearedQualified

Figure 2.33: Trend in number of candidates for GATE [21]

2.4 Grants Received and Publications The total grants received for all IITs are shown in figure 2.34. The trend for all IITs is very

similar to that of IIT Bombay. The total grants for all IITs for the year 2006 is Rs. 639

crores The trend of the publications for all IITs is shown in figure 2.35.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-200

0

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

Year

Am

ount

in R

s L

akhs

PlanNon plan

Total

Figure 2.34: Grants Received for all IITs [29]

64

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1996 1997  1998 1999  2000  2001 2002  2003  2004  2005 2006

Year

Pu

blic

atio

ns

Figure 2.35: Total Publications for all IITs [27]

65

2.5 Indian Institute of Science Bangalore

The Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore was set up about a hundred years earlier

(1909) and has established its reputation as a premier research institute in science and

engineering. IISc does not award any UG engineering degrees. Table 2.15 shows the annual

number of degrees awarded from 1993 to 2005. The number of degrees awarded ranged

between 440 to 640 with an average of 500 per year, There is no clear trend (increase /

decrease) in the student output. [32]

Table 2.15: Degrees Awarded from 1993-2005 [32]

Year PhD MSc Engg MS M Tech/ME Total 1993 126 57 276 459 1996 125 53 15 261 454 1997 148 59 9 291 507 1998 156 63 19 263 501 1999 131 69 22 418 640 2000 139 75 27 267 508 2001 133 74 27 207 441 2002 116 108 20 234 478 2003 123 100 24 ----- ---- 2005 165 79 30 228 502

Table 2.16 shows the variation of the teaching and support staff of IISc Bangalore. The

total teaching and scientific staff has shown a decrease from about 540 in 1993 to 430 in

2005. The academic (faculty) has remained almost constant while the scientific staff (faculty

equivalent) has declined. The support staff to teaching staff ratio is about 2 (lower than the

IITs).

Table 2.16: Strength of Teaching Staff and Support Staff [32] Teaching staff Support Staff

Year Academic Scientific Total Technical Support Total

1993 336 207 543 32 1010 1042 1996 329 205 534 38 1426 1464 1997 328 142 470 46 1464 1510 1998 334 141 475 35 1404 1439 1999 331 138 469 60 1348 1408 2000 334 134 468 45 1313 1358 2001 319 120 439 42 1272 1314 2002 318 116 434 35 1048 1083 2003 321 114 435 55 1037 1092 2005 329 103 432 48 908 956

66

Table 2.17 shows the number of enrolled students and the student to faculty ratio. The

student to faculty ratio has increased from 2.9:1 to 5.1:1 (lower than the IIT norm of 9:1

and actual IIT values of 12:1). This increase is primarily due to a decrease in th teaching

staff.

Table 2.17: Students Enrolled and Student Faculty Ratio [32]

Research ME (Int) M Tech M Des PhD MBA Total Faculty S/F1993 898 225 415 28 1566 543 2.881996 1007 197 468 47 1719 534 3.221997 960 143 506 47 1656 470 3.521998 956 99 625 62 1742 475 3.671999 1083 35 536 28 50 1732 469 3.692000 1055 429 16 57 24 1581 468 3.382001 1315 423 15 60 25 1838 439 4.192002 1215 461 23 68 27 1794 434 4.132003 447 468 18 92 21 1946 435 4.472005 1673 502 18 22 2215 432 5.13

The total number of publications from IISc in 2005 (based on Scopus) was 1386. The

numbers in the annual report are higher by about 15%. Figure 2.36 shows the variation in

the publications of IISc. The publications clearly show an increasing trend and the average

number of publications per faculty per year is a little less than 3.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f P

ub

licat

ion

s

Figure 2.36: Number of publications [27]

The annual funds received for sponsored and consultancy projects are shown for a few

years in Table 2.18. The total project fund was Rs 113 crores in 2001. This increased to Rs

162 crores in 2005. The project funding per teaching staff was Rs 37.6 lakhs in 2005 (Rs 36

lakhs per faculty sponsored projects, 1.7 lakhs per faculty consultancy projects).

67

Table 2.18: Research Funding from Sponsored and Consultancy Projects [32]

Amount in Lakhs Year

Sponsored Projects Consultancy Projects 1993 173 1996 199 2001 10821 541 2002 13559 2003 14711 604 2005 15503 727

Figure 2.37 shows the government grant received for IISc. The grant received per student

is about Rs 6 lakhs.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Year

Am

oun

t in

Rs

Lak

hs

Plan

Non plan

Total

Figure 2.37: Government grant received for IISc [29]

Table 2.19 shows the annual receipts and payments for IISc Bangalore for 2005-6. The salary accounts for Rs. 47 crores or 22% of the total annual expenditure.

Table 2.19: Annual Receipts and Payments for IISc Bangalore [32]

Particulars Receipts Payments

Maintenance –Non-Plan 9,759 10,910Plan Projects 2,800 2,778Special Plan grant 6,100 6Activities funded by agencies 2,517 2,294Centre for Sponsored Schemes & Projects 5,841 4,430

CSIC-Fund for Applied Research 1,282 872Total 28,299 21,289

68

2.6 Summary

The IITs and IISc have a high selectivity in admissions choosing only 2-3 % of the appli-

cants for the engineering programmes. They receive significant grant in-aid funds from the

government. They contribute to less than 1% of the engineering graduates in the country

about 20% of the M.Techs and 40% of the engineering doctorates. These institutions have

established quality academic programmes and are able to attract reasonable research

funding. The Government decided to setup eight new IIT’s. Six new IIT’s are function-

ing and have admitted students through JEE 2008 in July 2008. The other two IIT’s are

expected to start in 2009.

At present, the IITs are unable to attract their best engineering graduates and post-

graduates for a their doctoral programmes. The faculty base is almost stagnant (or growing

at very low growth rates.). The challenge for the IIT system is to enhance its overall output

and impact in the overall engineering education system of India.

69

Chapter 3 National Institutes of Technology and Private Engineering

Colleges

3.1 Introduction Figure 3.1 shows the institute wise distribution of sanctioned intake of engineering gradu-

ates for 2006 in India. Private engineering colleges have a sanctioned intake of about 4 lakh

(76%) while the government institutes account for about one lakh sanctioned intake (21%).

The share of Tier 1 Institutions (7 IITs and IISc) is only 1% and that of the National

Institutes of Technology is 2%. There are about 1100 private engineering colleges and

about 320 government engineering colleges.

21%

76%

2%1%

IITs

NITs

Government

Private

Figure 3.1. Share of engineering colleges based on intake (2006)

The engineering colleges can be classified as

a) Affiliated Colleges

b) Autonomous Colleges

c) Deemed University

In the case of affiliated colleges, the institution is affiliated to a university, which is the

degree granting body. The college has no flexibility or powers related to curriculum or

evaluation. The academic powers rest with the university. In the case of autonomous

colleges, the institutions have academic flexibility viz they can make curriculum changes

and conduct examinations and evaluation. However they are notionally under the univer-

70

sity and have relatively less financial autonomy. Institutions that have acquired deemed

university status have the maximum academic and financial autonomy. In India most of the

colleges are affiliated (approximately 98%).

3.2 Case Study of SVNIT, Surat The Government set up Regional Engineering Colleges in different states along with the

state governments since the 1960s. These were converted to the National Institutes of

Technology (NITs) in 2003.. They are autonomous institutions (deemed universities). In

2007, June the passing of the National Institutes of Technology act declared these as

Institutions of national importance. There are 20 NITs in India.

Appendix-VIII provides a listing of the NITs in the map of India. We have obtained data

from the Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology (SVNIT), Surat. This is one

of the 17 Regional Engineering Colleges that were established as joint venture of the

Government of India and the Government of Gujarat. It was established in June 1961 with

facilities to run Bachelor's Degree Programmes in Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Engi-

neering disciplines. It is now changed to a National Institute of Technology along with the

other RECs and has been given the status of a Deemed University. The college has a

campus spread over 100 hectares of land.

3.2.1 Student output

Figure 3.2 shows the increase in the graduate student output (degrees granted) from

SVNIT Surat. The B.Tech output increased from 211 in 1985 to 393 in 2006 correspond-

ing to an annual growth rate of 3% per year. Figure 3.3 shows the growth trend of

postgraduate (M.Tech) students from 1985 to 2006.

71

0

100

200

300

400

500

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.2: Graduate student output 1985-2006 [33]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

outp

ut

Figure 3.3: Masters Degrees awarded 1985 to 2006 [33]

A total of 42 PhDs were awarded by SVNIT from 1986-2002 (average of 3 Ph D per year).

Figure 3.4 shows the trend of total output from 1985 to 2006 (CAGR of 2.7%)

72

0

100

200

300

400

500

1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Year

Out

put

Figure 3.4: Total Engineering Degrees Awarded [33]

3.2.2 Enrolment Figure 3.5 shows trend of enrolment against sanctioned strength for B Tech. Figure 3.6

shows trend of enrolment against sanctioned strength for M Tech/ME. It is clear that the

enrolment percentage for M.Tech is lower than the B.Tech. The average output by sanc-

tioned intake (t-4) (O/S) ratio for B.Tech for SVNIT is 0.92. The average output by

sanctioned intake (t-2) (O/S) ratio for M.Tech for SVNIT is 0.39.

250

300

350

400

450

500

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

EnrolmentSanctioned

Figure 3.5: Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for B. Tech [33]

73

0

40

80

120

160

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

EnrolmentSanctioned

Figure 3.6: Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for M. Tech/ME [29]

3.2.3 Campus Placement Table 3.1 shows the campus placement statistics for SVNIT. The data on the number

registered for placement is not available. There may be some percentage of students who

opt for higher studies (10-20%). Hence 73% placement for the graduating B.Techs is a

high number. The placement percentage for the M.Techs is much lower. Table 3.2 shows

the average starting salaries for B Tech. The average starting salary for B.Techs from

SVNIT is about Rs 2.1 lakhs per year. Another interesting trend is the high percentage of

software jobs, which is clear from the data shown in Table 3.3. About 2/3rds of the

placements currently are from the software sector. This trend is similar for the other

National Institutes of Technology.

Table 3.1: Programme wise percentage placement [33] Programme 2000-01 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Total Graduating 406 405 405 371 392 Placed 238 142 190 257 288 B.Tech. % Placement 59 35 47 69 73 Total Graduating - - 30 36 36 Placed - - 2 2 10 M.Tech. % Placement 7 6 28

Table 3.2: Programme wise Average Salaries [33] Programme 2000-01 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

B Tech 188000 147000 167000 200000 206000 M Tech - - 182000 162000 223000

74

Table 3.3: Sector wise Placement [33] Programme Sector 2000-01 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Core Engineering (%) 44 65 52 41 33B.Tech. Software (%) 56 35 48 58 67

3.2.4 Faculty

SVNIT had faculty strength of 109 in 2006 (with PhD 37, with M.Tech /M.E 55, with B E 16 and 1 MBA). Figure 3.7 shows the trend in the number of faculty. The faculty number has shown a decline over the five-year period 2001-2006. Table 3.4 shows the student: faculty ratio for SVNIT. This has increased from 17:1 to 21:1 mainly because the student output is growing at 2.7% per year and there is a decline in the faculty numbers.

Table 3.4 Total Students on roll and Student-Faculty ratio from 2001-6[33]

Year B.Tech. /B.E.

M.Tech/ME Ph.D.Total Stu-

dents on roll Faculty S/F Ratio

2001 1728 84 92 1904 111 17 2002 1732 120 81 1933 105 18 2003 1707 123 66 1896 104 18 2004 1693 101 63 1857 103 18 2005 1692 109 61 1862 97 19 2006 1691 187 69 1947 91 21

0

40

80

120

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Facu

lty

Figure 3.7: Number of Faculty 2001-2006 [33]

75

3.3 Summary of other NITs

3.3.1 Admissions to NITs

The NITs offer admissions to the students only on the basis of AIEEE (All India En-

trance Examination for Engineering. According to the Central Counselling Board for

AIEEE, the total number of students who appeared for AIEEE 2007 is 635400 while the

total number of seats sanctioned for the engineering through central counselling is only

13124. Institutes offering the sets fully through AIEEE are mainly NITs, IIITs and some

other self-financing and central or state government funded institutes. Almost every

engineering institute in India offers 15% seats of sanctioned strength for the admission

through AIEEE. For 2007 the total sanctioned strength for India is 550986 in 1511

institutes. Excluding the sanctioned strength of 13124 from the above-mentioned insti-

tutes, the remaining 1474 institutes offer 80679 seats through AIEEE. This implies that the

635400 students appearing for AIEEE compete for 93800 sanctioned seats. This indicates

a selectivity of 14.7%. The total sanctioned strength for the NITs is 9250 (2007-8). If we

assume that the first preference of students is the NITs, we obtain a selectivity of 1.5%.

Table 3.5 shows the distribution of sanctioned intake among all NITs. Appendix X shows

the actual allotment this year as on 16 July 2007. From the data it is seen that about 93% of

the allotted seats are filled [35].

Table 3.5: Distribution of sanctioned intake among all NITs [35]

Institute Sanctioned

Strength Institute

Sanctioned Strength

NIT Agartala 420 NIT Nagpur 440 NIT Allahabad 530 NIT Patna 360 NIT Bhopal 610 NIT Raipur 580 NIT Calicut 540 NIT Rourkela 420 NIT Durgapur 520 NIT Silchar 300 NIT Hamirpur 300 NIT Srinagar 410 NIT Jaipur 480 NIT Surat 450 NIT Jalandhar 500 NIT Tiruchirappalli 500 NIT Jamshedpur 390 NIT Warangal 480 NIT Kurukshetra 540 NITK Surathkal 480 Total Sanctioned Strength 9250

76

3.3.2 Outputs of other NITs

Table 3.6 shows the graduate and post graduate output and number of faculty for five NITs – the National Institutes of Technology at Durgapur, Hamirpur, Warangal, Rourkela and Surat. Of these NITs the share of the masters output to the total engineering degrees ranges between 9 to 36%. The student – faculty ratio ranges around 15:1. NIT Warangal seems to have a lower number due to the recent increase in faculty. The average annual output of engineering degrees ranges from 400 to 500. The B.Tech and M.Tech output of NIT Warangal is shown in Figure 3.8. Data was not available for the number of PhDs awarded annually for each of these institutes. NIT Warangal awarded 180 science and engineering PhDs from 1985 to 2006 (an average of 9 per year). The percentage of faculty with PhDs ranged from 34-55% for these institutes [34].

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Ou

tpu

t

B TechM Tech

Figure 3.8: M.Tech and B.Tech output of NIT Warangal

Table 3.6: Student Output and Number of Faculty for five NITs [34]

Institute B.Tech M.Tech TED Faculty ME/TED % of Faculty

with PhD S/F

NIT Durgapur 373 70 443 106 16 44 15 NIT Hamirpur 225 NA 225 67 NA 52 13 SVNIT Surat 393 38 431 91 9 34 21 NIT Warangal 324 183 507 179 36 55 11 NIT Rourkela 325 73 398 -- 18 NA -

At NIT Hamirpur the first batch of M.Techs will graduate in 2007. The sanctioned

strength is 54 while the actual enrolment is 27.

77

The placement record for most NITs is good with most graduates being placed through

the campus recruitment. At NIT Hamirpur the placement percentage increased from 49%

in 2004 to 75% in 2005 and further increased to 89% in 2006. Appendix IX includes

placement statistics for different disciplines for NIT Hamirpur, NIT Tiruchirapally and

MNNIT, Allahabad. Software companies account for about 2/3rd of the job offers.

In general, the NITs have a high selectivity and admit good students. They have academic

autonomy but receive significantly lower central grants than the IITs. They have relatively

less research output and do not attract significant research funding. Though they have

difficulty in attracting quality faculty, many have established quality academic programmes

and are making efforts to enhance their research output.

3.4 Other Government Engineering Colleges Apart from the NITs there are several other state government run engineering colleges that

have an established reputation and are on par with the NITs. Some examples are the

College of Engineering, Pune, the Veermata Jijabai Technology Institute (VJTI) Mumbai,

Bengal Engineering College, and Kolkata. There are other reputed institutions like the

University Institute of Chemical Technology (earlier known as the University Department

of Chemical Technology) that have established quality education and research programmes

in Chemical Engineering and allied sciences. We provide some details on the College of

Engineering, Pune and VJTI, Mumbai as examples of Government engineering colleges.

3.4.1. College of Engineering Pune (COEP)

The College of Engineering Pune (COEP) was established in 1854 as Civil Engineering

College Pune. It has autonomous status and is affiliated to the Pune University in Ma-

harashtra. Its campus has a built up area of 45,300 m2. The number of engineering

graduates in 2006 is about 620 and 140 post-graduates. The tuition fees for B-Tech are Rs.

15,000 per year and Rs 4,000 for Non-Sponsored student and Rs 10,000 for sponsored

M.Tech. There are 93 permanent faculty and 40 faculty appointed on an ad-hoc basis. The

student to faculty ratio is about 21:1. There are also 60 visiting faculty. Depending on the

degree of involvement of the visiting faculty the student faculty ratio would range from

14.5 –21:1. About 15% of the full-time faculty have Ph.D. degrees. [36]

Table 3.7 shows the data for the Bachelors (Undergraduate) programmes at COEP. It is

evident that the entire sanctioned intake gets filled up (E/S ratios about 1) at the B Tech

level.

78

Table 3.7: Sanctioned Intake, Enrolment and Output for B.Tech Programmes [36]

Year Sanctioned Intake

Actual Admis-sions E/S Output

2002-2003 570 585 1.03 2003-2004 570 535 0.94 525 2004-2005 570 591 1.04 582 2005-2006 570 570 1.00 629

Table 3.8 shows the sanctioned intake and enrolment for M.Tech programmes in COEP.

The enrolment is about 70% of the sanctioned intake.

Table 3.8 Sanctioned Intake, Enrolment for M.Tech Programmes [36]

Year Sanctioned Intake

Actual Admissions

E/S

2002-2003 361 254 0.70 2003-2004 361 247 0.68 2004-2005 352 260 0.74 2005-2006 361 271 0.75

COEP has a good record of campus placement as shown in Table 3.9. The average salary

data is shown in Table 3.10. The average salaries per annum have also been increasing. The

average B.Tech salaries are higher than the average M.Tech salaries.

Table 3.9: Year wise and Programme wise Percentage Placement [36]

Year 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 M. Tech 12 49 69 52 B. Tech 68 65 72 85

Table 3.10: Year wise and Programme wise Percentage Average Salary per Year [36]

Year 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 M. Tech -- 247000 202000 220000 B. Tech 185000 227000 243000 287000

The total annual budget of 2005-2006 was about Rs 8.2 crores of which the state

government provided 7.2 crores. About 75% of the annual expenditure is towards

salaries. The government support is about Rs 26,000 per student per year. COEP has an

annual output of about 800 engineering degrees. The college attracts very good students

for the B.Tech (high cut-offs in the Common Entrance test of Maharashtra), it has a

good academic programme and many links with industries especially for student

79

projects. The college has obtained World Bank funding under the Technical Education

Quality Improvement Programme and the Department of Science and Technology’s

Fund for Improvement of S&T infrastructure in universities and higher educational

institutions (FIST) scheme for state of the art equipment for research infrastructure.

COEP is poised to improve its research output and can effectively utilize Pune’s engineer-

ing base to become a Tier 1 institution. This will be facilitated by the adoption of policies

that permit quick hiring of good faculty and increased grant and research funding.

3.4.2. Veermata Jijabai Technology Institute (VJTI)

The Veermata Jijabai Technology Institute (VJTI) was established in 1887 at Mumbai.

VJTI currently acquired financial and academic autonomy in 2004 as an autonomous

institution affiliated to the Mumbai University. The fees structure is similar to COEP. The

sanctioned intake strength is 420 B.Techs and about 260 M.Techs. VJTI started as a

diploma granting institution and continues to run several diploma level programmes along

with the B.Tech and M.Tech programmes. Table 3.11 shows the sanctioned intake and the

enrolment in the B.Tech programme. The E/S ratio is around 1 and the cut-offs for

admissions are high. The E/S data for M.Techs is lower (though exact data was not

available). [37]

Table 3.11: Sanctioned Intake and Enrolment for B.Tech [37]

Year Enrolled Sanctioned E/S 2004-05 439 420 1.05 2005-06 410 420 0.98 2006-07 399 420 0.95

Figure 3.9 shows the increase in the B.E student output from VJTI Mumbai. The student output increased from 212 in 1985 to 418 in 2006 (corresponding to an annual growth rate of 3.3 %).

80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Out

pu

t

Figure 3.9: Graduate Degrees Awarded by VJTI 1985-2006

The M. Tech/ME degrees awarded in 1985 were 63. This increased to170 in 2004 (CAGR

of 5 4%). Figure 3.10 shows the growth trend of postgraduate students from 1985 to 2004.

Figure 3.11 shows the trend of total output from 1985 to 2004. The total student output

increased from 275 in 1985 to 613 in 2004 (CAGR of 4.3%).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.10: Masters Degrees awarded by VJTI 1985 to 2004

81

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.11: Total Engineering Degrees Awarded by VJTI

Figure 3.12 shows the trend of enrolment against sanctioned strength for B E.

0

100

200

300

400

500

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Nu

mbe

r of

Stu

den

ts

EnrolmentSanctioned Intake

Figure 3.12: Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for B. E.

The total permanent faculty is 82 resulting in a faculty: student ratio of about 20:1. Attract-

ing and increasing the faculty base seems to be a constraint for VJTI’s growth. It has

recently started a PhD programme and has obtained significant funding (Rs 22 crores)

under the TEQIP scheme of the World Bank to develop new research facilities and

augment infrastructure. The campus placements for B.Techs and M.Techs are good and

the average salaries are shown in Table 3.12

82

Table 3.12: Programme wise Salary Details [37]

Year 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 B. Tech 148000 182000 210000 M. Tech 250000 150000 185000

3.5 Private Engineering Colleges About 75% of the engineering graduates are taught at the private engineering colleges.

There are more than 1100 private engineering colleges. However a ranking of the top fifty

engineering colleges reveals only a small percentage of private colleges. More than 90% of

the private engineering colleges are affiliated colleges that have little academic autonomy.

The existing administrative structure and nature of private colleges results in very little

financial autonomy. The fees for the open seats are regulated based on AICTE norms and

an evaluation of the college balance sheet. Salaries account for about 80% of the total

budget. Only a few private engineering colleges have been able to ensure quality education.

Some of these colleges are Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani and Mesra,

Thapar University, Patiala, Manipal Institute of Technology, Dhirubai Ambani Institute of

Information and Communication Technology. (The list is indicative and not exhaustive).

Most of the successful private institutions have been granted deemed university status.

We have analysed data from the Manipal Institute of Technology, Thapar University and

the Dhirubai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology.

3.5.1 Case Study of Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal

The Manipal Institute of Technology was founded in 1957 (known until 1974 as the Manipal Engineering College) and was among the first self-financed colleges of the coun-try. It started by offering academic programs in just one discipline - civil engineering, which has over the years grown to graduation in 12 disciplines and post graduation in 9 disci-plines. The institute is located in a campus of over 160 acres [38].

3.5.1.1 Student output Figure 3.13 shows the increase in the B.E student output from MIT Manipal. Student output increased from 576 in 2002 to 751 in 2006 (corresponding to an annual growth rate of 6.8 %).

83

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.13: Graduate Degrees Awarded 2002-2006 [38]

The M. Tech/ME degrees awarded in 2000 were 57. This increased to 81 in 2006 (CAGR of 1.7 %). Figure 3.14 shows the growth trend of postgraduate students from 2000 to 2006. Figure 3.15 shows the trend of total output from 2002 to 2006. Total student output increased from 648 in 2002 to 832 in 2006 (CAGR of 6.5%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.14: Masters Degrees awarded 2000 to 2006 [38]

84

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.15: Total Engineering Degrees Awarded [38]

3.5.1.2 Enrolment

Figure 3.16 shows trend of enrolment against sanctioned strength for B Tech. Figure 3.17

shows trend of enrolment against sanctioned strength for M Tech/ME.

100

300

500

700

900

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

EnrolmentSanctioned

Figure 3.16: Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for B. Tech [38]

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents Enrolment

Sanctioned

Figure 3.17: Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for M Tech/ME [38]

85

3.5.1.3 Campus Placement

Manipal Institute of Technology has a good record of campus placement as shown in Table 3.13. In 2005-6, 89% of the graduating class was placed through the campus place-ment. 75% of B.Techs and 86% of M.Techs opted for software jobs. The average B.Tech starting salary was Rs 2.5 lakhs per year. Programme wise average salaries are shown in Table 3.14.

Table 3.13: Percentage Placement for B Tech [38]

Programme 2000-01 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06Total Graduating 576 696 618 798 751 Placed 31 160 187 574 669 % Placement 5 23 30 72 89

B.Tech.

Average Salary 240000 250000

Table 3.14: Programme wise Average Salaries [38]

Programme Sector 2000-01 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Core Engineering (%) 48.39 36.25 25.67 25.26 Software (%) 52 61 74 75 B.Tech. Others 2.50 Core Engineering (%) 11 14 M.Tech. Software (%) 100.00 100.00 89 86

3.5.1.4 Faculty

For the current year 2006-2007 MIT Manipal has faculty strength of 285 (with PhD 71, with M.Tech /M.E 185, with BE 18, 9 M Sc and 2 MA). Figure 3.18 shows the trend in the number of faculty. The student to faculty ratio is shown in Table 3.15. It ranges between 12:1 to 13:1.[38]

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Fac

ult

y

Figure 3.18: Number of Faculty 2001-2006 [38]

86

Table 3.15: Student Faculty ratio for MIT, Manipal [38]

Year B.E./B.ARCH M Tech MCA Total Faculty S/F Ratio1996 2926 1997 2843 1998 2871 1999 3054 2000 3037 159 3196 2001 3115 143 117 3258 257 1:13 2002 3058 167 110 3225 258 1:13 2003 3094 210 94 3304 269 1:12 2004 3137 195 101 3332 277 1:12 2005 3168 181 101 3349 276 1:12 2006 3443 204 89 3647 280 1:13

3.5.1.5 Admission Manipal University conducts an all India level entrance test (UGET) every year for

admissions to MIT. The annual fees paid by students are shown in Table 3.16. The grant

received by MIT from different government schemes is shown in Table 3.17. The total

estimated annual revenue from fees is about Rs. 46 crores.

Table 3.16: Programme wise Annual Fees

Fees B.E. M.Tech. Tuition Fees 61,000 1,10,000 Other Fees 61,000 35,000 Total 1,22,000 1,45,000

Table 3.17: Year wise Grants Received (Rs. in Lakhs)

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 23 45 18 18

MIT Manipal has been able to maintain a favourable student – faculty ratio and a high

growth rate in the student output. The student output is about 800, which is predominantly

graduate (BE) degrees. The placement record is good with most students opting for

software jobs. There are relatively few research projects and consequently less research

publications and projects. The challenge for MIT is to augment its research output and

upgrade its faculty quality and numbers.

87

3.5.2 Thapar University Patiala

The Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET) was set up in 1956 through a

unique public-private partnership by the then state of Patiala, the central government and

the Patiala Technical Education Trust set up by an industrialist Lala Karam Chand Thapar.

The foundation objective of the trust clearly outlines the objective of furthering education

and research in engineering and technology. It also specifically mentions that all income

accruing to the trust will be invested back in the institution. The Thapar Institute of

Engineering and Technology was granted full autonomy and the status of a deemed

university by UGC as Thapar University in 1985. [39]

At present the annual fees for B.E at Thapar University is Rs 36,000. Figure 3.19 shows the

number of The B Tech/B.E students graduating from Thapar University. The B

Tech/B.E. output increased from 179 in 1990 to 383 in 2006 (CAGR of 4.9%). Thapar

University’s intake is through AIEEE and the E/S ratio is about 1. There are about 108

faculty members with a student faculty ratio of about 17:1.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.19: B.E./B Tech Student Output from 1990-2006 [40]

Figure 3.20 shows the M E output from Thapar University. The output has increased from

10 in 1990 to about 120 in 2006 (CAGR of 17.9%). Figure 3.21 shows the trend of

sanctioned intake and enrolment for B tech from 1990 to 2006.

88

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Ou

tpu

t

Figure 3.20: M Tech Student Output from 1990-2006 [40]

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

*

2004

*

2005

*

2006

*

Year

Sanctioned

Enrolment

Figure 3.21: B.E./B Tech Student Sanctioned Intake and Enrolment from 1990-2006

[40]

(* Includes NRI / NRS / JK Migrants / Govt. of India students for B Tech)

Table 3.18 shows the growth rates in the outputs of the different programmes. Table 3.19

shows the percentage of campus placement. It is clear that the placement is good with

89

almost 100% of the Ist Division students getting campus placement. The placement record

is improving every year.

Thapar University offers a model for future private public partnerships in education. The

university has established its academic programmes and already has about 25% of its

output at the post-graduate level. It has a PhD programme with 8-12 PhDs being awarded

each year. The Thapar University faculty also have some sponsored and consultancy

projects and research publications. There are 152 regular faculty with 70 having PhDs

(46% of the total). The student faculty ratio is about 12.

Table 3.18: Programme wise Percentage Growth Rates [40]

Year B.Tech. / B.E. M.Tech / ME Ph.D. (Engg) Total Engg 1996-2006 7.7 15.3 14.9 9.1 2001-2006 5.9 42.6 14.9 10.5

Table 3.19: Student Placement Percentages [39]

B E/B. Tech Year I Div. II Div.

2001-2002 84 35 2002-2003 86 25 2003-2004 92 44 2004-2005 98 63 2005-2006 99 76 2006-2007* 97 62

Till 31.05.2007

90

3.5.3 Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication

Technology

The Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology is a self-

financed institution, established in 2001 at Gandhinagar, Gujarat. This was set up as an

educational trust by the Dhirubai Ambani foundation and the Reliance group in an MOU

with the Gujarat government. This has a built up area of 8500 m2 and offers a B.Tech in

Information and Communications Technology (ICT). This has a university status under

the state act. The fees are Rs. 60,000 for B.Tech and Rs 25000 for M.Tech. The sanctioned

intake for B.Tech is 240 and 40 for M.Tech. DAIICT has 38 regular faculty. Almost all the

faculty have PhDs (34out of 38 or 89%). The institute has also started a PhD programme,

a M.Sc (IT), a M.Sc (ICT and Rural Development) and a Master of Design (Multimedia).

The student faculty ratio is approximately 28:1 [41]. Table 3.20 shows the data and

enrolment in the B.Tech and M.Tech programmes.

Table 3.20: Enrolment and Output of B.Tech and M.Tech in DAIICT [42]

The interesting feature of DAIICT has been its ability to attract good faculty in a niche

area where faculty are scarce. One of the main attractions here is a higher salary. In a

relatively short time the institute has established its academic programmes. It chose to

differentiate its degree from the IT, Computer Science and Electronics degree and started

off with a batch size of 240. This is another possible model for niche institutions. Though

data on the research output is not available, the faculty details and the M.Tech thesis topics

indicate that DAIICT is poised to develop a research culture.

Enrolment Output O/S Year B.Tech M.Tech B.Tech M.Tech B.Tech M.Tech 2001 246 - - - - -2002 248 41 - - - -2003 249 41 - - - -2004 250 39 - - - -2005 229 34 216 34 0.88 0.83 2006 218 45 238 38 0.96 0.97

91

3.6 Other Private Engineering Colleges

The three private institutes profiled are among the successful models and all have auton-omy. Another successful private college is the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani. BITS Pilani has set up Goa and Dubai campus and awarded a total of 3600 degrees in 2006 (the share of engineering or postgraduates is not known). There are 367 faculty in the Pilani campus. The average salary for the BITS graduates in campus placement was Rs 4.1 lakhs per year. BITS have several innovations like the practice school and the Virtual University. BITS at Mesra, Ranchi is also a deemed university and is rated to be among the top private engineering colleges. [43]

An examination of the engineering college ratings reveals that only about 8 private colleges (16%) feature in the top 50. The vast majority of private colleges are affiliated to universi-ties and are sub-critical in terms of faculty and infrastructure. They are constrained by a lack of academic and financial flexibility.

3.7 Summary and International comparison

Table 3.21 shows a summary of the student output and faculty of some select Indian engineering colleges. This is compared with the available data from some of the leading engineering institutions in the world. It can be seen that the Bachelors output per faculty varies from 0.6 for CalTech to 5.3 in Tsinghua University. The IITs have a B/F ratio of around 1. Several International institutions have much higher ratios. The student to faculty ratio varies from 6 for CalTech to 27 for Nanyang Technological University Singapore. Many universities are able to maintain quality despite S/F ratio of 15 or more. For some of the engineering colleges in India that do not have research outputs (apart from Tier1 and Tier2 colleges) it should be possible to have S/F ratios of 20. The average research funding per faculty per year when compared on a purchasing power parity basis seems reasonable for the Indian institutions. IIT Bombay’s average research funding of Rs. 13 lakhs per faculty per year and IISc Bangalore’s Rs 23.7 lakhs per faculty per year (including funding for science) is lower than the average for MIT, Purdue. The publication per faculty data cannot be computed directly by dividing the total publications by the faculty numbers since we have to account for the science faculty. We have computed the approximate publica-tions per faculty with this adjustment and have plotted the bachelors (UG) output per faculty and the publications per faculty (Figure 3.22). The publications of the NITs and other engineering colleges are less than 1 per faculty per year. The IITs have an average of 1.5 to 2 publications per faculty per year. Many of the selected international universities have averages of 4 to 5 publications per faculty per year.

92

Table 3.21: Comparison of Indian Engineering Institutions with select International Universities

Student Output Research Fund in Rs (PPP) Institute/University

Bachelors Masters Ph.D. TEDFaculty B/F S/F ratio Ph.D./

Bachelors

Research Fund

(million) Papers

Million Lakhs/ faculty

Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA

578 745 135 1458 372 1.6 8 0.23 US $234.5 3129 1876 50.4

Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign USA

1237 554 156 1947 441 2.8 15 0.13 US $200.1 2251 1600.8 36.3

Purdue University USA 1238 461 144 1843 309 4.0 19 0.12 US $112.3 2648 898.4 29.1

Georgia Institute of Tech-nology USA

1391 751 162 2304 419 3.3 20 0.12 US $203.7 2811 1629.6 38.9

California Institute of Technology USA

247 120 277 644 398 0.6 6 1.12 US $80.4 2885 643.2 16.2

Imperial College UK 695 600 160 1455 291 2.4 15 0.23 UK £ 63.4 2674 768.408 26.4 Tsinghua University China 2100 1400 500 4000 1200 1.8 12 0.24 NA 6590 NA NA Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan

980 1633 382 2995 906 1.1 10 0.39 NA 3993 NA NA

Nanyang Technological University Singapore 2635 1400 500 4535 1020 2.6 27 0.19 NA 2564 NA NA

National University of Singa-pore 1402 570 119 2091 288 4.9 20 0.08 S$82.5 1933 532.1 1.8

Pohang University of Science and Technology Korea

306 329 134 769 305 1.3 11 0.44 NA 1259 NA NA

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

755 731 390 1876 418 1.8 18 0.52 NA 939 NA NA

IISc Bangalore 0 337 165 502 432 0.0 3 Rs 1024 1274 1024 23.7 IIT Bombay 422 581 56 1059 401 1.1 12 0.13 Rs 520 568 520 13.0

IIT Total 2316 3449 262 6027 2400 1.0 12 0.11 NA 3942 NA NA

NIT Total 7000 1550 120 8670 2215 3.2 15 0.02 NA 678 NA NA Manipal (MIT, India) 751 81 832 280 2.7 13 NA 33 NA NA

93

Notes for Table 3.21 The source for engineering student output for the US universities is the engineering profile 2006 [38]

All the data outputs are for 2006.

The data for the Indian Institutes have been taken from the earlier chapters in the report.

For all the Indian Institutes the faculty data is the total faculty in that institute.

For the US universities data used is the engineering faculty data obtain from the Engineering Profile 2006 [38]

For the other universities the data has been obtained from their websites [45 - 52]

For Imperial college the graduation data for engineers was available for 2005 and the total postgraduate degrees awarded in 2005 was available. We have taken the share of the postgraduate engineering enrolment to obtain an estimate of the postgraduate engineering degrees.

For Tsinghua University China the data on degrees awarded was not available. We have used the enrolment data for engineering graduates.

The share of engineering post graduates and PhDs have been assumed to be similar to the graduate share for Tsinghua.

TED refers to the total engineering degrees awarded annually (2006).

The B/F ratio is the ratio of the bachelor’s degrees in engineering to the faculty.

The S/F ratio is the ratio of the total students enrolled to the faculty. We obtained S/F ratios from the enrolment data wherever available. In cases where this was not available we estimated this from the annual engineering degrees assuming average durations of each programme.

The publications data have been obtained from Scopus for engineering and science publications (excluding life sciences, health sciences and social sciences).

The research funding data is shown in the local currency (millions) these have been converted to Indian Rupees using the purchasing power parity exchange rates [46]. The research fund per faculty is computed in Rupees lakh (1 lakh = 100,000)

94

Figure 3.22: Publications and UG student output for select institutions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6UG Engineering Degrees / Faculty

Publ

icat

ions

/facu

lty

NITsManipal

Tsinghua

IITIITB

Tokyo

KAIST NTU

UIUC

NUS

PurdueGeorgia Tech

Imperial

MIT

POSTECH

CALTEC

IISc

95

Chapter 4 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

We have analysed the overall national trends and the trends for representative Indian engineering institutions in the previous chapters. Based on the analysis, we develop conclu-sions and policy recommendations for engineering education in India.

4.1 Scenarios for Engineering Education In order to plan for the growth of the engineering education system we build up alternative future scenarios. The objective of these scenarios is to establish quantitative growth targets. The scenario numbers are subject to the uncertainty in the data trends used (e.g there is some uncertainty in the outputs that have been estimated based on average O/S ratios).

4.1.1 Business as Usual Scenario We build up a business as usual scenario for engineering education in India to estimate the annual engineering student output in 2012 and 2017 based on the past growth trends. Table 4.1 shows the 5 year and 10 year annual growth rates in the outputs. In all cases, we have taken the five-year growth rate to build the scenarios, except for the graduates where we have taken the lower growth rate (12.5%). The five-year growth rates for M.Techs and PhDs is lower than the ten-year growth rates.

We construct the Business as Usual scenario BAU. As per the Government plan, the number of general category seats remains constant. The increased growth occurs by 2012. Subsequently the existing growth rates are taken to construct the 2017 output. Table 4.2 shows the results of the BAU scenario for the nation. (Appendix XI shows an earlier scenario – without reservation)

Table 4.1: Annual Growth rates for different programmes

Period Graduates Masters PhD

2001-2006 20.3% 7.5% 6.1%

1996-2006 12.5% 10% 11.1%

Values 12.5% 7.5% 6.1%

96

Table 4.2: Results of Scenario

Year Population

(Million)

GDP

(000 crore) Graduates Masters Doctorates GDP/mPop E/mPop

BAU

2007 1112 2838000 237400 19900 1030 2553 2142012 1223 4760000 502700 38100 1465 3893 4112017 1324 7324000 901600 54700 2300 5532 681

Table 4.3a shows the five-year and ten year growth rates of the engineering student output

of the IITs and IISc (Tier 1 institutions). Table 4.3b shows the five year and ten year

growth rates of the engineering student output of the NITs. Using the values of growth

rates shown in this table, the degrees awarded in 2012 and 2017 have been computed

under the BAU scenario and are shown in Table 4.4. In BAU the growth rates in the initial

period (till 2012) have been increased to account for OBC reservation and the consequent

increase in the general category seats.

Table 4.3a Annual Growth rates for different programmes in IITs and IISc

Year B. Tech M.Tech Engg PhD

2001-2006 0.7 6.9 5.5

1996-2006 4.3 9.9 -0.1

Values 1.0 7.0 5.5

Table 4.3b Annual Growth rates for different programmes in NITs Year B.Tech/B.E. M.Tech/M.E.

2001-2006 0.5% 0.1%

1996-2006 1.9% 2.5%

Values 2.0% 2.5%

The share of the IITs and IISc (Tier 1 Institutions) in the engineering graduates is about

0.5 % in 2012 and 0.6% in 2017 as shown in Table 4.5. Under the Business As Usual

scenario Tier 1 institutions remain exclusive but are also marginal in the overall graduate

numbers. The share of Masters output of the Tier 1 institutions increases marginally under

the Business As Usual scenarios. The total annual engineering student output of the Tier 1

97

institutions increases to 10900 in 2012 (in the BAU scenario, with reservation) and 17600

in 2017.

The NITs currently contribute to about 2.9% of the graduates. Table 4.6 shows the results

of the BAU scenario for the NITs and Table 4.7 shows the share of NITs in the total

engineering output. Under the BAU scenarios the share reduces to 1.6-1.7% in 2012 and

1.0-1.4% in 2017. The reduction in the share Tier2 institutions is due to their low growth

rates, as compared to the overall growth rates of other engineering colleges. The number of

institutions increases to about 2600 with an average output of about 340 in 2017. This

implies the setting up of about 1100 new engineering colleges.

Table 4.4: Results of Scenario BAU for IITs and IISc

BAU for IITs and IISc

Year Graduates Masters Doctorates TED

2006 2320 3790 430 6540

2012 3180 7150 590 10920 2017 5460 11000 1100 17640

The numbers have been modified to include the 6 new IITs that started in 2008 and the two additional IITs starting in 2009. In 2017 it is expected that these IITs would be graduating about 200 B.Techs each and about 100 M.Techs and 40 PhDs.

Table 4.5: Share of IITs and IISc in BAU scenarios

IITs and IISc Share (BAU)

Year Graduates Masters Doctorates

2006 1.0 % 19.0 % 42.0 %

2012 0.6 % 18.8 % 40.6 %

2017 0.6 % 20.1 % 48%

Table 4.6: Results of BAU Scenario for NITs

BAU for NITs

Year B.Tech/B.E. M.Tech/M.E.

2006 7000 1550

2012 8730 1850

2017 12630 2670

98

Table 4.7: Share of NITs under BAU Scenario

(BAU) NITs Share

Year Graduates Masters

2006 2.9% 7.8%

2012 1.7% 4.9%

2017 1.4% 4.9%

4.1.2 Normative Scenario

If we consider the correlation developed earlier for engineers per million population with GDP the number of engineering graduates are 3.3 lakhs in 2012 and 5.3 lakhs in 2017. Consequent to the recent global meltdown, if lower GDP growth rates of 7-8% are expected, then we may be overproducing engineers. This is likely to result in unemploy-ment and under-employment of engineers. It is not clear about the actual lag time between the market signals and the feedback in the career choices at the 10+2 stage. This may be lost in the process of mushrooming of engineering colleges and the AICTE sanctioning process. We believe there is a need for a rationalisation of the numbers.

We develop a stabilization scenario with an increased emphasis on quality. The focus should not just be on the numbers of engineering degrees, but also on the quality, We have considered the B.Tech/ BE graduates growing at a lower rate (about 10% per year). The M.Techs/ MEs are taken to be 10% of the number of engineering graduates. We want the PhDs to increase to almost 2% of the engineering graduates. Since we have considered a short time frame, we limited this number to 10,000. In this scenario, we plan to augment the output of engineers from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions. Table 4.8 shows the results from this scenario. In this scenario, 2% of the engineering graduates would come from Tier 1 institutions (similar to the IITs) and 5 % from the Tier 2 institutions (similar to the NITs). Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions would account for 50% of the M.Tech output and 90% of the PhD output. It is expected that other institutions would account for about 10% of the total PhD output.

Table 4.8: Results of Normative Scenario

Graduates M.Tech PhD Total

Total 700,000 70,000 10,000 780,000

Tier 1 14,000 28,000 8,000 50,000

Tier 2 35,000 14,000 1,000 50,000

99

4.2 Achieving the Normative Scenario How do we achieve the normative scenario? What are the interventions and policies required? We have to adopt a combination of the following:

a) Enhance the output of existing Tier 1 institutions – The seven IITs at present (2006) award about 6000 engineering degrees annually. On an average each IIT awards 330 B.Techs, 490 M.Techs and 40 engineering PhDs. This implies an aver-age total engineering output of 860 per IIT. The outputs of the existing IITs should be increased to about 2000 per IIT in 2017. Several international engineering insti-tutions already have this level of output, without compromising quality (Urbana-Champaign 1950 engineering degrees, Purdue 1840 engineering degrees, Geor-giaTech 2300 engineering degrees, Tokyo University 3000 engineering degrees, Tsinghua university about 4000). This would require special efforts to attract fac-ulty, upgrade and create new infrastructure and evolve facilitating administrative and support structures. This will need careful planning and removal of many of the existing logistic and space constraints.The eight new IITs could be scaled up to op-erate at the output of the existing IITs and may account for about 6000 engineering degrees. Hence the 15 IITs could account for about 20,000 engineering degrees in 2017 (mix of PhD, M.Tech, B.Tech).

b) Upgrade quality Tier 2 institutions- A total of 25-30 Tier 1 institutions are required to achieve the normative scenario. Many of the existing Tier 2 institutions can be upgraded to Tier 1 status. Tier 1 institutions would be (at least) IIT equivalent and should be leaders in research and teaching. Some of the NITs, leading government institutions and successful private engineering colleges may be considered for up gradation. A clear set of norms should be provided to motivate Tier 2 institutions to work towards this. The norms could include proven excellence in academic pro-grammes, faculty quality and research output, and potential for growth. Selected institutions should be provided special funds and support to enable a successful upgrade.

c) Create new Engineering colleges through Public-Private Partnerships – The present model for private engineering colleges is unlikely to build long-term quality engi-neering institutions. The revenues from fees are capped and are the main income source. Salaries account for about 80% of the total budget. There is very little op-erational flexibility for the college principal or Director to take new initiatives. Alternative funding models need to be explored. A possible model is the creation of a corpus by a private company/ group of companies, commitment by the state/

100

central government towards grant in aid (based on the number of students joining in the open seats), commitment by the private promoter to provide funds required to compensate any annual budget deficit. The private promoter can be permitted to obtain returns from the annual surplus (based on the contributions made to the corpus). Alternately incentives could be provided in terms of tax savings, deduc-tions for contributions to the corpus In addition to this, the sponsors may be allowed a choice of government council members (from an approved master list of professionals, experts and educationalists) and may be provided priority in campus interviews. .

d) Enhance the output of existing Tier 2 institutions - At present the average output of a NIT is about 400-500 engineering graduates and post-graduates. Each NIT should have at least twice this output.

4.3 National Engineering PhD Initiative A key driver for research and development is the availability of quality doctoral students.

The number of engineering doctorates awarded in India each year is about one thousand.

This is less than 1% of the total engineering graduate degrees awarded each year. The

international comparison showed that most countries have the number of PhD degrees

awarded annually ranging between 5-9% of the engineering graduate degrees awarded.

Even if we consider 2% of the total engineering graduates as a target for India’s PhDs, we

obtain a number of 10,000 PhDs annually by 2017. (The target would be between 15,000 –

18,000 PhDs. This has been scaled down to 10,000). The doctorate degree is not a course

work based fixed time degree. In order to obtain a doctorate, the candidate must make an

original research contribution in the chosen specialisation. Hence it is not an easy target to

increase the doctorates to 10,000 without compromising quality.

This needs a three-pronged strategy:

(A) Attract good students to the PhD programme. How can this be achieved?

i) Increase the PhD fellowship amount

ii) Involve industry to sponsor special doctorial fellowships.

iii) Special outreach / publicity to potential students.

(B) Improve / Enrich the PhD experience.

i) Treat PhD students as special. Provide them modern offices with access to

good research facilities.

ii) Provide funding to attend international conferences

iii) Increase the rigour of the Ph.D. Provide special PhD level coursework.

101

iv) Facilitate exchanges between PhD students, faculty and industry through

annual national workshops.

(C) Facilitate challenging jobs/careers after Ph.D.

i) Special efforts are required to ensure that industry provides challenging ca-

reers and attractive salaries to fresh PhDs. A recent initiative by the

Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Western Region focused on circu-

lating the database of graduating IIT Bombay PhDs and their thesis topics

to the CII members to encourage the companies to offer them rewarding

jobs.

ii) Seed grants / Loans and access to venture capital could be provided for

PhD students who wish to commercialise their research results into tech-

nology products.

The PhD initiative will only work if taken up in a mission mode. At present our engineer-ing education system is unable to attract our best students to a research career. Often those who wish to pursue a PhD prefer to study abroad. In the US, there is a similar problem in attracting US engineering graduates for a Ph.D. However they are able to get the best students from the rest of the world for their PhD programme. Several studies have shown that this inflow of international talent has ensured the US domination of high technology research. Several European countries and developed countries are making special efforts to tap good Indian students for their masters and doctoral programmes. There have been concerted efforts by Germany, France, UK, Australia, Singapore and other countries to promote higher education in universities in their countries for Indian students. Several high level delegations that include presidents, chancellors of universities have visited leading institutions in India. This is often supported with initiatives like the DAAD (Fellowships for study in Germany), UKIERI (Research collaboration with UK). Most of these initia-tives are unidirectional envisioning the flow of students and researchers to the host country and facilitating access to our best students. Often these initiatives are supported by the leading industries (e.g. Thales support for study in France). There have also been a number of delegations from leading US universities (Cornell, Georgia Tech, RPI etc.). Though these visits discuss potential collaboration, it is quite evident that their focus is on ensuring access to our good students for their masters and doctoral programmes. A high level delegation of British Members of Parliament who visited IIT Bombay in 2006 were keen to understand how the IITs work and are able to attract the best students to engineering. They stated that the UK engineering education system has identified the shortage of R & D engineers as a possible constraint and were interested in strategies for globalising their education system (attracting the best students from China and India).

102

The Monash University, Australia and National University of Singapore have joint doctoral programmes with IIT Bombay. However both these mainly provide access for the foreign universities to Indian students. It may not be possible for Indian institutions and the Indian government to avoid participating in these initiatives. However there is a clear need for the launch of an initiative for study in India. We have to promote our masters and doctoral programmes to our under-graduate students. The prevalent perception amongst our under graduate students is that there is little research carried out in India. It is necessary to highlight the research facilities, ongoing research and technology demonstration projects to our bright students. What should the National PhD Initiative consist of?

A few elements are suggested: i) Fellowships of the amount of Rs. 20,000 – 25,000 per month. This would im-

ply a funding requirement of about Rs. 10 lakhs – Rs. 12 lakhs per fellowship (including some amount for conference travel and contingency).

ii) Industry support for 5000 fellowships per year. This implies a total outlay of Rs. 500-600 crores per year by industry. This has to be facilitated by industry organizations like the CII, FICCI, Assocham. The fellowships should only specify the research area and not be linked with short-term industry problems.

iii) Enhanced Government Fellowships. iv) Establishment of National PhD Initiative steering committee with representa-

tives from industry, government and academics. v) Government funding for a high visibility publicity and outreach campaign vi) Initiative to encourage sponsored PhD students from industry, defence labora-

tories, CSIR institutions as external or full time students in Tier-1 institutions. The National PhD Initiative cannot automatically ramp up the PhD numbers and quality. This has to evolve through a gradual process. This is a classic chicken and egg problem. The doctoral programme would improve if it can attract motivated, quality students. If this happens they would get attractive jobs and research careers. This would in turn help in attracting better students. However in order to change the existing mindsets, it is necessary to have high visibility industrial sponsorships. Initially it may be beneficial to have attrac-tive and assured industrial R & D jobs for select doctoral fellows.

103

4.4 Faculty Issues 4.4.1 Attracting Quality Faculty How do we attract good candidates to join the faculty? The attraction of a faculty position depends on (a) Package

i) Salary – Faculty salaries are not expected to be equivalent to the best industrial sala-ries. However the differential is very high in India. Industry salaries have increased significantly while faculty salaries have been capped / limited based on the salary structures of senior bureaucrats in government service. The increase in salary with experience (number of years) is marginal. The ratio of the average professors salary to the starting salary for an Assistant Professor is 1.34. The corresponding ratio for the US universities ranges from 1.7 to 2.6. It is suggested that the ratio of the average Professors salary to the starting salary of the Assistant Professor should be at least 2. Table 4.9 shows the starting salary for engineering graduates and the salaries after 20 years. The ratio of the salary after 20 years to the starting salary ranges between 5.3 to 8. The ratio of the Professors salary at the highest of the scale to the starting salary of the Assistant Professor is 1.85. There have to be higher salary increases with years of experience. It is clear that the Indian faculty salary structure needs to be changed.

Table 4.9: Starting salary for engineering graduates and after 20 years

Engineering Com-

pany A B C

Salary Starting After 20

Yrs Starting

On Confir-

mation

After 20

Yrs

After 30

Yrs Starting

On Confir-

mation

After

20 Yrs

B.Tech. /B.E. (a) 2.75 20 3 4 17-21 22-26 2.6-3.6 3.35-5.1 13-20

B.Tech/BE+MBA (b) 3.96 20 -- -- -- -- 3 3.4 --

M.Tech(c) 3.96 20 3.6 4.75 -- -- 3.7 5.2 --

PhD (d) 3.96 20 5.5-6.0 -- -- 5.4 --

B.Tech. /B.E. (a/a) -- 7.27 -- -- 6.33 8 -- -- 5.32

B.Tech/BE+MBA

(b/a) 1.44 -- -- -- -- 1.00 -- --

M.Tech(c/a) 1.44 -- 1.20 -- -- -- 1.23 -- --

PhD (d/a) 1.44 -- 1.92 -- -- -- 1.80 -- --

Source: Data from engineering companies in Pune, Mumbai and Bangalore

104

ii) Perks / Facilities – Many engineering colleges provide accommodation, medical

facilities, schooling in residential campuses. In many of the government run institu-

tions; there is a problem in maintaining these facilities. If engineering colleges are

able to ensure professionally managed estates that can result in the provision of mod-

ern accommodation and facilities comparable with the best in industry, it would be

easier to attract better faculty. Additional facilities that are provided by public sector

organizations like holiday homes, availability of low interest loans should also be con-

sidered.

(b) Professional Career – Several faculty members are driven by a desire to make an

impact on education and research. The availability / access to research funding and

quality research students is an important attraction for such faculty members. All the

Tier 1 Institutions (IITs / IISc) have start up or seed grants that facilitate young fac-

ulty starting their research careers. The success rate for government grant proposals

submitted to organizations like the Department of Science and Technology are high

(30% as compared to success rates of 10% of proposals submitted to the National

Science Foundation in the USA).

It is essential to create enabling mechanisms that facilitate faculty research. This is

particularly relevant for experimental work. The systems for procurement, fabrication

need to be streamlined so that faculty can focus on the research per se and not get

bogged down in chasing papers or getting administrative approvals. It is necessary to

have efficient support staff that facilitates faculty research. The availability of quality

research students (M.Techs and PhDs) could be a major attraction for new faculty to

join.

4.4.2 Faculty Numbers

We estimate the faculty requirements in 2012 and 2017 under the different scenarios. We

do not have accurate estimates of the faculty in engineering institutions. We have the

numbers for the faculty in the IITs and IISc. The total number of faculty in the IITs in

2006 was 2520 and IISc had a faculty strength of engineering faculty of about 170. Since

we are considering only the engineering enrolment, we multiply the faculty strength of the

IITs by the ratio of the engineering enrolment to total enrolment of the institutes. In order

to obtain the faculty numbers for the NITs, we extrapolate the data obtained from the

sample of five NITs. To estimate the total faculty we estimate the gross enrolment (based

on the existing output and the growth rates) and consider a student to faculty ratio of 15:1

105

based on the AICTE norm. The actual numbers may be lower as many institutions may

have higher student-faculty ratios. Table 4.10 shows the total faculty requirement under the

Business as usual scenario.

Table 4.10: Total Faculty numbers BAU Scenario

2006 2012 2017 IIT 2150 4070 5890 NIT 2220 2580 3730 Other 75400 167700 233000 Total 79500 174350 242620

It is clear that there would be a severe shortage of faculty under this scenario. Considering the retirement of existing faculty, the requirement for new faculty to meet the numbers given in Tables 4.10 are given in Tables 4.11. We have assumed that the student –faculty ratios of 9:1 for the IITs and 15:1 for other institutions is maintained. The total additional faculty requirement of 1.85 lakhs indicates an average requirement of 17,000 new engineer-ing faculty each year. This implies a growth of 10.6% per year in the faculty numbers. Of the existing approximately 75,000-80,000 engineering faculty in 2006, less than 10% would have PhDs (maybe about 5000). Hence there is a need for quality up gradation of existing faculty.

Table 4.11 Additional faculty requirement under BAU Scenario

2012 2017 IIT 1130 3120 NIT 540 820 Other 92300 182100 Total 93970 184660

For the normative scenario, we consider a student to faculty ratio of 12:1 for the Tier 1

institutions, a student to faculty ratio of 15:1 for the Tier 2 institutions and 18:1 for other

institutions. The net requirement for faculty is now 1.08 lakhs as shown in Table 4.12 or

about 10,000 new engineering faculty per year (annual growth rate of 7%). However about

20% of this requirement is for Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions. The Tier 1 faculty growth has

to be at 18% per year and Tier 2 at 16% per year. This is only possible if faculty jobs are

made more attractive and the PhD initiative results in an increase in PhD output and

quality.

106

Table 4.12 Faculty numbers for normative scenario in 2017

Faculty Additional Tier 1 12000 10300 Tier 2 11200 9500 Others 147800 88200 Total 171000 108200

4.4.3 Incentivising Performance

Several institutions are planning financial rewards for performance (e.g. cash incentives for

international journal publications, payments for course loads above the average). These are

being tried in several Asian countries.

In most engineering colleges, there is no system of annual performance appraisals for the

faculty. The performance is assessed only at the time of promotions viz from Assistant to

Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to Professor. During the promotions,

faculty candidates have to demonstrate their research output, teaching innovations to an

external committee of experts. Apart from these assessments, there is no regular mecha-

nism for performance assessment and feedback. The annual salary increases are

independent of performance. This provides for significant academic flexibility for the

faculty. However the overall output of the faculty can definitely be improved.

There is a need to introduce systems of performance assessment and goal setting. Research

groups and departments need to be reviewed at a regular frequency (once every five years),

should set their future goals.

Institutions should be encouraged to adopt transparent review processes that build on the

existing strengths of the faculty and result in motivating faculty towards common goals.

This should not be at the expense of the academic freedom and flexibility that exists in

most of the quality Indian engineering institutions. A well-designed self-appraisal cum peer

review system with positive and constructive intentions can be introduced.

4.4.4 National Engineering Faculty Initiative

A critical constraint inhibiting the growth of the Engineering education system in India is

the scarcity of quality faculty. Special initiatives are necessary to attract and train future

faculty. Industry can help in this in setting up chair Professorships and providing adjunct

and visiting faculty. At a feedback workshop held at Mumbai in May 31, 2008, it was

107

suggested by industry representatives that industries could provide a top-up salary to

faculty in engineering colleges in their region.

(a) Chair Professorships – These can be attractive endowments at different levels

(Assistant Professor to Professor) providing incentives to attract good faculty in

select areas relevant to specific industries.

(b) Adjunct and Visiting Faculty – Industry experts with an interest in teaching can

be associated with engineering institutions in their regions and provide specific

teaching and research inputs in their area of expertise.

(c) Faculty Mentorships scheme – A mentorship scheme should be launched with

mentors chosen from established faculty in the IITs and IISc. In each discipline a

virtual network of faculty in the area can be set up. Web based resources can be

made available for supplementing classroom teaching. Annual meetings can be

held where the latest developments in the field are presented. There should be a

scheme that provides an opportunity for young faculty to spend a few months

carrying out research on assisting in teaching / associating with a mentor faculty.

(d) Research Sabbaticals for Industry – There are several engineers in industry who

have new ideas and creative thinking and may benefit by spending a few months

in reputed engineering colleges on a ‘Research Sabbatical’.

(e) Industry Sabbaticals for Faculty – A provision for faculty to spend a few months

in industry on an Industry sabbatical may help in providing a better understanding

of real life problems and constraint and result in improved teaching and research.

4.5 Strengthening Masters Programmes Only a small percentage of the output from the IITs opts for the M.Tech programme (1-

2%). A similar situation exists for the toppers from the NITs. In most leading engineering

colleges, universities in the world this ranges from 10-40%. Along with the PhD initiative,

special efforts are required to promote M.Tech/ME in India. The industry can help

identify their specialized needs for post-graduate engineers.

108

4.6 Industry linkages A key factor in improving the engineering education in the country has to be a new model

for industry – academia partnerships. The following specific suggestions can help:

a) Industry’s recognition of the need for skilled post-graduates (M.Techs/PhDs) for research, development and design.

b) Industry role in defining key research areas, potential research problems. c) Academia to be responsive to industry’s future manpower and special training

needs. During the industry feedback workshop in May 31, 2008, several industry representatives highlighted the high costs incurred in training fresh engineering graduates before they were equipped to handle the jobs they were recruited for. While engineering education is not intended to equip students for specific jobs, the basic skill set and analytical capabilities required for most of the engineering jobs should be provided.

d) Sponsorships of M.Techs and PhDs with attractive fellowships. e) Establishment of research consortiums in different areas (e.g. automobile design,

VLSI…) of interest to industry groups to provide the long-range research thrust that would provide Indian industry a future competitive advantage.

f) Encourage experienced industry engineers / managers to associate with engineering colleges as adjunct faculty / or as advisors and encourage experienced faculty to as-sociate with industry in advisory / visiting. Though the interactions between academia and industry have improved in the last decade, there is significant scope for further improvement.

g) Institute Industry meets – Discipline specific open days (consisting of exhibitions, lectures, discussions) can be organised where industry professionals get an idea of the current courses offered, ongoing research and technology development and fu-ture plans. These exchanges can also provide useful feedback to the engineering departments.

4.7 Strengthening Science Departments Good engineering has to be based on fundamental understanding of the basic sciences. It

is essential that good engineering colleges have strong science faculty. Vibrant science and

mathematics research groups are a pre-requisite for good engineering research. In the

workshop of policy makers and academics held in Delhi in August 2008, one of the key

recommendations was the strengthening of science in the University system and an

integration of science and engineering.

109

4.8 Curriculum Reform In view of the rapid changes in technology and the availability of information on the

internet and the world wide web, it is essential that there is a strategy for modifying and

altering engineering curriculum to cater to the needs of the industry and the interests of the

students. At IIT Bombay the B.Tech curriculum was reviewed by the Biswas Committee

[52] in 2007 and the structure revamped to provide more flexibility and choice to the

students. Students have been given the option of an additional minor in another discipline

for example a student in computer science can opt for a minor in energy engineering by

registering for five additional courses (over the four year period) in the area of energy. One

of the key challenges in engineering education is enthusing students in engineering. Ensur-

ing that the curriculum is relevant to industry’s needs and interesting is critical to achieve

this.

4.9 Societal Linkages It is important for our engineering community to contribute more meaningfully to the

nation’s development. The choice of research problems that are relevant in the Indian

context is important to realise this. The Indian science and engineering community also has

a key responsibility in guiding the nations technology choices and providing directions to

science and technology policy. The engineering institutions should play a role in educating

the community on the impact of different technologies and alternative development paths.

In order to develop sustainable futures, engineering colleges should attempt to educate

schoolteachers and community leaders.

There are several immediate challenges facing India – power shortages, flooding, water

shortages. In many cases there is a need for development for cost effective technologies

based on India’s resources – for example in the energy sector technologies for gasification

of high ash, low sulphur coal (that occurs in India) and nuclear power cycles based on

Thorium are India specific needs that are not technologies required for other countries.

The linkage and commitment of engineering institutions to the nation’s development is

essential before the engineering colleges can aspire to make a global impact. The history of

development of most leading global institutions shows strong links to regional and national

development.

110

4.10 Periodic Review Mechanism It is necessary to have a periodic review of all institutions – including NITs, IITs. The

review could be carried out every five years. Each institution should set its future goals and

document its success/ failures. Individual departments/ groups also need to be reviewed.

The mechanism /process of review needs to be discussed with the major stakeholders –

faculty, administrators, industry, government, students and alumni. Industry/ professional

bodies should be involved in the review process. For institutions that are accredited the

review process can be merged with the accreditation process. The review reports should be

accessible to all stakeholders of the institution and there should be post-review discussions

of implications/ changes actions taken.

4.11 Faculty Quality Improvement The existing quality improvement programmes (QIP) need to be scaled up significantly.

The total number of seats nationally available is about 180 for M.Tech and 180 for PhD.

There are more than 50,000 engineering faculty without doctoral degrees. It is suggested

that the QIP programmes be scaled up to at least 1000 QIP seats per year. These pro-

grammes are easily scaleable and will have a direct impact on the quality of engineering

teachers.

In addition to the enhanced M.Tech/ PhD schemes, it is suggested that a new QIP initia-

tive be launched to improve the quality of engineering teaching. This scheme would

involve mentorship by reputed faculty in the area of specialisation chosen. During the

summer and winter vacation, focussed two week modules covering the providing recent

advances in the field should be provided by the IITs/ identified institutions. Apart from

this, discussions on methods of teaching the subject, course material etc. in a workshop

mode would help. Distance education modules and web based course material would be a

useful part of this QIP initiative. It is important to provide incentives for faculty to partici-

pate in this. The present interest of participants in QIP courses is very poor. Many

participants are only interested in attending to obtain the certificate. The new QIP modules

should include post-course evaluation and follow-up. Cash incentives, salary increments

and links to promotions will help in inducing faculty to participate actively in these pro-

grammes.

111

4.12 Continuing Education / Skill Up gradation of existing engineers in economy

There are a large number of practicing engineers in Indian industry. They need to be

acquainted with the newest tools and techniques. Many engineering institutions offer

continuing education modules for industry professionals. The requirements for continuing

education and skill up gradation of industry needs to be identified by industry leaders,

professional bodies in consultation with academic institutes. The importance of lifelong

learning and professional development needs to be emphasized. Unfortunately, at present

barring a few exceptions organizations do not take technical training/ continuing education

seriously. Flexible continuing education modules drawn up in consultation with industry

will be useful and will also build bridges for enhanced academic-industry interactions.

Short-term residential courses can be supplemented with distance education and web based

follow-up lectures. These will be taken seriously by the participants if they are given

importance by the top management and considered in the employees future career growth.

4.13 Engineering Database

A database containing the key input and output parameters regarding engineering educa-tion should be maintained and be publicly available in the open domain (AICTE/MHRD websites). There is a need to have accurate data on the actual numbers of B.Tech/BE, M.Tech/ME and PhD degrees being awarded each year. All Engineering colleges and institutions should maintain key facts and data on their web-sites. Every year an annual report of the performance and trends of engineering institutions should be published. Most of the required information is already available for the different colleges as well as in the mandatory disclosures to AICTE. These need to be compiled and built up into a search-able database. The additional information may involve additional inputs from the colleges (e.g. publications, research output) or sample surveys – employment, salaries of graduates. This recommendation is the easiest to implement and will result in better strategies and planning.

112

4.14 Journals, Conferences and Academic Press

If India is to make its mark in science and engineering education and research, it is impor-tant that we encourage the nurturing of quality national and international journals and conferences. Most world-class universities have their own presses for special book and text publications. Some of the Tier 1 institutions should start their transaction series and also plan to set up an academic press.

4.15 Engineering Schools in Quality Universities In India most of the engineering colleges are stand-alone and not integrated with science, arts, humanities, law, medicine to develop a multi- disciplinary university. Several of the leading engineering schools in the world are a part of a world-class university that has leading schools in other disciplines. Efforts should be made to develop at least a few Tier 1 Universities that have Tier 1 engineering colleges as well as Tier 1 colleges in other disci-plines.

4.16 Administrative Structure Major changes in the administrative structure of engineering colleges are required in order for them to meet the challenges of the future. A few suggestions are provided towards this:

a) Effective decentralization and devolution of powers – Engineering institutions would be larger in size to have a higher output and impact. Each department or unit should manage its own needs and should have operational flexibility within al-located budgets.

b) Provision of quality administrators and managers – The smooth operation of the institute and facilitation of teaching and research needs the creation of managerial posts whose salary is on par with industry salaries.

c) Development of documented and transparent systems and procedures- These can be facilitated by online/ computer systems.

d) Outsourcing of campus infrastructure and logistics to professional agencies

4.17 Strategy and Vision There is a need for the industry, government and academia to formulate a strategy for

engineering and science education in India. India has the potential to be a leading research

and design hub in the world. We need to have a mechanism to identify important areas/

disciplines that should grow and develop policies and institutions that facilitate this. There

needs to be a high level think tank that reviews the higher engineering and science educa-

113

tion system in India and provides direction for future growth. This need not be a one-time

committee or an ad-hoc arrangement but should be a continuous activity (members may

have fixed tenures.). This think tank should not be saddled with administrative or financial

responsibilities like AICTE or UGC. The think tank can facilitate debates and discussions

on the future directions of higher technical education and provide the vision and new

direction required.

114

References [1] Rao, U., R., “Revitalising Technical Education”, AICTE Review Report, AICTE,

Delhi, 2003. [2] Engineering Education: Its Early Beginnings, Ministry of Human Resource Devel-

opment website URL:- http://education.nic.in/tecedu.asp (Last accessed on January 3, 2007)

[3] Sarkar, “Higher Technical Institutions for the Post-war Industrial Development”, 1945.

[4] State wise review report, “Annual Technical Manpower Reviews”, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, New Delhi, 2004-06.

[5] Updated Approval Status-2007-08 as on 31.08.2007, AICTE website URL:- http://www.aicte.ernet.in/download/aph_2.pdf (Last accessed on May 03, 2008)

[6] Hand Book for Approval Process, AICTE website, Serial No. 16: Number of Institutions and Intake Approved Till Academic Year 2007-08 URL:- http://www.aicte.ernet.in/download/aph_1.pdf

[7] Engineering Bachelor’s Degrees per Million Population for US URL:-http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/1004D.php (Last accessed on June 9, 2007).

[8] Gross Domestic Product data, Reserve Bank of India Website URL: - www.rbi.org.in (Last accessed on June 2007) [9] Rama Rao, “Reshaping Postgraduate Education in Engineering & Technology”,

1995. [10] Rai, L., P., Kumar, N., “S&T personnel database in India”, CURRENT SCIENCE,

Volume 86, No. 7, April 2004. [11] Technical Education in Independent India, 1947-1997 published by AICTE. [12] Statewise population data, URL:http://www.kerala.gov.in/budget2007_08/b12.pdf

(Last accessed on May 03, 2007). [13] The Engineering Profile 2006 website,

URL:http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2006ProfileEng.pdf (Last accessed on August 1, 2007).

[14] URL:- http://www.setwomenstats.org (Last accessed on September 2007) [15] Parikh, P. P. and Sukhatme, S.P., Women Engineers in India, Economic and

Political Weekly, pp 193-201, January 2004. [16] Sukhatme S P and Parikh P P, A Silent Revolution: Assessing Output of Women

Graduates & Post-graduates from IIT Bombay, Update 2006, available at http://www.ircc.iitb.ac.in/~webadm/update/Issue1_2006, last accessed Septem-ber 2007

[17] URL:- http://www.engineergirl.org (Last accessed on September 2007) [18] URL:- http://www.eng.rpi.edu/soe/profile_womentech.cfm (Last accessed on

September 2007

115

[19] Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, National Science Foundation, USA. URL: - http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/ (Last accessed on May 3, 2008)

[20] Gere, Gary., Wadhwa, Vivek., ‘Duke Outsourcing Study: Empirical Comparison of Engineering Graduates in the United States, China, and India’, December 2005.

[21] Data Collected from various departments of IIT Bombay, 2007 [22] Sukhatme, S., P., “The real brain drain”, Orient Longman: Bombay, India, ISBN 0-

86311-451-2. 1994. [23] Average starting salaries for US universities,

URL:- http://web.mit.edu/career/www/salary/ and www.uiuc.edu (Last accessed on June 12, 2007)

[24] Press Information Bureau website, URL:-http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=26148&kwd= (Last accessed on June 4, 2007)

[25] Undergraduate Student-Faculty ratios for USA from Iowa State University, URL:- http://www.eng.iastate.edu/surcharge/ (Last accessed on June 10, 2007)

[26] Ratio of Professor to Assistant Professor Salary for US Universities in 2005-06 URL:http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/ilrle648/lectures/Lecture%205%20Faculty.pdf.??? (Last accessed on June 24, 2007)

[27] List of Publications for IITs and IISc, Scopus website URL:- www.scopus.com (Last accessed on August 10, 2007)

[28] Vasi, “Governance of IITs” A presentation made to Head of the Departments at IIT Bombay, January 2007

[29] Annual Report, Ministry of Human Resource Development website URL:- education.nic.in/ (Last accessed on July 4, 2007)

[30] IIT Bombay Annual Report, 2005-6. [31] Academic data base of all IITs [32] Annual Reports, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 1993-2005 [33] Academic and Financial data from Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of

Technology, Surat, 1985-2006 [34] Academic and Financial data obtained from four NITs viz. NIT Warangal, NIT

Hamirpur, NIT Rourkela, NIT Durgapur [35] Information brochure AIEEE 2007, Central Counseling Board website

URL:-http://www.ccb.nic.in/ (Last accessed on July 22, 2007) [36] Compliance Report of College of Engineering Pune for the year 2006-07, COEP

website, URL: - http://www.coep.org.in/Mandatory/compilance_report.pdf (Last accessed on July 3, 2007)

[37] Mandatory Disclosure of Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute for the year 2006-07, URL: - http://www.vjti.ac.in/Mandatory_discloser_13-12-06-_I.pdf

(Last accessed on July 12, 2007) [38] Academic and Financial data from Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal 1985-

2006

116

[39] Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala website, URL:- tiet.ac.in/( Last accessed on July 28, 2007) [40] Academic data from Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala 1985-

2006 [41] Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information & Communication Technology,

Gandhinagar website, URL: - http://www.daiict.ac.in/ [42] Academic data from 1985-2006 Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information &

Communication Technology [43] Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani website,

URL:-http://discovery.bits-pilani.ac.in/ (Last accessed on August 10, 2007) [38]

[44] Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea website, URL:-http://www.kaist.ac.kr/ (Last accessed on August 7, 2007)

[45] Penn World Table Version 6.2, Center for International Comparisons of Produc-tion, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, September 2006, URL:-http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt62/pwt62_form.php (Last accessed on July 7, 2007)

[46] Tsinghua University China website, URL:-http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/eng/ (Last accessed on August 11, 2007)

[47] Tokyo Institute of Technology Japan website, URL:-www.titech.ac.jp/ (Last accessed on July 2, 2007)

[48] Nanyang Technological University Singapore website, URL:-http://www.ntu.edu.sg/ (Last accessed on June 7, 2007)

[49] National University of Singapore website, URL:-http://www.nus.edu.sg/ (Last accessed on August 9, 2007)

[50] Pohang University of Science and Technology Korea website, URL:- http://www.postech.edu/ (Last accessed on July 10, 2007)

[51] Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology website, URL:- http://www.kaist.edu/ (Last accessed on July 23, 2007)

[52] Biswas Committee Report, IIT Bombay URL:- http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sb/committee/committee-report.pdf

(Last accessed on December 16, 2008)

117

Bibliography

1. Pawan Agarwal, “Higher Education in India: The need for change”, 2006

2. Rajesh Shukla, India Science Report, 2005

3. Autonomy of Higher Education (Report of CABE Committee) 2005

4. Vivek Wadhwa, Industry trends in Engineering Off shoring (ppt file)

5. India, India & Knowledge Economy Leveraging strengths & opportunities 2005

6. Lori Thurgood, US Doctorates in 20th Century, 2006

7. UGC Annual reports 2001-06

8. Sanat kaul, Higher Education in India: Seizing the opportunity, 2006

9. Internationalization of US Doctorate Education

10. Higher Education in India - issues, concerns & new directions, 2003

11. Devesh Kapu, Indian Higher Education Reform: From half-baked Socialism to

half-baked capitalism, 2004

12. Pawan Agarwal, Higher Education & labour market in India

13. Sustaining Academic Excellence, 2004

14. Anthony D'Costa International Mobility of Technical Talent- Trends & De-

velopment Implications, 2006

15. Testimony of Vivek Wadhwa, 2006

16. Naresh Kumar, Comparative Analysis of shifting Doctrates

17. F. A. Kulacki, Trends in Engineering Education - International prospective

18. Martin Carnoy, Higher Education & Economic Development: India, China, & 21st

century, 2006

19. Sam Pitroda, Sam pitroda to PM, 2006

20. Vivek Wardha, Duke Outsourcing Study: Emprical comparison of engineering

graduates in the US, China and India, 2005

21. Sukhadeo Thorat, Higher Education in India Emerging Issues related to access,

inclusiveness and quality, 2006

22. Vivek Wardha, Framing the Engg. outsourcing debate: Placing US on a level play-

ing field in China & India, 2005

23. Salient issues in Higher Education, 2006

24. Trends affecting higher education, 2005

25. M A Pai, Knowledge economy & higher education, 2006

26. George Varghese, Declining trend in Science Education & Research in Indian Uni-

versities

118

27. Lav R. Varshney, Private Engg. Education in India: Market failures & regulatory

solutions, 2006

28. R. Natrajan, Emerging Trends in Engg. Education: Indian perspectives, 2002

29. Asha Gupta, International Trends in Higher education & Indian Scenario, 2005

30. NKC: Note on higher education, 2006

31. Science and Technology Data Book 2004

32. Science and Technology Data Book 2006

33. R&D Statistics 2005-2006

34. Technical Education in independent India 1999 (Compendium)

119

Appendix-I

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

S

A

O

A1.1 Output, Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for Delhi

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

S

A

O

A1.2 Output, Enrolment and Sanctioned Intake for Haryana

A1.3: Sanctioned Strength, Enrolment and Output for Delhi and Haryana

Delhi Haryana Year Sanctioned Enrolled Output Sanctioned Enrolled Output

1995 985 1104 844 880 895 5821996 1067 1164 763 880 892 6391997 1073 1192 858 3295 2603 6161998 1245 1415 967 3295 2837 6031999 2210 1973 921 5072 4654 9622000 2605 2146 958 6725 5804 10532001 2605 2820 882 8285 5354 17342002 3472 2421 927 9485 6809 27192003 3968 3325 1420 10205 8367 18872004 4012 3471 1494 10205 8064 2174

120

Appendix-II University wise of Number of candidates Admitted for 2005-06

(Source: Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra, “Report on Seat Distribution and Admission in Engineering, Pharmacy, Architecture,

HMCT, MBA and MCA in the academic year 2005-2006”)

Sr. No. University Sanctioned

Intake CAP Allotment

CAP Reporting

CAP Vacancy

Institute level admission

Total Admitted Vacancy % Admis-

sion

1 Dr. B.A.T.University 390 331 156 175 223 379 11 97.18

2 SNDT University 180 180 108 72 72 183 0 100

3 Mumbai Univer-sity 12450 8037 3585 4452 8295 11877 573 95.42

4 Pune University 10985 8608 4810 3798 5938 10744 241 97.84 5 N M University 3030 1658 845 813 1538 2367 663 78.65

6 Dr. B. A. M University 3384 1979 816 1163 1662 2478 906 73.23

7 S. R. T. M University 870 441 98 343 369 467 403 53.68

8 Shivaji University 4970 3419 1588 1831 3078 4670 300 93.88

9 SGB Amravati University 3015 2129 1089 1040 1660 2748 267 91.18

10 R TM Nagpur University 5713 3606 1661 1945 3467 5503 210 89.76

Total 44987 30388 14756 15632 26302 41416 3574 91.27

121

Appendix-III

Table of ‘t and F’ Statistics for regression of engineers per population and GDP per

population for India.

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.909277081 R Square 0.82678481 Adjusted R Square 0.821197224 Standard Error 27.78418327 Observations 33 ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance FRegression 1 114225.6083 114225.6083 147.9681382 2.45147E-13Residual 31 23930.78604 771.9608398 Total 32 138156.3943

Coefficients Standard

Error t Stat P-value

Intercept -68.2854418 11.96285414-

5.708122913 2.82175E-06 X Variable 1 0.096787495 0.00795674 12.16421548 2.45147E-13 Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

Intercept -92.6838436-

43.88704003-

92.68384357 -43.88704003 X Variable 1 0.080559618 0.113015372 0.080559618 0.113015372

122

Appendix-IV

y = 0.0412x - 12.943R2 = 0.7198

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

GDP per million Population

Engi

neer

s pe

r mill

ion

Popu

latio

n

A-4.1 Engineers per Million Population to Real GDP per capita from 1947-1989

y = 0.1741x - 229.68R2 = 0.8545

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

GDP per million population

En

gine

ers

per

mil

lion

po

pula

tion

A-4.2 Engineers per Million Population to Real GDP per capita from 1995-2006

123

Appendix – V

A-5.1 Trend of Masters degree in engineering to million population for U.S.

A-5.2 Trend of Doctoral degree in engineering to million population for U.S. Source: http://www.engtrends.com/IEE/1004D.php

124

Appendix-VI

Locations of Indian Institutes of Technology

125

Appendix –VII

A-7.1 Organisation chart of IIT Bombay

Source: http://www.iitb.ac.in/about/admin.html

Director

Deputy Director

Dean (R & D)

Dean (Acad.)

Dean Alumni

& Interna-tional Affairs

Dean Faculty

Dean Re-sources

Mobilisation

Dean (Planning)

Training & Placement Incharge

Dean Student Affairs

Registrar

ChairmanSports Council

Chairman Warden’s Council

Warden of the Students Hotels

Associate Dean

Associate Dean

Principal Investigators

Project Engi-neers &

Scientists

Superintending Engineer

Executive Engineers

Dy. Reg. (Acad.)

Public Relations Officer

Dy. Reg. (M.M.)

Dy. Reg. (F & A)

Senior Medical Officer

Dy. Reg. (Admn.)

Head of Depts./Centres

Security Officer

126

A-7.2 Organisation chart of IIT Delhi

http://www.iitd.ernet.in/about/orgchart.html

127

A-7.3 Organisation chart of MNIT

http://www.mnit.ac.in/administration/hierarchy.html

128

A-7.4 Organisation chart of NIT-Hamirpur

http://www.nitham.ac.in/Htree_files/gif_1.gif

129

A-7.5 Organisation chart of Harvard University, USA http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/budget/factbook/current_facts/central_admin_org_chart_2.html

130

A-7.6 Organisation chart of Oxford University, UK

http://www.ox.ac.uk/aboutoxford/structure.shtml

131

A-7.7 Organisation chart of University of California, Berkeley

http://www.berkeley.edu/administration/org/pdf/administration.pdf

132

Appendix-VIII

A-7.8 Organisation chart of Imperial College, UK

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7294705.PDF

133

Locations of National Institutes of Technology

134

Appendix-IX

Placement Statistics of Few NITs

A-9.1 National Institute of Technology – Tiruchirappalli

(Source: http://www.nitt.edu/home/students/facilitiesnservices/tp/)

Percentage of placed students-UG

Branch 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Architecture 33.3 20 37.5 100 100 Comp. Sc.&Eng 97.7 100 100 100 100 Chemical 80 100 82.2 94.4 98 Civil 52.5 94.6 94 93.5 100 E.C.E. 95.9 95.5 94.4 98.4 100 E.E.E. 91.3 100 98 100 100 I.C.E. 91.4 97 100 100 97.9 Mechanical 100 100 98 100 100 Metallurgy 62.5 81.8 71.8 97.1 94.6 Production 69.7 86.3 76.9 95.7 97.7 Overall-UG 83.4 93 90.6 98.1 98.9

A-9.2 Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad

(Source: http://www.mnnit.ac.in/placements/place2007.htm)

Statistics of Placement of B.Tech. students

2006-07* 2005-06

Disciplines No. of eligible students

No. of students placed

% Placed No. of eligible students

No. of students placed

% Placed

Civil Engg. 30 30 100 25 24 96 Comp. Sci.& Engg.

91 91 100 86 85 99

Electronics and Comm. Engg.

91 91 100 80 80 100

Electrical Engg. 43 43 100 42 42 100 Information Technology

45 45 100 46 45 98

Mechanical Engg. 76 76 100 66 66 100 Production Engg. 19 19 100 21 21 100 Total 395 395 100 366 363 99

135

A-9.3 National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur (Source : http://www.nitham.ac.in/TPO/record.htm)

Placement Records of the students for last few years

2006 (Total No. of organizations visited = 46)

S. No. Discipline No. of

students in final year

No. of students placed

through Placement

Cell

Percentage of placement

1 Elect.& Comm. Engg.

48 42 87.5

2 Comp. Sc. & Engg. 32 30 93.75 3 Electrical Engg. 46 35 76.09 4 Mechanical Engg. 41 38 92.68 5 Civil Engg. 30 27 90 6 Architecture 23 23 100

Total: 220 195 88.64

2004 (Total No. of organizations visited = 31)

1 Elect.& Comm. Engg. 43 20 43.51 2 Comp. Sc. & Engg. 34 18 52.94 3 Electrical Engg. 44 16 36.36 4 Mechanical Engg. 36 26 72.22 5 Civil Engg. 31 13 41.94

Total: 188 93 49.46

2005 (Total No. of organizations visited = 34)

1 Elect.& Comm. Engg. 43 34 79.06 2 Comp. Sc. & Engg. 28 24 85.71 3 Electrical Engg. 44 32 72.73 4 Mechanical Engg. 39 37 94.87 5 Civil Engg. 33 25 75.76 6 Architecture 12 3 25

Total: 199 155 77.89

136

Appendix-X

Percentage allotment of seats and vacant seats for B Tech in NITs

Institute Name Allotted (A) Vacant (V) (A) + (V) Sanctioned % Allot-

ment

NIT Agartala 333 82 415 420 79.29NIT Allahabad 523 5 528 530 98.68NIT Bhopal 592 14 606 690 85.80NIT Calicut 515 22 537 570 90.35NIT Durgapur 493 24 517 520 94.81NIT Hamirpur 293 7 300 330 88.79NIT Jaipur 472 6 478 520 90.77NIT Jalandhar 470 27 497 500 94.00NIT Jamshedpur 375 13 388 390 96.15NIT Kurukshetra 523 16 539 540 96.85NIT Nagpur 432 5 437 480 90.00NIT Patna 350 9 359 400 87.50NIT Raipur 556 23 579 620 89.68NIT Rourkela 412 7 419 420 98.10NIT Silchar 285 13 298 300 95.00NIT Srinagar 384 22 406 410 93.66NIT Surat 438 11 449 450 97.33NIT Tiruchirappalli 493 6 499 530 93.02NIT Warangal 471 6 477 480 98.13NITK Surathkal 474 4 478 480 98.75Total 8884 322 9206 9580 92.73

137

Appendix-XI

Scenarios

This appendix presents the scenarios computed in the previous version of the report that was prepared in October 2007. At this point it was not clear when reservation for other backward classes would be implemented. Hence two business as usual scenarios are constructed (BAU 1 and BAU 2). At this point the new IITs were not considered.

We construct the Business as Usual scenario (without reservation) BAU-1. In the BAU-2 scenario, it is assumed that the reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) proposed by the Government will be implemented. As per the Government plan, the number of general category seats remains constant. The increased growth occurs by 2012. Subsequently the existing growth rates are taken to construct the 2017 output. The tables provided in this appendix correspond to the tables in Chapter 4 with the appropriate numbers. (viz. Table A-X4.1 corresponds to the earlier version of table 4.1 in Chapter 4).

Table A-X4.1: Annual Growth rates for different programmes

Period Graduates Masters PhD

2001-2006 20.3% 7.5% 6.1%

1996-2006 12.5% 10% 11.1%

Values 12.5% 7.5% 6.1%

Table A-X4.2: Results of Scenario BAU-1 and BAU-2

BAU-1 (Without Reservation)

Year Population

(Million)

GDP

(000 crore) Graduates Masters Doctorates GDP/mPop E/mPop

2006 1112 2838000 237400 19900 1030 2553 214

2012 1223 4760000 481300 30700 1465 3893 394

2017 1324 7324000 867400 44100 1970 5532 655

BAU-2 (With Reservation)

2006 1112 2838000 237400 19900 1030 2553 2142012 1223 4760000 502700 38100 1465 3893 4112017 1324 7324000 901600 54700 1970 5532 681

138

Table A-X4.3a Annual Growth rates for different programmes in IITs and IISc Year B. Tech M.Tech Engg PhD

2001-2006 0.7 6.9 5.5

1996-2006 4.3 9.9 -0.1

Values 1.0 7.0 5.5

Table A-X4.3b Annual Growth rates for different programmes in NITs Year B.Tech/B.E. M.Tech/M.E.

2001-2006 0.5% 0.1%

1996-2006 1.9% 2.5%

Values 2.0% 2.5%

Table A-X4.4: Results of Scenario BAU-1 and BAU-2 for IITs and IISc

BAU-1 for IITs and IISc (Without Reservation)

Year Graduates Masters Doctorates TED

2006 2320 3790 430 6540

2012 2460 5690 590 8740

2017 2580 7980 780 11340

(BAU-2) for IITs and IISc (With Reservation)

2006 2320 3790 430 6540

2012 2750 7150 590 10490 2017 3860 10030 780 14670

Table A-X4.5: Share of IITs and IISc in BAU scenarios

IITs and IISc Share (BAU1)

Year Graduates Masters Doctorates

2006 1.0 % 19.0 % 42.0 % 2012 0.5 % 18.5 % 40.6 % 2017 0.3 % 18.1 % 39.4 % IITs and IISc Share (BAU2)

2012 0.5 % 18.8 % 40.6 % 2017 0.4 % 18.3 % 39.4 %

139

Table A-X4.6: Results of Scenario BAU-1 and BAU-2 for NITs

BAU-1 for NITs (Without Reservation)

Year B.Tech/B.E. M.Tech/M.E.

2006 7000 1550

2012 7880 1670

2017 8700 1890

(BAU-2) for NITs With Reservation

2012 8730 1850

2017 12630 2670

Table A-X4.7: Share of NITs under BAU Scenarios

(BAU-1) NITs Share

Year Graduates Masters

2006 2.9% 7.8%

2012 1.6% 5.4%

2017 1.0% 4.3%

(BAU-2) NITs Share

2012 1.7% 4.9%

2017 1.4% 4.9%

Table A-X4.8a: Total Faculty numbers BAU 1 Scenario

2006 2012 2017 IIT 2150 2940 3270 NIT 2220 2330 2570 Other 75400 154000 233000 Total 79500 159270 238840

Table A-X4.8b: Total Faculty numbers BAU 2 Scenario

2006 2012 2017 IIT 2150 3270 4290 NIT 2220 2580 3730 Other 75400 167700 233000 Total 79500 173550 241020

140

Table A-X4.9a Additional faculty requirement under BAU 1 Scenario

2012 2017 IIT 230 750 NIT 290 820 Other 85000 173000 Total 85780 174800

Table A-X4.9b Additional faculty requirement under BAU 2 Scenario

2012 2017 IIT 330 1520 NIT 540 820 Other 92300 182100 Total 93430 184660