It is highly inspiring how a few intellectuals created IISc way back in early 1900s. Stories of how Jamsetji Tata, Swami Vivekanand, Morris Travers (founding director) and Sir William Ramsay discussed and planned the formation of institute are heard by many of us. Reputation and performance of IISc and its alumini over 100 years speaks loudly about its success. Having seen couple of founding directors myself, I am convinced that the founding directors (a Nobel laureate in this case) mark significant impact on the long term success of institutes. Placing of system and scientific/administrative standards by the founding director not only inspires the future leaders, but also sets up a culture (or a pressure) of keeping the reputation and success at par. The subsequent directors ofcourse have nontrivial roles in the success of an institute, however fixing the gold standard at the beginning itself has an early-mover advantage since good institutes attracts the good people (rich gets richer phenomenon). To add up, there are few other examples where the legacy of founding directors is undeniable. Late Prof. PM Bhargava of CCMB, Prof. Lalji Singh of CDFD, Prof. GN Rao of LV Prasad eye institute, Prof. Samir Brahmchari of IGIB (transformed CBT to IGIB) and a few others are known for their vision and leadership abilities.
When several IISER/NISERs/IITs/NITs were floated way back a decade ago, various voices were heard. Some strongly supported the move, others labelled the move as experiment deemed to be doomed. Personally, the news was very refreshing to myself, particularly when I see how government realized the importance of science education and research for nation’s future after a void of almost half a century. I had been critical about many things in newly set up IISERs, though many of those problems existed in many other established institutes. A more specific criticism of IISERs came to me naturally over the time. One thing, which is deeply appreciated about IISERs, is the undergrad/postgrad education tied with the research. A simple re-look at this statement would remind you atypical ‘university’ job, which is now rebranded. The obvious motivation for these new brand universities is the efforts and planning needed to correct the existing universities. Ignore the mess created, and rather create the fresh ones, only to be messed systematically again. In my view, the founding directors of IISERs/NISERs/IITs/NITs were rather uninspiring individuals. I am not questioning their scientific credentials when I do not have any knowledge and experience in the areas these professors worked upon and were awarded the Bhatnagar awards, madly celebrated as Indian Nobel prize. My view is solely based on a key leadership quality: the ability to inspire others. One reason of not having inspiring leaders placed in these institutions could be the haphazard set up of >20 such institutes in a rather short time. Several top appointments made in haste opens up a window for genuine errors as well as for nepotism. In contrast, a single such setup attracts many eyes to ensure the quality of top positions, the scientists, the students and the fundamental infrastructure. I am not predicting that IISER model has failed or will fail, but it is clear that a few of them will do well while most will remain mediocre, and perhaps, none of them will match IISc. Perhaps a better approach could have been a sequential time bound plan of setting up these institutes with utter care and focus.
When several IISER/NISERs/IITs/NITs were floated way back a decade ago, various voices were heard. Some strongly supported the move, others labelled the move as experiment deemed to be doomed. Personally, the news was very refreshing to myself, particularly when I see how government realized the importance of science education and research for nation’s future after a void of almost half a century. I had been critical about many things in newly set up IISERs, though many of those problems existed in many other established institutes. A more specific criticism of IISERs came to me naturally over the time. One thing, which is deeply appreciated about IISERs, is the undergrad/postgrad education tied with the research. A simple re-look at this statement would remind you atypical ‘university’ job, which is now rebranded. The obvious motivation for these new brand universities is the efforts and planning needed to correct the existing universities. Ignore the mess created, and rather create the fresh ones, only to be messed systematically again. In my view, the founding directors of IISERs/NISERs/IITs/NITs were rather uninspiring individuals. I am not questioning their scientific credentials when I do not have any knowledge and experience in the areas these professors worked upon and were awarded the Bhatnagar awards, madly celebrated as Indian Nobel prize. My view is solely based on a key leadership quality: the ability to inspire others. One reason of not having inspiring leaders placed in these institutions could be the haphazard set up of >20 such institutes in a rather short time. Several top appointments made in haste opens up a window for genuine errors as well as for nepotism. In contrast, a single such setup attracts many eyes to ensure the quality of top positions, the scientists, the students and the fundamental infrastructure. I am not predicting that IISER model has failed or will fail, but it is clear that a few of them will do well while most will remain mediocre, and perhaps, none of them will match IISc. Perhaps a better approach could have been a sequential time bound plan of setting up these institutes with utter care and focus.
No comments:
Post a Comment