From being the Director of the College of Engineering, Pune, to the Chairman of the All India Council of Technical Education, how does it feel?

It is a bigger role to play, as it envisages the administration of a large number of institutes in the entire country. As Director of the College of Engineering, Pune (COEP), I needed to take care of issues pertaining to just one institute. Now the challenges are much larger as there are many varieties of institutions under the umbrella of the AICTE which includes new and old government and private institutions as well. So obviously, how to tackle situations arising out of that would be the most challenging. Moreover, the last decade has seen a big change in the number of institutions, ensuring access, to large extent equity, but the challenge is one of quality of education and outcomes.

You have had a multi-dimensional career in the field of education. You have been at the helm of a variety of educational institutions. How would these experiences help in the enormous responsibility that you have just taken over?

I should begin with my college career. At the graduation level, I had got admission at IIT, Madras, but I opted for a government aided private college, BVB College of Engineering and Technology, Hubli, in Karnataka where I belong. At that time, I did not know the value of getting admission in IIT. Secondly, the financial constraints of he family also added to that decision. We were two brothers, but ours being a joint family, my four cousins, aunt and grandparents were also dependent on my father because my uncle had passed away at a very young age. Being the eldest, I thought I should not financially strain my father by opting for IIT. After engineering graduation, I did my Masters and PhD at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

Then I went to Arunachal Pradesh. I worked there for eight years, first as a lecturer and then as assistant professor in a very brand new type of education system, which had the modular pattern of 2+2+2 pattern after class X till graduation in engineering with vertical mobility and lateral exit and entry. That system is very ideal. In fact, it should have been replicated elsewhere, but unfortunately many experiments which are worth pursuing are not taken to their logical conclusion. When we do not pursue such fruitful experiments, then they seem as if they have failed and we discontinue them. Presently, it is being pursued in a diluted form.

The education pattern was simple - after Std. X, for the first two years, one compulsorily went through hands-on vocational education -- like the technical subjects in classes XI and XII elsewhere. Exactly on the same pattern, one studied Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics and also opted for one technical skill, be it carpentry, welding, machinist, electrician, electronics or computer technician, and so on. So, by the end of two years, one would have acquired one skill. Those who qualified through these two years with a minimum acceptable academic level were allowed to move ahead, not everyone. The rest who did not make it further were already empowered with a skill through which they could get employed

The idea behind this pattern was that in the North-East there is a variety of manpower requirement and also there are a lot of dropouts because of the rigour of maths in engineering. The system thus took care of both - the manpower requirement and employable dropouts who could do skilled jobs. So, at the end of these two years, students who were not good in theory could go for practical work (pursue a vocational career); those who were a shade better in theory, could go for a diploma course, and those who were brighter in theory, could opt for a degree course. That was a very attractive concept; also it was hands-on training right from the first year, so the engineers who came out were absolutely practically oriented. But subsequently, all students began to want a degree; therefore the whole concept got diluted. This mode of education still exists at the North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology (NERIST) in Itanagar in Arunachal Pradesh and the Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology (SLIET), at Longowal in Punjab.

Thereafter, I joined IIT Guwahati, as Associate Professor when it was taking root in 1995. In the 11 years of my tenure, I held positions of HOD, Chairman-JEE, Chairman Library, Dean-Academics and Deputy Director, and in 2006, I was invited to join as Director, College of Engineering, Pune.

After working under a unique educational model and a stint at NERIST Itanagar, you were appointed Associate Professor at IIT Guwahati when it just came into being in 1995. What was your experience there?

I joined as Associate Professor, and being the first to join and the only one in the mechanical engineering department, I became the head of the Mechanical Engineering department at IIT Guwahati, right away. We were hardly ten faculty members and two to three senior professors. The challenges were in terms of non-existence of buildings; even land was not fully acquired. The classes started at the Institution of Engineers building in the city, with accommodation for faculty in rented flats scattered all over the city, and accommodation for students in make-shift hostels, in an under-used marriage hall, and a building built for a polyclinic but never used for a polyclinic, etc.

After about three years we had a transit complex built on the campus for housing mechanical engineering labs and workshop. Then we started moving into the campus, which was 20 kms away from the city. For the initial five to six years, we were shuttling up and down until the hostels and the residential quarters came up. The good thing was that, because IIT Guwahati was the first IIT to have come up after more than four decades after the original five IITs were set up, we had good support from all IITs to develop it. This is not the case with the present eight IITs which have just started, as each IIT has been given the responsibility of mentoring one IIT. Also, IIT Guwahati had no problem getting faculty as the then existing IITs required only an incremental number of faculty. Alumni of any IIT who were abroad and wanted to return to India preferred to work in IITs. So, when the other five IITs had no vacancies, they would naturally opt for IIT Guwahati. Moreover, the government too had offered special perks for faculty. Now when suddenly eight new IITs have begun and several faculty members of the older IITs are retiring, vacancies abound everywhere. Hence, recruitment of faculty for upcoming IITs has become a bigger challenge.

So, I have had experience of being at the helm of a state government supported private college BVBCET, the prestigious Indian Institute of Science, one modular type of vocational institute NERIST, a new IIT, and also Maharashtra state government’s very old—150+ year old—college, COEP. So I have seen technical education from all quarters and have a pulse on the general problems at each such institution and their perspectives. This would surely help me in my AICTE tenure

"I have had experience of being at the helm of a state government supported private college BVBCET, the prestigious Indian Institute of Science, one modular type of vocational institute NERIST, a new IIT, and also Maharashtra state government’s very old–150+ year old–college, COEP. So I have seen technical education from all quarters and have a pulse on the general problems at each such institution and their perspectives. This would surely help me in my AICTE tenure"

How did COEP decide to get you as its Director?

Actually, Dr. F. C. Kohli, former Chairman of TCS and father of the software industry in India, who is the Chairman of the Board of Governors of COEP wanted a person from the IIT system to help transform this institution into an IIT-like institution, because at one time this was a great institution where people like Dr. Visvesvaraya studied, but over the decades, its quality had considerably gone down. So he wanted systems which were followed in IITs to be introduced. He was keen on getting someone from the IIT system, and Professor Ashok Misra, the then IIT-Bombay director and a couple of other IIT directors probably suggested my name, and that’s how I was pulled out from IIT Guwahati to become Director of COEP

How did the turnaround of COEP take place? Does it bear semblance with an IIT today?

There were a multitude of activities that took place; my contribution is very little. I was just a man who volunteered to do something, leading from the front, that’s all. The Board of Governors itself is an amazing board, right from Dr. Kohli, now 91 year-old, energetic and passionate about contributing to engineering education in the country as its chairman, to stalwarts like Prataprao Pawar, Atul Kirloskar, Professor Sonde, Professor Emeritus in IISc Bangalore and former Chairman NBA and Vice-Chancellor of Goa University, Professor Dhande, Director of IIT Kanpur, Dr. G. B. Pant, Director of IITM, Pune, among others. Their vision and commitment has helped in propelling the tremendous metamorphosis of COEP into an international brand once again. The gap analysis between IITs and COEP, first-hand experience of IIT level education to both faculty and students of COEP to bridge the gap, faculty and student empowerment, 24X7 availability of labs and library, setting up of alumni and industry supported labs, visits and talks by eminent academicians, industry leaders and Nobel laureates, design and innovation workshops, research academies, etc., has brought COEP closer to being on par with IITs.

Secondly, Dr. Kohli requested each one of the Board members to contribute at least 100 hours a year for the institute and take active interest in its functioning, which normally does not happen with most of the Board of Governors of other institutes. In the normal course, most Board meetings are held once in three or four months, and members just attend them. In contrast, Dr. Kohli requested them to interact with the stakeholders - students, faculty, staff, alumni - and engage with the institute. The government also supported through total autonomy and did not interfere in our affairs. The alumni were convinced about the transformation that was happening. Industry saw great benefit in associating with the COEP.

So what has been the outcome of all your joint efforts?

You need to have some role model. We decided that although COEP was once a great institute, today IITs are recognized as the world class institutes in India. So, we conducted a thorough analysis of what IITs do and what we were doing and where we were lagging behind. We analysed and immediately constructed our own vision, mission and strategic goals and worked on how to bridge that gap as expeditiously as possible.

Then we realised that just stating the vision theoretically would not be meaningful. So we sent faculty from COEP to IIT for an entire semester. The faculty who were sent in batches, attended classes there along with students of IIT, understood how the classes were taught, how the assignments are given, how they were evaluated, how their semester exams took place, how their laboratory classes were held, and so on. They were made to see for themselves an entire life cycle of a student at an IIT. This empowered our faculty, got them charged up to realise the vision.

In order that students too know the IIT culture, we had live video conferencing classes of IIT Bombay beamed to COEP, and mind it, it was an interactive two-way communication just like what happens in a normal class. Whatever classes were held in IIT B, our students were seeing and listening to the lecture. They could interact and ask questions too. It was almost like a live classroom for our students. This was much before online lectures or MOOCs came into existence. So, not only did the students get the taste of about 15-16 courses, they also understood what was expected of them. And they started demanding other courses of IIT at COEP. So this way the gap could be bridged very fast and whatever laboratory equipment was required we purchased or got in the form of donation from the alumni or industry. So the style of functioning gradually started changing here.

Similarly, in the administrative set up too, earlier we used to have fixed HODs. Once someone senior-most became the head of the department, he would remain there until he retired. But we changed the system - every three years by rotation, we had a new person as HOD. This way, new ideas kept coming. Almost all IIT systems were replicated. It was a beginning but more importantly, it gave a lot of opportunities for students to perform through different types of competitions due to the availability of round-the-clock laboratories. This changed the ambience in the institute and students could compete at different events. They have beaten IIT-Delhi, IIT- Bombay and other IIT students too. The students are bright, they know what to do, they can Google, get the information, analyse and make use of the same, but the support by the institution, mentoring and creating academic ambiance is more important.

What do you say about AICTE being seen as a corrupt body and unfriendly institution?

There are two issues that come out of it. People think it is corrupt - it was in a worse position a few years ago. Thankfully, that has reduced substantially, even perception wise and reality wise. Whatever unscrupulous elements are still there, need to be weeded them out by making it totally transparent. That may not be a big challenge now because in the last three-four years it has really improved to a great extent, thanks to automation and e-governance. And that is a kick-start advantage for me.

What will be your other challenges, as Chairperson of AICTE?

Many of the institutes do not have enough faculty and more important, most lack quality faculty. So how do we encourage them to have more faculty and quality faculty? And how do we imbibe good teaching abilities among them? In schools and high schools, teachers are trained through a B.Ed. or D.Ed. degree and then they can join the teaching profession. However, in engineering colleges, you do your BE or ME and straightaway become a faculty. So maybe an early faculty induction programme is one possibility. Then, spotting bright students doing their Master’s programme and encouraging them to join as teaching fraternity is another way of improving the quality of faculty. Also, supporting them to do their PhD as and when they complete a couple of years of teaching would motivate them to keep their teaching jobs. Focus has to be on the outcomes, accreditation, continuous quality improvement, industry and societal interaction, stakeholder satisfaction etc.

Thus, I feel, AICTE should be more of an enabling organization, rather than a mere regulatory authority. Of course if someone does not behave properly, indulges in bad practices and is untruthful, harsh penalty would be there, but beyond that, we need to see the vital aspects of how do we empower them, how do we bring about an enabling climate amongst the students as well as teachers in these colleges. So, a facilitative role is more important than a headmaster kind of a role. First encourage them, support them, make them understand that this is the right way of doing it, and if someone doesn’t respond or lies to the authority, then certainly stringent action has to be taken.

The Indian industry keeps on cribbing about the ‘employability’ of Indian engineering graduates, that they are not up to the mark. If that has to improve the industry too should come forward and support-only then they would get better engineers, productivity will increase and profitability will also increase

So, how would you go about training the faculty?

The recruitment of faculty is very important as without it, the teaching and learning process will not be effective. Maybe a short three month course, before they start teaching for the first time, which trains them in pedagogical methods and methods of dealing with new era students. This new generation is skill and screen based. Today, no one will take down notes; probably their handwriting is so poor that they will not be able to write like we did. They may be able to type faster. I think with the new change in the environment, how we have to engage ourselves and keep students interested in the class is what the real challenge is. Classes need to be more discussion based, case-study based, rather than being one-way lectures. This initiative will have to be collectively done and not at an individual institute level. By clubbing three to five institutes together, some kind of funding can also be thought of.

The other issue is that the Indian industry keeps on cribbing about the ‘employability’ of Indian engineering graduates, that they are not up to the mark. If that has to improve the industry too should come forward and support -- only then they would get better engineers, productivity will increase and profitability will also increase. So the industry also has a role. It’s not always only the government, even the industry and society should be concerned. I am sure we can put together some part from colleges, some from the government and industry and I think within one to two years, quality will become visible. When I say industry should be a partner, then it’s not just for their recruitment drive, but also in supporting courses, allowing student internships in their industry, making students familiar with industry practices, sabbaticals and so on. They should not come just at the end of four years, recruit and say that so and so is not good. What did they do during the four years when the students were in the colleges, is the question we should also ask the industry. Some industries are already involved, but if more colleges have to improve, more industries have to put in effort.

What do you think of the number of MBA colleges today?

I think the number of admissions are getting less, so some of them are getting closed on their own. Some don’t have good quality faculty, may be some of them will have a natural death. The survival of the fittest is likely to happen; it is already happening. Many educational institutions, both engineering and management, have started closing down in different states.

What are your views on the MBA curriculum?

Besides faculty training and industry involvement, curriculum change is also very important. Many a times, the curriculum is not revised for a long time, so we keep working with outdated systems. So naturally when students come out of such systems they will not be able to participate in industry processes. So the curriculum has to be up-to-date and relevant, always, both in MBA and engineering programs. Case studies are very important, I don’t know how many smaller colleges follow this practice. IIMs, ISB or Kellogg School develop excellent case studies and that is how students really engage and learn best practices.

Is it a mammoth task? What steps will you take to fill this gap?

The most important thing is dialogue. Dialogue has to be there. We need to hold meetings in different regions, get heads of different institutes and their managements and understand their problem. We say that we want good quality faculty but we cannot generate it overnight, so for that also a format is required. So, institutes could send10% of their existing faculty for qualification upgradation each year. That is what we successfully did at COEP -- if someone says it is not possible, the experiment of COEP is there for all to see. Ten years ago there were only 12 faculty members with PhDs at COEP; today there are 115 - some of them were selected because they had PhD degrees and some were allowed to go to different IITs/ Indian Institute of Science, for three to four years with full study leave and they all came back, empowered. So you have to invest some money in terms of empowering faculty.

Will the AICTE become a progressive body under you?

Like I said, regulation is certainly required, otherwise some of these institutes may get away with just anything and quality will further suffer. But at the same time, the facilitative role of AICTE should be highlighted.

It should have a friendlier attitude to understand and help. Helping out, mentoring, facilitating is more important. We often say that the role of a teacher has changed from mere teaching a class and conducting an annual exam to that of being a mentor, guide, friend, philosopher and facilitator to make students learn, and learn to become life-long learners.

The role of AICTE is expected to be exactly the same, that of being a mentor and facilitator to make the institutions understand outcome-based education, importance of accreditation, stakeholder interaction and satisfaction, and not merely get embroiled in inputs to the system