Jairam Ramesh is an alumnus of IIT-Bombay.
Ramesh, an ex-IITian, earned no friends by putting his cabinet colleague and HRD minister Kapil Sibal in a corner with his critique of the two prestigious institutions. His criticism comes at a time when the government is already under pressure to invite and retain quality teachers.
Though Sibal refused to comment on the issue, Ramesh's comments have invited a flurry of angry responses from IIT directors who said Ramesh did not know what he was talking about.
Ramesh was speaking on the sidelines of a function on biodiversity. He told reporters that his ministry in a joint venture with Reliance Industries Limited was setting up a national centre for marine biodiversity in Jamnagar. When questioned why it was being done in collaboration with private players, Ramesh made an outrageous observation: "The decision was taken because a world-class research centre cannot be built in a governmental setup and can never attract young people." Ironically, while he attacked government educational institutions, the journalists argued that most of the quality technical and management institutes are government-run, prime examples being the IITs and the IIMs. To this, Ramesh said the IITs and the IIMs were actually not as good as they are believed to be.
"There is hardly any worthwhile research in our IITs. The faculty in the IITs is not world-class. It is the students who are world-class. So, the IITs and IIMs are excellent because of the quality of students not because of the quality of research or the faculty," Ramesh, in a stunning condemnation of India's prestigious institutes, said.
Ramesh flippantly aired his views about the problems Sibal is trying to deal with.
The HRD ministry has also been discussing ways to creatively implement the proposals for reforms in the IITs as suggested by the Kakodkar committee.
Ramesh's remark was hardly expected to go unchallenged. Directors of the IITs and IIMs are outraged by the minister's "irresponsible and false" statements.
IIT- Madras director M. S. Ananth said: "The faculty at the IITs produces more research than their counterparts at MIT and Harvard. We publish papers only in peer-reviewed international journals. On an average, our faculty publishes at least three papers annually while professors in US universities publish only two. In fact, most of our faculty are former students of the institutes. Any student will testify to the teachers' contribution; to pretend that our students are brighter than the faculty is misplaced."
IIM-Lucknow director Devi Singh said: "Research output is a matter of concern at the IIMs for some time now. But it's not because of our faculty. In fact we get the best of the faculty at the IIMs, they are at par with any in the world. We are, however, dealing with the syndrome of faculty shortage and resource crunch which affects our research output. However, unlike a decade back we are producing much more research." Ananth pointed to the dynamics of research in higher education institutions.
According to him, American institutions spend 150 times more on research per faculty member than their Indian counterpart.
Additionally, scientific equipment cost more in India. Ultimately, the cost of research is not much less than that in the US. While US institutions such as the MIT and Harvard get large corporate endowments, IITs are mainly funded by the Centre.
Research crunch is an issue that IITs and IIMs are faced with perennially.
The IIT-Madras director agrees that there are several factors that cripple such institutes unlike other world-class institutions and Ivy league universities.
An IIT director, who did not wish to be named, said: "A private university head has the freedom to appoint a teacher if the candidate is an exceptional bright person. But in a government set-up like ours, I'll have to justify myself."
-India Today
Jairam Ramesh draws flak for remarks on IIT, IIM faculty
NEW DELHI|AHMEDABAD: Environment minister Jairam Ramesh , who triggered a controversy with his remarks that faculty at IIT . and IIMs were "not world class", drew sharp criticism from politicians and academics on Tuesday.
While the BJP went on the offensive, professors at IIM-Ahmedabad said the minister's assessment was "simplistic" and showed "tremendous ignorance", though they agreed that research was lagging.
BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said, "We cannot have world-class institutions till we have world-class ministers." He said the party was proud of the IITs and IIMs, adding that "ministers should refrain from making such statements".
Terming Ramesh's remarks as "unfortunate", minister of state for science and technology Ashwani Kumar said government scientific and technological institutions have done India proud. "I am the minister for science and technology... I am better equipped to say that our institutions have done us proud... It is time to celebrate their achievements."
HRD minister Kapil Sibal said, "I don't know the context in which Jairam said this, but he must be having inside information since he is from IIT. None of our institutions are world class but we are putting things in place to make some of them world class and hope to achieve it in two to three years.''
IIM-A director Samir Barua said the faculty was too burdened with teaching work to focus on research. "There is no doubt that the quantum of research done by top engineering and management schools in India is not adequate. However, institutes like IIM-A have been dealing with shortage of faculty and due to this research has taken a backseat."
Barua said the quantum of research done should not be the only criteria for judging the faculty, as there were other aspects, such as quality of teaching, advice to the practicing world, and inputs to policy-making.
Anil Gupta, professor at IIM-A, said, "Ramesh has shown tremendous ignorance about the intellectual capabilities of these institutions. I would not deny the fact that they need to do more. But to say that faculty is not making any contribution and it is just because of the quality of students... then people should take the CAT scores and give jobs to them."
Sebastian Morris, another professor at IIM-A, described the remarks as "simplistic". "Most of the faculty would be having same qualification as the faculty in top-class institutions, which means they have done their PhDs abroad," Morris said.
-ET
Fighting a lonely battle
-DIPANKAR GUPTA
Why have the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) performed below potential? Jairam Ramesh may have said it baldly but Kapil Sibal's comb over is hardly convincing.
In 1946, the IITs were just a twinkle in the eye of Ardeshir Dalal, a colonial official. But from then on till they were actually set up post-Independence, the IITs were always meant for training and research. As the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was the obvious and stated model, these twin objectives were bolted into the IIT Act of 1961. Why then did the IITs falter on the research front?
The short answer is that too much was expected of them and too little from everybody else. To ask the IITs to excel on their own is unfair. Researchers work best when they hunt like hounds in a pack. If the US is the centre of advanced learning today, it is because research is active in every college and university in that country. It is not just a Harvard or an MIT that is expected to do all the hard work and go catch the fox. If the IITs have failed, it is because they run alone, while in America, universities sprint together.
Nobel prize winners in the US do not always come from elite Ivy League universities, nor are they bred there from the start. For example, before Baruj Benacereff became famous as a Nobel laureate in Harvard, he was at a medical college in Virginia where he had done the bulk of his research. Susumu Tonegawa is now at MIT, but it was his work at the University of San Diego that won him the Nobel prize in chemistry. Van Fitch fired his engines at McGill before landing in Columbia University. Daniel C Tsui, the 1998 Nobel winner in physics, was born in China and spent much of his childhood there. He is currently at Princeton, but discovered the award-winning fractional quantum Hall effect while in Bell Laboratories, New Jersey. George Shull got the Nobel prize when in MIT, but he had made his mark earlier in Oakridge National Laboratory, Tennessee. One could add many more names to the list of those who did their most applauded work elsewhere, but are now in Ivy League institutions.
Even so, there are dozens of Nobel prize winners who continue to teach and research in less-famed places. For example, the University of Pennsylvania boasts of 16 Nobel laureates, Washington State University in St Louis as many as 22, University of Minnesota 12, and so on. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign scores lower with 11 Nobel winners, but one of them, John Bardeen, twice won the coveted prize for physics - the only person ever to receive such an honour. Even lowly Rockefeller University has one Nobel prize winner in its ranks.
As their environment constantly recharges their batteries, American institutions of excellence stay in top research form. They are never short of talent and when they spot it elsewhere, they are quick to bring it in. This is why scientists from Japan, Mexico and Europe have, over the years, moved to America and won Nobel prizes there.
If Harvard or MIT or Stanford has Nobel laureates in practically every classroom, it is because of the research ethos within and outside the Ivy League. As India lacks such breeding grounds, it is unfair to pick on the IITs alone. In Indian universities today, a professor is barely rewarded for quality research. Many faculty members from supposedly the best universities in this country often pass off popular pieces as academic articles, a practice that would be unthinkable elsewhere.
What matters most in India for a 'merit' promotion is actually not merit at all. Research publications in refereed journals are much less important than years of service. This is why on many Indian campuses, there are more professors than lecturers - more chiefs than braves! In the smaller provincial universities, teachers of all ranks are deeply unhappy. They complain bitterly of overloaded lecture schedules and the lack of research and library facilities. Consequently, the IITs get no help from outside and are forced to plod on their own. Is it surprising then that their research output should wilt?
It is not just the percentage fall in funds allocated to research and development that is galling, but there have been cutbacks in library services too. Even information technology companies in India hardly invest in knowledge production which is frontier stuff. While elsewhere these enterprises would set aside 14% to 15% of their sales for R&D, in India it is just about 3%. Nationally, S P Gupta found that our R&D expenditure is 1/60th of South Korea, 1/250th of the US and 1/340th of Japan. Little wonder then that our manpower base of scientists and engineers is 1/100th of the US, 1/50th of South Korea and 1/5th of even China. The last one hurts the most: even China is ahead!
If the IITs are not up to speed, then our policymakers are to blame. At no time in recent years have they truly emphasised research as an integral part of higher education. Against this backdrop, it is a wonder the IITs have come this far and have stoked so many ambitions.
After all, there is a life after IIT in America's Silicon Valley. The Parliament House out on Raisina Hill is not a bad place either; google Jairam Ramesh for directions
The writer is former professor, JNU.
-TOI
Reference
1. IIT-Review report 2004
Jairam Ramesh draws flak for remarks on IIT, IIM faculty
NEW DELHI|AHMEDABAD: Environment minister Jairam Ramesh , who triggered a controversy with his remarks that faculty at IIT . and IIMs were "not world class", drew sharp criticism from politicians and academics on Tuesday.
While the BJP went on the offensive, professors at IIM-Ahmedabad said the minister's assessment was "simplistic" and showed "tremendous ignorance", though they agreed that research was lagging.
BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said, "We cannot have world-class institutions till we have world-class ministers." He said the party was proud of the IITs and IIMs, adding that "ministers should refrain from making such statements".
Terming Ramesh's remarks as "unfortunate", minister of state for science and technology Ashwani Kumar said government scientific and technological institutions have done India proud. "I am the minister for science and technology... I am better equipped to say that our institutions have done us proud... It is time to celebrate their achievements."
HRD minister Kapil Sibal said, "I don't know the context in which Jairam said this, but he must be having inside information since he is from IIT. None of our institutions are world class but we are putting things in place to make some of them world class and hope to achieve it in two to three years.''
IIM-A director Samir Barua said the faculty was too burdened with teaching work to focus on research. "There is no doubt that the quantum of research done by top engineering and management schools in India is not adequate. However, institutes like IIM-A have been dealing with shortage of faculty and due to this research has taken a backseat."
Barua said the quantum of research done should not be the only criteria for judging the faculty, as there were other aspects, such as quality of teaching, advice to the practicing world, and inputs to policy-making.
Anil Gupta, professor at IIM-A, said, "Ramesh has shown tremendous ignorance about the intellectual capabilities of these institutions. I would not deny the fact that they need to do more. But to say that faculty is not making any contribution and it is just because of the quality of students... then people should take the CAT scores and give jobs to them."
Sebastian Morris, another professor at IIM-A, described the remarks as "simplistic". "Most of the faculty would be having same qualification as the faculty in top-class institutions, which means they have done their PhDs abroad," Morris said.
-ET
Fighting a lonely battle
-DIPANKAR GUPTA
Why have the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) performed below potential? Jairam Ramesh may have said it baldly but Kapil Sibal's comb over is hardly convincing.
In 1946, the IITs were just a twinkle in the eye of Ardeshir Dalal, a colonial official. But from then on till they were actually set up post-Independence, the IITs were always meant for training and research. As the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was the obvious and stated model, these twin objectives were bolted into the IIT Act of 1961. Why then did the IITs falter on the research front?
The short answer is that too much was expected of them and too little from everybody else. To ask the IITs to excel on their own is unfair. Researchers work best when they hunt like hounds in a pack. If the US is the centre of advanced learning today, it is because research is active in every college and university in that country. It is not just a Harvard or an MIT that is expected to do all the hard work and go catch the fox. If the IITs have failed, it is because they run alone, while in America, universities sprint together.
Nobel prize winners in the US do not always come from elite Ivy League universities, nor are they bred there from the start. For example, before Baruj Benacereff became famous as a Nobel laureate in Harvard, he was at a medical college in Virginia where he had done the bulk of his research. Susumu Tonegawa is now at MIT, but it was his work at the University of San Diego that won him the Nobel prize in chemistry. Van Fitch fired his engines at McGill before landing in Columbia University. Daniel C Tsui, the 1998 Nobel winner in physics, was born in China and spent much of his childhood there. He is currently at Princeton, but discovered the award-winning fractional quantum Hall effect while in Bell Laboratories, New Jersey. George Shull got the Nobel prize when in MIT, but he had made his mark earlier in Oakridge National Laboratory, Tennessee. One could add many more names to the list of those who did their most applauded work elsewhere, but are now in Ivy League institutions.
Even so, there are dozens of Nobel prize winners who continue to teach and research in less-famed places. For example, the University of Pennsylvania boasts of 16 Nobel laureates, Washington State University in St Louis as many as 22, University of Minnesota 12, and so on. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign scores lower with 11 Nobel winners, but one of them, John Bardeen, twice won the coveted prize for physics - the only person ever to receive such an honour. Even lowly Rockefeller University has one Nobel prize winner in its ranks.
As their environment constantly recharges their batteries, American institutions of excellence stay in top research form. They are never short of talent and when they spot it elsewhere, they are quick to bring it in. This is why scientists from Japan, Mexico and Europe have, over the years, moved to America and won Nobel prizes there.
If Harvard or MIT or Stanford has Nobel laureates in practically every classroom, it is because of the research ethos within and outside the Ivy League. As India lacks such breeding grounds, it is unfair to pick on the IITs alone. In Indian universities today, a professor is barely rewarded for quality research. Many faculty members from supposedly the best universities in this country often pass off popular pieces as academic articles, a practice that would be unthinkable elsewhere.
What matters most in India for a 'merit' promotion is actually not merit at all. Research publications in refereed journals are much less important than years of service. This is why on many Indian campuses, there are more professors than lecturers - more chiefs than braves! In the smaller provincial universities, teachers of all ranks are deeply unhappy. They complain bitterly of overloaded lecture schedules and the lack of research and library facilities. Consequently, the IITs get no help from outside and are forced to plod on their own. Is it surprising then that their research output should wilt?
It is not just the percentage fall in funds allocated to research and development that is galling, but there have been cutbacks in library services too. Even information technology companies in India hardly invest in knowledge production which is frontier stuff. While elsewhere these enterprises would set aside 14% to 15% of their sales for R&D, in India it is just about 3%. Nationally, S P Gupta found that our R&D expenditure is 1/60th of South Korea, 1/250th of the US and 1/340th of Japan. Little wonder then that our manpower base of scientists and engineers is 1/100th of the US, 1/50th of South Korea and 1/5th of even China. The last one hurts the most: even China is ahead!
If the IITs are not up to speed, then our policymakers are to blame. At no time in recent years have they truly emphasised research as an integral part of higher education. Against this backdrop, it is a wonder the IITs have come this far and have stoked so many ambitions.
After all, there is a life after IIT in America's Silicon Valley. The Parliament House out on Raisina Hill is not a bad place either; google Jairam Ramesh for directions
The writer is former professor, JNU.
-TOI
Reference
1. IIT-Review report 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment