The other thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411695) on HN took a turn for the angry and the personal so I will put my thoughts here. Though there will be few personal bits here as well.

It is ok to be dissatisfied with the education one received in India (and blame your parents for making poor choices while you are at it). But for the complaints to be understood by a non-indian I thing some perspective is in order. I cannot even broach open all that needs to be said to even set the groundwork for a wholesome discussion. So I will stick to few select quirks that are quite unique to the Indian scene.

The first thing is that size of the population seeking college education is just mind-bogglingly huge. College education is perceived as mandatory. Till before a decade ago college education was thought to be the only, yes only, conceivable route to an honourable livelihood. I am talking about people who live above the basic subsitence levels and living (damn! why do I have this. I start typing phonetically when tired and dont even notice it. Meant leaving of course) out the richest.

On one hand we have this huge demand on the other we have the fact that college education is unbelievable cheap, or was. Things are changing now. It is still mostly cheap. To put things in perspective the entirety of my tuition bills for my undergraduate studies in engineering was $15. Yes that is right $15 for all four years put together. The way this works out is through govt subsidies. Furthermore the subsidies are not evenly distributed. There are a few top tier institutes that get a lot, less so for the second tier, drastically less so for the ones that are lower. I think the idea was to establish a a few key stirling institutes and drive traffic there. Part of the reason they converged on this model was scarcity of resources, financial as well as human and the fact that the govt was doing all the lifting.

But the capacity that these institutes can handle is tiny compared to the demand. Hence intense competiton. The only way to get flow control without increasing capacity was to make the process more and more competitive. And that competiton was not always aligned with the final goal of producing a well rounded and competent student.

Then comes the teachers. Apart from the top tier colleges, a teaching job is mostly an easy free parking spot. You can get by doing absolutely nothing. So it attracts people who want to do nothing, or who could not find other suitable means of employment. The salaries are modest, but given what you have to do to earn it, it was pretty much a handout. A part of it was also to absorb the grad students that were being produced and were not in high demand because of then much slower economy.

What about private colleges you say. They used to have a stigma attached. private colleges were the places you went to when you werent scholastically good enough. How a rich dad would bail out his kid. Well the not so rich too, they would rather go bankrupt than deny a college education to their children. These colleges were mostly a glorified retail shop for degrees. Because of this they would not attract the good teachers. But this is changing slowly as they are throwing unignorable wads of money. But people still perceive it as a fight between honour and money.

Now lets turn to the other thread. It was mentioned there that parents decide what you want to study and it is either medicine or engineering. Yes there are parents who are control freaks, quite a few of them actually but the phenomena is not as nearly as widespread as the other thread would make you believe. But yes there is a huge, huge bias for opting for medicine or engineering. The immediate purpose of education is seen as a means of securing your future rather than for the purpose of edification. Till before a decade ago the security in those professions were head and shoulders above the other. By a huge margin. And even then around 60 to 70% of the graduating engineers would find a job right after graduation. A scenario that is quite drastically different now. So you can imagine how the other "riskier" propositions fared. I too was advised to straddle the options of medicine and engineering and did so. Hated the memorization that went into biology. But now I do not begrudge that at all. I feel I am at an advantage because of it.

But how was the quality of the undergrad education you ask?
Well I went to a institute that was shy of the top tier, and much of my undergrads I was quite wasted anyway. But very early enough I developed deep contempt for many of our teachers and chose to educate myself on my own. I cut classes frequently but would spend time hidden in the library reading something of interest. Way more productive than a lecture that I was sure I would get nothing from. I started of as a mechanical engineer (well manufacturing to be precise) and now am doing machine learning and there was a bit of robotics down the way, and CNC machine programing and programing computational geometry algorithms in between.

The government is aware of the problem and actually is trying to recruit heavily from the US universities. But then again for the top tier colleges.