Praxis Business School’s relentless pursuit of creating industry-ready managers reached another milestone when ICICI Bank selected Praxis as its academic partner and endowed the Dean’s Chair with the purpose of promoting ‘Banking and Financial Services’. The MoU was signed between Mr. Saurabh Singh, GM, HRM, ICICI Bank and Prof. Charanpreet Singh, Associate Dean, Praxis Business School at the Praxis campus on the 25th of February, 2011.

The MoU requires Praxis to develop curriculum and case studies, create certification courses and undertake research in the area of banking and financial services industry, in partnership with ICICI Bank.

[Seen in the pic: Prof. Charanpreet Singh, Prof. Govindrajan, Mr. Saurabh Singh - GM HR, ICICI Bank, Mr. Paulus Delima - DGM HR, ICICI Bank, Mr. Kamlesh Sajnani - Chairman of the BoG of Praxis Business School]

Mr. Saurabh Singh felt that this collaboration could offer direction to the industry to cope with a dynamic and complex business environment. It would also address the need to create a local body of knowledge relevant to the Indian situation which was unique in many respects. He added that after having worked closely with Praxis, he was convinced that Praxis had the credentials to make a compelling contribution in this regard.

Prof. Govindrajan, Dean and ICICI Bank Chair, Praxis Business School said that “For a fledgling Institution stubborn in its determination to make a difference, this is a wonderful opportunity – and we would like to assure ICICI Bank that we will approach these areas with the same unflinching passion as we have approached academics – with the same objective – to create value for our stakeholders.”

]]> http://praxis.ac.in/2011/03/icici-bank-endows-the-dean%e2%80%99s-chair-at-praxis-business-school/feed/ 0 http://praxis.ac.in/2010/02/paper-tigers-and-sour-grapes/ http://praxis.ac.in/2010/02/paper-tigers-and-sour-grapes/#comments Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:13:15 +0000 Admin http://praxis.ac.in/?p=716 This article was written by Dr. Prithwis Mukerjee. You can read more of his blogs at http://yantrajaal.blogspot.com

This article was written by Dr. Prithwis Mukerjee. You can read more of his blogs at http://yantrajaal.blogspot.com

Why do universities exist? At the most abstract level, academic institutions are supported because it is believed that new thoughts and ideas that emerge from them will lead to better standards of life and living in th civil society that funds the creation and sustenance of these institutions. These thoughts and ideas are in the form of new knowledge that is both created and disseminated in an efficient manner and this dual role, namely creation and dissemination, is structured as research and teaching. Hence the faculty of an academic institution is expected to generate new thoughts and ideas through original research and ensure that not only these ideas, but other equally useful ideas generated elsewhere, at other institutions, is communicated to the students in a lucid and interesting manner. Hence a good academician is expected to contribute to research as well as to teaching — plus of course the inevitable overhead of administrating a complex institution so that it can do its primary roles in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

If we leave aside administrative duties, then what distinguishes a good academician from the not-so-good? Obviously we are left with the two other functions: research and teaching, but more often than not, faculty is evaluated — both during new recruitment and during ‘promotion’ — on the quality of research, rarely on the ability to teach. This is a dubious yardstick but even it is not — and I am not admitting that it is not dubious — then the next shadow of doubt is cast by the metrics used to gauge the quality of research: the number of publications in peer reviewed journals. This leaves us with two questions namely (a) Is the number of publications a fair metric for the quality of research? And (b) Should research be the only yardstick for faculty evaluation?

A little thought will reveal that the two questions are independent but let us address the second one first. The obvious answer is that research should not be the only yardstick — Isaac Newton was a terrible communicator while George Gamow and Martin Gardener were wonderful teachers but were not known for any great discovery. [OK, Gamow introduced the idea of a Big Bang ...] The not so obvious answer is that we agree that teaching is important but we do not have a universally acceptable yardstick to measure teaching skills but since we do have one for research quality; let us use that one anyway. But what is this universally acceptable yardstick for research quality? Oh, the number of publications of course! …and that is where the second question folds into the first.

So is the number of publications a reliable measure of the quality of research? Before articulating my answer let me state up front that in a post-graduation career spanning more than a quarter of a century, I have  published three papers in peer-reviewed journals (of which one happens to be “national” one, much to the chagrin of our “international”ists ) Compared to the dozens, if not 70, 80, 150+ papers published by some of my colleagues, this is peanuts but instead of hanging my head in shame I have this intrepid desire to carry out a thought experiment.

Let me create a magic broom with which I can sweep away (or expunge) any peer-reviewed academic paper from all repositories on this planet and then see what happens when I use this broom. It is my conjecture (if not my firm belief) that if I were to sweep away 75% of all papers published till date, the world will not know the difference! Raise that figure to 90% and the world will be slightly worse off. Raise that to 99% and the world will be significantly poorer and of course if we go to 100% then civilisation as we know it will obviously collapse into depths of misery and despair. So it is not that publications are pointless — but the vast majority is! But then, why this proliferation of trash?

The answer is of course obvious to anyone in academia — people publish because it is the only currency that we have to purchase recognition. It is the only currency that is freely convertible to permanent faculty positions and since all of us need a stable income (and by extension, a stable lifestyle) that is the currency that we need to earn and hoard.

Or do we? For a beggar on the road, a rupee is very valuable but for a millionaire an extra rupee or two is hardly of any significance. It has no impact on the quality of his life. So could be the case for someone who has reached the peak in academics — which incidentally is not too high, since you cannot go beyond being a professor in any case. Once you have climbed onto the high tabletop of the academic plateau and you have no inclination to seek another job elsewhere, then earning anything more in the currency of peer-reviewed publications is of minimal or marginal economic value.

One could of course argue that economic value is not the only value that one should be concerned with. In Maslow’s hierarchy, the need to be recognised by one’s peers is the one that comes after one has been able to satisfy one’s basic economic needs and publishing papers fulfils that need — to be able to pin medals on one’s chest. But are these medals like the Param Vir Chakra? Or trinkets like the Padma Bhushan?

Going back to my theory of 75% trash, the vast majority of papers fall into the trinket category…. created, not through the art of real “oil-on-canvas” research but, through the craft of “patched-collage” work. Publishing papers is now more of a craft where one has to meticulously read through legions of past papers, find one small niche that everyone has somehow overlooked and plug it with great hype, hoopla and fanfare — and if you can form a cartel of mutual “admirers” who will refer to each other’s papers with circular citations, then your citation index can be driven up as well. Another analogy would be to compare publications to locating and repairing potholes on an existing road while leaving the great task of building that new road through the mountains to that 1% of the publishing population.

But if publications are really all that worthless then (a) why do universitities continue to use them for evaluation and (b) why do people who do not need publications continue to seek them? The answer to both questions is that they know of no other way!  Great research — the result of that blinding flash of intuition or insight — is rare after the age of 30 and this means that most of the papers that fall in the essential 1% category would have been among the authors first few papers. After that art gives way to craft and professors who really do not need to publish any more trash find themselves increasingly incapable of doing anything else — they are trapped in a zone of comfort. And a lot of that comfort comes from the legions of apprentices — research scholars and junior faculty — who are now available to carry on with the craft of assembling papers and the luxury of being to able to append your name to the product of someone else’s craftsmanship. This then is the nursery from where a doyen of academia generates his brood of 50,60,100 papers.

Moreover it is this same doyen who, freed from the need to think about anything original, is now responsible for the administration in the university — perhaps as the head of the department or involved with the recruitment or promotion of other faculty members. Can he think of any criterion other than the number of publications? Unlikely …  and that answers the first question and explains a university’s addiction to the publications as a yardstick to measure the quality of research.

So is there an alternative?

As a late entrant to academia, my external, industrial perspective tells me that there is a world of innovation that exists outside the closed of peer-reviewed journals. As a computer programmer, I have come across many new and exciting things, not in journals but on the web and and only a  handful of these things can track back to journal. In fact the Communications of the ACM, the premier society of Computer Scientists, tracks only a handful of papers in its vast digital archives and this is what most of us read anyway. On the flip side some of the most interesting and useful things that I have done would never ever be published in any journal but nevertheless they have been appreciated and praised by clients, friends, acquaintances and peers.  Traditional academics may be reluctant to classify what happens in this world as  research but  if we were to go back to the definition of the term in the first paragraph of this essay —   as the fountainhead of  thoughts and ideas that lead to better standards of life and living  – then the reluctance is neither defensible nor acceptable ! Honestly speaking, the excitement of working with new and innovative ideas — without the claustrophobic constraint of having to have your work formally approved by anonymous peers of dubious competence and capability — is exhilaration by itself.

But you can feel this rush of adrenaline if and only if you have transgressed the need to be appreciated by your peers and reached that next level of Maslow — where you yourself is your own motivation to push into areas that you think are worthy of your interest. If your peers — and the little journals that they fret and preen over — do not care about your thoughts and ideas, then sorry,  it is their problem, not yours !!

This then is the level at which a senior academician — and hopefully juniors too, in the future — should be in when he engages in research but to honestly be in this state he must guard against two major temptations : the temptation to be arrogant and dismissive of others and the temptation of sinking into intellectual lethargy and stupor. Then and only then can he ignores the species of panthera tigris papyrii — paper tigers — and tell them on their face that their grapes are indeed sour.

Mr Kapil Sibal,
Minister for Human Resources Development
Government of India

Dear Sir, Mr Sibal

Sub : Simplifying & De-stressing Secondary Education

Your thoughts on the abolition of Class X examinations and the introduction of a single nationwide Class XII examination are like the winds of change that should blow away the cobwebs from  the  stultifying and claustrophobic classrooms to which we in India have condemned our children. You would of course know that in the United States, a similar system is in place with students – if they wish to join college – having to take only the SAT examination.

Our Class X examinations serve no purpose but to allow students to enter Class XI. Our Class XII examinations are no better – they merely serve as entry portals to colleges and in the case of engineering colleges, even this nominal and residual value is ignored because every college has its own entrance examination – nobody trusts the Class XII results. So no tears should be shed if these two examinations are consigned to the dustbins of history !

But there are powerful vested interests at work who would like to see these examinations retained. The various boards – ICSE, State Boards of Secondary and Higher Education – that owe their existence, salaries, perquisites, power and position to the existence of these examinations will fight tooth and nail to retain them and since education is a state subject it will not take too much of an effort for the states – particularly the communist ruled states – to block this initiative politically.

So is there a way to go ahead with these excellent proposals in the face of political opposition from the states ?   Yes, if  — in my humble opinion – we consider the following steps :

1. We note that the the CBSE and the centrally funded institutions of higher learning ( IITs, NITs etc ) fall under the jurisdiction of the central government and any changes to their operations need not have the explicit concurrence of any other entity or political constituency.
2. The Class X CBSE examination can be abolished and the Class XII CBSE examination should be thrown open to all students – irrespective of the affiliation of their school. So students in non CBSE schools can continue to write their own examination but in addition can be optionally asked to write the CBSE XII.  But why would they ?
3. The motivation to write the optional CBSE XII examination would be that its scores will be used for admission to the the centrally funded institutions of higher learning because the IITJEE and the AIEEE would be abolished ! So in one shot the CBSE XII examination becomes the de-facto single Class XII examination in the country .. and this can be achieved irrespective of whether the state governments agree to this or not.
4. If all centrally funded institutions ( including non engineering colleges like JNU, Vishwabharati etc ) converge to this single examination then the logistics could prove challenging – the number of students may reach a crore ! So instead of having the examination just once a year, it may be offered once every two months and a student should be allowed to sit for it as many times as he or she wants – provided that the last attempt should be within 12 months before entry to college. Thus the validity of the score would be 12 months. By spreading the examination over a year and allowing multiple attempts, the stress level associated with the examination will go down significantly. Children will be happy !
5. Since we have multiple instances of the CBSE XII examination and population that is taking the examination is different, marks and ranks are irrelevant. Instead percentile scores – based on the marks scored by all students who have taken the examination over the past two or three years – should be calculated and all admission decisions should be based on these percentiles. But given the diversity of institutions that will be using the score there should be separate percentiles for Physics-Chemistry-Maths, History-Geography-Civics, English and local language.

State boards can continue with their traditional Class X and Class XII examination which will act as feeders to local colleges but over a period of time the state examinations will become irrelevant – students will gradually lose interest because their result will be of interest to a very limited number of local colleges. The popularity of  optional CBSE XII will be high because (a) that is the only route to join the popular central institutions and (b) there will be no schedule conflicts and students can take the examination at their convenience.

If the CBSE XII examination can be conducted with adequate care and diligence, new private colleges and universities – that should get created under the Governments higher education policy – and even local colleges in progressive states will inevitably gravitate towards the same.

Hence we would have achieved our aim of abolishing Class X examinations and having a single Class XII examination without too much struggle and effort on the political front.

At its minimum, a company must adhere to the conditions of the Companies Act and register itself with the Registrar of Companies. We note that the RoC does not really approve or reject the application on the basis of the quality of the companies products or that of its promoters. All that the RoC ensures is that the company meets certain basic disclosure norms in terms of ownership and financial issues. The focus is on accurate disclosure — or transparency — not on the actual facts and figures that are being disclosed.

As the company gets bigger and needs access to more funds, it seeks listing in a stock exchange. A stock exchange is not a monopoly government organisation — it is run by its members as per rules that dictate a certain minimum level of financial competence and ensures a far more rigorous level of financial and administrative transparency. Once again, the focus is on transparency of the organisation, not on the quality of products or services offered. A stock exchange has two interesting aspects : first there can be more than one stock exchange, so there is no threat of a monopoly and second they are supervised by SEBI to ensure compliance with the laws of the land.

However the stock exchanges do not provide financial support to any company. That is done by individual investors in the capital market based on their personal or institutional perception of the company’s performance.

So the three components of financial sector are (a) Registrar of Companies and the Companies Act (b) Listing in the Stock Exchange under SEBI supervision and (c) Funds from the Capital Markets. For foreign companies wanting to do business there is the fourth agency — FIPB that has a wider mandate of protecting India’s strategic interests.

Let us now map these components into the Education sector.

First the role of the Registrar of Companies can be performed very well by the AICTE — provided we remove its authority to approve or accredit institutions. This authority used with malafide intentions has been the bane of education in India because it has kept out the best and allowed in the worst operators. The powers of the AICTE should be restrictively defined in a new Education Act and should be modelled on that of the RoC.

Any institution registered with the AICTE should be allowed to offer any educational services subject to the Consumer Protection legislation in the country. Consumers in India are quite conscious of their rights and if they have the choice — as they now have in telecom or air travel, not to mention on soaps, shampoos or cars — there is no fear that educational service providers will be able to cheat them. Let us have some respect for the Indian customer.

But if an institute wants to move into the next, higher league, we need a self-managed organisation like the industry association that will ensure discipline and transparency in its members. One or two leading institutes — some from the government sector like IIT, IIM and some from the private sector like BITS, ISB — can take the initiative to form these associations. Initially this might lead to multiple organisation — like multiple stock exchanges — but in the long run, through a natural process we might end up with two or three, similar to the BSE/NSE model that we have today. These associations would ensure transparency and consistency in the behaviour of its members and could be supervised by a government body like the AICTE. Institutes accredited through these associations would be ranked higher in the perception of students — who are the customers of educational services.

Finally funds ! And this is where both the government and private organisations must step in with generous support — but we must use a market driven approach. Both the government and the private sector should set up multiple funding organisations each with its own goals and objectives. The UGC is an obvious candidate but the Department of Space could provide separate funding for programs leading to astrophysics and the Department of Minority Affairs could have a separate funding for Muslims. Similarly Tata Steel could fund institutes operating within 50 kms of Jamshedpur and an NRI in California could fund institutions in his native Bankura district — to each his own !

Whatever may be the source and intent for funds we need transparency on two fronts (a) the criteria for funding and (b) the actual distribution of funds in each year. Each funding agency could have its own criteria publicly available and any “registered” institute can in principle apply for funding provided it meets the requirements of the funding agencies. Agencies would distribute funds to eligible institutes based on their perception of how “good” the institute is — in terms of how published criteria. This is where metrics like “student-teacher ratio”, “placements”, adherence to social goals in terms of gender and caste equity, quality of research, patents can be introduced. All funding agencies may not have the same set of criteria — each should have the liberty to specify its requirements and institutes will have to compete for funds.

Some of the funding may be automatic and statutory – for example HRD funds to IITs and IIMs – while others may be discretionary based on the extent to which an institute meets the criteria. However all funding agencies , especially those based on tax payer’s money, must make available to the public all information on funds disbursed to each institute AND the justification for the same in terms of the adherence to the funding criteria.

Potential students can study the pattern of fund disbursals and draw their own conclusions about how good or bad an institute is as perceived by funding experts who have voted with their purse ! In a sense, market forces will drive both funding and students to the best institutes in the country.

In fact honest competition is what is completely missing in the education sector and this has led to an immense complacency in the public sector education system in the country. What makes it worse is that public sector institutes are so dependent on the bureaucrats in the HRD ministry for money that they have no option but to toe the sarkari line. Both these issues can addressed through the structure that is proposed here.

And finally what about foreign universities ? If as a nation we are brave enough we can allow them to come and operate through this route but otherwise we can have the equivalent of an FIPB to ensure that trashy organisations are kept out — but this is neither necessary nor sufficient for quality and is best kept in abeyance for the time being.

As a part of the Prime Ministers 100 day program, may I request Mr Kapil Sibal to organise a conference on Higher Education where ideas like these – and those from other, more eminent people – can be formally considered for speedy execution.