OPINION

To Hike or Not To Hike

April 05, 2008
Anuradha Goyal

There are some arguments for which both sides weigh equally. In my opinion the question that ‘should the fees for higher education institutes like IITs and IIMs be hiked or not’ is one such question where the arguments for both increasing and not increasing have the equal weight and you have a difficulty deciding which side you should be on.

Those in favor of not increasing the fees are right as whatever economic progress that India has achieved in last couple of decades is primarily because of the investment in education and the availability of higher and quality education at extremely affordable prices. By increasing the fees, we are going to make the education unaffordable for a large section of society, which in turn would only contribute to the social divide that haunts us all the time. While there are education loans available, but for the affected sections getting those loans is next to impossible, and the ones who can afford probably do not need those small loans.

On the other hand, to make the institutions sustainable it is important to increase the fees. The amount of money spent on each student is far higher than the hikes fees also, so it seems perfectly fine to raise the fees, which after hike also remains the most economical education in the world. Another argument in favor of hiking the fees is that after passing out the first year salary of students is often more than their combined fees of the whole course, and the argument makes perfect sense. If the student earns all the wealth by virtue of being a student of the institute, should the institute not be adequately compensated too?

I agree to both these arguments completely, and I have been thinking of alternate or innovative ways to address both these two points of views. These are some of the ways I can think of:

  1. Fees should be hiked, but with a facility for deferred payment, where a student can pay a larger chunk after he passes out and starts working.
  2. Institutes can hold the formal degree till the student pays up completely.
  3. Financial institutions can relax the rules for financing and actually use the economic status as criteria to fund students. I am told that banks do not fund as there are lot defaults by students. Institutes can provide guarantee to banks and financing agencies by way of keeping some hook with the students till they pay off the complete loans.
  4. Students can be given an option to pay after they pass out, in which case they may be asked to pay even higher than the prescribed fees.
  5. Organizations that pick up the students with loans can have the option to pay for the loan. This can either be treated as the joining bonus or can be deducted from the salary of the hired student.
On second thoughts, these solutions look too simple to have not been thought by the people concerned, but may be this would make them think about these once again and address both sides of a valid argument.

Anuradha is an independent Innovation Consultant based out of Bangalore. You can see her profile at http://www.anuradhagoyal.com
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
K. M.
URL
April 5, 2008
05:34 PM

The fact that you list a number of actions (to be carried out by several independent parties) as ways to resolve the "issue", suggests that you consider all issues as issues to be solved by a collective. There is no issue here if people and organizations are just left free to act on their own policies according to their own judgement.

K. M.

#2
Chandra
April 7, 2008
10:30 AM


The fact is not many students miss out of studying in these institutes because of money. I took a huge loan myself to study, many years ago.

rgs

#3
corporate serf
April 7, 2008
03:08 PM


The fact that you list a number of actions (to be carried out by several independent parties) as ways to resolve the "issue", suggests that you consider all issues as issues to be solved by a collective. There is no issue here if people and organizations are just left free to act on their own policies according to their own judgement.

K. M.



Cat, Pegions. Pegions, Cat.

#4
corporate serf
April 7, 2008
03:09 PM


The fact that you list a number of actions (to be carried out by several independent parties) as ways to resolve the "issue", suggests that you consider all issues as issues to be solved by a collective. There is no issue here if people and organizations are just left free to act on their own policies according to their own judgement.

K. M.



Cat, Pegions. Pegions, Cat.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/7530)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!