Show Para
Passage 5
A few weeks ago, I ran into an old friend who is currently one of the mandarins deciding India's economic and financial policies. He asked “And so, how is IIT doing?” As one can only indulge in friendly banter at such gatherings, I responded with ‘Not so well actually. Your market-friendly policies have forced up to raise the fee, so we have 50% fewer Ph.D. applicants this year'. Not batting an eyelid, he shot back: “Obviously. Your Ph.D. students don’t have any market value.” Taken aback, I shifted to a more serious tone and tried to start a discussion on the need for research in these globalised times. But, he had already walked away. The last word on the imperatives of the ‘market’ had been spoken.
This view of higher education should not have surprised me. Worthies who look at everything as consumer products classify higher education as a ‘non-merit’ good. Non-merit goods are those where only the individual benefits from acquiring them and not the society as a whole. Multilateral agencies like The World Bank have too been pushing countries like India to stop subsidies to higher education.
When Ron Brown, former US commerce secretary visited India, a public meeting was organized at IIT Delhi. At that meeting I asked him: “I understand that since the 19th century all the way up to the 1970s, most land grant and State universities in the US virtually provided free education to State citizens. Was that good for the economy, or should they have charged high fees in the early 20th century? He replied, “It was great for the economy. It was one of the best things that the US government did at that particular time in American history-building institutions of higher education which were accessible to the masses of the people. I think it is one of the reasons why our economy grew and prospered, one of the way in which the US was able to close some of its social gaps. So, people, who lived in rural areas, would have the same kind of access to higher education as people living in other parts of the country. It was one of the reasons for making America strong."
Our policy-makers seem unaware that their mentors in the US did not follow policies at home which they now prescribe for other countries. Ron Brown's remarks summarise the importance of policy-makers in the US place on higher education as a vehicle for upward mobility for the poorer sectors of their population. Even today, a majority of Americans study in State-run institutions. Some of these institutions, like Berkeley and the Universities of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Texas are among the best in the world. The annual tuition charged from State residents (about $5000 a year) is about a month’s salary paid to a lecturer. Even this fee is waived for most students. In addition, students receive stipends for books, food and hostel charges. The basic principle is that no student who gets admission to a university should have to depend on parental support if it is not available.
Ron Brown's remarks went unnoticed in India. Every other day some luminary or the other opines that universities and technical education institutions should increase their charges and that such education should not be subsidized. Most editorials echo these sentiments. Eminent industrialists pontificate that we should run educational institutions like business houses. Visiting experts from the Bank and the IMF, in their newly emerging concern for the poor, advise us to divert funds from higher education to primary education.
A few weeks ago, I ran into an old friend who is currently one of the mandarins deciding India's economic and financial policies. He asked “And so, how is IIT doing?” As one can only indulge in friendly banter at such gatherings, I responded with ‘Not so well actually. Your market-friendly policies have forced up to raise the fee, so we have 50% fewer Ph.D. applicants this year'. Not batting an eyelid, he shot back: “Obviously. Your Ph.D. students don’t have any market value.” Taken aback, I shifted to a more serious tone and tried to start a discussion on the need for research in these globalised times. But, he had already walked away. The last word on the imperatives of the ‘market’ had been spoken.
This view of higher education should not have surprised me. Worthies who look at everything as consumer products classify higher education as a ‘non-merit’ good. Non-merit goods are those where only the individual benefits from acquiring them and not the society as a whole. Multilateral agencies like The World Bank have too been pushing countries like India to stop subsidies to higher education.
When Ron Brown, former US commerce secretary visited India, a public meeting was organized at IIT Delhi. At that meeting I asked him: “I understand that since the 19th century all the way up to the 1970s, most land grant and State universities in the US virtually provided free education to State citizens. Was that good for the economy, or should they have charged high fees in the early 20th century? He replied, “It was great for the economy. It was one of the best things that the US government did at that particular time in American history-building institutions of higher education which were accessible to the masses of the people. I think it is one of the reasons why our economy grew and prospered, one of the way in which the US was able to close some of its social gaps. So, people, who lived in rural areas, would have the same kind of access to higher education as people living in other parts of the country. It was one of the reasons for making America strong."
Our policy-makers seem unaware that their mentors in the US did not follow policies at home which they now prescribe for other countries. Ron Brown's remarks summarise the importance of policy-makers in the US place on higher education as a vehicle for upward mobility for the poorer sectors of their population. Even today, a majority of Americans study in State-run institutions. Some of these institutions, like Berkeley and the Universities of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin and Texas are among the best in the world. The annual tuition charged from State residents (about $5000 a year) is about a month’s salary paid to a lecturer. Even this fee is waived for most students. In addition, students receive stipends for books, food and hostel charges. The basic principle is that no student who gets admission to a university should have to depend on parental support if it is not available.
Ron Brown's remarks went unnoticed in India. Every other day some luminary or the other opines that universities and technical education institutions should increase their charges and that such education should not be subsidized. Most editorials echo these sentiments. Eminent industrialists pontificate that we should run educational institutions like business houses. Visiting experts from the Bank and the IMF, in their newly emerging concern for the poor, advise us to divert funds from higher education to primary education.
© examsnet.com
Question : 22
Total: 100
Go to Question: