 MIT (the one in Pune - not Cambridge, MA) has introduced a 'Master's Program in Government'. A 1 year full time program for any graduate under age 35. Admissions will be through an online objective test followed by personal interview by an 'elite panel of leaders'. So far so good. We often debate why the country does not produce political leaders of a certain calibre. The answer is: there is no ‘career path’. No course can lead to a 'campus placement' as Member of Parliament but yes, it may provide some kind of platform for those from non-political backgrounds. Especially the urban, middle class educated type - they're always keen on entering a profession with the right 'qualification'. The question is, will this course serve that purpose? Pros and Cons The MITSOG course promises to be a blend of classroom lectures, field visits and national study tours to Parliament, state legislative assembly, zilla parishad, panchayat, NGOS, model villages etc. There is a thesis which includes 'internship' with a political party and a 15 day international visit to The Hague, British Parliament etc thrown in as well. Secondly, in the manner of industry supporting a bschool, the MITSOG seems to have the support of the political and familiar-with-politics class. The ad, published this Sunday, features the name of T N Seshan as 'Chairman'. The website indicates 'leaders as faculty'. Leaders such as L K Advani and Shri A K Bardhan ("I am willing to play the role of Professor Emeritus"). And herein lies the catch in what is otherwise a well meant and much needed initiative... a) Do practising politicians make effective teachers? Or desirable ones? Yes and no. They can share their experiences and offer valuable insights. But constrained by the politics they must practice, what they choose to share will be carefully weighed. And watered down. The old guard may simply dampen the idealism of the young people who want to make a change by asserting ‘things have always been this way’! b) Secondly would they enter the classroom prepared for rational discussion and debate, even on sensitive issues? Say a student questions Advani on Gujarat or Bardhan on Nandigram - would the faculty respond objectively or simply storm out of class? c) The presence of big names - even if only for the odd lecture - adds glamour to the course (and ensures internships). But what about some of the other names on the list? There's Poonam Mahajan - 'leader - BJP'. So raw and inexperienced, she may need lessons herself. Then there are the likes of Arjun Singh and Anbumani Ramadoss ... What will they teach - Quadratic Equations to Solve Caste Politic Puzzles? d) International study tours sound great but are not really necessary. What most candidates who join such a course need is more exposure to the 'real India'. Also such tours cost a great deal of money… must be an optional element of a course which currently costs Rs 1.5 lakhs. e) Lastly, emphasis on oratory and leadership development is commendable. The first is a technique one can teach - the second requires correct selection of raw material. It would be interesting to see the composition of the inaugural batch! I'm also wondering what is the policy when it comes to selecting sons and daughters of politicians – if they apply. Do they get treated like everybody else - or do they have a competitive advantage/ disadvantage? Having said all this I still think it's a good initiative. Because it's not about academic learning alone but practical exposure and hands-on experience. But it will work only if politicians are restricted to taking a few guest lectures and admissions are clean and transparent. Neta log need to see a ‘School of Government’ as more than a course. It can be a pipeline of raw talent, of fresh and idealistic young blood and bold new ideas. Bottomline: The support of the political class adds credibility to the MITSOG. But making politics itself a credible career option is a far more difficult task I wish the MITSOG every success - we shall be watching closely! http://youthcurry.blogspot.com/2007/04/and-now-school-of-government.html Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
|||
 |
123Pune.comThe city of Virtuous Deeds |
|
|
|
|
Thanks
This seems to be a real eye opener.
Thanks for sharing with us.
Vinay Yadav
PHP / Drupal Developer
http://www.vinayras.com
MIT SOG a big Fraud
Dear All,
dont get mislead by such institutes.
see the following facts before applying.
http://mitsog.blogspot.com/
The Telegraph
Mon, Nov. 05, 2007 Front Page
MIT: M for ‘misleading’- Who’s who of politics lend name to unrecognised institute
By: CHARU SUDAN KASTURI
New Delhi, Nov. 4: India’s education minister Arjun Singh and senior politicians from virtuallyall major parties are endorsing a private Pune-based institution that is not recognised by anygovernment authority but claims it is backed by the Indian government.
The MIT School of Government, accused by students of duping them into thinking its courseshave official sanction, has also raised concerns at the Massachusetts Institute of Technologyfor its “misleading” use of the MIT name.
The MIT-SOG—MIT here stands for Maharashtra Institute of Technology —claims on itswebsite and prospectus that it is “commended by the ministry of human resourcedevelopment” headed by Arjun.
The ministry has replied to Right to Information appeals by The Telegraph saying it does not“commend” any institute, and has no discretionary powers to recognise any diploma course.The only course the MIT-SOG currently offers is titled “masters diploma in government”.
Government recognition only comes from bodies like the University Grants Commission, the All India Commission for TechnicalEducation and the Medical Council of India, which first ensure that the institute meets certain quality norms.
Investigations by this newspaper have revealed that the MIT-SOG is not recognised by any government body.
Rather, a parliamentary committee had hauled up the school in 2005, soon after it was set up, when it was caught using agraphic image of Parliament for publicity.
But Arjun, whose ministry regularly stresses the need to ensure strict standards of quality in higher education, wrote to MITSOG founder Vishwanath Karad this January, calling the institute’s work commendable.
“The dedicated and committed efforts being made by you and your institute towards the cause of education are reallycommendable and deserve all the encouragement,” Arjun wrote in the letter, a copy of which is with this newspaper. Arjun isalso listed as a “faculty” member at the institute.
The HRD ministry has fought battles with the commerce ministry to prevent the “commercialisation of education”. It is drawingup a lawto regulate private institutes that it says often dupe students.
Arjun’s office, when contacted, appeared surprised that the MIT-SOG is not recognised by any government body, and said itwould look into the case.
The MIT-SOG, however, says the letter is equivalent to being “commended by the MHRD”.
“We are endorsed by the MHRD. The letter says as much,” Pardeep Kumar, the MIT-SOG’s associate director, said.
Thirteen other ministers in the current government, L.K. Advani and some other BJP and Left leaders have also writtencongratulatory letters used by the institute to woo students.
Many of these leaders are also listed as faculty members on the MIT-SOG website.
Several students who joined the institute under the impression that it was indeed supported by the Government of India have said they were even led to believe that the institute was tying up with Harvard University.
Many students have left the course midway, conceded Kumar, who doubles as spokesperson for the Indian Youth Congress.
“Many of our students leave halfway through the course when they realise the institute will not guarantee them jobs,” Kumarsaid, emphasising that the institute was being run despite financial losses because of the founder’s commitment.
Kumar, however, denied that the institute had ever told students it was seeking a tie-up with Harvard.
In an email, Rick Calixto, Harvard’s director, trademark programme, has written that the university “would certainly not affiliateitself with an institution clearly infringing the MIT trademark”.
Harvard has forwarded its concerns to MIT at Cambridge, Massachusetts, which has said it is “concerned” about the“misleading” use of the MIT name by institutes such as the MIT-SOG and has taken “active steps to enforce the issue”.
-----------------------------
The Telegraph:Tue, Nov. 06, 2007 Front Page
Quality check for ‘quack’ institutes
CHARU SUDAN KASTURI
New Delhi, Nov. 5: Institutions like the Pune-based MIT School of Government may soonhave to undergo compulsory government evaluation of their academic standards,administrative efficiency and infrastructure.
The University Grants Commission plans to make this mandatory for higher educationinstitutions to expose those who dupe students with false claims and promises.
Failure to get accredited might earn the institution the tag of an education “quack”, top UGCofficials said.
A new law, being considered by the UGC and the human resource development ministry, aims to terminate once and for all theoption of remaining unevaluated by the government.
“We are going to make accreditation mandatory. The law, we feel, may be necessary for the purpose of enforcement,” a seniorUGC official said.
Colleges and universities currently have the option of seeking recognition from the government, which, if obtained, increasesthe credibility of the institute.
A body under the UGC, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), independently accredits colleges anduniversities. But this is not equivalent to recognition. It merely tells the institute whether it meets the standards required forrecognition and the government to assess the overall status of higher education in India.
Neither recognition nor accreditation is mandatory for an institute to offer courses.
But with the demand for higher education far exceeding the supply, government officials say an increasing number of privateinstitutions successfully “sell education profitably” without bothering about official evaluation.
“Even a fraud institute that markets itself well is likely to get students willing to shell out lakhs of rupees as fees. Dupingstudents by a play of words is an often-used tactic,” an HRD ministry source said.
As reported yesterday, the MIT-SOGclaims to be “commended” by the ministry, while the government has clarified it does not“commend” any institute.
Students fromthe institute, which is not recognised by any government authority, had complained that they had fallen prey toMonday’s report in The the MIT-SOG claimthat the HRD ministry endorses it.
Ironically, HRDminister Arjun Singh had written a congratulatory letter to the institute. Letters of support from several other toppoliticians were also used by the institute to woo students.
According to the latest statistics available with the UGC, there are 398 universities and 18,064 colleges in India. Of these, only140 universities and 3,492 colleges had been accredited at the last count in March this year. Most have remained beyond thescanner of the government.
Now, the onus will be on the institute to get accredited or face what some in the HRDministry are calling “negative recognition”.
A deadline will be issued, by when institutions have to send in applications for accreditation.The NAAC will first target institutes already recognised by the government.
“A one-time recognition is not enough. The NAAC will first evaluate all the recognised universities and institutes,” an officialsaid.
Next, it will be the turn of unrecognised institutes —like the MIT-SOG— to be scanned by the NAAC.
----------------------------
The Telegraph:Thu, Dec. 27, 2007 Front Page
Corrected: Arjun ‘error’
CHARU SUDAN KASTURI
New Delhi, Dec. 26: Pune-based MIT School of Government (Mitsog) hasdropped claims that it was backed by the human resource development ministry.
The Telegraph had reported on November 5 that the institute had noofficial support.
The institute, which names some of the country’s top politicians on itsfaculty, was using a congratulatory letter by HRD minister Arjun Singh toclaim it was “commended by” the Centre. The same letter was used byMitsog to list Singh on its faculty.
Several students at the institute had complained that they had been misled by the term — “commended byMinistry of HRD”.
Following the report on November 5, the minister wrote a letter to the institute, demanding the removal of thetwo claims.
“We have decided to remove the ‘commended by’ phrase from the prospectus and from all officialdocuments. We have also removed the minister’s name from the faculty,” said Pardeep Kumar, Mitsogassociate director.
The words, “commended by”, were removed immediately after the report was published, Kumar said, addingthat the institute never intended to mislead anyone.
In his reply to the minister, Vishwanath D. Karad, the founder of Mitsog, accepted the institute’s “error”.
“I would like to humbly submit that we shall delete the name of the Human Resource Minister from the list offaculty. Similarly, as regards the issue of using the words ‘commended by MHRD’, these words have alsobeen deleted from our new prospectus and brochure.
“I would like to assure you this error will not be repeated. I feel extremely sorry for the embarrassmentcaused to you in this regard,” Karad’s letter said.
But the “commendation” and the faculty list with the minister’s name figured on the Mitsog website latetonight. Kumar said the institute was “unaware” of it and would correct the content.
Higher education regulatory authorities accepted that Mitsog’s “error” was an example of the government’sfailure to verify claims made by fast-proliferating institutes.
---------------------