Why should we (not) run an MTech Program

One of the constant refrains of educational institutions is that they don't get enough funding. And indeed, if you look at the public funding of higher education, it is much lower than other countries at the same level of development. But, are we spending the money efficiently. Is taxpayer getting the bang for the buck.

And, the answer, unfortunately, is No.

One of the problems in our setup is that once a program starts, it is very difficult to close it. Also, there is never a review of programs from the perspective of their growth or closure. Indeed, even when we start a new program, there is often insufficient due diligence.

For example, why do our institutions run MTech programs. Are they cost effective. Can we spend the same amount of money for better social benefit elsewhere.

In my discussion with many educators, I have come up with the following reasons to have MTech programs:

1. It is a research program. We are not able to attract enough PhD students. So they form the backbone of our research efforts.
2. We are producing super specialists in areas where there is a significant industry demand. Under-graduate programs are more broad based but industry needs people with more depth.
3. It is a profit making program, which allows me to subsidize either research or UG tuition.
4. We cannot admit a large number of students in our 4-year program. So we admit some more in a 2-year program to give them an exposure to quality education that they will otherwise not get.

And, of course, it could be a combination of these reasons. (And, if you think we should run an MTech program for any other reason, feel free to put that in a comment below.)

Now, whatever are the arguments for any particular program, we should have data to support that argument.

Is it a research program. How many research papers of a reasonable quality have come out of thesis work. In places where PhD is the primary research manpower, one sees anything between 0.5 and 1.0 papers per PhD student per year. So a PhD student who takes 5 years to complete the program will publish at least 2-3 papers, and in many cases 5 papers or even more (including some which will get published after the PhD is over). If MTech is the primary research manpower, is it fair to expect 0.1 papers per MTech student per year (which basically means that out of 5 MTech students, there should be one decent paper over their 2 year period). If you are not getting even this much, then your MTech program is not a research program.

If you are producing quality manpower for industry, how is your placement of MTech programs. Are your MTech students getting placed in companies where their technical skills will be useful (or they are going for PhD). Are those companies valuing their skills to the extent that they offer them a higher compensation package than your BTech students. So, if you are able to place 50 percent of your graduates in jobs that will use those technical skills, and which pay at least 10 percent higher than your BTech median salaries, I think it is ok for you to claim that you are running an MTech program to satisfy an industry need. And if industry is really so keen, you should be running your MTech program with a batchsize of 40-60 students, and not 10-15 students. You are not serving the society by graduating a tiny set of students.

If it is a profit making program, then of course, no other argument is needed. But the program can be profit making only if you don't have specialized labs, you are recruiting part-time or contractual faculty at low wages. Are you telling all this to students before they seek admission.

If you are doing a favor by admitting students who missed getting admission 4 years ago, and they have now proven that they are worthy of studying in your institution, then again, what they do after graduation should be better than your BTech students. (In terms of jobs, higher education, entrepreneurship, and so on.) Is that happening.

In most of our MTech programs, we really can't argue on any of these lines, and yet we have a large number of MTech programs. Remember, that unless you are running MTech with part-time/guest/low wage faculty, it is a very expensive program, because the class sizes are typically much smaller. It often needs specialized labs which only a few students will use. The thesis work requires much more expensive faculty time and if it is not resulting in research publications, the return on investment is rather low, and we probably should increase the BTech seats instead.

But often there is no evaluation of any program, and once a program starts, it continues for a long time. And so, our very expensive MTech programs continue for pretty much no reason at all. My suggestion is that everyone should look at what MTech graduates are doing: quality of jobs, publications, enrolling for PhD, etc. Each public institution should clearly and publicly articulate when will the program be allowed to continue and when will it be closed. For example, they may say, we will close it if the total number of students admitted is less than 10-15 for two consecutive years. We will close it if less than 50% of graduates in a batch get job with salary higher than BTech median or get admission in a higher ranked college or whatever else. And if the output is not sufficient, close that program.

The same resources can be used for a better program. In fact, not closing current programs is a major reason for the inability to start better programs.