’’Government attacking the autonomy of our world-class institutes’’ or so the headlines proclaimed when Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi decided to reduce the fees at IIM’s. Being a young chap who once harbored dreams of getting into one of these elite institutes (I have given up now after a few tries), I immediately picked up the paper to read the article in detail. And since that day, I have been doing a lot of reading on this issue. But what has stuck with me is the fact that these writers are trying to link the fee cuts with autonomy, which in my opinion, are not related in any way.
Fee cuts will reduce the cost burden on each and every individual who studies there. It will encourage more students to try and compete for a seat, which can only improve the overall quality of education. A lot of the articles talk about how the fee is miniscule compared to the salaries that these people make once they have graduated.
Agreed, however the fee is still steep enough to discourage the financially challenged to even attempt for admission. And there are enough of these kinds of people in spite of all the feel-good and India-shining slogans. I used to live in Orissa before shifting to Mumbai, and I have personally known two cases where the money became an issue. The first guy was the son of a farmer, and even though he was brilliant and had managed to afford a graduate education through scholarships, he could not think of raising the money to study at an IIM. Consequently, he never even attempted the CAT.
Another was the son of a bank officer who got through the CAT, however could not come up with the deposit to hold his seat. Is it fair that such talented individuals be denied admission in government backed institutes, which are supposed to be strictly meritocratic?
A fee cut is just that, a FEE CUT. What has it anything to do with autonomy? If the government tampers with the curriculum, affects the appointment of academics or bureaucrats to various posts or meddles with the day to day working of the institute - that is a clear breach of autonomy and should be opposed. IIMs are a government-funded institute, and the reduction in cash due to student fees can easily be made up through additional grants.
I have a feeling that people are opposing this issue because they feel it might lead to more damaging interference in the future and must be stopped right away. However, instead of taking this position, if they were to just say that fee cuts are fine, but no direct or indirect meddling in the running of these institutes - that would be an ideal situation.
It will certainly satisfy my friends who were deprived of seats due to monetary constraints, it will pacify the institute heads and professors who fear that their functioning will be governed by outsiders and might also get the Government to back out completely from this point onwards.