Should the IIMs be allowed to go abroad?

DEBATE

If India has the potential to earn forex from export of education, using the old unmet-local-demand argument may not necessarily be a good thing

A S NARAG,
Professor, Faculty of Management Studies

"The six IIMs together produce no more than 1,500 graduates against the demand of over 20,000 every year. Shouldn't they focus on meeting this demand first?"

The three oldest Indian Institutes of Management (Ahmedabad, Calcutta and Bangalore) were established with the support of the government. IIM-Ahmedabad was given 100 acres of land and, today, has 80-plus faculty members. IIM-Calcutta has a sprawling campus spread over 135 acres of land and about 80 faculty members, while IIM-Bangalore has 100 acres of land and about 90 faculty members. What is their commitment to society?

These three IIMs put together produce no more than 750 trained management graduates and the six IIMs together produce no more than 1,500 management graduates against the estimated demand of more than 20,000 management graduates every year "" the top 20 business schools produce no more than 4,000 graduates every year. There are about 1,50,000 potential admission-seekers who sit for the common admission test (CAT) every year. Are there only 1,500 among them who are good enough to join the IIMs? I can tell you from my own experience that there is not much difference in terms of potential between a student who tops on the merit list and one who is, say, at number 1,000.

Keeping in mind the fantastic infrastructure the IIMs have ""both academic and physical "" I would expect the six put together to produce about 6,000 trained graduates a year. Before talking about offering full-time or part-time management courses abroad, shouldn't the IIMs have a social obligation to first meet huge demands in the country? Which cost-benefit analysis will justify the output of 1,500 management graduates from six IIMs with the kind of costs that have gone in? At the end of the day, it's the potential student who is being cheated.

I have nothing against the IIMs going global. But does that necessarily mean setting up shops abroad? For one, you can get international students here and offer programmes here. Or, you can go abroad and offer executive training programmes, research and consultancy, and so on "" in fact, these are in great demand and can be bigger moneyspinners, if one talks about higher earnings. But is it fair on their part to set up shop abroad and offer courses that are in great demand in the country or that are not being offered here? For instance, IIM-Bangalore has plans for a part-time MBA programme in Singapore; but is not offering this programme in India. How many top-notch international business schools have set shops outside their country "" and I am not talking about Australian, New Zealand, or some of the British business schools? I'm talking about the top internationally well-known business schools. I can give you two instances, the INSEAD and the University Business School, Chicago which have centres in Singapore. But maybe they are doing it is because they are not able to enrol enough number of participants in their own centres. But here you have a demand of 20,000-plus.

The views expressed are personal.

C S VENKATA RATNAM,
Director, International Management Institute

"There's hardly any incentive for the faculty to perform. Going global will make them attuned to a high performance culture conducive to harness their full potential."

Several developed countries in the world "" notably, Australia, the UK and the US "" are doing their very best to woo students from developing countries. Several others "" notably, Dubai and Singapore "" are trying hard to get the best B-schools to establish campuses in their countries. We are paranoid about foreign universities establishing campuses in India. We are equally paranoid about our institutions establishing campuses outside India. We have the opportunity to become the world leaders in education, specially, business education. Trade in services is one area where India has competitive advantages. We stand to lose in letting it go.

Many of our whizkids "" C K Prahlad and Raghuram Rajan of IIM-Ahmedabad and the late Sumantra Ghoshal of IOC, for instance "" have earned international reputation as thought leaders only after they left India and started working abroad. There are many outstanding professors in our IIMs, but hardly any of them could earn the global standing that their colleagues who left the country could achieve. Did we ever care to know why?

Those who are opposed to the IIMs going global point to the vast unmet demand within the country. They want the IIMs to cater to more students in India itself. "Brand IIM" is built by students, not so much the faculty. More of the same is a sure way to dilute the brand image. Making the faculty teach more of the same to more students will only make their work routine, repetitive and monotonous. The best way to attract, develop and retain outstanding faculty is to give them international exposure. If they work in more vibrant and competitive environments like Singapore, they may become competitive. In a culture which is known to regard ascription more than achievement, the brand equity of the IIMs puts their faculty in an advantageous position instantaneously compared to those in other B-schools in the country. While a few may be driven by inner passion for teaching and research, for a majority there is hardly any incentive or pressure on their part to perform. Going global will make them attuned to a high performance culture conducive to harness their full potential.

While IMD, Lausanne has only one campus to attract students from all over the globe, INSEAD of Fontainebleu, The Graduate Schools of Business from Columbia University of New York and University of Chicago present interesting case studies in contrast, each having set up an additional campus in Singapore. Similar opportunities exist in west Asia and China. In this increasingly interdependent world, education will play an important role in strengthening geopolitical relationships.

Focusing on meeting domestic demand from domestic resources is a retrograde step reminiscent of the import substitution regime of the 1970s.

The views expressed are personal