On ''Excellence'' and Its Pursuit
In
discussions on higher education, one persistent theme that now recurs
with greater frequency relates to the pursuit of excellence. Of course
this is not entirely new; from the early 1950s when the elite of independent
India was filled with a new self-confidence, there has been an attempt
within the public domain to create institutions of excellence in higher
education.
But
there is a difference in how this feature is perceived today, which
may derive from a slightly different orientation, whereby excellence
is not defined in its own terms but more in terms of how we think others
(especially in the West) see us. It is commonplace to find, in popular
magazines and newspapers, articles that cite listings of ''top 100''
or ''top 300'' universities in the world, and bemoan that Indian institutions
are not to be found among them. It is equally common for otherwise well-informed
people to assume that only institutions which are currently receiving
a lot of publicity in the developed world, such as the IITs and IIMs,
are ''world class'' and even the best among the rest are just also-rans.
There can be no doubt that much of the higher education system is in
severe stress in India, to the point of crisis and non-functionality
in many institutions. Quite apart from the sheer shortage of adequate
facilities, there are real problems of poor quality, inadequate monitoring
and accountability, inbreeding and feudal practices in many institutions.
Certainly many bright students get short-changed by a system that does
not provide stimulating pedagogy or useful skills to many.
There are many factors behind this, and revamping the higher education
system is therefore clearly a priority, even though it is a daunting
and complex task. But from this we should not jump to the conclusion
that higher education in India is no more than a sea of mediocrity at
best and that we have no choice but to look outside India for examples
of excellence that we should emulate.
In fact, India already has a number of world class institutions - not
only the more obviously well known ones such as the IITs and IIMs but
places like the Indian Institute of Science and the National Institute
of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore and Vellore Medical
College, to take just a few examples. In general, despite all the weaknesses
in our undergraduate education, Indian students appear to do rather
well when they go abroad, and this is also true for research. They are
often preferred in international institutions because of certain skills
that are imparted imperceptibly in our system, including the by no means
irrelevant ability to adjust flexibly to impediments.
Even within institutions that are less widely acknowledged internationally,
there are departments and individual faculty members of undoubted high
quality, who manage to produce equally good students and also excellent
research output despite all the known constraints. And there are such
pockets of excellence to be found in many non-metro areas, which indicate
how it is possible to thrive even in what is apparently inhospitable
soil.
So should we not identify our strengths, rather than be obsessed with
failure? This would mean directing our attention to the factors that
have contributed to creating and maintaining such pockets of excellence,
and considering how we could replicate these features elsewhere.
We cannot really hope to expand the list of ''world class'' institutions,
if we simply ape what is happening elsewhere, for example in the US,
without exploring the factors that have been responsible for creating
and maintaining excellence in our own very specific contexts. This is
important because one frequently heard argument is that it is necessary
to accept and even acknowledge pay differentials and other hierarchies
- across and within academic institutions - in order to allow the best
to flourish.
One corollary of such an argument is that increasing salary differentials
across the teaching profession is a necessary condition to attract the
best into academic faculties. This would replicate the pattern in the
US, where there are not only differences in salary structure across
institutions, but even within institutions across faculties and within
faculties, such that individual professors can negotiate their own salaries
and perks.
This is argued to be necessary in order to ensure that those faculties
that are unable to hire people because of higher market earnings in
their profession should be able to offer higher salaries than faculties
where no such competitive pressure exists, and that the best can be
attracted in all disciplines by offering more attractive salary packages
than their colleagues. This would mean, for example, that professionals
such as dentists, doctors and lawyers, or those engaged in the nebulous
''discipline'' called management, would command higher salaries than
those engaged in less marketable activities such as basic science research
or philosophy or history.
But in many ways, such a system would militate against all the features
that make universities special places in society in the first place.
Recognition of such ''hierarchies'' is problematic not only because
it is inegalitarian and excessively market-driven. It can also have
very severe negative implications for collegiality which is the basic
principle underlying the effective functioning of faculty in higher
education. It will also operate to reduce both the attractiveness of
higher studies in and the status of faculty involved in less ''marketable''
areas.
Besides being unfortunate in itself, this would be very adverse for
the health of a university and the promotion of liberal arts education
in general. Further, it would create incentives for the young which
would rely too much on current market forces and not take into account
the current and longer term requirements of society in general.
In any case, it is not at all clear that creating such differentials
would be either necessary or sufficient for ensuring excellence. It
is worth noting that in most of the best universities outside the US,
whether in Europe or Canada or East Asia, differential salary structures
are unusual and exceptional, and more egalitarian tendencies drive the
system. Ultimately, of course, academic status should be based more
on peer recognition and the appreciation of students and wider society;
while decent salaries and physical working conditions are of course
necessary, differential salaries cannot be the driving force to ensure
quality.
Indeed it is the case that in most of the places of excellence that
currently exist in India, salaries have not been the most critical factor
determining the quality or success of the faculty. Many eminent and
internationally recognised scholars working in India would strongly
contest the argument that salary differentials are necessary to encourage
''the best'' to come and teach in universities in India. Instead, they
tend to emphasise the importance of academic and other freedoms, social
dignity, physical facilities, and so on.
It is interesting to note in this context that many recently created
private institutions continue to have difficulty in attracting good
faculty despite offering significantly higher salaries. So clearly,
there are at least some other factors which are important, and it would
be necessary to consider all of these before jumping to the conclusion
that allowing increasing differentials in pay would ensure better quality
of academic output.