Higher Education
Colleges in South India
Educational News Today
Monday, Sep 29, 2008
The industry is changing dynamically, and academia has to rise to the challenge, feels ex-AICTE chief
He fields all the questions with the ease of an insider, yet provides a bird’s eye view of the functioning of the education system. From critiquing the assessment and accreditation system to commenting on the much-talked about “employability” factor, former Chairman of the All India Council for Technical Education R. Natarajan speaks with experience and authority of the travails and challenges of technical education today.
On the sidelines of the National Summit on Quality in Education, hosted by the Confederation of Indian Industry-Institute of Quality, Prof. Natarajan took time to share his perspective about the state of technical education.
Question: What are the main issues in technical education today vis-a-vis quality of institutions and graduates who pass out every year?
Answer: There are two dimensions. Given the character of institutes of excellence in the country, what do numerous other institutes do to rise themselves to their level. But more importantly, how does one give the student this character of employability.
The industry, on the demand side, is changing rather dynamically and evolving fast. For example, 20 years ago, environment was not important, but today every industry needs people to take care of that aspect. Similarly, two institutes teach nuclear engineering. If nuclear energy comes in a big way, IITs and NITs will have to cater to the demand.
With the intake of engineering colleges standing at around 6.5 lakh today, what needs to be done to rise to this rapidly changing dynamic?
Yes, the situation calls for dynamic solutions. There needs to be greater industry-academia collaboration. Events such as this and even the CII need to be proactive to bring about this improvement. Autonomous universities and colleges should have more industry people on their advisory boards.
How much of a difference could be brought in by tightening accreditation standards and enforcing more regulation? Today, have the yardsticks of accreditation changed?
In terms of accreditation, yes, the yardsticks are fast evolving. It is not only about infrastructure and basics anymore. When we started NBA to look into this matter it was different, today the requirements are rapidly changing.
Overall development goals, as opposed to giving accreditation to single departments, industry-institute understanding, employability of graduates — the yardsticks may have changed. For instance, there is the Washington Accord, which looks at graduate attributes such as skills-sets, adaptability, HR skills etc. In addition to traditional methods, accreditation experts must look at these attributes.
Students in “core” courses often complain that there is too much infiltration of IT in their syllabus? Speaking of industry-academia collaborations, do they run the risk of turning counter-productive?
Where our industry stands today, it should not prove counter-productive. In the U.S., engineering is not an attractive course now, so they are trying to project it as a professional liberal arts degree, which gives you the freedom to branch off into anything you want. However, we are far from that stage.
It is wrong to assume that everything you need to know has to be in the curriculum. Today, there are all kinds of supplementary courses. The UGC, for instance, has job-oriented courses.
We need to make our students employable and everything from electives to supplementary courses should help them sharpen their skills.
The country today needs 1.6 lakh engineering teachers, and only 50,000 are available, and even fewer are well qualified. How can this change?
One must understand that pay-scales offered by the industry can never be matched by academic institutions.
The more affluent and reputed academic institutions are able to help teachers supplement their salary in legitimate ways, through consultancies and giving them more research opportunities.
The government has a ceiling which it cannot cross, so the only way is to provide teachers with such incentives.
Needed: dynamic solutions
The industry is changing dynamically, and academia has to rise to the challenge, feels ex-AICTE chief
He fields all the questions with the ease of an insider, yet provides a bird’s eye view of the functioning of the education system. From critiquing the assessment and accreditation system to commenting on the much-talked about “employability” factor, former Chairman of the All India Council for Technical Education R. Natarajan speaks with experience and authority of the travails and challenges of technical education today.
On the sidelines of the National Summit on Quality in Education, hosted by the Confederation of Indian Industry-Institute of Quality, Prof. Natarajan took time to share his perspective about the state of technical education.
Question: What are the main issues in technical education today vis-a-vis quality of institutions and graduates who pass out every year?
Answer: There are two dimensions. Given the character of institutes of excellence in the country, what do numerous other institutes do to rise themselves to their level. But more importantly, how does one give the student this character of employability.
The industry, on the demand side, is changing rather dynamically and evolving fast. For example, 20 years ago, environment was not important, but today every industry needs people to take care of that aspect. Similarly, two institutes teach nuclear engineering. If nuclear energy comes in a big way, IITs and NITs will have to cater to the demand.
With the intake of engineering colleges standing at around 6.5 lakh today, what needs to be done to rise to this rapidly changing dynamic?
Yes, the situation calls for dynamic solutions. There needs to be greater industry-academia collaboration. Events such as this and even the CII need to be proactive to bring about this improvement. Autonomous universities and colleges should have more industry people on their advisory boards.
How much of a difference could be brought in by tightening accreditation standards and enforcing more regulation? Today, have the yardsticks of accreditation changed?
In terms of accreditation, yes, the yardsticks are fast evolving. It is not only about infrastructure and basics anymore. When we started NBA to look into this matter it was different, today the requirements are rapidly changing.
Overall development goals, as opposed to giving accreditation to single departments, industry-institute understanding, employability of graduates — the yardsticks may have changed. For instance, there is the Washington Accord, which looks at graduate attributes such as skills-sets, adaptability, HR skills etc. In addition to traditional methods, accreditation experts must look at these attributes.
Students in “core” courses often complain that there is too much infiltration of IT in their syllabus? Speaking of industry-academia collaborations, do they run the risk of turning counter-productive?
Where our industry stands today, it should not prove counter-productive. In the U.S., engineering is not an attractive course now, so they are trying to project it as a professional liberal arts degree, which gives you the freedom to branch off into anything you want. However, we are far from that stage.
It is wrong to assume that everything you need to know has to be in the curriculum. Today, there are all kinds of supplementary courses. The UGC, for instance, has job-oriented courses.
We need to make our students employable and everything from electives to supplementary courses should help them sharpen their skills.
The country today needs 1.6 lakh engineering teachers, and only 50,000 are available, and even fewer are well qualified. How can this change?
One must understand that pay-scales offered by the industry can never be matched by academic institutions.
The more affluent and reputed academic institutions are able to help teachers supplement their salary in legitimate ways, through consultancies and giving them more research opportunities.
The government has a ceiling which it cannot cross, so the only way is to provide teachers with such incentives.
Courtesy: The Hindu - Education Plus
copyright © 2003 - 2012, adroit techno solutions. all rights reserved.