Any ranking of global educational institutions will be problematic if it does not take into account disparities in resources between rich and poor countries
Indian academe is anguished that not a single Indian university has made it to the top 200 universities of the world in the recent Times Higher Education rankings. However, the debate so far has missed many points.
First, any discussion of evaluation of global educational standards and rankings cannot ignore the vast disparities in resources between the rich and poor parts of the world. An overwhelmingly large part of global knowledge production is concentrated in the developed world.
In 2009, Drexel University president Constantine Papadakis was the highest paid university president in America with an annual compensation of $49,12,127. That is around Rs.27 crore for running a university! Even the highest-paid public university president earned nearly $2 million as salary in 2011.
The endowment of Harvard University is around $31 billion — more than 1/4 th of the GDP of Tamil Nadu. Research support in developed countries runs into hundreds of millions. As Times itself recognises, “income is crucial to the development of world-class research.”
Most in the U.S.
Is it then surprising that of the top 200 universities, 76 are in the United States and 196, no less, in the developed countries (two from China, and one each from South Africa and Brazil are the only ones from the developing countries)? [76 from the U.S. and 196 in all from the developed countries. This includes the 76 from the U.S.] The crisis afflicting universities is thus, not an Indian phenomenon alone, but generalised across the “Third World.”
Second, while resources are crucial, they should not become an excuse for the abysmal standards of Indian universities. Instead the debate has to be extended, from merely technical solutions like establishing comprehensive universities or addressing student-teacher ratio, to the kind of academic culture that we have nurtured.
On merit and representation
Universities, on the one hand, have to reflect social reality by representing caste, class and gender criteria in order to overcome these hierarchies in academia. Academic freedom and egalitarian relations in the departments are expected not only to foster academic brilliance but also a socially progressive culture.
On the other, given the excessively communitarian nature of society, universities have, only in name, provided representation to disadvantaged sections. They have not actually overcome predisposed social hierarchies. Our academic culture is marked by patronage and networks or by bureaucratic hierarchies of seniority and administrative positions.
Even new political mobilisations around caste and reservations have focused only on the issues of representation without raising those of pedagogy and curriculum. There is a stalemate between merit and adequate representation.
In fact, those demanding reservations should have argued that reservation brings diversity, which develops new knowledge systems and new modes of understanding. This would, eventually, also contribute to a new institutional culture. Instead, inclusion of newer marginalised groups has only created parallel networks and patronage in defence against the existing ones of the dominant groups.
This kind of social breakdown has rarely contributed to new ideas and energies. Experimental culture has for long been supplanted by a culture of fear and insecurity, not merely among the new entrants, but also among “meritorious” social groups.
Top-down syndrome
In fact, anything new is looked at sceptically, and often succumbs to the tyranny of age. Age-related hierarchy is perhaps the worst in the Indian university system and the least-debated sacred cow. The top-down syndrome has resulted in universities’ resistance to introducing student evaluation of faculty, continued cases of victimisation of students — including sexual harassment and arbitrary evaluation, and consequently, lack of motivation among the students, translating into ills like rampant plagiarism.
Third, while Indian universities seek excellence, treating exercises such as the Times’ ranking as sacrosanct is also problematic. Can we compare universities from America to Somalia? How do we arrive at an average from the vastly different material realities and the different starting points (which are historically and, often, violently determined) of these locations?
Faults
The Times’ claims that it accounts for these disparities by providing a “comprehensive and balanced” comparison. But what does “international outlook” (one of the categories in Times worth 7.5 per cent) mean for a poor university in the global South which struggles to attract students even from the hinterlands of its own country? Or how does it go about achieving excellence in research, worth 30 per cent, and measured in terms of volume, income and reputation when the public spending on education is abysmally low?
The Times’ rankings of 13 performance indicators also have no place for intangible features. In a university such as Jawaharlal Nehru University, students from some of the most backward regions study, thanks to its system of deprivation points. Students with very poor primary education, linguistic and writing skills, in very little time, gather confidence and become highly motivated, and look for an institutional culture that can translate this into a rigorous academic exercise. This is because of the vibrant student politics and a dominant discourse of social justice. Under what ranking can this amazing social feat of providing wide opportunity and social skills be judged?
While the poor quality of Indian universities is lamentable, does the solution lie in emulating the developed countries where high academic standards are now negated by the degenerating commercialisation of education? Thus students pay an annual fee of $40,000 for a bachelor’s degree in an American Ivy League institution, and the average student-loan debt of 2011 in the U.S. was $26,500, rendering them perpetual bonded labourers of the market.
Students are not trained to become critical thinkers, but foot soldiers of the establishment. Therefore, they graduate without pondering over what it means when the university gives its presidents multimillion dollar salaries and its janitors $7 per hour. It is in this culture that people like Papadakis are able to double student enrolments and generate revenue surpluses rivalling multinational corporations.
Ultimately, the ranking debate is not just about Indian universities entering “the top 200,” but also the need for a radically new academic culture, reducing inequalities of global academia, the ends of education, and the limitations of the ranking exercise itself.
(Ajay Gudavarthy and Nissim Mannathukkaren are with Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Dalhousie University, Canada, respectively.)
Keywords: foreign universities, Times Higher Education rankings, Indian universities, global educational standards
The writers are forgetting that JNU was ranked in the top 200 during the previous
VC's (honorable B.B. Bhattacharya) tenure. Most of us (90%) received scholarships as
a result of his efforts. Alas, the efforts of the previous V-C, who brought ample
funds to make this institution a world class university has been misused by the
current team of administrators, some of whom, such as the current registrar of JNU (ex-IIT Kharagpur corruption scandal) were appointed even with their tainted
backgrounds.
As righteously outlined by the author "Students are not trained to
become critical thinkers, but foot soldiers of the establishment" is
the core instinct which is a great impediment for growths. Now, it is
not during one studies in the universities or colleges but also after
they pass out from these colleges/universities. In India there is no
proper encouragements for the differently/critical thinkers. Even though some of them try to be, they are pulled down and made a subject
of ridiculous.
We must encourage the students with different and innovative thinking
and govt should encourage such thing in all walks of life.
This article surely points out the largely ignored facts which
international Ranking's take into account while designing their
Metrics but the argument about the Ivy leagues creating bonded
labourers and Indian Universities developing opinionated individuals
with Social skills is highly flawed.Since the day we enter school the
moment a child develops an interest in arts or literature over pure
academics, parents begin to counsel them towards the "Right Path".98%
talent who can't make it to the IIT's/IIM's either try to fly out of
the country or compromise and accept that he/she does not deserve to
be at the Top.On the research front we as students are never encouraged to Research because one is assessed on the best way a book can be blatantly copied? Are we to blame our Social Hierarchies or the Caste System?Indian Education system never encourages individuality of thoughts and action's throughout one's academic life and this is where the Western Universities win the Cake.Brain Drain!!
All of you are good analysts. But why don't you provide some actual solutions for the
improvements in undergraduate and Graduate education areas?
I perceive the major task of most universities in India as handing out undergraduate and masters degrees. The centres for scientific excellence in India do not take undergraduates and very few Masters students and are generally not considered to be universitites. Few so-called "central" universities also take undergrad education seriously. The major places for science in India are institutes like IISc, TIFR, SN Bose iintitute for Nuclear Physics, Indian Statistical Institute, Harish-Chandra Research Institute, etc. On an index like impact factor per faculty, these institutes will score very high and will be within the top 200 without a doubt.
Thus, it is the policy of separating university education from high-end scientific research that is responsible for the poor rankings for Indian universities.
"Students are not trained to become critical thinkers, but foot
soldiers of the establishment. Therefore, they graduate without pondering over what it means when the university gives its presidents multimillion dollar salaries and its janitors $7 per hour."
Wait a second: Is the author suggesting that India is better in this regard? In general, rather than exceptional cases, do we produce armies of well-informed critical thinkers? I must have missed all of them during my entire education.
Sure, education in the West is being commercialized and therefore losing its critical edge. But from my experience on both sides of the fence, critical thinking is still an explicit criterion on marking assessments in higher education. People are still asked: 'What do you think and why' in classrooms. Students are allowed to disagree. Teachers are allowed to learn and change their minds. Is this a regular feature in an Indian classroom now? It wasn't when I studied 7 years ago.
It is true that our universities including IIT's does'nt meet the criteria that time had in its methodology to make it to top 200. We missed the industrial revolution for various reasons. We have to accept the fact that in the last few centuries India's contribution to science and technology is minimal compared to western world. Lets not get into mediaval times and vedic period. The universities evolved from the advancements in the last couple of centuries. Many of the scientists and researchers influence and teach in western Universities. Thanks to our highly competetive entrace exams like JEE, AIPMT, we are good in selecting the best. Most of the best shine after finishing thier Masters and PhD in US universities. Now they are Professors, Economists, leaders in many in high tech industries. If we need to build good universities., bring those best back to India. Endowments will pour in if good research happens in Indian Universities.
Thought provoking article.
Honestly, how many of us here had asked doubt to the teacher in the class regarding the subject? How many of us had guts to argue about physics, chemistry or maths with our teachers?
The problem lies at the very bottom. Students are generally scared of asking questions to the teachers because if the teacher is unable to answer the question, the student might end up getting reduced marks (This happened to one of my friends). Critical and innovative thinking are suppressed at very early stage. Education system in India is highly hierarchial where schools still follows the ancient "GURU" and "SISHYA" system.
The changes required are radical.
Being a person who studied in India and then went on for graduate studies in the
US, I have come to a simple conclusion that there is no comparison between the US system of education and the Indian.
We are a perfect example of a nation that follows blindly as laid out by our ex
rulers to create babus not leaders. Merit is based on answering tough questions,
but in life no one hands out well articulated questions to you. Somewhere the
emphasis on asking the right question is absent everywhere from all aspects of
society. The result is today's India.
Critical thinking, original thoughts and creativity are not the goals of our education. Passing exams and getting a job that finds no connection with the subjects studied is a goal. This makes us nothing but mercenaries treating all forms of knowledge as vehicles for prosperity and not for contributing to the sacred body of knowledge itself. A misguided conclusion between success in exams and excellence in jobs is prevalent in India.
How Taj Mahal was built in India and no where else and people from world throng around it? Excellence! India is the only country in the world which can excel in any sphere but our priorities are totally different. Otherwise, can't we keep our nation trash-free like west and rivers unpolluted? We have an inherent disease called selfish,amassing wealth to our progeny in the name of gold, land and money without giving priority to education & enterprise. Post independent India should have progressed better but for the selfish and unintelligent leadership. We must have the commitment to create the best like TIFR,IISc,IIT,Vidhana Soudha,Godrej & Amul products and diversify its numbers to the reach top in world affairs.
Our Universities are so commercialized that research done is minimal and if at all done it is to show off. They are nothing more than teaching shops which double up as employment exchanges promising jobs to their students. Other than the IISc no other institution takes research seriously & do not promote the research culture in their Under Graduates, something that is very essential to innovation. We cannot therefore except an Indian to found an Apple or Google but plenty of them working for such companies.
To compare how much an average student pays for graduation in US and in
an Indian university rests on fallacious grounds. There are vast
differences in per capita income in US and India. What is worth noting
is output to input ratio. US universities add great skills to the
students. There is no point in subsidizing education if benefits don't
reach the intended and holding a degree in hand doesn't take you
anywhere. Sorry to say, but the Indian attitude towards education needs
a drastic makeover.
What is lacking in India is creative thinking among students and teachers. Even esteemed universities in India have come under lenses for issue of forged grades and corrupt practices by unscrupulous elements. In order to achieve excellence lot of real importance is to be given to research oriented activities and matching support in the form of grant from the government should be there. Federal budgetary allocation for education should be more. Education should be free from political clout which is the need of the hour. Education should not be a commercial activity.
Good arguments and comments too.
Lets not use ranking as another excuse not to change ourselves and
improve. Unless we measure, how will we know where we stand?
I congratulate Ajay Gudavarthy and Nissim Mannathukkaren for their thought provoking article. The problem we are facing in India is the mad rush for higher education. Everybody is in a hurry to acquire University education. This tendency needs to be stopped first.
Secondly, employers are asking for totally irrelevant qualifications while recruiting. If the job calls for an education level of Class 12, the employer will advertise that they need Graduates, preferably a postgraduate. This leads to the mad rush to the Universities. Indian education system has always tested the memory power of the students only. The system has never encouraged creativity in a student. Creativity has to be encouraged from Pre KG level. Otherwise, nobody will be interested in research because they do not understand what "Research" is. Why should all the parents want their sons and daughters to be Doctors and Engineers? Why don't they encourage them to study social sciences or life sicences?
Authors, please! you are just making excuses. Your article doesn't make sense. Useless read.
Well-written article. The problem with our education system is aptly described: "Students are not trained to become critical thinkers, but foot soldiers of the establishment."
There is nothing more problematic for a society where the potential of its young in its multitude of forms is frowned upon and only a single-track thinking pattern is put in place: marks -> good college -> good job.
We need to wake up and initiate a complete reform of our education system.
India is not a poor country. It has the third largest GDP in the world on PPP terms. The author should have compared the endowment of Harvard University with the wealth of Tirupathi temple. Indians are infected with Indian crab syndrome since the time of Indian civilisation. As a result India could not sustain itself as a science hub. Even IIT graduates fly off to US and develop US.
The article moots critical aspects of comparison. Well elucidated and thought provoking.
This sounds similar to the argument Gambhir and co made -- "If you come
to our home, we will show you who we are on spinning tracks". Instead of
competing with the best, we have ended up giving excuses for not
performing. Sigh!
The readers should also know that many world rankings have an objective
part and a subjective part. The objective parts include per-capita
research output of faculty, students. The subjective parts may include
surveys of professors and students on their list of probable top 20
institutions in a particular area that the person is working in. So
any large institution which is visibly top-20 in any particular area
will get points while an institution that is consistently #45 in all
areas wont get any votes at all! This also means large western
universities with thousands of faculty members and tens of thousands of
students have an inherent advantage of visibility and votes. Also
percentage of international students/faculty and Nobel laureates gets
points. So in conclusion, in the objective part alone there are
already Indian institutions like IISc that may clearly be in top 100.
But students in general are in awe of even mediocre western
institutions for lack of facts known.
Fr Ambrose Pinto once said... "Its the educated people who are corrupt... ... not the
uneducated". Education corrupts and limits your thinking... be it a university or a
school. So forget ranking. Start from basics..
Why don't we get the best out of people? Sir Ken Robinson argues that it's because we've been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers.
Students with restless minds and bodies -- far from being cultivated for their energy and curiosity -- are ignored or even stigmatized, with terrible consequences. "We are educating people out of their creativity," Robinson says.
The academic culture and not the infrastructure matters most in attaining academic
standards.Most of the universities in India lack in global visions and missions, world proven policies and practices, systems and procedures.Any amount of money spending in the absence of proper world class academic culture, good value systems will not bring quality and make the universities better. Today, money is being spent on nonpriority activities leaving no money for research on account of which quality of education is down. Professors have no freedom, and autonomy to teach what the like. They are dictated by syllabi prepared by elected non teaching professors. Feedback from students and alumni is not taken seriously.professors rights are not well defined by law. They are too much at the mercy of bureaucrates in universities and government.
In all the arguments provided above, none of them actually compares JNU
or for that matter any Indian university with a US university in terms
of merit. Fees, endowment etc or JNU providing education to socially and
economically backward class are just side aspects. This article reflects
the very same patronage that is hampering the education system.
There is no shortage of excuses. The authors have it backwards in all respects. Harvard excels not because of money; instead, it has money because it excels.
Indeed, universities like JNU epitomize the ills of many Indian universities. What JNU lacks is not money but integrity. In fact, the currency of individual achievement is not teaching or research but politics and connections. Teachers and students are hopelessly politicized. JNU has never lived up to the central purpose of academics - an open minded search for the truth no matter where it takes you. It's a story that is repeated at most other institutes in one form or another.
The authors of this article are searching for excuses while ignoring some basic truths.
The way the author penned this article is good. These disparities lie everywhere not
only in the university rankings but even at the individual level, when we go one step
deeper. Child from a well educated and good social status family will win over the others who have much privileges even in the US. So the conclusion is pretty good but can't blame the ranking systems. Education system in India needs radical changes thats for sure.
The authors of the essay have missed an important point, i.e., Indian
universities are not any worse off than western universities in terms
of resources. Just take a look at the equipment they have. The other
thing to be noted is to take in to account the salaries the academics
receive in relation to the universities income. You will find that
there is not much difference between western and indian universities.
What is different is the way the university is run and the culture
amongst students and teachers. While the western universities have
much openness to scientific work, the culture in Indian universities
is one of unashamed flattery, red tape, unaccountability and financial
mismanagement. The problem in Indian universities is not academic
scholarship but, mismanagement and feudalistic behaviour.
There needs to be a Purchasing Power Parity(PPP) equivalent for ranking Universities. How are lives (both the student's and the society at large) bettered by attending these Universities given the other local variables is probably as important as the standard metrics that are used to rate these Universities? This brings some sense of parity to the 3rd World Lack of resources argument.
No advanced country has a broken school system. No country with a
broken school system has made advances in higher education and
science/technology research. Our school system is broken, except for
some good private schools; our exams are a joke; college education has
largely collapsed especially after the IT boom---only those who can't
get good paying jobs are ending up as teachers. How shortsighted can we
be when we constantly bemoan higher education when the foundations have
largely collapsed (for which we don't even pay lip service) ?
Lack of resources is a fig leaf used to explain away the low standards of our universities. Hardly any research of international quality originates from India. People like Ramanujan achieved greatness with far fewer resources. The toppers from our universities are no more than well trained parrots with little critical thinking abilities. Education is seen by most people simply as a means to earning money and there is no love of learning at all.
I do agree that rankings need to be taken with a pinch of salt. But the Times ranking is all about research universities. Developing worlds do not have such universities. So they will not show up in these rankings. While we need to drastically improve the quality of our universities, it is imperative to develop research universities that will bring about the culture of research in the country!
Please Email the Editor