IIT Delhi's dubious distinction

It has often been debated whether institutions of higher learning like IITs and IIMs have failed in instilling ethical behaviour in their students. Though one may argue that brilliance has no correlation with morality, it disturbs us whenever we come across an IITian or IIMite who has achieved "success" by transcending acceptable standards of decency.

The names of Rajat Gupta and Ravi Rishi readily come to our mind. The former has allegedly abetted Raj Rajaratnam in scandalous insider deals. Ravi Rishi owns the UK-based $800 mn Vectra Group that is alleged to have adopted controversial methods to market Tatra army trucks to the Indian Army. Both Rajat Gupta and Ravi Rishi are 'distinguished alumni' of IIT Delhi.

IIT Delhi has ofcourse produced many engineers of unsullied reputation. This list includes Raghuram Rajan, Y C Deveshwar, M S Banga, Vinod Khosla, Rajendra S Pawar and Padmasree Warrior. But it is a cause for concern if the institute produces even one morally distorted apple.

N R Narayana Murthy on IIT students

It is not surprising that whatever NRN says is heard with respect. Addressing a gathering of IIT alumni in New York, the software czar commented adversely on what he called "the lower and lower quality of students entering IITs". This is what the news agencies report:

Poor quality of students entering IITs: Narayana Murthy



Press Trust of India, Updated: October 03, 2011 13:51 IST


New York: Voicing his displeasure over the quality of engineers that pass out of the IITs, Infosys chairman emeritus N R Narayana Murthy has said there is a need to overhaul the selection criteria for students seeking admission to the prestigious technology institutions.


Addressing a gathering of hundreds of former IITians at a 'Pan IIT' summit here, Murthy said the quality of students entering Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) has deteriorated over the years due to the coaching classes that prepare engineering aspirants.


He said the majority of the students fare poorly at jobs and global institutions of higher education. "Thanks to the coaching classes today, the quality of students entering IITs has gone lower and lower," Murthy said, receiving a thundering applause from his audience.


He said apart from the top 20 per cent of students who crack the tough IIT entrance examination and can "stand among the best anywhere in the world," quality of the remaining 80 per cent of students leave much to be desired. Coaching classes teach aspirants limited sets of problems, out of which a few are asked in the examinations.


"They somehow get through the joint entrance examination. But their performance in IITs, at jobs or when they come for higher education in institutes in the US is not as good as it used to be.


"This has to be corrected. A new method of selection of students to IITs has to be arrived at."


It is to be expected that NRN has formed his views analytically from his experience. There are two caveats though.

First, he was addressing those who had passed out of IITs. Alumni of any institution are generally pleased to hear that they were more diligent than the succeeding generations of students. Therefore, the applause that NRN received from the audience should not prejudice our mind . In other words, the applause was not objective approval.

Secondly, why blame the coaching institutions? After all they are only teaching the students. If they are able to sharpen the minds, what is wrong? There are many ways in which students learn. Coaching is perhaps the most focused way. One may even argue that if IITs are able to teach their students as well as the coaching institutions do, perhaps the quality of IIT students would be better ! (I am not saying that teaching quality in IITs is bad. I am only reminded of what Jairam Ramesh controversially said sometime in May this year: "The faculty in IIT is not world class. It is the students in IITs who are world class".)

There is thus a huge divergence between the views of NRN and JR. I believe neither is wholly correct.

According to news reports, NRN also observed that examinations should test independent thinking of students rather than their ability to solve problems. What is the utility of one without the other? Can these two qualities be delinked?

World class research

An IIMA-ite settled in the US says the following:

"Take the IIMs: During the 1960s and 1970s, there was a decent trickle of Indian PhDs from respected American universities returning to India, would be recruited by Ravi Matthai & nitish dey. It was a brief window of arbitrage. By the mid to late 1970s, that was no longer the case. You would have classic situations like CK Prahlad feeling, or Paul Mampilly + Suresh Seshan (not US PhDs) seeking greener pastures at AIM Manila. American universities would offer professorships to PhDs in management & engineering to a PhD from a barely average American university, thus there was no longer any need to go back to India. Further, Indira Gandhi had dispelled hope of India to shine soon.



Take the 2000s, 30 years later, with India shining, when ISB took root. The under-trial Rajat Gupta and convict Anil Kumar, as McKinseyites, realized that the Ravi matthai model would not work. Further, they did not want to recruit Indian university PhDs (or even IIM FPMs), because they could see the huge quality difference between faculty at American universities and at IIM/IIT. These ISB founders decided to “arbitrage” across Indian faculty at American business schools, specifically faculty with a PhD from the top business schools, who were active in research, and had proved themselves by earning tenure at some decent American university. They provided these Indians in USA with airfare + campus hotel in Hyderabad, and very little direct cash compensation. Thus, the compensation was indirect, i.e. a free paid trip to India, with the possibility of immersing themselves in (shining) India while there were making their brief 1-2 week teaching journeys, family reunion, etc. The cost to ISB would be higher than recruiting and paying Indian faculty. However, ISB soon began charging US$ fees after its turnaround, sufficient to cover these US$ expenses. It is unclear how long the Gupta/Kumar arbitrage model would work. Thus, ISB (it least in its initial stages) could not be accused of harboring (Indian home grown) faculty which did not live up to world class research standards.

Can the IITs/ IIMs catch up to world class research standards? Note that these world research standards apply only to universities in USA, who dominate the world in academic research output, due to a century-long tradition of academic independence and emphasis on faculty research. US Universities are not seen as mere teaching factories, but epicenters of deep research. Faculty are appointed and tenured based largely on research, with Peking capability being considered a minor component. UK has barely a handful of research universities, and likewise Europe. You don’t hear of much research coming out of Japanese universities. Australia has only three relevant research universities, maybe 4: Sydney, Melbourne, ANU Canberra and Perth, and they’ve got to where they are by emulating Oxbridge research tradition of their mother country. When was the last you heard something novel come out of German/ Germanic universities after Einstein and WW-2? Thus, the expression “world class research” is appropriately substituted by “American university research”."

Fracas over quality of IIM / IIT Faculty

The argumentative minister has once again stirred the hornet's nest by questioning the "world-classness" of professors of IIMs and IITs. He has also drawn an odious comparison between the qualities of students and faculty of these institutions. Having been a student of IIT himself, there is an inherent conflict of interest in his utterance. Apparently, he had been unable to benefit academically from his professors. This could be his fault rather than a foible on the part of his gurus. The honourable minister loves to create controversies. Remember the nonsense he uttered about India's Home Ministry while he was in China ? It is clear that IIT has not taught discretion to this voluble politician. To that limited extent, teachers in IIT are blame-worthy.

It is unfortunate that IIT / IIM academicians have joined a slanging match with the minister. Why should they be so sensitive to the rants of a hubristic self-acclaimed intellectual ?

Minister's rantings

It is unfortunate that Mr.Kapil Sibal continues his outbursts against the IIT faculty. He says that autonomy is only a smokescreen and that they are agitating only for more money. He continues that their agitation is not consistent with the dignity expected of them.
IITs already have a notoriety (perhaps undeserved) of being 'elitist'. Though many would dismiss this criticism as sour-grapism, the fact is that this view does exist. The minister's strident denunciations will only aggravate anti-IIT feelings. Ministers like Kapil Sibal and Shashi Tharoor who are blessed with gift of the gab will do the nation a great favour if they control their utterances and tweets.
One is reminded of a popular couplet from Thirukkural which says, " Even if one does not control any other faculty, one should keep one's tongue in check. Else, one will come to grief through this lapse". It is high time that the minister initiates discussions with the faculty instead of allowing the situation to deteriorate further. Such loquacious ministers need to develop 'soft skills'.

Grievances of IIT faculty : Kapil Sibal's misplaced sarcasm

Teaching staff at IITs are on a war path. They are seeking more autonomy and better pay. Justification or otherwise for these demands depends on the eye of the beholder.
HRD Minister, Mr.Kapil Sibal has made two observations which are uncalled for. 1) We do not expect prospective Nobel laureates to go on hunger strike and 2) They get so much from consultancy that salary is only icing on the cake.

Observation 1 : Ridicule is implied in this statement. If the minister is convinced about the high academic standards of IIT faculty, he would not have made this comment. He also ought to know that the infrastructure made available in India can hardly enable anyone to get a Nobel prize. It was a miracle that Sir C.V.Raman could bag a Nobel. But those halcyon days are long past. If IIT faculty or for that matter any academician in India is not considered for Nobel prizes, it only reflects on the disabling environment provided by the government.
Hunger protest is a honourable practice sanctified by the Mahatma. Our minister would not have recommended Nobel peace prize for the Mahatma because he does not expect any honourable person to take to hunger protest.

Observation 2 : If IIT teachers are getting handsome income from consultancy, it is because they contribute. Does the minister propose that salary need not be paid to them for this reason? Also, not all IIT teachers are busy in consultancy. Those who do consult , become better teachers because of the experience they gain. Is the minister's statement a decent way of treating the faculty?

The demands of IIT faculty may or may not be met. But the faculty has a right to expect the HRD Minister to listen and respond without being sarcastic, insulting or patronising. An eminent lawyer need not continue his antagonistic approach after becoming a minister.