The debate on the IIT
entrance examination refuses to die down. Some IITs claim that the
standards will be diluted if the criteria are changed to consider school
marks, while the HRD ministry disagrees. Most of the candidates are
likely to enter the IIT irrespective of the mode of selection. Alas! JEE
has long been defeated by the coaching factories. Those who live in
regions that are close to the successful coaching factories have joined
the IITs in hundreds. The best-coached students seem to be the most
eligible ones to study at IIT. In this situation, an alternative way of
selecting students appears relevant.
It's rarely the same
individual who scores the highest in school, in JEE, IIT, CAT or IIM,
lands the highest paying job and goes on to become the most successful
professional. There are not many school toppers among our most
successful managers or engineers. JEE ranks do not correlate well with
the academic performances at IITs. Rarely has the JEE topper finished
first in the BTech programme.
A far more serious question is
how the "engineers" are occupied after college? Many seek MBA; a few go
to US universities (IITs are not popular for post-graduation). Jobs are
sought in the finance sector, "core sector" and IT (the largest
recruiter of engineering graduates). Now, the core sector does not
actually offer technical jobs. Managing production, procuring materials
and chasing people for unfinished work are typical tasks. The engineer
does not create products. Indian engineers may have put power plants or
created railway infrastructure in African and West Asian countries but,
in the sphere of product development, our record is dismal. In the first
35 years we bought, copied (with or without permission) and turned out
the same products, decade after decade. Even after liberalization in the
90s, new products were rarely developed in India.
If the
primary occupation of the engineer should be creation, design and
development of new products, then the very existence of engineering
education in this country looks purposeless. Any general education and
training will be enough to manage shop floors and purchasing and to do
most of the software jobs. IIMs want a 'eterogeneous' mix of graduates
in their classes. Why are we, then, obsessed with engineering education?
There is an even more fundamental issue regarding education. The
British system of schooling in India started in the 19th century,
probably with the aim of creating clerical manpower for the East India
Company. It progressed to create civil servants, too, but the primary
purpose of education to serve "people of other countries" seems to
continue! Most of the work in IT companies is to develop software for
developed countries. Dull and boring jobs are dumped on us in the belief
that money is the prime motivator here while essential services fail to
attract people since they pay less.
There is no visible
concern over shrinking labour and lands for agriculture and vanishing
traditional craftsmen. Free lunch is offered to increase enrollment in
schools but there is indifference to reports that children cannot read
the headlines of a vernacular newspaper and cannot subtract even
two-digit numbers. They learn little in the schools and miss out on
learning any trade or craft that can fetch them a livelihood. Once i
said to some urban college students, "Ninety per cent of the students
seem disinterested in the classroom, at any level." They replied that i
had underestimated the percentage! Are we then thrusting a whole lot of
uninteresting stuff down the throats of millions of youngsters? What
for? To receive the education that would fetch employment to serve the
aliens?
Shouldn't we seek alternatives? Can we reduce the wage
disparity between those who work with their hands and those who do
'mental' work? How do we bring about dignity of labour in this country? A
Japanese guru of quality spoke about the "joy of sweating". Our
society, too, had that joy. Why did we lose it to the pleasure of
air-conditioned offices to do dumb jobs? Can we nurture those who enjoy
working with their hands and not force them to learn by rote? How can we
enable each individual to pursue an occupation according to one's
aptitude?
I do not have answers to the multitude of questions
that i have raised but my concerns remain. Will our policy-makers,
planners and educationists take a re-look at the path we have travelled
so far, do an honest analysis and re-define the goals of human resource
development in this country? Maybe we are late but let us proceed on the
assumption "better late than never".
