In rankings by the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Financial Times, average work experience of students is an important criterion.
There are different international agencies, and all of them have different ranking eligibility. In international B-schools the predominant eligibility criteria for a post-graduate programme is work experience of at least four to five years.
In rankings by the Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Financial Times, average work experience of students is an important criterion. Only the Economist does not have prior work experience as a qualification for rankings. One of the important reasons for starting in 2006 the one-year programme for those with work experience was this.
Now, FT has said that we must have at least three batches passing out for their data compilation. The advantage with Indian School of Business (ranked 20th this year by FT) is that work experience is a pre-condition for students, and they have already placed six batches.
The only international ranking where we qualify fully is the Economist ranking and IIM-A is the only institute to figure there (it was ranked 92nd in 2007).
THE DRAWBACKS
Where do we lag behind in, according to global rankings? The quality of faculty. They (the Economist) rank faculty on three key parameters: qualification, research and salary.
The last, salary, is an indication of market valuation, they argue. We told them that salaries are decided by the government, so it should not be a criterion. Our faculty gets about Rs6 lakh annually (approx $15,000). The average salary in international business schools is anywhere between $150,000 to $250,000. Just this one parameter results in the quality of our faculty dropping badly.
Another drawback is the quality of students, and the weightage they give to international students. To get into IIM-A a foreign student has to have a GMAT score of at least 750 out of 800. If a student is in that top bracket, he can walk into Harvard. Why would he come to IIM?
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
I faced many constraints, mostly from the government. The fact is that all top B-schools of the world are free from the clutches of the government. We started our efforts, in 2003 when we refused government funding. Today IIM-Bangalore and Kolkata too do not take government funding.
Meanwhile, we are trying to enhance international exchange programmes for both students and faculty. Today six to seven faculty come and teach for a semester in IIM-A.
The other thing is that most top B-schools are internationally accredited by American and European agencies. So in 2007 we approached the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), which gives EQUIS accreditation. We are hopeful of getting it soon. Another area is funding by alumni, which remains very low in our case.
I would identify government interference as the most critical factor, for the poor show of Indian higher educational institutions. The government can help positively by giving funds to higher education, but should not interfere in the management of these funds.
Academicians prefer their independence to everything else. The government cannot micromanage matters of an institution. Its job ends when it appoints a competent CEO and board to run an institution.
No one can say the government does not want to improve India’s higher education. Its intentions are noble, objectives are right, but problem lies in the methodology. The wish-list of the government is perfect. If they get fulfilled then we will be on top of the world!
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}