From: kumarr@ivan.intel.com (Kumar Ranganathan)
Subject: Re: IIT's and REC's. Training factories for US? (was: NRI's returning to India
Reply-To: kumarr@ivan.intel.com
Organization: In article <1992Sep29.011332.113632@ua1ix.ua.edu>, ngopalas@ha05.eng.ua.edu writes:
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:34:08 GMT

|> 
|> [Godbole's and Vij's articles deleted to save BW]
|> 
|> I am glad NRI's are returning to India, this is quite commendable on their
|> part they feel enough for their home country to go back and serve there again.
|> 
|> I think we should talk about a more serious problem, the drain of talent from  
|> India. Subsidized education has taken its toll on the educational system in     
|> India. Why should the taxpayer pay for the IIT's and the REC's, when they      
|> are not going to serve the country by staying back and using their learning    
|> for the betterment of society which paid for their education. It is as if      
|> the IIT's and REC's were set up to train guys for the US industry] Compare     
|> this situation to the doctors who are also educated at taxpayer expense. They   
|> are required to work for five years in rural areas before they set up practice 
|> (mint money]) in cities. Similarly before engineers embark on the dollar hunt  
|> they should be made to work for a certain period of time in India. At the      
|> very least they should be made to pay back whatever the Govt has spent on their
|> education. A few thousand dollars will hardly make a difference in the pocket   
|> of the professionals here. If people are not willing to go back then they should
|> at least reimburse India for whatever she has spent on them. Sound reasonable? 
|>  

Your observations merit debate. In addition to the points you have already made
I would submit that a subsidization of higher education to the extent that it has
been done in India corrupts education itself. Education that comes so cheap loses
value and frequently results in churning out degrees instead of competent engineers.
The subsidization of higher education by the taxpayer has resulted in gross distortions
in the market resulting (as usual) in an unhealthy set of incentives on both the
supply and demand sides. The students, not having had to pay the true costs of a
higher education, either from their pockets or by a loan, are content to accept what
is frequently a mediocre education - rarely do they demand their money's worth. The
faculty, on the other hand, free from market pressures, enjoy what virtually amounts
to a lifelong tenure and concentrate on internal politicking and influence peddling while the quality of the education purveyed is thrown to the winds.

It can be argued that a subsidized education is a means of providing equal opportunity
to all, particularly to those who would be unable to afford it. While I agree with the
end, I disagree with the means. Before we launch into a controversial debate I would
suggest we ask the following questions:

1. To what extent has the current method of funding higher education fulfilled its
   goals ? (Both in terms of providing opportunity and in a return on investment to
   the taxpayer).

2. Can equal opportunity be provided by a less blunt instrument ? Instead of 
   subsidizing it, maybe the cost of higher education should be its real market
   cost; but student loans should be made available so that a higher education is
   within the reach of every aspiring student. This would provide an incentive for
   the student to demand a quality education, and an incentive for educational 
   institutions to offer a quality education. Alternately, if higher education is
   subsidized, there must be an obligation on the student to use that education
   towards some form of community service for a period of time after graduation.
   Only then can there be a return on the taxpayer's investment. It appears that
   the current system of financing education lacks these checks and balances and is
   sorely in need of reform.