|
In discussions on higher education, one persistent theme
that now recurs with greater frequency relates to the
pursuit of excellence. Of course this is not entirely
new; from the early 1950s when the elite of independent
India was filled with a new self-confidence, there has
been an attempt within the public domain to create institutions
of excellence in higher education.
But
there is a difference in how this feature is perceived
today, which may derive from a slightly different orientation,
whereby excellence is not defined in its own terms but
more in terms of how we think others (especially in
the West) see us. It is commonplace to find, in popular
magazines and newspapers, articles that cite listings
of ''top 100'' or ''top 300'' universities in the world,
and bemoan that Indian institutions are not to be found
among them. It is equally common for otherwise well-informed
people to assume that only institutions which are currently
receiving a lot of publicity in the developed world,
such as the IITs and IIMs, are ''world class'' and even
the best among the rest are just also-rans.
There can be no doubt that much of the higher education
system is in severe stress in India, to the point of
crisis and non-functionality in many institutions. Quite
apart from the sheer shortage of adequate facilities,
there are real problems of poor quality, inadequate
monitoring and accountability, inbreeding and feudal
practices in many institutions. Certainly many bright
students get short-changed by a system that does not
provide stimulating pedagogy or useful skills to many.
There are many factors behind this, and revamping the
higher education system is therefore clearly a priority,
even though it is a daunting and complex task. But from
this we should not jump to the conclusion that higher
education in India is no more than a sea of mediocrity
at best and that we have no choice but to look outside
India for examples of excellence that we should emulate.
In fact, India already has a number of world class institutions
- not only the more obviously well known ones such as
the IITs and IIMs but places like the Indian Institute
of Science and the National Institute of Mental Health
and Neurosciences in Bangalore and Vellore Medical College,
to take just a few examples. In general, despite all
the weaknesses in our undergraduate education, Indian
students appear to do rather well when they go abroad,
and this is also true for research. They are often preferred
in international institutions because of certain skills
that are imparted imperceptibly in our system, including
the by no means irrelevant ability to adjust flexibly
to impediments.
Even within institutions that are less widely acknowledged
internationally, there are departments and individual
faculty members of undoubted high quality, who manage
to produce equally good students and also excellent
research output despite all the known constraints. And
there are such pockets of excellence to be found in
many non-metro areas, which indicate how it is possible
to thrive even in what is apparently inhospitable soil.
So should we not identify our strengths, rather than
be obsessed with failure? This would mean directing
our attention to the factors that have contributed to
creating and maintaining such pockets of excellence,
and considering how we could replicate these features
elsewhere.
We cannot really hope to expand the list of ''world class''
institutions, if we simply ape what is happening elsewhere,
for example in the US, without exploring the factors
that have been responsible for creating and maintaining
excellence in our own very specific contexts. This is
important because one frequently heard argument is that
it is necessary to accept and even acknowledge pay differentials
and other hierarchies - across and within academic institutions
- in order to allow the best to flourish.
One corollary of such an argument is that increasing
salary differentials across the teaching profession
is a necessary condition to attract the best into academic
faculties. This would replicate the pattern in the US,
where there are not only differences in salary structure
across institutions, but even within institutions across
faculties and within faculties, such that individual
professors can negotiate their own salaries and perks.
This is argued to be necessary in order to ensure that
those faculties that are unable to hire people because
of higher market earnings in their profession should
be able to offer higher salaries than faculties where
no such competitive pressure exists, and that the best
can be attracted in all disciplines by offering more
attractive salary packages than their colleagues. This
would mean, for example, that professionals such as
dentists, doctors and lawyers, or those engaged in the
nebulous ''discipline'' called management, would command
higher salaries than those engaged in less marketable
activities such as basic science research or philosophy
or history.
But in many ways, such a system would militate against
all the features that make universities special places
in society in the first place. Recognition of such ''hierarchies''
is problematic not only because it is inegalitarian
and excessively market-driven. It can also have very
severe negative implications for collegiality which
is the basic principle underlying the effective functioning
of faculty in higher education. It will also operate
to reduce both the attractiveness of higher studies
in and the status of faculty involved in less ''marketable''
areas.
Besides being unfortunate in itself, this would be very
adverse for the health of a university and the promotion
of liberal arts education in general. Further, it would
create incentives for the young which would rely too
much on current market forces and not take into account
the current and longer term requirements of society
in general.
In any case, it is not at all clear that creating such
differentials would be either necessary or sufficient
for ensuring excellence. It is worth noting that in
most of the best universities outside the US, whether
in Europe or Canada or East Asia, differential salary
structures are unusual and exceptional, and more egalitarian
tendencies drive the system. Ultimately, of course,
academic status should be based more on peer recognition
and the appreciation of students and wider society;
while decent salaries and physical working conditions
are of course necessary, differential salaries cannot
be the driving force to ensure quality.
Indeed it is the case that in most of the places of
excellence that currently exist in India, salaries have
not been the most critical factor determining the quality
or success of the faculty. Many eminent and internationally
recognised scholars working in India would strongly
contest the argument that salary differentials are necessary
to encourage ''the best'' to come and teach in universities
in India. Instead, they tend to emphasise the importance
of academic and other freedoms, social dignity, physical
facilities, and so on.
It is interesting to note in this context that many
recently created private institutions continue to have
difficulty in attracting good faculty despite offering
significantly higher salaries. So clearly, there are
at least some other factors which are important, and
it would be necessary to consider all of these before
jumping to the conclusion that allowing increasing differentials
in pay would ensure better quality of academic output.
|
