Mailbox

One-sided feature

While the article sympathises with private college managements, it offers no solution for the several thousand middle and lower middle class students. Since they don’t fall in the government mandated ‘below poverty line’ category, they can’t apply for the seats the managements propose to voluntarily set aside for the meritorious poor. At the same time they aren’t rich enough to afford the management quota tuition fees charged by the colleges. Hitherto there was a government merit quota catering to these students, but the latest judgement has delivered a blow to their higher education aspirations.

I feel that your story should have addressed this side of the issue and suggested ways and means to enable these students to attain professional education and hence a better quality of life.

Jagannath Prakash
Kolar (Karnataka)

Ever heard of education loans? —Editor

I enjoyed reading your special report on the rising popularity of life skills education (EW October). In my brief career in the corporate sector, I have come across numerous people with brilliant academic records, who haven’t succeeded because of lack of life and soft skills such as managing anger, frustration, conflict etc. But I can’t subscribe to the view that life skills can be taught in one classroom session or during a three-day workshop. They should be integrated with school curriculums and taught continuously and practised constantly.

Though your special report was a path-breaker, there was an anomaly in the feature. Your Chennai correspondent claims that she couldn’t find any life skills organisations in the city. Obviously she didn’t look hard enough. Chennai has its share of life skills outfits which have been operational for several years. Among them: Dreamcatcher Learning Adventures, Outward Bound South India, Adventure & Environment Centre and Wildertrails Adventure Club. Maybe you could interview them the next time.

Ranganathan Iyengar
Chennai

In my right hand is the September issue of EducationWorld with the special report ‘Curse of the university affiliation system’ and in my left hand is ‘The making of a global citizen — Singapore — Destination for Education,’ co-published by The Times Group and Singapore Education. What a contrast! Your September issue also has a column titled ‘Stumbling blocks of foreign varsities’ by Rajiv Desai.

Putting all this together I wonder where we are heading? Why do we choose to continue with the burden of bondage in education? Can’t Rajiv Desai, Gurcharan Das etc form a forum of concerned educationists and request the prime minister to redeem our country’s higher education system from the shackles of vested interests obstructing private and foreign institutions from providing quality education to meet the enormous need of the nation? Why are we so petty minded? Why are we ruining our future?

I trust you will take the initiative and wage a crusade to make quality higher education accessible to all

K.V. Simon
Mumbai

You and your team need to be congratulated. EducationWorld is improving with every issue!

In particular you deserve the thanks and gratitude of every person associated with and interested in education for the painstaking effort you have taken to explain the issues involved in the historic judgement of the Supreme Court of India in P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (EW October). Though this is a case of vital importance for the future of professional education in India, EducationWorld is the only publication which has covered it in depth. As far as I am aware the other best-selling magazines such as India Today and Outlook have completely ignored it.

From a reading of your cover story it’s quite obvious that the Central and state governments and the political class as a whole are being very foolish and reckless in proposing legislation to override the unanimous ruling of the highest court to the effect that privately promoted financially independent medical and engineering colleges have a fundamental right to self-regulation, subject to transparency and reasonableness in their admission procedures and fixation of tuition fees. I am astonished how anyone in his right mind can possibly quarrel with this ruling of the Supreme Court.

If the total investment in land, buildings, labs, faculty and infrastructure is made by a private citizen, how can the Central or state governments justifiably appropriate 60-80 percent of capacity at below-cost tuition fees? When equity and fundamental rights conflict, the latter should prevail. That in effect is what the learned judges of the apex court have ruled.

As you have rightly suggested, the way out of this impasse is negotiation between state governments and college managements for the latter to set aside quotas to provide subsidised education to the poor and socially disadvantaged. Politicians need to come of age and learn that they can’t give away seats they don’t own.

Alok Bhatia
Delhi