A few days ago, in response to this post, a commenter wondered if Indian institutes, including the new ones, are turning into factories to train students to go abroad. I don't have the general statistics about students staying back in India vis-a-vis students going abroad. But, from what I observe at N1, a good chunk of our faculty members have studied at institutes like IISc or other older institutes. So, these institutes have not just trained people who leave the country, but have also trained a sufficient number of people who are doing excellent work at new institutes and are building them up.
But, to come back to the commenter's specific concern, can the new institutes do more to create a research environment that can motivate more students to stay back? Well, for starters, we can have well designed and competitive PhD programmes which will inspire, attract and motivate interested students.
Scientists and educators with more experience and accomplishments can of course offer much more carefully thought out views about this matter. But, two recent incidents have motivated me to write and share some thoughts about it (for whatever they are worth). I apologize in advance for my scattered thoughts and some "wild speculation" that follows.
Firstly, I have been spending a lot of time with a student in our Post BSc Integrated PhD (PBIP) programme. In this programme, students finish course work (equivalent to MSc) in the first two years. In addition, in their second year, they choose an area of interest in which they do a year-long project. At the end of the second year, they take a comprehensive exam, and if successful, start working towards their PhD in the third year. The primary advantage of this format is that in the first two years, we can give a rigorous training to students as per the standards and requirements of our PhD programme. This gives them a stronger foundation to start their PhD at the beginning of the third year with a supervisor. But, at the end of the second year, students also have the option of leaving with an MSc.
This student is doing her Master's project with me. As I am leaving next term, we are trying to finish most of her project work while I am still here and she has easier access to me. This student is very eager, motivated and hard working. She is, in essence, the first student of our PBIP programme [1]. Her performance, so far, has been brilliant. So, members of my department have been mulling a lot about how our PBIP programme can be strengthened so that students like her can get the most out of it and retain their motivation. Moreover, how can we ensure that students like her stay back with us for a PhD and not move at the end of the second year?
Rephrase: How can we attract talented students like her to stay back with us? [2]
Secondly, there has been some discussion at N1 recently about the underlying objective of the institute. While some members of our institute primarily think of it as an undergraduate teaching institution and wish to mould it accordingly (with a vision of faculty members doing research in addition to their primary undergraduate teaching responsibilities), some other members see our institute as a research institution, which, equally importantly, teaches and trains students at all levels (undergraduate as well as post graduate) to do science [3].
Members of the latter group feel that to accomplish this vision, our PBIP programme, as well as our PhD programme, should be given as much importance as the Integrated BS-MS programme. In fact, it is felt that the PBIP programme should be considered as much a flagship programme of the N-type institutes as the BS-MS programme.
The programme, as it currently stands, may come across as a mere sidekick to the nationally recognized BS-MS programme. For example, I am not sure about other N institutes, but at N1, we do not have separate courses for the PBIP programme.
Instead, we ask PBIP students to take courses in the higher levels of the BS-MS programme. This is mainly because of (hopefully short-term) logistical issues, like non-availability of enough faculty to teach so many courses. Thus, instead of designing courses specifically for the requirements of these students, we only adjust them into our existing courses, which were designed for a different programme. This may not necessarily inspire the confidence of the students who pursue PBIP or train them in the best possible way [4].
Recognizing PBIP as a flagship programme will lead to proper planning of the course structure in keeping with its aims and very importantly, hiring of enough faculty to keep the programme running independently.
Another very interesting idea that is being discussed among some faculty members is the possibility of a common national-level entrance procedure into PBIP for all the N-institutes akin to that of the BS-MS programme. This might enable these institutes to publicize this programme more widely and tap into a bigger pool of talented and interested students.
Given the energy levels and the flowering research programmes of many faculty members at the N institutes, the PBIP programmes at these institutes certainly have a very bright future.
I hope to blog more about this issue as I understand it better. Inputs/comments from readers will be highly appreciated.
I know that some of the readers of this blog are PBIP students at N-type institutes.
It would be great to hear back from them about their experience with this programme.
[1] Another student had been chosen in the batch before her. But, he left the programme because he found the course work daunting.
[2] Somehow, "ensure" seems to have a very sinister and coercive implication. A couple of years ago, a proposal was floated that we levy some kind of fee on students who want to leave with an MSc, but this was immediately shot down by the academic committees overlooking this issue.
[3] Whether these ways of thinking are fundamentally different or fundamentally the same could possibly form the subject of a future blog post!
[4] In my STEM field, this leads to some additional complications. While, technically speaking, first year PBIP students are equivalent to fourth year MS students, most undergrad programmes in India do not cover the material that we cover in the third year of our BS-MS programme.
But, to come back to the commenter's specific concern, can the new institutes do more to create a research environment that can motivate more students to stay back? Well, for starters, we can have well designed and competitive PhD programmes which will inspire, attract and motivate interested students.
Scientists and educators with more experience and accomplishments can of course offer much more carefully thought out views about this matter. But, two recent incidents have motivated me to write and share some thoughts about it (for whatever they are worth). I apologize in advance for my scattered thoughts and some "wild speculation" that follows.
Firstly, I have been spending a lot of time with a student in our Post BSc Integrated PhD (PBIP) programme. In this programme, students finish course work (equivalent to MSc) in the first two years. In addition, in their second year, they choose an area of interest in which they do a year-long project. At the end of the second year, they take a comprehensive exam, and if successful, start working towards their PhD in the third year. The primary advantage of this format is that in the first two years, we can give a rigorous training to students as per the standards and requirements of our PhD programme. This gives them a stronger foundation to start their PhD at the beginning of the third year with a supervisor. But, at the end of the second year, students also have the option of leaving with an MSc.
This student is doing her Master's project with me. As I am leaving next term, we are trying to finish most of her project work while I am still here and she has easier access to me. This student is very eager, motivated and hard working. She is, in essence, the first student of our PBIP programme [1]. Her performance, so far, has been brilliant. So, members of my department have been mulling a lot about how our PBIP programme can be strengthened so that students like her can get the most out of it and retain their motivation. Moreover, how can we ensure that students like her stay back with us for a PhD and not move at the end of the second year?
Rephrase: How can we attract talented students like her to stay back with us? [2]
Secondly, there has been some discussion at N1 recently about the underlying objective of the institute. While some members of our institute primarily think of it as an undergraduate teaching institution and wish to mould it accordingly (with a vision of faculty members doing research in addition to their primary undergraduate teaching responsibilities), some other members see our institute as a research institution, which, equally importantly, teaches and trains students at all levels (undergraduate as well as post graduate) to do science [3].
Members of the latter group feel that to accomplish this vision, our PBIP programme, as well as our PhD programme, should be given as much importance as the Integrated BS-MS programme. In fact, it is felt that the PBIP programme should be considered as much a flagship programme of the N-type institutes as the BS-MS programme.
The programme, as it currently stands, may come across as a mere sidekick to the nationally recognized BS-MS programme. For example, I am not sure about other N institutes, but at N1, we do not have separate courses for the PBIP programme.
Instead, we ask PBIP students to take courses in the higher levels of the BS-MS programme. This is mainly because of (hopefully short-term) logistical issues, like non-availability of enough faculty to teach so many courses. Thus, instead of designing courses specifically for the requirements of these students, we only adjust them into our existing courses, which were designed for a different programme. This may not necessarily inspire the confidence of the students who pursue PBIP or train them in the best possible way [4].
Recognizing PBIP as a flagship programme will lead to proper planning of the course structure in keeping with its aims and very importantly, hiring of enough faculty to keep the programme running independently.
Another very interesting idea that is being discussed among some faculty members is the possibility of a common national-level entrance procedure into PBIP for all the N-institutes akin to that of the BS-MS programme. This might enable these institutes to publicize this programme more widely and tap into a bigger pool of talented and interested students.
Given the energy levels and the flowering research programmes of many faculty members at the N institutes, the PBIP programmes at these institutes certainly have a very bright future.
I hope to blog more about this issue as I understand it better. Inputs/comments from readers will be highly appreciated.
I know that some of the readers of this blog are PBIP students at N-type institutes.
It would be great to hear back from them about their experience with this programme.
[1] Another student had been chosen in the batch before her. But, he left the programme because he found the course work daunting.
[2] Somehow, "ensure" seems to have a very sinister and coercive implication. A couple of years ago, a proposal was floated that we levy some kind of fee on students who want to leave with an MSc, but this was immediately shot down by the academic committees overlooking this issue.
[3] Whether these ways of thinking are fundamentally different or fundamentally the same could possibly form the subject of a future blog post!
[4] In my STEM field, this leads to some additional complications. While, technically speaking, first year PBIP students are equivalent to fourth year MS students, most undergrad programmes in India do not cover the material that we cover in the third year of our BS-MS programme.
6 comments:
I will comment only on your question about training students to go abroad (or to go to other institute as your bright kid might do). My perpective is somewhat like the old father in the story who asks his three sons to take a corn (or whatever) and come back in a year and tell how did they earn living starting with that corn.
I think more and more people need to go out to get the world perspective. And believe me as you will make your institutes stronger, more people will come back as well. Science need these exchanges to grow. Trying to stop the flow will only make water stinking.
I think a student who is motivated and doing well in an "integrated Ph.D." programme is likely to stay back and finish her PhD in the same institute.
Many institutions give the MSc after 3, rather than 2, years of the Int-PhD programme as a disincentive to leave. But I personally don't think it is necessary. Students do leave for various reasons and some may do better elsewhere. I stayed where I was to do my Ph.D. (in IISc, working with an excellent advisor, who made it clear that I was working "with" him not "under" him). I see the majority of students do the same at other institutions including my current one.
Can it be that this particular student is looking to move because you are moving? If so, that is surely a special case. And when you say she's the first, do you mean in your discipline, or in all disciplines?
As for intake into PhD programmes, ours this year has been unusually large (both PhD and Int-PhD) and the students are excellent. I don't know whether the IISER effect has something to do with it. Most are not from IISERs but maybe the IISERs have made a career in science more worth considering. Or maybe it's just a statistical blip...
As far as the importance of the PhD programme goes, I fully agree it is as important as the undergraduate programme. The IISERs should not repeat the mistake of the IITs and become training schools for large numbers of undergraduates, most of whom end up in some management or IT career with little relevance to their undergraduate training. In fact, many IITs have been trying to strengthen their research, especially in basic sciences, in recent years.
Hi Rahul,
You are right. This student wants to move because I am moving. Although hers is a special case, we have had some students from other disciplines who have moved after two years.
She is the first PBIP student in our discipline.
It's great to hear that IMSc has been able to take a large number of students this year. My institute is facing a bit of a struggle to attract PhD / Int PhD students, but I hope that this will change with more time, better planning and by giving our PhD programmes a higher priority.
I am a PBIP student at a New Institute. From my experience of doing B.Sc from an outside university I feel privileged to do my MS course work here. In my institute, we should do two projects,each one year long during our two year MS course. For the first year I have chosen an experimental lab which does cutting edge research in a field which very few labs in India(say 1 or 2) is capable of doing. From the preceptive of a MS student, be it BS-MS or PBIP, it provides immense oppurtunites.
And since the new institutes have been set up to address specifically the challenge of developing a science education culture I suppose the PBIP programme of new institutes will be far more attractive than all other established institutes in India within a decade. In fact we are trained to apply theory that we learn in class either in lab or in theory projects. The plus points of new institutes are its young faculty and 60 years of experience of how not to develop a science education system. All the faculty members I encountered here are so friendly and ever encouraging to have a conversation.
New institutes are meant to bridge the gap between science education and research that currently exist. Its aim is to train young minds to completely indulge in science rather than to run behind white collar jobs in a IT company. New institutes will create a conducive atmosphere for science research and education in the coming decade and hopefully we will see, young minds doing cutting edge research in India itself.
This is a wonderful post and a very laudable effort indeed! What we can and should do is to create an atmosphere on par with the best in the world. The students can then choose what they like best. In the current scenario, we are almost forcing a one way stream: by focusing on just creating the world's best undergraduate force, we are already pre-deciding for our youngsters that they should be going on to the MITs and Harvards of the world where they will learn and tackle challenging problems.
Like the anonymous commenter above mentions 'Science needs exchanges to grow' and an exchange by definition is two way. If we have just as many bright and brilliant students coming from other countries into our own, then this 'exchange' is justified. Else, it is simply a seemingly very noble, broad-minded and easy way of getting out of the problem i.e. of being factories to export precious and precocious talent.
And to your point about 'ensuring' that the students stay: this seems to me to be another type of slightly misguided idealism prevalent in Indian academic circles. While I do agree that the idea of making students pay is ridiculous, there can be other ingenious ways. Do you know the story of how John Nash was 'lured' to Princeton over Harvard? By simply being offered more money! One may argue that there is nothing wrong with offering a higher scholarship, but when it is done with the clear intention of 'ensuring' someone does what you want them to do, it is nothing else than saying he was 'bought'. Now, from the moral high-grounds where many idealists sit and preside from, this is blatantly 'unethical'.
I think it is a good time to mix idealism with some practicality and shrewd and forward-minded thinking in such matters! India needs to bulldoze over pettiness - petty politics and even petty idealism!
Post a Comment