TSR Subramanian panel recommends drastically pruning UGC (India's higher education regulator); And perhaps create a new highered regulator?

Here's a recent Hindu article, Panel on education policy wants UGC Act to lapse, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/panel-on-education-policy-wants-ugc-act-to-lapse/article8749251.ece, dated June 20th 2016.

It states that the committee tasked with creating a new national higher education policy headed by former cabinet secretary, T.S.R. Subramanian, has recommended that the law that set up the nation's premier higher education policy regulator, the University Grants Commission (UGC), be allowed to lapse.

I looked up MHRD website and UGC website for a document view/download link for this report but could not find it. This MHRD press release document, http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Press_release.PDF, dated May 27th 2016, states that the committee's report was submitted to MHRD. "The Committee for the evolution of a National Education Policy has submitted the report containing its recommendations to the Ministry of HRD. The Union Minister for Human Resource Development thanked the Chairman and all members of the Committee  for their commitment and efforts." But it does not have a link for the report itself (perhaps it has not yet been made public).

Given below are some quotes from the report the committee recently submitted to Minstry of Human Resource Development (India's union/federal education ministry), as reported by the abovementioned Hindu article:

The Committee was informed that there are widespread irregularities in grant of approval of institutions and courses. There are serious concerns about the quality of education provided by a large number of colleges/universities; it is the responsibility of the UGC to monitor standards of education in higher education institutions and the UGC has not succeeded in ensuring this. The credibility of the UGC has been seriously dented by approvals given to a large number of sub-standard colleges and deemed universities.
...
An expert Committee recently has examined thoroughly the past, present and future role of UGC; the report is under examination by the Ministry. It is understood that the report had concluded that the UGC does not have the adequate number of personnel, of requisite quality, to be an effective regulatory force in the higher education sector.
...
The UGC could be revamped, made considerably leaner and thinner, and could be the nodal point for administration of the proposed National Higher Education Fellowship Programme, without any other promotional or regulatory function.
--- end reported statements from the TSR Subramanian committee report ---

Ravi: If the regulatory function is removed from UGC then who will regulate higher education in the country? Has the TSR Subramanian committee proposed a new national higher education regulator body?

In this context it may be appropriate to share some extracts from another committee report submitted to MHRD in March 2015 (last year), the Hari Gautam committee report, from this article, http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hrd-ministry-niti-aayog-examine-gautam-panel-report-on-ugc-115080200081_1.html, dated August 2nd, 2015:

--- start Hari Gautam committee report statements (as reported by above article) ---
[UGC] "failed to fulfil its mandate but also has not been able to deal with emerging diverse complexities."
...
[A new national higher education authority was suggested to be set up through an act of Parliament (new law) which would replace the UGC.] .. "any reshaping or restructuring of the UGC will be a futile exercise".
...
It (UGC) has side-stepped its function of being a sentinel of excellence in education and embraced the relatively easier function of funding education.
...
UGC chairperson "should be advised to strictly keep a vigilant track of the various performance areas of the UGC and assess contribution at all levels".
--- end Hari Gautam committee report statements (as reported by above article) ---

[I thank mhrd.gov.in, thehindu.com and business-standard.com and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]

Stark look at problems faced by some Indians doing Ph.D. in USA today; UCLA shooter Mainak Sarkar

Last updated on 14th June 2016

A stark look at the problems faced by some Indians who are doing Ph.D. in USA, including the UCLA shooter-killer Mainak Sarkar. I think many Indians doing Ph.D. in India are also in not-so-great shape.

A premature, horrible death, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/Patently-headed-Downhill/articleshow/52593691.cms, dated June 5th 2016.

------------------------------------------------

Some additional thoughts of mine:

From a pure research point of view, I think it would be wonderful if non-elite Indian academia did proper research in its Ph.D. programs (as against development). That would require a filtering process whereby some candidates who opt for proper research realize/or are told that they are not suited for it, and drop out early, say within a year or so, from the Ph.D. program, and move into something else more suitable for them.

But the practical reality of UGC/AICTE governed Indian academia today, it seems to me, is that the Ph.D. has become a vital stepping stone in an academic career. Perhaps two or three decades ago it was OK to have only a Masters qualification to have some sort of academic career in India. But today only a Masters qualification (without a Ph.D.) will heavily stunt one's academic career.

So most Indian academics want to acquire a Ph.D. by hook or by crook. Some will do it the proper way. But for some others, even if the work they do is more of development type rather than research but which gives them a Ph.D. (a minimum of one/two national publications is the critical UGC/AICTE norm if I recall correctly), they will be more than happy. And, in turn, they will become Ph.D. guides for other Ph.D. candidates who they may guide to do similar work - a self-perpetuating kind-of thing.

But these things are very difficult to control in UGC/AICTE Indian academia. In some cases (hopefully only a few cases but I don't know for sure), there is even money corruption and other kinds of unethical practices involved in enrollment and granting of Ph.D., mainly because the Ph.D. opens up better academic career (and pay scale).

Within my limited scope as a blogger who has some exposure to Indian academia in Visiting Faculty type capacity but who is not an Indian academic, my concern is mainly about the human toll on Ph.D. students who do not really understand what the Ph.D. is all about when they enroll into it. I think in non-elite Indian academia, a lot depends on the supervisor that the student does his/her Ph.D. under. Some Ph.D. guide academics are very wise. They know the system well in terms of what is the minimum expected for a Ph.D. by UGC/AICTE norms as well as by important academic administrators. They can assess a candidate's ability and can advise a path suitable for the candidate given the circumstances. The students who come under such Ph.D. guides, in a sense, are the lucky guys, as they tend to get their Ph.D. in reasonable time (say, three to five years) without too much pressure and suffering.

On the other hand, there are some Ph.D. guides who are very ambitious and set far higher standards than what is required by UGC/AICTE, for all/most of their students. So, for example, they may want the publication of the student to be in an IEEE transaction publication (which would typically have a high impact factor). Now if the student is capable AND is provided enough time & resources, perhaps this could work out very well, earning laurels for the institution, the guide and the student, and giving a tremendous foundation for future research work of the student.

However, many times, it is too much for the student given the various factors involved (time & resources being an important factor; some, perhaps most, institutions burden Ph.D. scholars with other work, especially if they are paid some stipend). Usually, in such scenarios, the Ph.D. student is not experienced or wise enough to know what sort of trap he/she has fallen into. He/she may keep trying and trying and still not come up with something satisfactory enough for the supervisor. They dare not fight or argue openly with the supervisor as the supervisor has tremendous control over their life as a Ph.D. student, and can make life hell for the student.

This is where I think some Ph.D. students get into serious mental issues. Some time back I was told a former student of mine (I taught him programming courses for his Masters in Technology - Computer Science degree) who was doing a Ph.D. landed into some serious issues with his Ph.D. supervisor. Fortunately, given the system of obedience by juniors in the associated institution, the student did not go overboard, I guess. I believe he parted ways with the institution. I don't know whether he was granted the Ph.D. But what I had heard was that there a breakdown of relations between Ph.D. student and guide.

Ideally speaking Ph.D. candidates should be given a clear picture of the risks involved in Ph.D. and there should be some sort of a decent exit plan for them if the Ph.D. does not work out.

To make things even more difficult I think Indian academic system seems to be churning out many Ph.D.s leading to some finding it difficult to get suitable jobs in Indian industry or Indian academia after they finish their Ph.D.