A few days ago, I was completely bleak about the possibility of introducing Higher Education innovation in India. (See earlier post here) However, my key points were perhaps already cliched, and with the benefit of little more perspective, it is worthwhile to review this topic with a different start point - what shape can Higher Ed innovation in India take?
First, there is an enormous amount of corruption in Indian Higher Education sector, and it is growing with commercialisation. The students are justifiably sceptical about anything new or disruptive, and would rather put their faith on tried and tested, despite knowing that these public institutions are quaint and could not care less for them.
Second, while the students know that the choices they have are all poor, the default reaction to this realisation is not to try something new or innovative, but to ensure that one does not do anything foolish. So, while Indian education seems ripe for new and disruptive propositions, education innovation remains difficult because of lack of venturesome consumption. (See here)
Third, the lack of venturesome consumption is perhaps also generally true for the Indian society (see my earlier post about innovation in India in general) and particularly, the view of Kishore Mahbubani that India is an Open Society with a Closed Mind. In a number of ways, this general approach defines India's ambivalence towards foreign universities, where the country behaves like a retired Prima Donna waiting to be wooed but can not find any suitors on her terms. Despite the generally poor standards of its Higher Education provision, India has not allowed any foreign university on its soil, primarily because it would upset the dynamic of Indian Higher Education.
Fourth, the dynamic of Higher Education in India, growing from colonial roots, is defined to be by and of the privileged class, for entry into privileged class. The government guards this structure as zealously as it can. In some way, the failure to democratise education was the biggest failure of the founders of Modern India, and there is no evidence they even thought about it. The policy thinking in India is always about how to keep the access to Higher Education straight and narrow, along with a quality control regime that is punitive rather than development centric. And, under the new Government, the policy regime is growing even more intrusive, not the other way around.
Fifth, when one-time Prime Ministerial Advisor, CNR Rao, a distinguished Chemist, observed that India has an examination system but no education system, he nailed it right. A system designed to maintain privileges, rather than develop the potential of its people, are usually examination-centric, and India is an extreme example. The most successful education businesses in India today, which are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and listed in Stock Markets, are all exam-prep businesses. So, businesses make money from education in India, but not through disruption. They do it by sustaining the system.
A system which is reaching its breaking point, that is. One of the problems of economic development is that while its gains may be extremely unequal, the aspirations are more difficult to limit. While India has a growing middle class (though its size, for all the exalted talk, remains puny, about 150 million, compared to China's 800 million), its zone of exclusion is much more severe and its culture more individualistic (than China's). Besides, Indias development model, which for the last 25 years, depended too much on Government action (liberalisation, infrastructure build-up etc), now needs to be balanced by wider global successes of private businesses. The few Back-office champions India had spawned earlier seems to be reaching the limits of their growth, primarily as they can not find enough people. If Infosys had to interview 1.2 million applicants to recruit their 10,000 new hires, that may get them mention in a business book, but it still remains a huge waste of time and effort. On an average, Indian companies report that only 15% of who they interview (which is a shortlist based on some fairly demanding criteria they set in the first place) can be recruited, and still they let go about 60% of the people they recruit within the first year.
So, this is how Indias education equation looks. About 15% of those who should go to college do so, about 50% of those finish college (7.5% of the relevant population), about 25% of these, in various technical disciplines, qualify for the interviews with these various large companies (2%), of which 15% gets selected (0.3%) and then 40% of them are retained (0.12%). At every step, indeed, I erred on the optimistic side, and yet, I am staring at 0.12% of the youth finding meaningful employment, jobs that come with a future, that is. Indeed, this figure should be supplemented by those who go to work for the government, but, leaving out the dead-end jobs, these will not vastly improve the percentages here. In summary, one can say that there is a very large number of people who are non-consumers, they have no access to meaningful Higher Education, and therefore, an opportunity for disruptive innovation, notwithstanding all the roadblocks listed above.
While this equation gets worse and worse every year, it has remained difficult to spawn meaningful innovation in Indian Higher Ed. There may two reasons for this.
First, many of these disruptive attempts come from outside India. While these attempts bring to the country a number of good ideas - and disruptive ones - they are inherently limited, because of cost structures and business design, to the limited number of privileged people who are already being well-served. At best, they could aspire to serve the 0.3%, the number of those who could get a job in the global companies [because they can afford first world cost structures and go to a premium private institutions and speak at least one international language] and work to improve upon the 40% retention rate. The big opportunity, however, lies upstream, particularly in expanding access to technical disciplines, college completion rates and indeed, access to Higher Ed. It remains unattractive for most education businesses coming from outside India to work on these problems. However, as one astute Indian investor observed, without working on these deeper issues, any business remains limited to the existing social context of Indian Higher Education, and is, therefore, more vulnerable to inherent conservatism of the traditional customers. It is only by working on these deeper problems, bringing access to those who do not have it and creating a meaningful Higher Ed experience, one could break the social model of Higher Education, and therefore, disrupt the sector. This remains beyond the business model of the global companies looking into India. [Also, the perils of being global is that all too soon, one starts assessing the market attractiveness, and leaves India because it is all too difficult].
Second, the Indian companies have very little incentive to disrupt the market. They are a victim of the demand curse, that India has so many other opportunities - why not work on one more test prep business - which are more attractive to investors. Besides, as one Senior Executive of Pearson Affordable Learning Fund observed, there is very little good quality entrepreneurship in education in India. Often, you will meet entrepreneurs who are trying to start two or three businesses at a time, simply because they do not know which one may win investor approval, leading to, predictably, failures in all of them. And, besides, it is still a Market for Lemons, where the unscrupulous thrive and drive out the scrupulous operators.
So, there are demand-side reasons complementing supply-side reasons for lack of innovation in Higher Ed in India. It is difficult to see how privately backed businesses can break this deadlock, even if the global Higher Ed is at the cusp of a massive disruption. There is indeed a market opportunity, but it will require an unique local-global format (or glocal format, as Rahul Choudaha calls it) to really change anything in Indian Higher Ed.
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,
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
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
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
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
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.