Excellence Through Autonomy: Transformation of College of Engineering Pune into an IIT-like...

8/9/2019 Excellence Through Autonomy: Transformation of College of Engineering Pune into an IIT-like Institution

1/128


2/128


3/128

Excellence through Authonomy i

FOREWORD

INDIA MUST THINK BIG IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION

D R F C K O H L I

Chairman, Board of Governors, CoEP

There are at least 50-60 engineering colleges in the country today where the quality of student

intake is comparable to that at the IITs. If these colleges could be given autonomy quickly and

be assisted with mentorship and support for improving the quality of their education delivery

and research, then we could produce 35,000 to 40,000 world-class engineers. Some of these,

say 6000 to 7000, can go on to do their PhDs, engaging in research towards products, patents

and services to deal with the engineering challenges facing the country. (Dr Kohli, 2002)

I say this again; this country has no business being poor.


4/128

iiExcellence through Autonomy

No country that neglects education as much as India has, can expect to be internationally competitive. Ihave always believed that the distribution of talent is the same all over the world. Since Indias population

is three times that of the United States we are likely to have three times as many bright people. Yet we

are producing very few PhDs and research workers, a vital input into advanced research, technology

development, and innovation. This is especially true in the engineering fields. For example, India

produced 125 doctorates in computer engineering in 2013, as against 2,000 PhDs in the same field in

America.

It is possible to address this imbalance with a well calibrated approach. Most of the universities and their

affiliated colleges are run by state governments. These universities do not revise and update science,

math and physics curriculum as often as is needed to maintain quality. Universities have become

essentially examination bodies. Good students dont need to put in extensive effort to pass these exams

and for the others there are coaching classes.

There are at least fifty engineering colleges in the country where the intake of students comprises those

who have scored above 85% at the 10+2 level, without any coaching. These students are bright by anystandard. If the quality of education at these colleges can be upgraded to the level of the IITs or American

universities it is possible to increase the pool of top-class undergraduate engineers to approximately 50 -

60,000 (over and above what is being produced by the IITs). This large pool of engineers will be sufficient,

even after accounting for migration and transfers, to supply the requisite numbers of Masters and PhD

students who can undertake research, innovation and entrepreneurship towards wealth creation, and

towards addressing the many challenging engineering tasks facing the country today. We must produce

at least 6000 engineering PhDs each year at the earliest.

Upgrading the quality of education at 50-60 colleges will require a successful example that can be used

as a template for replication. I am happy that we have been able to create one such template in the

College of Engineering Pune (CoEP), one of the oldest engineering colleges in the country, which was

granted autonomy in 2004 and has since registered a sharp increase in the quality of education delivery

within a span of just 6-7 years. I take this opportunity to thank members of the Government of

Maharashtra, Mr Dilip Walse-Patil, the late Mrs Kumud Bansal, Mrs Chandra Iyengar and many others for

reposing their faith in the concept of autonomy and for unconditionally backing the independent Board

of Governors of CoEP under my leadership.

I am very grateful to the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) Mumbai, its chairman Shri Sudheendra

Kulkarni, and the authors of this report, Dr Leena Chandran-Wadia and Aparna Sivakumar, for helping to

document the transformation of this historic college so that it may become a source of inspiration and

ideas for use by many other colleges in the country.

I would like to thank all the eminent members of the Board of Governors who have contributed their time

and expertise with deep commitment during the past decade. I would like to especially acknowledge the

work of B.S. Sonde in revamping curriculum and taking the academics at the College to new heights.

Pratap Pawar volunteered to take charge of finance and purchase and provided invaluable assistance,

not just in bringing fiscal discipline to the College but also in squeezing out the maximum value from every


5/128

Excellence through Authonomy iii

rupee that was spent. Most importantly, he has ensured that many faculty members and staff have learnt

from the experience of working alongside him. The critical task of hiring new faculty could not have been

handled without the assistance of G.B. Pant who took on this onerous responsibility and executed it so

well. Atul Kirloskar took charge of the building and works committee and the results are visible in the

beautifully renovated heritage main building and the extensive new infrastructure on campus. Anil

Sahasrabudhe, has been a dynamic Director who has led from the front and worked with all hiscolleagues, faculty as well as non-teaching staff, to bring positive change to every aspect of the

functioning of CoEP. It has been a pleasure working with him.

Sceptics say that the transformation at College of Engineering Pune will not be easy to replicate because

it involved a fortuitous combination of leadership by me and Dr Sahasrabudhe. I disagree strongly with

this view. I believe that there are many eminent industrialists who have a deep interest in quality

education, who would willingly commit their time to guide a newly autonomous college into adopting

good governance practices. It is only a matter of looking for them. The same is true for academics with

innate leadership skills, who can be made Directors at these colleges. A good Director is a critical input

into the change process. The pace of change at CoEP began to get underway and accelerate only whenDr Sahasrabudhe came on board, in 2006. I am convinced that there are several others like him who can

script a similar success story, provided they are properly empowered.

The outcome of the recently concluded parliamentary elections in India has ushered in a strong wave of

hope and expectation in the country. Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has changed the mood of the

nation from pessimism to optimism by promising better governance. Radical reforms in many areas of

governance are in the offing. I heartily welcome this change and extend my best wishes for the success

of the Prime Ministers agenda for Indias rapid development. I also send my greetings and best wishes

to Smt. Smriti Irani, the new Minister of Human Resource Development. I take this opportunity to remind

them both that nowhere else are reforms more urgently needed than in the area of education, especiallyhigher education.

One of the first major announcements of the new government has been regarding the setting up IITs and

IIMs in every state. Although new institutions are needed, I believe that there must be simultaneous

effort put into improving some of the existing institutions. A relatively much larger number of students

stand to gain by this. By not taking adequate care of the bulk of our students, our education system is

turning brilliant students into mediocre citizens.

The proposal to upgrade existing colleges will require a one-time financial investment from the respective

state governments, to the tune of say Rs 100 crore over five years, to each chosen college. Once these

colleges are providing better infrastructure and better education they can be allowed to levy highertuition fees. Well educated engineers will definitely find well-paying jobs so it is only fair that they pay for

their education. Towards this I have also worked with Dr Y.V. Reddy and many others to get an innovative

student-loan scheme Burden on the Beneficiaries approved by RBI and the Indian Banks Association, so

that students can get loans on very easy terms (simple interest) to become independent of their parents.

CoEP has in the past few years turned its attention towards excellence in research and innovation and it

must now aim at becoming an MIT-like institution. It can dream big today because it was assisted


6/128

ivExcellence through Autonomy

extensively with all aspects of academics by IIT Bombay during the early days. Similar academic inputs

will be required at all the chosen colleges and we must plan for it. CoEP has, in fact, already become a

mentor to Punjab Institute of Engineering & Technology in Chandigarh, and Cummins College of

Engineering for Women in Pune. I believe that it would be wise to create a separate organisation that can

take charge of this activity of assisting these chosen colleges with all the necessary knowhow and by

connecting them to eminent academics who can assist them.

I congratulate Leena and Aparna for bringing out an excellent report. I have enjoyed interacting with

these enthusiastic and highly committed researcher-activists and learnt from their report. I hope you will

too. I believe that the report will certainly achieve the goal envisaged for it, namely, of becoming the

catalyst for a big push towards quality engineering education in India.

Mumbai - November 2014


7/128

Excellence through Authonomy v

PREFACE

GOVERNANCE OF EDUCATION

MUST BE LEFT TO VISIONARY EDUCATIONISTS

Every time I meet Dr F.C. Kohli, I am reminded of what Henry

David Thoreau wrote about old age: NONE ARE SO OLD AS

THOSE WHO HAVE OUTLIVED ENTHUSIASM.

Dr Kohli,now in his 91styear, exudes both enthusiasm and

ideas. But he is not only a man of ideas. He is also a man of

action.

Ten years ago, at an age when most people would be only

reminiscing about what they did in the past, Dr Kohli began

thinking about what he would do in the future. Propelled byhis lifelong passion for quality education for all, he set out on

a new adventure. He intensified his advocacy for autonomy

to engineering colleges in India. He was convinced, firstly,

that technological manpower of high quality is the key to

Indias rapid development. His experience as the founder of

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), and his earlier stint in the

power sector, had made him acutely aware of the need for

excellence in engineering education. However, he was also

convinced that this critical requirement could not be met

unless our engineering colleges enjoyed full autonomy, as is

the case in USA, Germany, Israel and other technologically

advanced countries.

Fortunately, his advocacy evoked a positive response from

the Government of Maharashtra, which asked him to lead the

transformation of the autonomous College of Engineering

Pune by heading its board of governors. He took the onerous

responsibility and discharged it successfully, with the active

cooperation of other members of the board and Dr Anil Sahasrabudhe, CoEPs director, who, incidentally,

was hand-picked by Dr Kohli for the job.

Today CoEP proudly claims to have become an IIT-like institution in engineering education. This

impressive transformation has been thoroughly researched and documented by my colleagues, Dr Leena

Chandran-Wadia and Aparna Sivakumar, in this report, which we are pleased to present for a critical

debate by all those who are passionate about enhancing the standards of engineering education in India

to world-class levels. However, this study goes well beyond telling the story of the turnaround of a single

engineering college. Ever since I first met Dr Kohli, along with my colleagues, to discuss how we might

The young people of India, aspiring

and impatient, want to see big-scale

change in the shortest possible time

frame. They are unwilling to accept

delays. They will not tolerate small

fulfilment of big promises.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of

the central and state governments

to respond to their soaring

aspirations with a sense of

urgency.

SUDHEENDRA KULKARNI

Chairman, ORF Mumbai


8/128

viExcellence through Autonomy

present the CoEP story, he was insistent that he would remain very unhappy if this successful experiment

did not serve as a template for replication in scores of promising engineering colleges across the country.

Accordingly, Leena and Aparna have expanded the scope of this report to make a compelling case for

speedily scaling up this autonomy-driven initiative to transform as many 100 engineering colleges into IIT-

like institutions.

It is a doable project. Indeed, it must be done.

* * *

The study often took us to meet Dr Kohli at his sea-facing office of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) on the

11th floor of Air India building at Nariman Point in Mumbai, from where one gets a breathtaking view of

Marine Drive and the Queens Necklace. But breathtaking, in a different sense, has been our experience

in discussing the subject of educational reforms with him. In a voice softened by age, but in words

showing no effect of age, he would ask us: Why doesnt India have the best universities and colleges in

the world, even though Indian students are among the brightest in the world and many Indian teachers

are also among the best in the world?

He would provide the answer to his own question. Its because in India the government does not want

to give up control. Very few politicians understand the importance of excellence in education. Even less do

they understand what it takes to achieve it.As far as bureaucrats are concerned, they love to exercise

control through the power of their position. Even when one IAS officer takes some good decision, his or

her successor is quite likely to reverse it. Therefore, I strongly believe that the governance of education

must be left to visionary educationists.

He presented several innovative and practical ideas for quality enhancement in colleges and universities

in India. Here are some.

One: There are at least 50-60 engineering colleges in India today where the quality of students iscomparable to that at the IITs. If these colleges could be given autonomy and assisted with improving

the quality of their education delivery and their research, then India would produce sufficient numbers of

well-trained engineers who can engage in research and produce products, patents and services to deal

with the many challenges facing our countryI say this again: THIS COUNTRY HAS NO BUSINESS BEING

POOR.

Two: Why dont we create a cluster of colleges in a city and empower them to share their teachers, labs

and other resources, and enable their students to take common courses and conduct common research

assignments? A cluster provides the right size of students and teachers, and the right pool of shared

resources, to introduce quality-augmentation innovations. Each cluster should have clear goals andtargets, and incentives to achieve them. For this to happen, the cluster needs to have a common board

of governors, who can be drawn from the member-colleges. Over a period of time, each cluster can

evolve into a university in its own right.

Three: Let us introduce the concept of the Burden on the Beneficiaries . Let the nationalised banks

(chairmen of all of them have agreed) pay Rs 1 lakh per student per year against every student taking

admission in these top colleges, which would be treated as loan to be repaid by the student with a simple


9/128

Excellence through Authonomy vii

(and not compound) interest, two to three years after graduation. The money thus received should be

used, in a transparent and accountable manner, by the college authorities themselves without any

interference from the bureaucrats of the state or central governments.

Four: Excellent teachers alone can make an institution excellent.One of the things that motivates and

benefits a teacher the most is the opportunity to go abroad either to study or to teach at great

institutions. Our college and university teachers do not have enough such opportunities. They also do not

provide adequate opportunities to our teachers to network with other experts, industrialists, eminent

scientists, Nobel laureates, etc. The institute could effectively use the available funds for this purpose,

among other purposes.

Five: India needs to vastly increase the number of engineering students doing PhDs.Unfortunately, most

students opting for the PhD programme (about 2000 each year) do so because it is an essential

qualification for a teaching job. We need PhDs who can conduct seminal research oriented at solving

problems. Therefore, the brightest among BTechs and MTechs should be incentivised to do PhD, which

typically takes 4-5 years of additional time in academia. For this, government and industry should create

a separate fund to significantly raise the compensation to PhD students, so that they dont feel that they

are forgoing good job offers after graduation or post-graduation.

All these are great ideas, and Dr Kohli has shared them on numerous occasions with decision makers at

all levels. However, he has a lament. All of them say, These are good ideas. We should implement them.

But collectively they do very little. We have created a system that simply does not absorb good ideas and

implement them quickly on a big scale. And when something good is happening, the system has a way of

undoing it. bit by bit. Its very frustrating. It burns you out. I often ask myself, Why am I doing all this?

But then I tell myself, I must continue doing all this, because I believe in it. By now I have realised that

IN INDIA, ONE HAS TO LIVE A LONG LIFE TO SEE ANY BIG -SCALE CHANGE.

* * *

Dr Kohli has certainly lived a long life. May he live many more years in active service of the nation.

However, the young people of India, aspiring and impatient, want to see big-scale change in the shortest

possible time frame. They are unwilling to accept delays. They will not tolerate small fulfilment of big

promises. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the central and state governments to respond to their

soaring aspirations with a sense of urgency.

At a time when the new government at the Centre, under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra

Modi, is planning big initiatives in higher and technical education, we at the Observer Research

Foundation Mumbai do hope that policy makers will give serious consideration to the ambitious andinnovative ideas presented in this report based on the replicable and scalable model of transformation of

the College of Engineering Pune.

Kudos to Leena and Aparna for producing this highly useful report. It is the result of dedicated research

stretching well over a year. Readers critical feedback is most welcome.

December 2014


10/128

viiiExcellence through Autonomy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is primarily a case study of the transformation of College of Engineering Pune (CoEP) after it

received complete autonomy from the Government of Maharashtra in 2004. The Board of Governors of CoEP

led by Dr F.C. Kohli, ably assisted by the faculty of the college and the Director, Dr Anil Sahasrabudhe, have

architected a remarkable turnaround in the quality of education delivery at the college in a span of just 6-7

years. The initiatives that helped put CoEP on the path to excellence can be replicated at other engineering

colleges. We therefore call for a 100 more colleges to be given complete autonomy by the respective state

governments, along with adequate funding and support, to similarly transform themselves in the same time

or less. We are certain that transforming existing good colleges, those with a high quality of student intake,

will be cheaper and faster than creating new IITs but we are not advocating an either/or choice for the

governments. Both must be done simultaneously.

The successful turnaround of CoEP is testimony to the fact that excellence can indeed be achieved through

autonomy despite many reservations having been expressed, particularly with regard to financial autonomy.

The enlightened leadership at CoEP has succeeded in inspiring and motivating faculty and staff to create a

student-centric institution, pursuing global standards of quality and committed to the all-round

development of students into top-class

engineers, researchers and entrepreneurs. Ideal

initial conditions for this were created by the

Government of Maharashtra. They did not only

give CoEP complete autonomy but also adopted

a largely hands-off attitude, leaving the Board

free to charter the course for CoEP. With careful

nurture, determined efforts and excellentmanagement of people and resources, CoEP has

made full use of this autonomy to record

enormous progress, transforming itself into an

IIT-like institution one of the premier colleges

offering undergraduate engineering education

in the country today.

Many other factors came together to help CoEP

succeed which are listed in the box alongside.

We describe the transformation of the college indetail and also provide a snapshot of where the

college stands today. Faculty and students have

been the beneficiaries, having been given access

to revamped state-of-the-art infrastructure in

laboratories, library, computing facilities,

hostels, sports facilities etc. They have in turn

responded with a Can Do attitude, excelling in

CRITICAL FACTORS FOR THE SUCCESFUL

TRANSFORMATION OF CoEP

1. The vision of the Chairman of Board of

Governors, Dr F.C. Kohli

2. The hands-on involvement of all members of

the Board of Governors in different aspects ofinstitutional development

3. The leadership qualities of the Director, Dr

A.D. Sahasrabudhe

4. The open-mindedness of the faculty and their

willingness to rise to the challenge

5. The extensive mentorship of IIT Bombay with

regard to revamping curriculum, upgrading of

laboratories and training of teachers

6. Grant of complete autonomy and enabling

support from the Government of Maharashtra

7. Funding and guidance from TEQIP

8. Contribution of alumni and industry towards

mentoring, funding support, and research and

entrepreneurship opportunities for faculty and

students


11/128

Excellence through Authonomy ix

everything from academics to extra-curricular activities and to community engagement, winning many

accolades. The College has now turned its focus to research and entrepreneurship, seeking to enhance its

post-graduate and PhD programmes, and is looking to MIT, USA for inspiration.

Despite all this the successful transformation of CoEP was neither easy to achieve nor guaranteed to succeed.

So why is it likely that their success can be replicated in 100 or more colleges? We explore this question

carefully in the report. Engineering education is among the key enablers of growth for transforming Indias

economy and engineering achievement is being relied upon to help generate wealth, create jobs and solve

many of the pressing social challenges facing the country today. Quality engineering education is therefore

an imperative. However, in a climate in which autonomy is unattractive to colleges (only 487 of nearly 37,000

colleges are autonomous), this challenge can only be taken on if the Central government, the regulatory

agencies such as UGC, AICTE, and others, all the state governments, the affiliating universities, faculty, staff,

and students, come together to find the will to succeed and overcome the trust deficits.

We begin the report with an overview of engineering education in India and move on, in Chapter 2, to a

discussion of the tangle of regulation and challenges associated with granting autonomy. In Chapter 3 we

detail the transformation of CoEP, the achievements so far, focussing particularly on the contributions of the

key stakeholders. We close with detailed recommendations from the Observer Research Foundation

Mumbai, outlined below, towards critical reforms in governance and in the regulatory framework, to enable

not just 100 engineering colleges, but all colleges, to provide an internationally competitive education.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Find the political will to grant complete and genuine autonomy to all good colleges at the

earliest, with adequate funding, to enable them to become IIT-like institutions;

2. Leadership reformsensure stellar Boards of Governors in all autonomous colleges. Reform

governance models to involve faculty actively and make leadership accountable;

3. Move towards purely merit-based selection of faculty. Empower faculty to take charge of

academics and research. Build a large army of good teachers within the next 5 years;

4. Educate students for life, citizenship, innovation, employability and problem-solvingto

successfully tackle the gigantic developmental challenges before India and the world;

5. Ensure diversity of student body on campuses. Permit institutions to enrol at least 10% of

students and faculty from outside the state and from abroad, to promote national integration

and to make India a global hub of learning;

6. Promote research and entrepreneurship. Aim to create 10,000 engineering PhDs a year;

7. Make full use of Information and Communication Technologies to scale quality education;

8. Tackle issues of affordability and equity with intelligent financing, scholarships and freeships;

9. Ensure transparency and accountability and weed out poor quality institutions;

10. Create a strong synergy between engineering colleges, industry and government

departments/agencies so that all three can benefit from it.


12/128

Excellence through Autonomy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.WHY ENGINEERING MATTERS.......................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Engineering Education and Research .................................................................................. 2

1.2. Undergraduate Engineering Education in IndiaA Snapshot ............................................. 7

1.3. The Premise of this ReportIndias opportunity to create a 100 IIT-like Institutions in less

than a decade ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.EXCELLENCE THROUGHAUTONOMY............................................................................................... 11

2.1. Governance of Affiliated Colleges ...................................................................................... 13

2.1.1. Autonomous Colleges and Deemed Universities 16

2.2. AutonomyA necessary first step towards Excellence ..................................................... 16

2.2.1. The Freedoms of Autonomy 17

2.2.2. Procedure for A College to Receive Autonomy 19

2.2.3. Autonomy and Higher Education in Maharashtra 202.3. Some Perceptions and Truths regarding Autonomy ........................................................... 21

2.4. The Quest for Excellence and the new National Higher Education Mission (RUSA) .......... 24

2.4.1. Assessing the Quality of an Educational Institution 24

2.4.2. Accreditation and Rankings 26

3.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PUNE 2014ALOOK BACK.................................................................. 28

3.1. Initiating Transformation through Innovations in Governance ............................................ 29

3.1.1. A Collective Exercise in Vision, Mission and Goal Setting 29

3.1.2. Quality Time from Members of the Board of Governors 32

3.2. Bold Steps towards Academic Excellence ......................................................................... 35

3.2.1. Gap Analysis with IIT Bombay to Help Identify Areas of Deficiency 353.2.2. Twinning Arrangement with IIT Bombay for Curriculum Delivery 37

3.2.3. Measures to Empower Faculty 40

3.2.4. Enhancing Research and Consultancy Activities 45

3.3. Administrative Reforms...................................................................................................... 48

3.4. Financial Reforms .............................................................................................................. 51

3.4.1. Scholarships and Freeships 54

3.4.2. An Innovative Student Loan Scheme 55

3.5. The OutcomeA Student-Centric Institution ..................................................................... 56

3.5.1. Enriching Academic Infrastructure 57

3.5.2. Ambience and Amenities 643.5.3. Emphasis on Basic Sciences and Humanities 66

3.5.4. Promotion of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 67

3.5.5. Community Engagement 68

3.6. Critical contributions from Stakeholders ............................................................................. 69

3.6.1. State Government of MaharashtraA Mixed Bag 69

3.6.2. Board of GovernorsExemplary Leadership 70

3.6.3. IIT BombayMentoring and Best Practices 72


13/128

Excellence through Authonomy

3.6.4. TEQIPFunding and Governance support 73

3.6.5. Faculty InitiativesDelivering on the Promise 75

3.6.6. Alumni SupportNurturing with Pride 77

3.6.7. Industry and Institutional PartnershipsCreating new Opportunities 78

3.6.8. Student ContributionsEnergy and Verve 82

3.7. Challenges still Ahead ....................................................................................................... 82

4.ORFRECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................. 84

4.1. Essential reforms for promoting Excellence ....................................................................... 86

4.1.1. Genuine Autonomy for many Good Colleges at the Earliest 87

4.1.2. Leadership and Governance reforms to stimulate Innovation 88

4.1.3. Student BodyEducation for Life and Citizenship 89

4.1.4. Making Affirmative Action Work 90

4.1.5. Recruitment and Empowerment of Faculty 91

4.1.6. Innovations in the Promotion of Research and Entrepreneurship 92

4.1.7. Judicious use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) 93

4.1.8. Tackling Issues of Affordability and Financing 94

4.1.9. Weeding out Poor Quality InstitutionsAccreditation and Accountability 95

4.1.10. New InstitutionsOnly Large Multidisciplinary Residential Research Universities 96

4.2. The Way Forward .............................................................................................................. 96

4.2.1. Policy Framework and Legal Hurdles 97

4.2.2. Mentoring by Institutions And by Individuals 98

5.ANNEXURE IMETRICS FOR EVALUATING QUALITY....................................................................... 100

5.1. Education Delivery ........................................................................................................... 100

5.2. InstitutionalInfrastructure, Governance and Reputation ............................................... 102

6.ANNEXURE IIACCOLADES WON BY THE COLLEGE....................................................................... 103

ABBREVIATIONS &GLOSSARY OF TERMS.......................................................................................... 106

REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 108

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................. 111

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................... 112

ABOUT ORFMUMBAI...................................................................................................................... 113


14/128

1 Excellence through Autonomy

1. WHY ENGINEERINGMATTERS

Engineering and technological innovation has been the main instrument of material prosperity and

human development since time immemorial. Its criticality in the progress of nations has vastly

increased in modern times. From bustling cities to the quiet corners of the Earth, from the depths of

the oceans to space, engineers have always sought to overcome challenges and createopportunities that improve the quality of life and serve the needs of society. In the last century alone,

many great engineering achievements became so commonplace that we now take them for granted1.

From the most basic needs such as access to electricity, abundant supply of food, and safe drinking

water, to the automobile and airplanes, and to communication technologies such as the telephone

and the Internet, and even exploration of space, technology has been working hard for us. The fruits

of modern medicine have saved countless lives and the decoding of the human genome has opened

up a new and exciting era of research in the biological sciences in the 21 stcentury. While these are

all remarkable achievements, there are many more challenges remaining to be overcome in the 21st

century. Some of these have been identified and listed as grand challenges for engineering2, but

there will undoubtedly be surprises because engineering does not always follow only the envisionedpaths. Engineering advancement often leads society and influences peoples needs and culture, the

automobile and the Internet being just two such examples.

Many definitions of an engineer exist3but in academic and professional settings an engineer is

defined as a person capable of using scientific knowledge, especially mathematics and science, to

solve real-world problems (Gereffi, et al. 2008). Scientists investigate the natural world and scientific

discovery or invention is celebrated as the realisation of human dreams. Innovation is the process

by which these discoveries are applied and put to work doing something useful for society (Olson

2014). Innovation is therefore the adoption of inventions, and engineers are pivotal in enabling

widespread adoption of inventions through their ability to make connections. Engineering is therefore

the sine qua non of technological innovation. The outcome of engineering efforts are technologies,

systems, machines, products and processes, not just for the benefit of civil society but for scientists

as well, giving them new instruments to probe the natural world with ever increasing accuracy. The

engineering design process, which seeks to find the best solutions given resources and constraints,

is an extremely creative one and in the accelerated pace of the 21 stcentury we can expect to see

enormous strides in the biological sciences and in human health, as well as in the restoration of our

environment and its ecosystems.

Talent in the engineering work force has therefore, quite naturally, played a critical role in the

international competitiveness of nations. Post World War II, North America, Western Europe, Japan,

and many other countries have relied on science and technology based innovation for wealthcreation and for achieving phenomenal growth in their per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product),

as is evident fromFigure 1.China has shown an impressive growth spurt in its GDP since the 1990s

1http://www.greatachievements.org/ accessed December 20142http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspxaccessed December 20143For example, academic institutions in the United States (US) are divided over whether Computer Science (CS) andInformation Technology (IT) majors ought to be part of engineering schools whereas both India and China include CSand IT graduates in their tally of engineering graduates.
http://www.greatachievements.org/http://www.greatachievements.org/http://www.greatachievements.org/http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspxhttp://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspxhttp://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspxhttp://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspxhttp://www.greatachievements.org/


15/128

Why Engineering Matters 2

when it began to invest heavily into education, but as a general rule countries in which the

development of an industrial society has either stagnated or declined, including in India, have had

much lower growth rates of GDP.

FIGURE 1: GROWTH OF PER CAPITA GDP: THE WORLD AND MAJOR REGIONS ,1950-2003.LEVEL IN 1990

INTERNATIONAL PPP$SOURCE:Education and Economic Growth (Miller 2007)4.

1.1. Engineering Education and Research

There is persuasive evidence available in literature to suggest that growth of GDP is linearly related

to enrolment in tertiary education5(Holland, et al. 2013) (Kurup and Arora 2010). It is also similarly

related to the number of engineers produced (Banerjee and Muley 2010). Figure 2 which is a

reproduction of their data from 1995 to 2006, of the output of engineers in India illustrates this.

Engineering education is therefore among the key enablers of growth for transforming Indias

economy and we must give it the attention it deserves.

It is disconcerting to find therefore that both in terms of the quality of engineering education as well

as the level of engineering education numbers of post-graduates (Masters and PhD degree

holders) India falls far behind both the US and China (Gereffi, et al. 2008) (Banerjee and Muley

2010). Whereas the Masters output in the US was as much as 50% ofthe undergraduate output

in 2002-2003, a study of the data from India between 1947-2006 shows that after increasing to

levels of 15-17% in the 1980s, the percentage of Masters degree holders actually started to decline.

It was only 8.5% of Bachelors degree holders in 2006 (Banerjee and Muley 2010) and is now at less

than 4% in 2013-14. This is certainly a crisis situation because Masters degree holders are required

in large numbers to begin entry-level teaching at many colleges and to create the pipeline into PhD

4Chart based on data by Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy 1-2030AD, Oxford University Press, 2007,http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htmaccessed December 20145http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2013/01/relationship-between-tertiary-education-and-gdp-per-capita/
http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htmhttp://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htmhttp://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2013/01/relationship-between-tertiary-education-and-gdp-per-capita/http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2013/01/relationship-between-tertiary-education-and-gdp-per-capita/http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2013/01/relationship-between-tertiary-education-and-gdp-per-capita/http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2013/01/relationship-between-tertiary-education-and-gdp-per-capita/http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm


16/128


enrolments at the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the National Institutes of Technology

(NITs), and at other institutions seeking to increase their research output.

FIGURE 2: ENGINEERS PER MILLION POPULATION TO REAL GDPPER CAPITA FROM 1995-2006.Source (BANERJEE AND MULEY, ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN INDIA 2010)

The percentage of engineering PhDs produced in India has remained below 3% of the number of

undergraduate engineers produced each year since 1947. It dropped to less than 1% in 2006

(Banerjee and Muley, Engineering Education in India 2010) and has remained so ever since. The

count of PhD degree holders in engineering and technology produced in the United States (US),

China and India during a 10-year period from 1994-95 to 2004-05 is compared inFigure 3 (Gereffi,

et al. 2008). Indian PhD production has averaged in the high 700s each year and has shown very

little movement upwards. Even as recently as in 2010-11, India produced just 1,682 engineering and

technology PhDs (UGC 2013), approximately 10% of all PhD degrees awarded in the country that

year but less than 0.2% of the number of undergraduate engineers produced that year6.

FIGURE 3: TEN -YEAR TREND IN ENGINEERING &TECHNOLOGY PHDDEGREES IN THE US, CHINA AND INDIA.

Source: (Gereffi, et al. 2008)

6Seehttp://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0accessed Dec 2014
http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0


17/128


Small wonder then that Dr F.C. Kohli, founder of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and doyen of the

Indian IT industry, has been advocating for the need to increase the number of PhDs urgently. Given

the steep shortages in researchers and faculty at all Indian educational institutions7, the pressure to

produce more PhDs is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future.

Dr R. A. Mashelkar, President of the Global Research Alliance and Chancellor, Institute of Chemical

Technology (ICT) Mumbai, emphasises that now more thanever Indian educational institutions need to become active

in research and innovation, besides engaging in education

delivery (Mashelkar 2013). World class centres of

knowledge, education and learning must evolve in India

from the well-known three-step process of the Knowledge

Triangle, he says: beginning with the wide dissemination of

knowledge through education, moving towards the creation

of new knowledge through research, and finally towards

converting knowledge into wealth and social good through

innovation. Most colleges in India barely do a reasonablejob of knowledge dissemination, he says, going on to add

there is not enough research being done in universities

and colleges and very few of them have evolved into using knowledge to create wealth by

promoting entrepreneurship.

FIGURE 4: SOURCE "RANKING THE NATIONS ON NANOTECH"LUX RESEARCH REPORT AUGUST 2010.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/www2.itif.org/panelists+powerpoints/2013-engineering-sridhar-kota.pdf

7The shortage is estimated to be as high as 40% even at the IITs and higher in many places.

INNOVATION->

Converts knowledge into

wealth and social good

RESEARCH ->

Creates new knowledge

EDUCATION ->

Disseminates knowledge
https://s3.amazonaws.com/www2.itif.org/panelists+powerpoints/2013-engineering-sridhar-kota.pdfhttps://s3.amazonaws.com/www2.itif.org/panelists+powerpoints/2013-engineering-sridhar-kota.pdfhttps://s3.amazonaws.com/www2.itif.org/panelists+powerpoints/2013-engineering-sridhar-kota.pdf


18/128


At a panel discussion titled Engineering 2.0: Rekindling American Ingenuity held in Washington DC,

USA, in September 20138, several eminent engineering educators shared their views on the kind of

changes necessary in engineering education in the US to better enable US global innovation-based

competitiveness. Perhaps the best characterisation of the challenge for the US, and coincidentally

also for India, is the following comparison of the competitiveness of various countries in one of the

important areas for industry namely, nanotechnology (Figure 4).The data suggests that it is Japan, Germany and South Korea that are dominant and will be more

successful than the US at growing their economies with nanotechnology. Although the US is

unquestionably the world leader in research, it appears to be falling behind in its ability to convert

scientific research into competitively priced products through rigorous engineering. As with the US

Indian research is stronger relative to its ability to develop technology, but the similarity ends there.

India is placed at the lowest end of the minor league, way behind most countries, despite its

perceived strength in Science and Technology (S&T) education and research. This is the crisis that

we must confront urgently. The situation is likely to be very similar in many other cutting-edge areas

of science and technology based innovation. India has the fewest number of researchers per million

populations, less than 150 relative to over 4600 in the US (Figure 5). We are also not competitive

with respect to our patents and IP filings9.

FIGURE 5: EXPENDITURE ON R&DI N INDIA MUST INCREASE IF WE ARE TO BE COMPETITIVE

Source: (Dahlman 2007).

We must therefore urgently educate many more engineers who are adept at research, innovation

and entrepreneurship, at the post-graduate as well as undergraduate levels, so that they can help

create the technology development strength that we need in order to convert research fromlaboratories into products and services in the market. Government as well as private sector must

invest more in Research and Development (R&D) and work together to build the necessary linkages

from labs to marketsif not in all areas then at least in some strategically chosen areas. As the data

8Conducted by The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a non-partisan research and educationalthink tank.http://www.itif.org/events/engineering-20-rekindling-american-ingenuityaccessed December 20149http://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?popup=0&nid=0&c1=04&newscate=1&nkey=201412171245251accessed December 2014

Total Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (PPPS)
http://www.itif.org/events/engineering-20-rekindling-american-ingenuityhttp://www.itif.org/events/engineering-20-rekindling-american-ingenuityhttp://www.itif.org/events/engineering-20-rekindling-american-ingenuityhttp://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?popup=0&nid=0&c1=04&newscate=1&nkey=201412171245251http://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?popup=0&nid=0&c1=04&newscate=1&nkey=201412171245251http://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?popup=0&nid=0&c1=04&newscate=1&nkey=201412171245251http://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?popup=0&nid=0&c1=04&newscate=1&nkey=201412171245251http://www.itif.org/events/engineering-20-rekindling-american-ingenuity


19/128


inFigure 5 shows, Indias investment in R&D, which has stagnated at roughly 0.8% of GDP for nearly

two decades now, compares extremely poorly with the investment of most other countries (Dahlman

2007).

What are the special challenges of educating the engineer of the 21stcentury? A report from the

National Academy of Engineering in the US (NAE 2005) points out the drivers of change: The rapid

development of high-bandwidth technologieshas enabled instantaneous communication,

as well as rapid access to and transmission

of information. Industry, business, research,

and education are now all global activities. In

addition, engineering projects and practices

today are intertwined with public issues and

policies, such as energy, the environment,

health care, and government. For reasons of

both globalisation and public interaction,

engineers must have an understanding ofpeople with different backgrounds and

different cultural values and must be able to

interact with them effectively. Thus

engineers must be more broadly educated

than in the past, and they must be able to

understand the wider context and effects of their work. Successful engineers in the global

workplace need much more than technical knowledge and skills.

A related comment is Dr Kohlis assertion During the course of his or her professional career an

engineer will have to learn to work with at least three or four new technologies that have not yet

been invented at the time he or she graduates. In my case it was the personal computer and the

entire hardware and software industry as we know it today, computer communications and the

Internet and the semiconductor electronics industry among others.

The key characteristic of the student of the 21stcentury is accurately portrayed by Dr Charles Vest,

former President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in the report (NAE 2005): As we

think about the plethora of challenges, it is important, in my view, to remember that students are

driven by passion, curiosity, engagement, and dreams...Dr Gretchen Kalonji of the University of

Washington, expanding on Dr Vests desire to engage the passion and curiosity of students, states:I think we need to undertake a far bolder reformulation of engineering education. Bluntly

speaking, with existing models, we are losing the battle for the imagination of our youth.What

I would argue for is a dramatic and fundamental transformation of the educational process.

These words are all too true about Indian education today, not just about engineering education but

During the course of his or her

professional career an engineer

will have to learn to work with

at least three or four new

technologies that are yet been

invented at the time he or she

graduates. In my case it was the personal

computer, computer communications and the

Internet and the semiconductor electronicsindustry among several others.

~DR F.C.KOHLI

CHAIRMAN,BOARD OF GOVERNORS,COEP


20/128


about all streams of higher and technical10education. We are simply unable to engage the passion,

motivation and curiosity of our students.

MIT and other leading engineering schools in the US and in Sweden launched the CDIO (Create-

Design-Implement-Operate) initiative11 in the year 2000 to bridge the gap between engineering

education and the real-world demands on engineers. The initiative has grown to encompass 115

schools in seven regions of the world. India would do well to join this worldwide collaboration toconceive and develop a new vision of engineering education (Crawley, et al. 2014).

1.2. Undergraduate Engineering Education in India ASnapshot

According to data from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), there are well over

1.63 million undergraduate students in engineering and technology streams12, in 2013-14, distributed

over 3,384 institutions, up from 0.66 million students distributed over 1,511 institutions in 2006-07.

The intake of postgraduate students in engineering and technology (not including students of MCAcourses) has grown from 23,100 to 63,430 during the same period, a woefully small number,

amounting to less than 4% of the count of undergraduate engineers.

FIGURE 6: AVERAGE NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING ENGINEERING DEGREES

Source: (Saeki and Imaizumi 2013).The public-private distinction is not available for China

A recent World Bank report titled International Comparative Study: Engineering Education in India

(Saeki and Imaizumi 2013) underlines some of the additional problems that beset undergraduate

education. First and foremost is the extreme fragmentation in the number of institutions. India has

the largest number of institutions (Figure 6)with the lowest number of students per institution, just

445 each on average relative to 7,331 in China and 2.213 in the US. The number of engineers

enrolled per million population is also the smallest in India just 1,290 relative to 3,149 in China

10The term Technical education in India refers to education in Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Town Planning,Management, Pharmacy, Applied Arts and Crafts, Hotel Management and Catering Technology etc. at different levels.This is distinct from Higher education which covers education in the Sciences, Arts and Commerce, Medicine, Law andAgriculture. However, in this report, we use the words Higher Education to refer to both streams.11http://www.cdio.org/aboutaccessed December 201412http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0accessed December 2014
http://www.cdio.org/abouthttp://www.cdio.org/abouthttp://www.cdio.org/abouthttp://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.aicte-india.org/downloads/Growth_Technical_Institutions_310514.pdf#toolbar=0http://www.cdio.org/about


21/128


and 2,570 in the US. This is correlated with the fact that the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in tertiary

education is still only 20% relative to in 28% China and the world average of 30%.

Their small sizes make it more expensive for institutions to provide the adequate faculty student ratio

and to support upgrades in laboratory facilities. It is also difficult for them to provide a critical mass

of education professionals to support other quality improvements. The faculty student ratio is

estimated to be 1 to 24 which also signals the severe shortage of faculty. AICTE norms suggest a 1

to 15 ratio at the undergraduate level and a 1 to 12 ratio at post-graduate levels.Figure 6 also shows

that of the 3,300+ institutions providing engineering education in India, only approximately 200

institutions are run by the government. The bulk is run by the private sector which accounts for a

little over 80% of the student enrolment in this sector.

Regional imbalance in the availability of educational opportunity is another serious cause for concern

(Biswas, et al. 2010). There is a very large skew towards the southern, south-western and the

western regions with nearly 63.6% of undergraduate seats and 62% of the post-graduate seats

available only in these three regions. Approximately 60% of these seats come from just 4 states

Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh (undivided) Karnataka and Maharashtra. The eastern and north-easternregions of the country have very few institutions on offer which means that access to education

becomes preferentially available to affluent students, those who can afford to relocate and live and

study in other states.

FIGURE 7: NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS ON ENGINEERING,2000AND 2010

Source: (Saeki and Imaizumi 2013).Data from Web of Science, Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia

As mentioned earlier, the proportion of PhD students is extremely low relative to several other

countries and this is reflected in another key measure of quality educationthe percentage of faculty

members holding a PhD degree which is estimated to be just 20% at best, although there is noreliable data available. This is very low, even among BRIC countries. Not surprisingly, research

output in terms of publications, citations and patents from India is relatively low.Figure 7 shows the

number of publications in engineering produced in India in 2000 and 2010, a period that covers the

improvements brought in by the first phase of the Technical Education Quality Improvement

Programme (TEQIP) of the Government of India (MHRD 2002). Citations are often used as a

measure of research quality and although India compares favourably with respect to Japan and the

United Kingdom (UK), it is still very far behind the US and recently also China both of which had


22/128


more than five times as many citations in 2010 (Saeki and Imaizumi 2013). Similar trends hold for

the total volume of patents produced by engineering institutions in India which is comparable to Brazil

and the UK, a few hundreds, but is well behind the US and China which have several tens of

thousands of patents each. Clearly India has its work cut out both in terms of improving access to

engineering education and in delivering on the promise of quality engineering education.

A 2011 World Bank report on the employability and skill sets of newly graduated engineers in India

(Blom and Saeki 2011) concludes that graduates lack higher-order thinking skills such as

analysing, evaluating and creating.The study finds that there is substantial dissatisfaction among

employers with regard to the quality of graduates, many of whom do not possess soft skills such as

reliability, ability to work in a team, and communication skills, which they consider as critically

important.

Although employability of graduates is the outcome that is uppermost in the public perception, there

are several other important concerns with regards to learning outcomes in India such as: 1) our

ability to prepare students for coping with change and for learning to learn; 2) the need to balance

regional, gender, and social imbalances; and 3) our ability to deal with issues relating directly to thedelivery of quality education in many engineering colleges the acute shortage of faculty, the

inadequate and rather static curriculum, poor leadership and governance, the lack of infrastructure,

little or no emphasis on research and the low counts of institutions that are accredited. The National

Knowledge Commission had described the situation in higher education in India, in 2007, as a

quiet crisis that runs deep an apt description that unfortunately applies even today.

By far the best engineering and technology education in the country today is provided by institutions

that are under the purview of the Government of India the Indian Institute of Science (IISc),

Bangalore, the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the National Institute of Technology (NITs) and

the Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs). However these cater to a very small fraction,only approximately 3%, of the total strength of over 1.6 million students. The remaining 97% or more

students study in colleges that are under the purview of the various state governments. Admissions

to these institutions have become so competitive that the chances of success are skewed in favour

of students who can afford large sums of money to pay for extensive coaching. Affirmative action

can do relatively little to provide access to poor students. Coaching classes have other well-known

severely detrimental effects on students which make it imperative for India to try and create many

more IIT-like opportunities for potential aspirants.

Although the clamour for creating more IITs will never cease, the essential point that is being missed

here is that there is absolutely no escape from working towards improving the quality of

engineering education delivery at the existing colleges that are controlled by state governments

and cater to the bulk of the students. It would be wise to ensure that some of the best colleges

begin work in this direction quickly, by giving them the requisite freedoms and encouragement, and

supporting them financially to rise to the challenge.


23/128


1.3. The Premise of this Report Indias opportunity to createa 100 IIT-like Institutions in less than a decade

The premise of this report is that a hundred of the existing 3,300+ undergraduate engineering

colleges can be transformed into IIT-likeInstitutions within a space of 5-7 years. Such an ambitious

effort at scaling out quality education cannot really be achieved without a template to model itself on.It is therefore fortunate that a template is indeed available in the College of Engineering Pune

which has transformed itself completely post receiving autonomy in 2004. The chief architect of this

successful turnaround is none other than Dr F.C. Kohli, who was invited by the Government of

Maharashtra (GoM) to become Chairman of the Board of Governors. We bring you the detailed case

study of the successful transformation of this college and highlight the best practices that are worthy

of replication at other colleges.

College of Engineering Pune (CoEP), which is a government college affiliated to the University of

Pune, began its quest for excellence through the efforts of Dr F.C. Kohli who was keenly working

towards persuading the GoM to give autonomy to several colleges in Maharashtra (Kohli 2002). His

involvement was also the reason why the college received complete autonomy from the

Government of Maharashtra in 2004 with much higher levels of freedoms than that received by

any of the other colleges selected in the TEQIP-I13 phase. Although autonomy and the TEQIP

programme were central to the transformation of the quality of education delivery at CoEP, many

other factors also came together, notably the mentorship and guidance it received from IIT Bombay.

This mentorship was indispensable to CoEP for becoming IIT-like.

We would like to emphasise here that the term IIT-like only refers to a steep increase in the

quality of education delivery and of research and innovation, which can create the same

perception of quality that makes studying at the IITs aspirational for most Indian students. Weare in no way referring to any kind of standardised definition of IIT-like and neither are we

suggesting that these colleges become clones of the IITs. It would not be in the interests of the

country to do so. These 100 colleges must achieve excellence in their own unique ways, displaying

the great diversity of thinking, culture, and creativity that is characteristic of India.

13Seehttp://www.npiu.nic.in/teqip1.htmaccessed December 2014

ORF Comment

We believe that transforming these 100 state government run colleges will be cheaper and

faster than establishing new IITs, although we are by no means advocating an either/or

choice. We urge the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) of the Government of

India (GoI) and all the state governments to make such an initiative possible by granting

complete autonomy to 100 of the best engineering colleges in the country and providing them

with the requisite funds.
http://www.npiu.nic.in/teqip1.htmhttp://www.npiu.nic.in/teqip1.htmhttp://www.npiu.nic.in/teqip1.htmhttp://www.npiu.nic.in/teqip1.htm


24/128


2. EXCELLENCE THROUGH AUTONOMY

The Indian higher education system has been aptly described by the National Knowledge

Commission (NKC) as over-regulated and under-governed(NKC 2006). The consensus view that

emerges from interviewing many members belonging to the different groups of stakeholders in the

Indian education system is that much of the responsibility for the poor quality of education delivery

in the country today can be traced to two major sources:

Excessive and ineffective Regulation:The state governments, the affiliating universities, a

multiplicity of regulatory agencies such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), AICTE,

National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), and accrediting agencies such as the

National Bureau of Accreditation (NBA) and the National Assessment and Accreditation

Council (NAAC), and the various professional councils between them exercise enormous

control over colleges. Their complex and overlapping responsibilities and actions end up

constraining the good colleges enormously, taking away their ability to innovate, but dont

succeed in holding back colleges that are seeking to profit excessively;

Inadequate Funding:The extremely low level of funding provided to these colleges by state

governments, sustained over a period of several decades, has ensured that many colleges

do not have adequate infrastructure to support quality academics.

India has chosen to perpetuate the affiliation system in which colleges are overseen by parent

universities that control their curriculum and conduct common exit examinations on their behalf.

Typically universities affiliate hundreds of colleges in order to benefit from the affiliation fees paid by

colleges. However, they get so burdened by the resulting administrative overhead that they do not

put in sufficient effort into ensuring quality education through adequate oversight of the teaching at

colleges, frequent revisions of curriculum, etc. Many decades of this practice has resulted in a severedrop in the quality of academics.

The Constitution of India made education the sole responsibility of state governments14subject to

certain provisions15in the Central (Union) List. Of these, item 66, referring to the coordination and

determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical

institutions, became the basis for the creation of regulatory authorities such as the UGC, AICTE and

NBA among others. The 42ndConstitutional Amendment, enacted in 1976, removed education from

the State List and put Education, including technical education, medical education and universities,

vocational and technical training of labour into the Concurrent List16, on the grounds that the

substantive, financial and administrative implication required a new sharing of responsibility between

the Union Government and the states17. As a result the Central Government accepted a largerresponsibility while the role of the states remained largely unchanged.

14Item 11 of List II (State List) in the Seventh Schedule of the constitution15Items 63,64,65,66 in the Union List (List I)http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/shed07.htm#List%20I.-%20Union%20List accessed December 201416Item 25, List III, Ibid, accessed September 2014. Also subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I;17Source DD Basu, Constitutional Law of India, 8th Edition 2011. We thank our colleague Radha Viswanathan for helpingus get clarity on this important topic.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/shed07.htm#List%20I.-%20Union%20Listhttp://www.constitution.org/cons/india/shed07.htm#List%20I.-%20Union%20List


25/128

Excellence Through Autonomy 12

Experience has shown however, that state governments have by and large abdicated their

responsibility to provide quality higher education.Although Indias education system fares poorly

relative to the world, the best educational institutions within the country today, in almost every

discipline, are invariably the ones that are affiliated to the Central Government. A closer examination

shows that the latter have a much higher degree of autonomy and vastly more generous levels of

funding. For instance, the annual budget of IIT Bombay is in excess of Rs 300 crore 18whereas thebudget of CoEP, is a modest Rs 30 crore. It is surprising that despite the phenomenal success of

the IITs, not a single state government has tried to recreate a similar institution of their own. The

minutes of the meetings of the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE)19make for interesting

reading. Education Ministers are constantly vying with each other to get IITs, IIMs and Central

Universities sanctioned in their respective states, when there is no reason why they cannot create

similar, premier, institutions on their own.

State governments have been content to focus largely on issues of access and equity. Their concern

is limited to ensuring that the provisions of reservations (Thorat and Senapati 2007), for faculty and

for students, are implemented. Beyond this, their concern is only to keep their subsidy burdens fromfaculty salaries and fees of students from reserved categories20in check. A quick look at the budget

of the Maharashtra Government tells its own story. In 2011-12, the GSDP (Gross State Domestic

Product) of the State was Rs 11,99,548 crore at current prices and Rs 7,87,426 at constant (2004-

05) prices. In the same period the expenditure on education was Rs 12,993 crore on primary

education, Rs 9,735 crore on secondary education and a paltry Rs 1,585 crore on higher education.

The expenditure on higher education translates to less than 0.2% of GSDP21! State governments

must spend much more on education, particularly on higher education, if their institutions and

their young citizens are to thrive.

UGC, the main regulatory authority, was established in 1956 by the Government of India as a

statutory body with multiple responsibilities 22 for disbursing grants and for coordinating the

activities of higher educational institutions and maintaining standards. The plan to give multiple

responsibilities to one regulatory agency was an aberration in itself. It was expected that UGC would

perform the overarching function of regulating the higher education sector in the country. Over the

years UGC has ended up sharing the regulatory role with other bodies such as the AICTE23for

technical education, with the professional councils such as Medical Council of India (MCI), Bar

Council of India (BCI) etc., and with the affiliating universities run by the state governments. Their

overlapping roles have contributed to plenty of confusion and delays in decision making.

18http://www1.iitb.ac.in/AnnualReport/AR2011124Jul2013.pdfaccessed December 201419http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/Minutes-CABE-190610.doc_.pdfCABE is the highestadvisory body in Education. Its members are primarily the education ministers from the Centre as well as from all theStates but it also has representation from several other ministries and a few from academia. accessed December 201420For example in self-financed courses, for which colleges are allowed to retain the fees collected, the fees of studentsfrom reserved categories are paid to the colleges by the state governments.21Economic Survey of Maharashtra 2012-13, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Maharashtra,http://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/publication/esm_2012-13_eng.pdf accessed December 201422http://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Mandate.aspxaccessed December 201423Statutory role for maintaining quality in technical education since 1987http://www.aicte-india.org/aboutaicte.phpaccessed December 2014
http://www1.iitb.ac.in/AnnualReport/AR2011124Jul2013.pdfhttp://www1.iitb.ac.in/AnnualReport/AR2011124Jul2013.pdfhttp://www1.iitb.ac.in/AnnualReport/AR2011124Jul2013.pdfhttp://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/Minutes-CABE-190610.doc_.pdfhttp://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/Minutes-CABE-190610.doc_.pdfhttp://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/Minutes-CABE-190610.doc_.pdfhttp://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/publication/esm_2012-13_eng.pdfhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Mandate.aspxhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Mandate.aspxhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Mandate.aspxhttp://www.aicte-india.org/aboutaicte.phphttp://www.aicte-india.org/aboutaicte.phphttp://www.aicte-india.org/aboutaicte.phphttp://www.aicte-india.org/aboutaicte.phphttp://www.ugc.ac.in/page/Mandate.aspxhttp://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/publication/esm_2012-13_eng.pdfhttp://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/Minutes-CABE-190610.doc_.pdfhttp://www1.iitb.ac.in/AnnualReport/AR2011124Jul2013.pdf


26/128


Both UGC and AICTE have tended to focus on inputs rather than on outcomes. They have put in

place stringent entry conditions for new institutions, and for the introduction of new courses in

existing institutions. Over the years, these have only succeeded in keeping genuine educators and

philanthropists from entering into the space of education delivery, while private players of dubious

reputation have thrived. As part of the implementation of the National Policy on Education 1986 (GoI

1992), UGC set up an autonomous accrediting body, the NAAC

24

, in 1994 while AICTE set up theNBA25the same year to help maintain standards. However, in the two decades that NAAC has been

accrediting institutions it has covered only 4,000 colleges26from a pool of over 30,000 (Raju 2014).

NBA, which accredits programmes in technical education, not the institutions themselves, has also

covered only a small fraction of existing programmes27.

2.1. Governance of Affiliated Colleges

The full complexity of the regulatory environment in which affiliated colleges find themselves can

only be appreciated by reviewing the regulations impacting the three categories of colleges:

1) Government (owned) colleges; 2) private colleges that receive financial aid from the state

governments, often referred to either as government-aided collegesor private-aided colleges; and

3) private, unaided, colleges that receive no salary and development funds from the government.

G O V E R N M E N T ( O W N E D ) C O L L E G E S are wholly under the charge of the respective state

governments. All the property, the land and buildings, are owned by the government and the faculty

salaries are also paid by the government. The colleges receive only sporadic development funds

from the governments and they are generally not allowed to retain the tuition fees collected from the

students. This means that colleges have very little money available for meeting recurring expenses

such as for replacing chemicals and other equipment in the laboratories or for maintenance of

facilities. Most colleges end up looking extremely run down in just a few years and remain that way.For any other expenditure, even relatively small amounts say Rs 50,000, the Principal is obliged to

seek the permission of the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) of the State government. Some

colleges, those classified under 2 (f) and 12 (B) clauses of the UGC Act28are eligible to receive

funds from the UGC for specific purposes, but such colleges number only a little over 6,000 in all.

There is no provision for admitting students from other states in government colleges. This is a poorly

thought-out move given that diversity on campuses is carefully cultivated in other parts of the world

for its potential to promote national integration and international understanding.

P R I V A T E C O L L E G E S ( A I D E D A S W E L L A S U N A I D E D ) are run by not-for-profit

organisations, typically either charitable Trusts or Societies. Although they are nominally run by an

Executive Council/ Management Board or Trust Board etc., these are generally controlled by thepromoters of the Trust or Society who also control the day-to-day running of the colleges tightly. The

managements (Executive Council/ Trust Board) include very few professionals outside of the families

24http://www.naac.gov.in/aboutus.aspaccessed December 201425http://www.nbaind.org/views/Home.aspxaccessed December 201426http://www.naac.gov.in/docs/institutions%20accredited%20by%20naac-with%20validity.pdfaccessed December 201427http://www.nbaind.org/Files/AccreditedPrograms.aspxaccessed December 201428http://www.ugc.ac.in/recog_College.aspxaccessed December 2014
http://www.naac.gov.in/aboutus.asphttp://www.naac.gov.in/aboutus.asphttp://www.naac.gov.in/aboutus.asphttp://www.nbaind.org/views/Home.aspxhttp://www.nbaind.org/views/Home.aspxhttp://www.nbaind.org/views/Home.aspxhttp://www.naac.gov.in/docs/institutions%20accredited%20by%20naac-with%20validity.pdfhttp://www.naac.gov.in/docs/institutions%20accredited%20by%20naac-with%20validity.pdfhttp://www.naac.gov.in/docs/institutions%20accredited%20by%20naac-with%20validity.pdfhttp://www.nbaind.org/Files/AccreditedPrograms.aspxhttp://www.nbaind.org/Files/AccreditedPrograms.aspxhttp://www.nbaind.org/Files/AccreditedPrograms.aspxhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/recog_College.aspxhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/recog_College.aspxhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/recog_College.aspxhttp://www.ugc.ac.in/recog_College.aspxhttp://www.nbaind.org/Files/AccreditedPrograms.aspxhttp://www.naac.gov.in/docs/institutions%20accredited%20by%20naac-with%20validity.pdfhttp://www.nbaind.org/views/Home.aspxhttp://www.naac.gov.in/aboutus.asp


27/128

Excellence Through Autonomy 14

of the promoters, an unhealthy practice that the regulators have chosen not to address so far.

Academics who are appointed as principals of these colleges tend to have very limited powers.

In recent times there have been plenty of discussions regarding bringing in more private participation,

including the corporate sector, into education in the PPP (Public-Private-Partnership) mode.

However, it is important to point out that private colleges are very rarely completely private. They are

in fact largely all Public-Private-Partnerships because the promoters often get land at

concessional rates from the State government, none of them pay any taxes and some of them

receive grants from the UGC. The government-aided

private colleges also receive funds from the state

governments to pay the salaries of their faculty. If the

college is also allowed to retain the tuition fees collected

from the students, then this aid is adjusted against the

tuition fees collected.

Faculty recruitment: Government-aided private

colleges are similar in character to government collegesexcept that recruitment of faculty is made by the

management of the colleges instead of the state public

service commissions. Many private colleges are run by

minority groups which mean that special quotas for

admissions are available for students belonging to the

particular minority community promoting the college.

Minority colleges are exempt from complying with

reservations for faculty appointments.The extremely

instructive outcome of this has been that these minority colleges are often among the best in their

respective streams. Although there could be other factors that contribute to this result, merit-

based hiring of faculty is certainly the most important one.

Tuit ion fees in affiliated colleges can only be increased with the approval of the Fee Regulation

Committee (FRC) of the State governments. The FRC and the Centralised Admission Process (CAP)

are additional levels of control exercised by the State governments on all colleges. In recent years,

the unwillingness of the FRCs to hike fees has contributed to a steady erosion of the ability of

colleges to deliver quality education. There is no uniformity in decision making regarding whether

government colleges and private-aided colleges, can retain the tuition fees that is collected from

students, even within a particular state. Although government colleges ought to be allowed to keep

it, some are not. However, some private (aided) colleges are allowed to retain the fees. This kind ofarbitrary decision is very characteristic of this sector.

Permissions to start a new college or even a new co ursemust be taken from either the UGC

(for higher education) or the AICTE (for technical education), who also regulate the intake or the

class size for each course. Strangely these permissions also have to be renewed every year! In

recent years many new and interdisciplinary courses have begun to be offered at colleges in the

self-financed mode. These are courses for which thecolleges do not receive any aid towards the

Private colleges are very rarely

completely private. They are in

fact largely all Public-Private-

Partnerships. The promoters often

get land at concessional rates from

the State government, none ofthem pay any taxes and some of

them receive grants from the UGC.

The government-aided private

colleges also receive funds from

the state governments to pay the

salaries of their faculty.


28/128


salaries of the faculty so they can be hired only on

contract. Fees for these courses must therefore

necessarily be much higher. However, reservations for

student admissions, which is typically 52% (including the

quota for differently-abled students), apply here too and

since these students are eligible for tuition fee waiver thisadds to the subsidy burden of state governments. This

then becomes a compelling argument for the FRC to keep

a tight rein on the fees for such courses, so much so that

they are no more self-sustaining.

Exploitat ion of c ontract teachers: The faculty for these

self-financed courses are the hardest hit because their

salaries have to be paid for by the college, ostensibly from

the tuition fees collected for the course. The permitted

fees rarely stretch to cover an attractive salary for them,

particularly if the course requires consumables such as chemicals for laboratory work. The facultyare employed on contract basis, one semester at a time. Given that these self-financed courses are

most often conducted in topics that have market linkages, for example in biotechnology, it is the

faculty with knowledge of such cutting-edge subjects who end up being maximally exploited. A large

number of faculty teaching regular courses are also employed on contract basis typically because

they have not cleared either the National Eligibility Test (NET) or the State Eligibility Test (SET)

mandated by the UGC.

U N A I D E D P R I V A T E C O L L E G E S have complete freedom to hire their own faculty and to

determine their salaries, since they do not receive any salary grants from the government. It is

extremely unfortunate therefore that most of these colleges pay salaries that are lower than the Sixth

Pay Commission salaries paid to tenured faculty by the government. Faculty at these colleges alsocomplain about being overworked and of other inconveniences such as not being given access to

infrastructuresometimes not even a staff room and/or a desk to work from. Such unscrupulous

managements are feared by the faculty.

The efforts by the state governments to ensure that education remains a not-for-profit activity have

failed completely. Private players have evolved a well-developed and well-established model that

allows them to siphon off funds.As required by law, the education institute itself is run by a Trust

or a Society which collects tuition fees and pays the teachers salaries. The promoters, often

politicians, also have interests in several for-profit companies that are created for the purpose of

providing services to their own educational institutes. All services to the college everything fromcleaning and catering, to transport, infrastructure management and technology support are

provided by these for-profit companies, allowing profits to be earned legally, an innovative

structure to handle an over-regulated environment(Vora and Dewan 2009). Many colleges also

charge capitation fees and apply other illegal levies. In many cases promoters run educational

institutions for some number of years and then re-use the land for other purposes.

Excellence Through Autonomy: Transformation of College of Engineering Pune into an IIT-like...

Documents

Transcript of Excellence Through Autonomy: Transformation of College of Engineering Pune into an IIT-like...