Year-back issue @BPUT

Here is my take on the “year back” issue.

I start by assuming that everyone associated with the education sector is genuinely interested in handling the challenges related to inclusive growth and believes in healthy globalization.

Given the above assumption, in my opinion, the “year-back” system should not be seen in isolation. If BPUT wants to retain “quality control” over all the constituent/affiliated colleges, then it has to work on holistic measures to enhance the process-capability of a centralized system of education delivery. In such a system, “year-back” will be meaningful only when there is a collective ownership of the process (from admissions=>academic-delivery=>evaluation=>placement). This will require a lot of cooperation and coordination between the promoters of private colleges and the government functionaries. Efforts should be taken to involve the other stakeholders as well by balancing their expectations. With Orissa taking steps to welcome the industry, it would be essential to have the corporations participating actively in manpower development. Opportunities need to be availed for better Industry-institute interaction. Surprisingly, corporations have been left out of this entire debate as of now. The industry department of the GoO should be looking into this aspect.

As reported in today’s newspaper, BPUT is considering deployment of resources for (a) Developing a cadre of centralized faculty (b) Implementing smart-cards for monitoring student attendance (c) Monitoring faculty activities through e-systems and (d) Developing a question bank with solutions. I doubt if these measures are going to bring collective responsibility in administering quality. We do not see much scope for active participation of either the promoters or the corporations. To meet the needs of the industry we need to factor in the requirements of the industry. Further, technology should be used to re-engineer the existing processes and not for merely monitoring the same old processes. Case in point is monitoring of classroom attendance - it will not give the much needed fillip to the creative world of academics. Rather, technology should be used for creating innovative modes of interaction between the stakeholders - certainly for the young generation (of students and teachers). Moreover, it could be used in enabling the corporations to participate in the academic development process. Finally, if the stakeholder community decides to adopt “year-back” as a mode of controlling quality output, then all attempts must be made beforehand (in the upstream process) to ensure that the students are given a fair chance to clear the various “quality check points” to be able to qualify as “industry-ready”. Here also technology could be deployed and it has been perhaps partly suggested by BPUT.

The stakeholder community of a centralized set up (as you know) would be definitely large and it would not be easy to allow individual freedom and creativity. Therefore, it would be better to decentralize and provide distributed process capabilities at the level of the schools and colleges with their own inherent set of stakeholders. Thereafter, if the stakeholder community of (say) College-X decides to have “year-back” as a means of ensuring quality, then so be it. Let them be allowed the freedom to decide their own quality parameters. BPUT can use its resources (instead) to setup benchmarks, provide constructive guidelines and develop various knowledge resources to support the autonomous colleges. In addition, it can continue evaluating the students of those colleges who express their desire to be governed by a centralized system of evaluation.

It is surprising to see the oldest college of the state (i.e., UCE Burla) still not enjoying the autonomy that it deserves. Please check if this is true. In my opinion, colleges both in the private and public sector should be given the freedom to develop their own capabilities should they express the desire to be fully autonomous.

Corporate Social Responsibility @BPUT

The BPUT authorities are trying hard to bring sanity into the higher education sector that is growing at a very fast rate. Under the 11th five-year plan this rate is bound to grow even faster with greater private participation. With corporations worldwide trying to seek out opportunities at the bottom of the pyramid, India is becoming aware of the challenges related to inclusive-growth. Under these circumstances, the state should be careful in exercising controls. Excessive non-market oriented controls fail to meet the expectations of young minds driven by aspirational goals. Such ineffective controls then give way to unhealthy aspirational politics. Hence a regulatory framework, designed to balance stakeholder expectations, needs to be put in place.

Majority of parents and students want good placements and are, therefore, willing to pay for private education. Most academic administrators want to ensure “quality in education” albeit using outdated experience from a protected economy. They use evaluation systems that are just not good enough for the new economy. While companies need “industry-ready” engineers, it is yet to be determined that the performance in the BPUT exam is strongly correlated with post-placement job-performance. To counter the deadlock with the students, instead of suggesting holistic solutions, the Academic Council has formed a 7-member panel to assess only the exam system.

It is time we became the trendsetters instead of emulating what other states are doing. BPUT is well placed under a Vice-Chancellor who understands the various quality models that can be used to develop distributed process-capabilities. Implementation of these models would ensure greater responsibility and autonomy with built-in accountability at the level of the schools. The schools have their own independent stakeholder community to guide them in their development. Such an arrangement would also ensure greater involvement of the placement company at the level of the school.

BPUT needs to develop the regulatory framework to create the necessary competitive environment with the schools given the option of self-certification of quality. It is time the industry department and the state government supported the VC in thinking and implementing out-of-box solutions to our existing problems. Academic administrators need to create effective learner-centric modules leveraging the power of information technology to hold the interest of creative young minds. They cannot afford to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. For instance, use of smart cards for monitoring attendance may result in a tinkering effect that may lead to stifling creativity in the academic environment. Finally, when corporations are poised to virtually rule the state, it is time we engaged the companies into some serious corporate social responsibility.