In 1920, the US prohibited the sale of ‘intoxicating liquors’. The idea was dressed up as a crusade against moral evil. It ended up strengthening the mafia that made exorbitant money in the illegal alcohol trade.
Child support policy was framed as a way to make deadbeat fathers pay up for their child(ren). The ostensible intent was to make fathers responsible. Instead, it led to a surge of children being born out of wedlock; children who had little access to their fathers.
Incentives matter. The road to hell is paved with well-intentioned, but poorly thought out laws.
With a certain Indian EdTech in trouble, there has been an increasing clamor for government regulation in this sector.
But government regulations in India have a checkered history.
For instance, let’s take up the substance of this article:
- The AICTE requires a third of all engineering college faculty to have a PhD.
- Considering a student teacher ratio of 1:15, we need one PhD faculty for every 45 students.
- There are about 60 lakh engineering graduates passing out every year.
- So, we need more than 1 lakh PhDs to uphold AICTE’s prescription.
- However, India only produces 1,000 PhDs per year.
Now, consider this quote by a government-appointed committee:
“Indian academics have contributed 35% of all articles published in various kinds of fake journals between 2010 and 2014. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has identified over 11,000 fake journals during the five-year period (2010-2015).”
Sure, the individual PhD graduates in question are responsible for their work. But what caused plagiarism to explode at this rate?
It’s the artificial demand created by governmental regulation. It ensures that PhDs, regardless of their thesis quality, are well-employed in academia. In an open market, no business would pay a PhD just for being one. The value they bring to the table would dictate their pay.
EdTech presents a golden opportunity for millions of Indians to upgrade their lives. It can facilitate low-cost learning with tangible returns in terms of employable skills. Done right, it could democratize learning for millions of students who cannot afford conventional education.
It is thought that the stakeholders with a vested interest in an industry may tilt the policies to their favor if given a chance. And, therefore, they should have no or minimal say in the matter.
But those with their skin in the game are apt to think long term. In the above example, no private educational institution would place a premium on a namesake PhD than real-world experience. It’s highly unlikely that they wouldn’t have caught this blindspot-in-the-making. Because outcomes matter in a very real way to both their byline and bottomline.
While the government may indeed be constrained to take a harder look at the issue, the policymaking must be such that it ensures healthy competition that benefits both the players and students. And this is better possible with stakeholder participation than through unilateral government imposition.
Musings by Madhav 