Silver

 bullet  –  or  merely  silver  plated?  

Prof.  Murali  Murti,  Vice-­‐President  (Academic  Excellence)  at  online  education  company,  avagmah,  and  
an  alumnus  of  IIT  Mumbai  and  IIM  Kolkata,  argues  that  plans  to  set  up  IITs  and  IIMs  in  every  state  
maybe  misdirected  unless  these  can  be  backed  by  online,  technology-­‐based  education  strategies,  that  
offer  a  more  practical  way  to  achieve  the  quantum  leap  in  numbers  and  skills  that  India  needs.    

The  announcement  by  the  new  government  that  it  proposes  to  set  up  an  IIT,  an  IIM  and  an  AIIMS  in  
every  state  has  kicked  off  the  predictable  flurry  of  controversy.  The  reactions  can  be  grouped  into  three  
categories  –  those  who  are  enthusiastically  in  favor  because  their  home  state  will  finally  have  those  
three  magical  brand  names  close  at  hand;  those  who  are  aghast  at  the  dilution  of  the  elite  ‘brand’;  and  
those  who  are  confused  but  who  feel  it  is  basically  a  good  thing,  because  we  have  to  try  and  catch  up  
with  China  after  all.  In  other  words,  nobody  really  knows  what  the  final  effect  of  such  a  move  will  be  on  
Indian  education  and  on  Indian  development  –  which  are  the  really  important  questions  that  need  to  be  
answered.  

To  attempt  to  answer  these  questions,  a  good  place  to  start  is  with  the  well-­‐known  observation  of  Dr.  
Carl  Dahlman,  the  eminent  World  Bank  economist,  that  a  21st  century  University  has  three  major  roles.  
The  first  role  is  to  train  high-­‐level  human  capital,  which  is  important  not  only  for  science  and  technology  
but  also  more  significantly  for  managing  economies.  The  second  role  is  to  advance  knowledge,  through  
research.  And  the  third  role  is  the  application  of  knowledge  in  society.  Viewed  through  these  three  
lenses,  the  proposal  not  only  starts  to  acquire  shades  of  clarity,  but  alternatives  and  complementary  
strategies  begin  to  emerge.  

Progress  on  the  first  of  Dahlman’s  objectives,  the  training  of  human  capital,  is  generally  measured  by  a  
country’s  Gross  Enrolment  Ratio  in  higher  education  (GER).  From  2000  to  2012,  India’s  GER  rose  from  
9.5%  to  24.8%.  During  the  same  period,  China  went  from  7.8%  to  26.7%,  and  the  United  States  from  
64.9%  to  94.3%.  So  India  and  China  have  performed  almost  identically  on  this  score,  contrary  to  popular  
perception.  Interestingly  again,  it  is  the  huge  expansion  in  the  number  of  private  universities  in  India  
that  appears  to  have  fuelled  this  growth.  

If  the  US  GER  appears  daunting,  we  should  remember  that  the  total  number  of  students  in  higher  
education  in  all  the  three  countries  are  each  roughly  the  same  in  absolute  numbers  –  around  20-­‐25  
million.  In  the  perspective  of  turning  out  graduates,  these  three  countries  collectively  are  the  
powerhouse  of  the  planet.  But  are  the  graduates  uniformly  capable  or  employable  across  the  three  
countries?  The  answer  would  have  to  remain  weighted  heavily  in  favour  of  the  US.  

On  the  second  of  Dahlman’s  objectives,  research  output  by  universities,  the  picture  is  again  revealing.  
Research  output  in  India,  measured  by  the  number  of  publications,  is  growing  at  an  annualized  rate  of  
14.8%  based  on  the  2008-­‐2012  time  frame.  This  is  higher  than  China,  whose  research  output  grew  at  
10.9%  during  the  same  period.  Significantly,  the  quality  of  India’s  research  also  appears  to  be  increasing  
at  a  healthy  rate  of  11.3%,    as  measured  by  the  share  of  the  top  10%  cited  articles,  and  is  second  only  to  
China  at  13.9%.  The  data  seems  to  indicate  that  Indian  research  is  particularly  successful  when  
performed  in  collaboration  with  other  international  organizations.  So  here  again,  contrary  to  popular  
perception,  India  has  not  done  too  badly  in  the  recent  past.  

However,  it  is  when  we  consider  the  third  of  Dahlman’s  objectives  –  the  application  of  knowledge  to  
society  –  that  stark  differences  are  apparent.  Based  on  the  number  of  patents  granted  in  2012,  India  (at  
3588)  is  far  behind  China  at  152,  102.  Indian  research  is  also  cited  very  infrequently  in  patent  
applications.  The  US  remains  far  ahead  even  of  China,  at  276,788  patents  granted  in  2012.  Therefore,  in  
the  application  of  knowledge  to  society,  especially  in  the  fields  of  science  and  technology,  India  has  
tremendous  ground  to  cover.  

With  this  background,  it  is  possible  to  take  a  reasoned  position  on  the  proposal  to  set  up  IITs,  IIMs  and  
AIIMSs  in  every  state.  If  the  purpose  is  to  increase  the  educational  base,  it  would  probably  make  just  as  
much  sense  to  increase  the  number  of  private  universities,  who  are  more  driven  by  enrolments  in  any  
case.  If  the  objective  is  to  increase  research  and  publication  output,  an  IIT  or  an  IIM  in  every  state  is  
unlikely  to  dramatically  impact  the  statistic.    

The  proposal  only  makes  sense  if  the  IIT  /  IIM  /  AIIMS  in  every  state  is  intended  to  be  a  catalyst  for  an  
economic  and  industrial  development  cluster,  and  if  the  objective  of  these  institutions  is  the  application  
of  research  to  society.  This  is  a  well-­‐established  model,  with  Silicon  Valley  in  California,  centred  around  
Stanford  University  and  the  University  of  California  system,  being  the  best-­‐known  example.  The  IT  
cluster  in  Bangalore  and  the  manufacturing  clusters  beginning  to  emerge  in  Gujarat,  Tamil  Nadu  and  
Haryana  are  also  evidence  of  the  same  phenomenon  manifesting  itself  in  India.  In  fairness  to  the  original  
five  IITs,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  they  have  indeed  contributed  in  many  significant  ways,  which  
unfortunately  do  not  appear  on  the  measurement  metrics  and  rankings.  

But  an  even  more  important  criticism  that  can  be  leveled  against  the  proposal  is  that  it  ignores  the  
much-­‐discussed  demographic  dividend  that  India  enjoys.  With  64%  of  it’s  population  expected  to  be  in  
the  prime  workforce  age  band  of  15-­‐59  years  by  2026,  and  contributing  up  to  an  estimated  30%  of  the  
global  workforce  in  the  process,  India  is  well  positioned  to  be  one  of  the  strongest  stakeholders  in  the  
global  economy  during  the  next  two  decades.  But  this  will  require  India’s  workforce  to  be  employable  in  
the  global  economy,  with  the  mix  of  skills  required  by  corporations  worldwide.  Such  a  situation  leaves  
India  with  no  choice.  It  must  do  everything  it  can  to  quantum  leap  it’s  GER  to  70%-­‐80%,  because  only  
then  will  its  youth  find  acceptance  anywhere.  Not  only  this,  India  needs  to  ensure  that  the  right  mix  of  
skills  is  imparted,  and  absorbed,  by  its  huge  young  population.  

For  this  vision  to  be  realized,  transformational  strategies  will  need  to  be  developed.  An  IIT  in  every  state,  
or  increasing  the  number  of  private  universities,  represents  linear  thinking  rooted  in  the  past.  It  does  
nothing  to  reap  the  demographic  dividend.  The  idea  is  not  paradigm-­‐shifting.  India  needs  a  break  with  
the  past,  not  more  of  the  same.  It  is  through  technology  –  by  a  remarkable  coincidence  based  on  India’s  
key  strengths  in  IT  -­‐  that  a  solution  is  possible.  With  900  million  mobile  phones  and  200  million  Internet  
users,  India’s  youth  are  already  comfortable  with  technology.  Online,  technology-­‐based  education  
strategies,  with  a  mix  of  both  short  and  long  courses,  both  degree  and  certificate,  offer  a  practical  and  
doable  way  to  achieve  the  quantum  leap  in  numbers  and  skills.  Establishing  the  IITs  and  IIMs  is  not  
enough.  Their  role  must  be  to  apply  their  knowledge  and  technology  skills  to  education,  to  take  the  IIT  
or  IIM  standards  and  ethos  out  of  the  physical  classroom  and  into  the  virtual  sphere,  directly  to  those  
young  millions.      

Prof.   Murali   Murti   is   Vice-­‐President   (Academic   Excellence)   at   avagmah,   India’s   fastest   growing   online  
education  company.  He  is  an  alumnus  of  IIT  Mumbai  (B.Tech  -­‐Electrical)  and  IIM  Kolkata  (PGDM)  and  is  
currently  pursuing  his  PhD  from  NIAS  Bangalore.