UGC not to regulate autonomous B-schools

Facing resistance from private colleges, the government has decided that guidelines unveiled last month for the oversight of technical institutes will not apply to autonomous B-Schools that have been concerned about losing their autonomy.

The draft guidelines were announced by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 5 December and updated on 23 December to regulate all technical colleges after the Supreme Court on 25 April took them out of the regulatory purview of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

Independent B-Schools, which follow their own curriculum and set their own course fees, were also required to obey the guidelines and seek affiliation to universities that function under the UGC and adopt their syllabus.
Their inclusion provoked protests from administrators of these institutes, who argued that the quality of their courses, including the Post-Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) programme, would be compromised and the career prospects of their students harmed.

“We have withdrawn our guidelines to regulate PGDM schools,” UGC Chairman Ved Prakash said. “Though we have made some progress, we have now decided to keep all diploma programmes out of our regulatory purview. Business schools providing PGDM will no more come under our supervision.”

“They will run as they used to be earlier,” Prakash said about the functioning of these B-Schools. The UGC Chairman, however, said all other professional colleges, including engineering schools, will have to abide by the new guidelines. On 10 January, the UGC and senior officials of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) are meeting to find ways to provide affiliation to over 11,000 professional schools. Last month, several private education providers’ associations met human resource development minister M.M. Pallam Raju to express their reservations about the UGC draft guidelines.

India has more than 300 autonomous B-Schools including XLRI in Jamshedpur; Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad; International Management Institute in Delhi, and Management Development Institute (MDI) in Gurgaon. These autonomous B-Schools are also known as PGDM B-Schools because they don’t offer an MBA degree, but award a post-graduate diploma. They were operating without university affiliation but were approved by the AICTE. Some 180,000 students are studying in these schools.

B-Schools said they hadn’t yet been informed about the government’s decision to spare them from having to follow the UGC guidelines. “We have not received any formal communication from either the MHRD or the UGC about their withdrawal,” said Harivansh Chaturvedi, Director of the Birla Institute of Management Technology in Greater Noida, on the outskirts of Delhi. Chaturvedi, who is also the Alternate President of the Education Promotion Society of India (EPSI), said B-Schools were going ahead with their plan to meet the HRD minister again and explore judicial options.

Even if the UGC decides not to apply the new guidelines to autonomous B-schools, the institutes would still need to be overseen by a regulator, in the absence of which their status would remain uncertain. Following the Supreme Court order, unless the government amends the AICTE Act, these schools cannot go back to the AICTE’s fold.

Without any regulatory body and government recognition, these PGDM schools will be required to pay a service tax to the government—which they don’t do currently. The legal validity of the degrees they award can be challenged and their students will not be eligible for education loans. “We need a regulator and government recognition. We seek our legal status and autonomy,” Chaturvedi said.

Kumar Rajiv, a Delhi student who wants to join one of the top B-Schools, said the regulatory confusion needs to be cleared quickly before the admission process starts in a couple of months. “As a student, I would like to know the exact status of the school I am joining. If a B-School is unrecognized, I will hesitate to join it,” he said.

Source: The Mint, January 8, 2014

MHRD panel’s move will make 39 central universities lose autonomy

In a move that will take away the autonomy of 39 Central universities, a high-level committee set up by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) has recommended that they be brought under a legislation of Parliament. If recommendation of the panel is implemented, universities will lose the autonomy of appointing teachers, managing their finances and diversity of courses to be offered.

At present 39 central universities — including the old ones like the Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Delhi University (DU), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and others — are managed by 24 Acts of Parliament. In 2009, 16 new central universities were created under a single Act of Parliament. The committee, headed by A M Pathan, former Vice-Chancellor of Central University of Karnataka, has recommended that the existing Acts should be repealed. “Government should reject the recommendation forthwith. If implemented, it will take away the diversity of Indian higher education. Intervention like four-year undergraduate programme will be expanded to other universities,” one VC of Delhi-based central university said.

Though Pathan committee has said visions of luminaries like Madan Mohan Malaviya (BHU), Rabindranath Tagore (Shantiniketan), Jawaharlal Nehru (JNU), Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (AMU) and B R Ambedkar (Ambedkar University) will be retained, the recommendations are going to cause furore in some of these old institutions.

Pathan Committee has said the office of chancellor should be abolished and a Council of Vice-Chancellors (CVCs), a new body, be put in place. CVCs will be headed by the MHRD minister as ex-officio chairperson and consist of University Grants Commission (UGC) chairperson, all VCs of central universities, four members nominated by the central government representing Ministries of MHRD, Finance, Youth Affairs and Science and Technology, not less than three but not more than five members to be nominated by the Visitor (President of India) and three Members of Parliament. CVCs will co-ordinate the activities of all the central universities, advise on matters of policy relating to academic matters, synchronize academic calendars and other functions.

VCs will be appointed by a search-cum-selection committee consisting of nine members. Of the nine members of the panel, three will be nominated by the Visitor, six by the CVC out of which one will be from the scheduled caste, one from socially and educationally backward classes, one woman and one from a minority community.

In a bid to curtail VCs independence and make him subservient to UGC, immediately after appointment s/he is expected to give a report to the UGC about varsity’s infrastructure, number of posts of teachers, employees, details of research, courses, collaboration with other institutions and perspective plan in respect of academics, administration and development.

If this is not enough, the committee has recommended establishment of the Central Universities (teachers, registrar and finance officer) Recruitment Board that will make centralized appointment of assistant professors. Candidates will give preference for allotment of central university but the decision will rest with the recruitment board. Performance of teachers will be done through external peer review. Universities will have the option of either admitting students through a common test or evolve its own procedure.

Source: The Times of India, December 14, 2013

IIMs seek liberty to elect directors

The Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) have a wish: The freedom to select directors on their own, and at an accelerated pace. The Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)’s intervention in its matters, including selection of directors, is taking a toll on the schools’ reputation, they claim. “We are losing our charm internationally,” laments an IIM director. “We need basic freedom to at least appoint our own directors, sans anyone’s permission. We do not see international professors interested in heading IIMs.”

Consider this: Samir Barua, Director at IIM-Ahmedabad, was to remit office in November 2012 but was given an extension of a few months. Ditto with Shekhar Chaudhuri, Director, IIM-Calcutta, and Pankaj Chandra, Director, IIM-Bangalore, who is still on extension. In contrast, look at similar appointments internationally: Cornell University’s management announced Soumitra Dutta as the new dean in January 2012, when he was to take over in July 2012. Nitin Nohria was announced Harvard Business School’s dean in May 2010, when he was to take over in July 2010.

In fact, the board of governors at IIM-Ahmedabad (IIM-A) had sent names of three contenders – Ashish Nanda of Harvard University and IIM-A faculty members G Raghuram and Rakesh Basant – for the post of Director to MHRD on May 9, 2012. But the ministry is yet to respond. The board, in the absence of a clearance from MHRD, this month asked Dean (Faculty) Ajay Pandey to take over as the Acting Director. While IIM-Calcutta appointed a Director this week, IIM-Bangalore is yet to appoint one.

“I do not understand why an IIM needs the MHRD or the permission of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to appoint a director. Why can’t decisions regarding educational institutions be left to them? We are institutions of the 21st century. Why do we have a board of governors if we can’t be allowed to select our own directors?” asks an IIM director.

Sources at the premier management institutes say the process of selecting a director should be accelerated, as it would be a good model to have a director-designate six months to one year in advance. This would allow the outgoing and incoming directors to work together, allowing for better hand-holding before one takes over.

As an IIM director completes his term, a search committee is constituted to shortlist eligible candidates and recommend them to MHRD. The ministry approves the list, sends it to the Department of Personnel, which forwards it to the PMO for the Cabinet Committee’s approval.

Globally, however, much before a director or dean’s term comes to an end, headhunters identify some key names of eligible candidates and send these to the dean of a search committee, which comprises faculty members from the institute. Committees at the university and school levels come together to interview and shortlist candidates. The appointments are usually done months in advance.

A M Naik, chairperson of the board of governors of IIM-A, says though the selection of directors six months in advance would be a good move, the government’s role in the process would remain, as it was an important stakeholder. Ashok Thakur, Joint Secretary at MHRD, could not be contacted for comments despite repeated attempts for two weeks.

Source: Business Standard, April 11, 2013

IIMs may get legislative cover, award degrees

Five years after it first initiated a legislation to bring 13 premier Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) under the purview of Parliament, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) has revived the process and is working on a bill modeled on the lines of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, under which IITs function.

In 2007, the provocation for proposing a legislation for IIMs was the institutes’ recalcitrance in implementing the OBC (Other Backward Classes) reservation. However, this time round, the idea has come from within. Many IIM directors and board members have been telling the ministry that without a legislative cover, IIMs are not able to award degrees. “It has become a handicap. Many IIMs have started five-year integrated courses but are not eligible to award degrees. Once the proposed Institutes of Management Bill is passed, IIMs would become more attractive for students,” a source said.

Now, IIMs function as autonomous societies and run as per their Memorandum of Association (MoA) that is different in case of each institute. IIMs award only diploma for a two-year management course. Degrees can be awarded only by institutions set up by an act of Parliament, state assembly, deemed universities and institutes of national importance. Director of one of the new IIMs told TOI, “At a time when serious changes are being contemplated in the Common Aptitude Test (CAT) like making it an international test, IIMs need to have authority to grant degrees. Recently, the ministry discussed the matter with us. Once bill is prepared by the ministry we would be consulted.”

But some feel parliamentary control could also compromise IIMs’ autonomy and “out-of-box decisions”. First, there would be change in the administrative and financial powers of the institutes. “Over the last three years, government had set up many committees to look into the functioning of IIMs as well as chalk out a roadmap. Most of the old IIMs have already amended their Memorandum of Association that gives them more power and flexibility. “We do not know what would happen to flexibility and financial autonomy,” one IIM director said.

Source: The Economic Times (Online Edition), September 4, 2012

IIT Faculty Federation’s suggestions to the Prime Minister

Restore IITs autonomy by officially seeking ratification / acceptance from the various IIT Senates on the CET decided by IIT Council: Since the Council / MHRD has announced officially the new CET, each IITs should now be given the following choices: (a) accept the proposed CET as it is, (b) accept the proposed CET with specific conditions or riders and (c) reject the proposed CET and have its own admission process (the IIT Kanpur model). This action and process is mandatory to uphold the autonomy of each of the IITs.

Changes should be only from 2014 or later: Current test pattern (JEE and AIEEE) should continue at least for the year 2013. Sufficient time (at least two years) must be provided for kicking in major, sweeping changes in any admission process of such high stakes. The entire processes and procedures should be tested as a dry run during 2013 for which data is presently not available even as of today. In addition, the normalisation scheme should be analysed and validated for consistency.

Proposed CET increases stress: The concept of One Exam for India will be a make or break test, as candidates not faring well on that particular day/test due to whatever reason will need to wait for one full year before he/she can compete again. It is clear that such a make or break CET will only add to stress, far from reducing it.

Normalization of board marks needs more studies, as suggested by Indian Statistical Institute. In general, IIT Senates are in favour of considering board performance, but the exact mechanism needs to be finalized jointly by IIT Senates.

The coaching may increase: Coaching for board examination will also start, as evidenced by the recent advertisements. This will make it difficult for students from financially weak backgrounds, and from rural backgrounds.

Who will conduct the examination? IITs have been conducting JEE since last 4 decades. JEE has established itself world over. So, taking the JEE out of IITs is not justifiable.

Specific Requests
No change in the year 2013, present system to continue.
Senates of IITs be allowed to take decision on admission in IITs (considering all relevant aspects like format of examination, modalities etc) ensuring the academic autonomy of the IITs.
Consideration of board marks from 2014 to be worked out over a period of time after analysing the board data and results from the dry run.

Source: www.ndtv.com, June 15, 2012

Autonomy of IIT has to be respected, says PM

The All India Indian Institutes of Technology Faculty Federation (AIIITFF) met Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh today at his residence. The meeting comes after two weeks of dissent following the ‘one nation, one test’ proposal announced by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) headed by Kapil Sibal.

The AIIITFF submitted a letter to the PM, opposing the decision of a Joint Entrance Exam (JEE). In the hard-hitting letter, the dissenting body says the autonomy of the IITs must be restored. The letter requests the PM to let the IITs decide whether to accept, change or outrightly rejects the new proposal by the MHRD along with the IIT Council.

The letter also states any changes to the admission process be brought into effect in 2014 or later, stressing the current IIT-JEE and AIEEE must continue in the coming year. The letter written to the PM rejects all reasons given by the MHRD, saying the stress of exams will increase with all students made to take the Common Entrance Test (CET) in the new proposal, the number of tutorials centres are bound to increase and normalisation of marks would need more research to make it a sound idea.

AIIITFF is among other bodies opposing the idea. The minister, though, has maintained that it is a unanimous decision that came about after two years of deliberations.

Source: www.ndtv.com, June 15, 2012

IIT-Delhi alumni open to talks on CET row

A day after HRD minister Kapil Sibal said that the government had no intention to impinge on IITs’ (Indian Institutes of Technology) autonomy, IIT Delhi Alumni Association said that while a legal recourse was an option, it would be willing to discuss the differences.

IIT Delhi Alumni President Somnath Bharti said that it was deeply worried about Sibal’s decision not to rollback. “The new JEE (Joint Entrance Exam) will not only ruin IITs’ autonomy but will also be detrimental to the interests of the students from rural India and the move, if properly analyzed, seems benefitting to no one but coaching institutes — a fact belying the claims of MHRD [Ministry of Human Resource Development],” he said. Bharti added that the alumni were willing to discuss issues but seeking legal recourse would remain an option.

When asked about the controversy over the common entrance test for IITs, Sibal, who is Washington, said, “Quite frankly this is not the minister’s decisions. This is the unanimous decision of the IIT Council, consisted of all the IIT Directors and Chairmen. Then we have the IIIT (Indian Institute of Information Technology) Council representatives there, we have NIT (National Institute of Technology) Council representatives there. All of them decided unanimously for a particular course of action,” he said.

“In terms of the IIT Act, there is an IIT Council. In terms of that Act the Council is entitled to take certain decisions by virtue of a statue. The Council has endorsed those decisions. I do not know what the exact objections to it are? I will go back and find out the exact nature of these objections and will surely address it,” he said. “But one thing I want to make clear that there is no intent to impact on the IIT system’s autonomy. That is quite clear. The academic autonomy of the IIT system has to be maintained and must be maintained. The exam that is being contemplated is going to be set by the IIT, not by the government, not by anybody else,” he added.

Meanwhile, All India IIT Faculty Federation Secretary Prof. A K Mittal on Tuesday said that IIT-Kanpur’s decision had “set the tone for other IITs that do not agree with the current MHRD [Ministry of Human Resource Development] proposal of common entrance test.” Mittal said the faculty members had no personal agenda and that it was their responsibility to “defend and protect the academic excellence and autonomy of these great institutions envisioned by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru from any political interference…In opposing the HRD ministry’s test, we are not trying to achieve elitist status but protect the sanctity of academic freedom granted to these institutions by an act of Parliament (Institutes of Technology Act, 1961) and ensure that only the best students get selected by a fair process,” he added.

Source: The Economic Times (Online Edition), June 13, 2012

Kapil Sibal rules out rollback of common exam, no intent to impact IIT system’s autonomy

Even as members of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) faculty and alumni continue to protest over the new common entrance examination, human resource development minister Kapil Sibal virtually ruled out a rollback. The minister, who is currently in Washington for the India-US Higher Education Dialogue with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, stressed on the need to reduce the number of examinations that students have to take for admission to colleges and universities and to accord the integrity to the school system.

“In India, each child has to look for a university or a college and then he has to sit for 30-35 exams… the mental stress and torture of having to go to 30-35 exams, I think, is not fair to the parents as well as to the children. Then, the other thing is that the school system must be accorded its integrity. The class XII board is a very important milestone in the life of a child and how he does in the class XII Board is exceptionally important. Any process of admission should take that into account. So these are the objectives,” Sibal said while explaining the rationale for the common entrance exam.

Sibal told newspersons the ‘one nation, one test’ proposal was a unanimous decision of the IIT Council taken in accordance with the IIT Act passed by the Indian Parliament. “There is no intent to impact the IIT system’s autonomy. The exam that is being contemplated is to be set by the IIT itself. It is the JAB ( Joint Admissions Board), which will actually set the examination. We have no desire in any way (to infringe on the autonomy).”

Source: The Economic Times (Online Edition), June 13, 2012

Will IIT-Delhi go the Kanpur way?

A day after the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Kanpur decided to defy the government’s decision to hold a common entrance examination for all Central engineering institutes by announcing a separate admission test for undergraduate courses, the IIT-Delhi has also called for a Senate meeting to adopt its own admission system.

A meeting of the IIT-Delhi Alumni Association held here on Saturday decided to file a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against the joint entrance examination next week and call upon the senior alumni to use their influence and lawful means in getting the decision reversed. “The meeting applauded the IIT-Kanpur for its decision and reiterated that the Institute Senates were legally empowered to decide and adopt whichever method they wanted to for admissions,” Somnath Bharti, President of the Alumni Association told The Hindu.

However, the prestigious IITs appear to be divided over the Centre’s decision with the IITs at Delhi and Kanpur offering stiff opposition and the remaining five claiming to be on board with the government’s proposal. Criticising the decision taken by the IIT-Kanpur Senate on Friday to hold a separate entrance test, Director of IIT-Guwahati Gautam Barua said he was “surprised” at their “reaction.” “I am sad actually that they have to take this extreme step for such a small matter,” he told a television channel.

“Right now, we are not talking about one common entrance exam. We are basically talking about having a common exam for the NITs, the IITs and the IIITs. Whether this lead to a common exam for everybody, only time will tell,” Mr. Barua said. Professor Damodar Acharya, Director of IIT-Kharagpur, said the institution did not have any objection to the Centre’s move to conduct a common entrance exam for central engineering institutions.

The IIT-Kanpur Senate on Friday described the joint entrance examination “academically and methodically unsound and in violation of the Institutes of Technology Act (1961) and the IIT Kanpur Ordinances [Ordinance 3.2 Admissions]. It also constituted a committee for conducting the JEE 2013 by the IIT-Kanpur. The Undergraduate Admissions Committee will organise the entrance examination and counselling, the resolution said. The committee will coordinate with other IITs to conduct the entrance examination jointly. The Senate resolved to record its forceful dissent of the Council resolution related to JEE. The Senate’s decision has to be endorsed by the Board of Governors and then the IIT Council chaired by the Union Human Resource Development Minister.

However, while the government has not reacted to the developments as the Minister and senior officials are away in the U.S., sources within the Ministry told The Hindu that under the IIT Act, even when regulations of each IIT admissions were to be done, they must be jointly done by all the IITs. Also, under the Act, all matters that are common to all the IITs come under the purview of the Council and not the senate of any one IIT. So the senate resolution is suspect from a legal point of view.

Director of the IIT-Kanpur Sanjay Dhande approved the JEE proposal at the IIT Council, but this was overruled by the Senate. Similar moves are afoot for other IITs, where the Directors have backed the Ministry. Meanwhile, the All-India IIT Faculty Federation has said: “The decision of the government to go ahead with the common entrance test for the IITs is in the gross violation of the IITs’ academic autonomy. We do not understand the intention behind the decision to take the JEE away from the highly successful JEE machinery of the IITs and pass it to some other body.”

Source: The Hindu, June 10 , 2012

IITs revolt on joint engineering test, will take Union HRD ministry to court – IIT faculty to write to PM

Opinion is growing against the decision of Union Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to introduce a common engineering test for central engineering institutions including IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology), NITs (National Institutes of Technology) and IIITs (Indian Institutes of Information Technology) with the IIT alumni on Friday deciding to move court against it.

Faculty members from IIT-Kanpur are also planning to boycott the institute’s convocation ceremony on Saturday as a mark of protest. While efforts have been made by the faculty federations to seek an appointment with the PM to explain their opposition to the common exam, the MHRD is seeking to engage the faculty members.

In a meeting on Friday of alumni members and faculty members, it was decided to file PILs (Public Interest Litigations) against the common exam proposal within a week. “The IIT alumni will file PILs in various high courts within a week. The members felt that efforts should be done to get a hearing at the earliest and demand that the common test be postponed to 2014,” said Somnath Bharti, President of IIT-Delhi Alumni Association.

Sources in IIT-Kanpur said there was a sense of dissatisfaction that the MHRD had not heeded the faculty’s concerns before announcing the decision. Therefore, there is a plan to boycott the convocation ceremony on Saturday. A senior faculty member from IIT-Kanpur said, “Although all faculty members are upset with the decision, some will attend the convocation because it’s an important occasion for the students.”

All India IIT Faculty Federation secretary A K Mittal said, “People across IITs are concerned and agitated at the ministry’s decision. We have written to the PM opposing the decision and will seek time from him.” The main points of contention between the faculty members and the ministry include the weightage given to class XII board exams for shortlisting candidates and the lack of complete control over the IIT exam. There are 15 IITs with about 10,000 seats in the country. At the root of the debate is the elite status of these tech institutes, and clubbing them with IIITs and NITs is seen as pulling down the centres of excellence to the level of ordinariness.

MHRD sources said that efforts were being to ensure that the matter does not go to the courts. A senior official said, “The ministry has over a period of two years held lengthy consultations and tried to accommodate all the concerns raised by the various stakeholders.” Ministry sources said that the IITs are geared for conducting exams for 500,000-600,000 students but the numbers would increase to 2 million with the common test. “We have even said that IITs will be able to direct the agency that conducts the test,” the source said, pointing out that the concerns being raised had been dealt with through several rounds of discussions.

Source: The Times of India (Online Edition), June 2, 2012