Higher Education in India is one of the world's most exciting opportunity, and one of the most frustrating problems.
The maths are obvious. India has hit upon a massive demographic opportunity, with more than 2 million people on average reaching college-going age every month. Its young population is expected to form a quarter of worlds working age people in a decades time, and its economy, driven by the power of domestic consumption, is expected to become the world's third largest. Despite the recent poor showing of India's rupee and near-death experience of some of its banks, India's economy is also one of the most resilient, given its relatively low exposure to external debt, frugal habits of its people and the strong internal markets. It is expected to wither any global economic storms better than any of its peers.
Yet, despite the massive expansion of the Higher Education sector - 10 colleges opened a day on average between 2006 and 2014 - the Gross Enrollment Ratio, the ratio of the number of people who go to college against those who should, remain stubbornly stuck below 20%. The colleges and universities remain grossly underutilised: Average college size in India is only around 600 students against China's over 8000, constricting the ability of the new institutions to invest in faculty, facilities or resources. The expansion of the education sector has been mostly counterproductive: Without a fundamental rethinking of the structure and purpose of Higher Education, the new colleges created capacity without capability, restricting the possibilities of strategic change.
While this set the right scene for groundbreaking innovation in Higher Education - here is a possibility of extending Higher Education to over 20 million new students (if China is the benchmark, it has added 20 million new students in the sector over the last decade)! The only comparable opportunity is in Africa, but that's not one country and potentially a decade behind in physical and social infrastructure, not to mention issues of political instability in different parts of it. India is where the promises of all new Higher Education business models ought to be tested.
However, India, so far, has been a tale of disappointment, particularly for 'disruptive' companies trying to capitalise on this opportunity. Part of the reason is indeed that these companies, technology companies funded by venture capital, operated with flat-world assumptions and sought to impose a 'one size fits all' education model: That does not work - not in India, not anywhere - as education is a culturally determined activity and labour markets are historically shaped. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the various foreign universities approached India to capitalise on their 'foreignness', in the hope that those new millions of students will buy their superiority unquestioningly and form a beeline: Those hopes were also mostly dashed as pragmatic students used mediocre universities mostly to get to a foreign land and new life, but not for much else. But there is a similarity between these two very different kinds of disappointment: The party is just beginning in India and these early attempts were, well, too early.
I say this on account of three fundamental changes taking place in India right now.
First, the mix of Indian families sending their children to college is fundamentally different now than they were ever a few years ago. Indian middle class were predominated by 'government families', where the primary bread-earner, and the decision-maker, worked directly for the government or in a public sector enterprise. This implied a certain view of life and preferences about education. However, the growth of the private sector since the 90s, and particularly the expansion of IT/ IT service industries, have created millions of new professional families whose children have just started entering college.
Second, whole generations of Indians since Independence grew up on the staple of home-made brands and watched the state television channels. India got TV only in the middle 70s, much after even its neighbouring countries and also Internet access only in 1995. And, while it did a good catch up job since the 90s, attitudes towards tech changes with generations. Let's say that the first cable TV generation is coming of age in India right now and one could perhaps get a sense of the technology lag. It is not a like for like comparison, as India's first cable TV generation is also its first Internet generation, but that in fact emphasizes the point I am trying to make: That we are at a tipping point in terms of who's going to college right now?
Third, and this is where a problem may be an opportunity, India is also at a tipping point about its engagement with the outside world. We may hear a lot about Indian IT, but it's India's domestic market which has really driven the economy so far. Indian exports remain minuscule and generally, global knowledge and expertise in Indian businesses are quite low, partly because of domestic focus and partly because of the narrow base of the export sector. This made India one of the most inward-looking countries in the world, where many educated middle-class persons did not have a passport and have rarely travelled abroad. But this is expected to change as globalisation changes shape. Globalisation 1.0, that of outsourcing to cheap locations, made some Indians richer and created a whole new middle class, which forms the base of a new culture. But that phase is well and truly over. What happens next, with the political reactions against globalisation of the kind in the developed nations, is open to speculation, but there are only two ways to go: One is an international network of autarkic states, which would mean negative economic growth for years and potential breaking of the nations; or, more likely, a new global trading system which seeks to correct the structural imbalances such as India maintaining an autarkic and locked-down Higher Ed system while running global back offices. Love it or hate it, Trumpeconomics is just a symptom of this shift, the other parts of which are automation of the jobs and the creation of new jobs and roles. The narrow globalisation is in trouble, but this should make global engagements more broad-based in India, with service sectors in India being more open and Indian companies competing for more knowledge-intensive work.
These three factors together would change the demand side of Indian Higher Ed. Indian colleges are wholly unprepared for it. This is partly because India's private Higher Education sector is used to operate under a License Raj, which is the current norm, and when they have had a problem in the past, they have run to the government for support. They have fought, like any protectionist industry lobby, to keep foreign intrusion out. Indian regulations are complex because these lobby groups controlled the regulations. But their influences are waning, with their own business models facing challenges as it fails to impress the new consumers and adapt to the new globalisation. This would make the space for innovative global players.
However, for any global education provider looking into India, there are things to be kept in mind. First, Indian Higher Ed is not necessarily a market for disruption, but for the building. A global player, with its higher operating costs and longer learning curve, isn't well suited to convert non-consumers to the consumer and change the game; rather, it is to provide the well-heeled Indian middle-class boys with an education they have been looking for. This means a different set of strategies - matching the local price points but excelling in service levels and student engagement - and deeper engagement.
Second, it is too tempting for the global players to get fooled by initial Indian adoration for things foreign. It doesn't last long and Indian students are savvy enough to work out their side of the bargain. There must be value on the table, and a foreign degree would only be valued if it has relevance in the local labour market.
Third, complaining about regulatory difficulties is not a business strategy. Every country has regulation and if one thinks Indian regulations are difficult, one should try Malaysia or China. Indian regulations are complex and opaque, true, but if one considers this a significant market, it is worth engaging into. It only shows flawed strategic thinking when a company spends millions of dollars managing regulation in the US and then attempting to circumvent regulations in India, the biggest market of all: It shows that the company has remained a prisoner of the outdated and irrelevant strategy of selling foreign degrees.
So, in conclusion, India, the world's most exciting higher education market, is just coming into the party. Its Higher Education sector is undergoing profound changes in the demand profile and this presents great opportunities for education providers and investors. Technology is going to play a significant part in this transition, as would global connections and know-how. Which global provider makes it in India, though, would depend on how seriously they engage in it. The superficial approaches that failed in the past wouldn't work, but the solution is simple: A serious strategic engagement with India.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.