Related Links
Caste Discrimination in Govt Schools
Samajshala - Masti ki Paathshaala
Education Reform: The Need for A Debate
Implementing Right to Education

US President Barack Obama's comment that US needs to be wary of growing competitiveness from graduates from China and India has caused a bit of a tizzy. In the US, of course, it takes forward a commentary whose protagonists have included Friedman. It is perhaps commendable that a government whose higher education has been a model for most developed nations and is seen to have among the strongest universities in the world is not complacent – it continues to strive to improve its universities as well as the standard of its schools.

In India, on the other hand, Obama's comment has caused quite a flutter. It has meant that India – a superpower aspirant – has been noticed by the big guy. It has been taken as a compliment, to mean India is doing well. Educators and bureaucrats have taken this to mean that things are working well – or at least, Indian education is on the right direction.

It perhaps would be useful to get a little deeper into the numbers to understand the comments of Obama as well as the state of education in India.

There has been an ongoing discussion on the quality of education in the US in comparison to students from China and India – a discussion that has lasted at least half a decade. For most part, this discussion has focused on science and engineering. In January 2008, a study by Duke University published a report on its findings [1]. (Rediff.com has carried a series of features pn this subject by one of the authors of this study).

For one, the three nations had very different ways of defining engineers. The study found that engineers graduating in the US were dynamic, while in India and China, most graduates with engineering degrees were transactional.

Dynamic engineers are individuals capable of abstract thinking and high-level problem solving using scientific knowledge, and are most likely to lead innovation. These engineers thrive in teams, work well across international borders, have strong interpersonal skills, and are capable of translating technical engineering jargon into common language. In the United States, most dynamic engineers have a minimum of a four-year engineering degree from nationally accredited institutions. These engineers tend to be globally competitive, and are in high demand regardless of their location.

In contrast, transactional engineers possess solid technical training, but not the experience or expertise to apply this knowledge to larger domains. These individuals are typically responsible for routine tasks in the workplace. In the United States, transactional engineers often receive associate, technician or diploma awards, although they may also have a bachelor’s degree. In other countries, these engineers are produced by lower-tier universities, with thinner curricula and a weaker emphasis on research, group work, applied engineering, and interdisciplinary thinking.

One of the main findings of this study was that there has been a significant increase in the number of science and engineering graduates in India and China – however, that has been at the cost of quality. A McKinsey Global Institute survey agrees with these findings. Using a set of parameters in problem solving, decision making and leadership in these fields as well as based on interviews with executives of MNCs, this report concludes that while 80% of science and engineering graduates in from US universities would be globally competitive, only 10% of Chinese and 25% of Indian graduates would be globally competitive.

The Duke study found that there was significant difference in standards. A large fraction of engineering graduates in India and China had the same skills as those in US who would be categorized as technicians. In addition, the study found that the competitiveness of US graduates was based on a strong engineering skills but also a background in non-technical fields. This often correlates with leading innovation, creativity and business leadership skills.

In fact, even with the higher quality, US produces about 250 engineers (at the bachelors level)per million people compared to 200 (or slightly less) engineers per million people that India produces [2].

These reports are not biased against India or China. For one, one of the authors on the Duke report is of Indian origin. Second, these reports are consistent with other studies. For example, there are only 2 Indian universities among the top 200 [3] universities in the world – IITD at 181 and IITB at 163. (There are about 6 Chinese Universities). Clearly, US, UK, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, and numerous others are head and shoulders ahead in quality.

Some of these findings have been reported by studies in India. A study by a consortium of Indian Industries found that a large fraction of Indian graduates are unemployable because they do not have critical skills including ability to work on teams, effective communication skills, big picture analysis and ability to engage with open ended problems. The report claimed that while there was an excess of graduates in India, there was a shortage of qualified candidates.

Thus, Obama's comments need to be taken in perspective. The US currently has about 8000 PhDs in engineering every year (India has less than 1000, more like 700 PhDs in engineering every year). 60-70% of the PhDs in engineering are granted to students coming from India or China. Let us assume that the numbers are equally split between India and China – thus, about 2500-3000 students from India get PhDs in the US. That is a significant number for US – it would like more students coming out of its own high schools to be applying for PhDs. It would like more interest in science and technology from its own students.

India has 1.2 billion people. Demographics extrapolated from 2001 census suggests that 70% of its population is less than 35 years of age. If we (arbitrarily and for the sake of simple analysis) assume that it is uniformly distributed in this age group, we have about 24 million people who are at the college leaving age each year. 4000-6000 PhDs (including those who get there degrees in India as well as those who go abroad to US, UK, and elsewhere) from this large a population is hardly an achievement for much excitement.

This analysis is not intended to beat down on Indian achievement – rather to note that Obama's comments are for his constituency. They aim to strengthen the US education system. The data does not conclude that the Indian education system is doing well. In fact, it reiterates multiple reports (including the report per citation [2]) that India needs to strengthen infrastructure significantly if it needs to be globally competitive – it is not competitive today.

As importantly, though, global competitiveness demands a change in education values in India. In a recent talk sponsored by FICCI, Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard as well as Director of the White House National Economic Committee, suggested similar changes. Specifically, he talked about the need for intellectual integrity – where a new college student should be able to critique the most learned intellectual in a university and it should be accepted.

In fact, education systems across the world are proactively changing learning processes to build such 'soft-skills'. These address the key aspects of problem solving that the McKinsey study used, namely – deep knowledge of an area, background in other areas of knowledge, understanding of the context of knowledge (why you learn this, when it works, what you can do with it). These allow for abstract thinking, high level problem solving and innovative leadership.

Indian education needs to redesign learning to include such skills along with better communication skills (this includes better language but also better articulation, dialectic and negotiation skills) as well as team work skills. India plans on significant funding to build infrastructure and strengthen its higher education processes and facilities. In the absence of the above soft-skills, it will come to little. These soft-skills, though, need to begin at school though; at college, it is already too late.

A McKinsey report points out that India may not be able to sustain its global position unless it seriously reinvests in strengthening its talent pool [4]. Numerous reports from within India and outside clearly point the way to strategies for restrengthening the talent pool [2, 3]. However, as numerous HR and skill analysis suggest, it is not only the soft skills. Indian talent also has to build the skills needed to lead and for that, the Indian school system needs to rethink learning processes and redesign its curricula. However, besides some elite private schools and some education thinkers such as Dr. Krishna Kumar, this is neither of interest to the Indian administration nor in its radar.

- Sanat Mohanty

References

[1] G. Gereffi, V. Wadhwa, B. Rissing, R. Ong, “Getting the Numbers Right: Engineering Education in the United States, China and India”

[2] R. Bannerjee, V. Muley, “Engineering Education in India”, (2007)

[3] http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2009/10/20/worlds-best-universities-top-200.html?PageNr=4

[4] http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/India_offshoring.asp