[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Here we are: Prof. vs. Student!

The resolution, in policy terms, could be something like this:

primary education free to all, based on a voucher system (parents choose which 
school to send their children to; schools are subsidised on the basis of the 
number of children who choose to go there; the market resolves the problem of 
quality, government does not bother to police who teaches whom what); 

secondary education subsidised but not free (those living below the official 
poverty level - I don't think I know what this is now, but that does not matter 
- have scholarships/bursaries/freeships, call them what you like).  But 
secondary school fees are kept low, in any case.  Any schools which are private 
(or "public") schools can charge additional fees if they can get sufficient room
in the market.  Again, government does not bother with which school teaches 
what, the market sorts out the question of quality, with "nationwide" school 
exams say at age 15, 16 and 18 (or whatever is appropriate nowadays).  Does this
take away the present constitutional right of the states to provide/regulate 
education?  Not necessarily.  All it does is to provide a nation-wide benchmark,
so that people of one state can compare the provision/achievement of their state
against that of the rest of the country;

university/tertiary education should be available for those who can either pay 
for it themselves (entirely - no subsidies) or for those who are willing to 
borrow money to pay for it (commercial loans from commercial organisations, as 
in the UK/USA) or are willing to sign a bond to serve as teachers (on full pay) 
for a certain number of years, wherever the national government sends them - say
for the same number of years as they undertake tertiary education.  After that 
of course they are free to go wherever they like, including spending the rest of
their lives abroad if they have the opportunity to do so and want to do so.  
Again, government does not bother with any "input" control, only focuses on 
"output" control (I think the present system of exams throughout the country is 
probably okay, except for the extensive cheating which goes on, and which must 
be stopped).

I hope that with the success of IP policies, we will create conditions in India 
such that people WANT to continue living in India and not give the benefit of 
their talents to other countries.

Professor Prabhu Guptara
Director, Organisational and Executive Development
Wolfsberg Executive Development Centre
(a subsidiary of UBS AG)
CH-8272 Ermatingen
Tel: + 41.71.663.5605
Fax: +41.71.663.5590
e-mail: prabhu.guptara@ubs.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Here we are: Prof. vs. Student!
Author:  sabhlok (sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu) at nyuxuu
Date:    18.10.98 05:23

Prof Subroto Roy, from IIT Kharagpur, said: 
Mr. Gala is surely right.  Higher education financing is a scandal in 
India. As a professor here at IIT, I see absolutely no reason why the 
taxpayer should be subsidising each BTech student to the tune of some 
Rs. 200,000 per year just to see him/her disappear to some US 
university's Master's program followed by his family in due course.  
India gains nothing at all. There may be a case for subsidizing e.g. 
Mining Engineering or Agricultural Engineering to some extent but 
absolutely none for Computer Science or Electronics or Mechanical.
Charudatt, in USA for umpteen years, and a product of IIT, Kharagpur, 
Again on a personal note, I know my parents could never have sent me to 
study at IIT if the costs had not been publicly funded. The same is true 
for 90% of my college classmates.
I think we need a proper debate and a mechanism to solve this 'problem' 
- I hope Charu's case is NOT for taxpayers of India funding IITs so that 
he can spend his life in USA.

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/