“Did AICTE consult any of the stakeholders? Institutions, faculty, industry, alumni? It is totally unacceptable and we will have to seek legal remedies.” Prof. J. Philip Director, XIME, Bangalore

“Any policy action requires some rationale. The AICTE notification has no such rationale. It will destroy the national character of management education.” Dr. Bakul H. Dholokia Director, AIIM

“The, AICTE has called for a period of 24 months for MBA programmes. This is unheard of across the world. It would have a negative impact on placements.” Dr. Saji Gopinath Director, TAPMI

 (The Supreme Court on March 17, ordered an interim stay on the AICTE notification. This would mean, that the for this year, PGDM institutions can  breath easy. But until the court hears and the case in detail and provides its judgement, the jury is out in the open as far as the future of these institutions is concerned. Careers360 will follow the case closely and bring you regular updates. Ed)

ON December 28, 2010 AICTE, the regulatory body charged with governing technical education came with a notification seeking to regulate the PGDM institutions. The institutions challenged the same.

• Madras High Court orders interim stay on AICTE notifications!
• Orissa High Court orders a stay until March 23.
• Bombay High Court provides relief to petitioners!

A petition is also pending in the Supreme Court where similar relief is sought from the court, says Dr.HC Chaturvedi, Director, BIMTECH, who has been spearheading the response against the AICTE notification in NCR region.

Why do institutes fight against these notifications so vehemently? What prompted AICTE to purs ue such a course of action? What is so sinister about the notification? Interestingly both the parties justify their actions in the name of student welfare. What is in it for students? Careers360 spoke to a cross section of stakeholders. Here is what we found.

What is the issue?
The bone of contention is the new approval process hand book AICTE published as well as the public notice it brought out in various newspapers announcing eight major policy pronouncements. Take the first notification which states that no PGDM programmes must be less than 24 months. This could  mean, all programmes with less than 24 months duration would become illegal. So the National Management Programme of MDI, the International Management programme at IMI and others would be null and void. “It is ridiculous, when world over institutions offer both one and two year modes of MBA, AICTE seems to have lost the plot,” says Prof. Velu Kandaswamy from a south based PGDM Institute.

Fee is prime motive
But it is the notification, about the fees and centralization of admission which rankles the institutions very much. In a recent conference which Education Promotion Society of India organized, speaker after speaker focused on the resource requirement and how AICTE notification on fee fixation would kill institution building. A Dean, on condition of anonymity told us, “The notification on fee would only make colleges to take donations, and that is what AICTE wants”. And the inability to admit students from all over the country is another pet peeve. And rest of the notification was dismissed as lunacy.

What does AICTE say?
We attempted to speak with AICTE to understand what prompted them to come out with this unique set of notifications, that too at a very crucial juncture. None of the office bearers would come on record and speak to us. Our written queries are unacknowledged and the request for appointment was turned down flatly.

Motives behind the notificaiton
Two executives of AICTE spoke to us on condition of absolute anonymity. One argued that the notification might come across as unfair, but was essential. He contented that there are about 80,000 complaints against institutions on overcharging, which are pending with the AICTE and a slightly lesser number of complaints on denial of admissions/back door admissions with capitation fees. He asserted that these notifications are issued in the interest of ensuring equity, transparency and uniformity, all three factors which seem to be lacking in the way AICTE functions. But let us give them the benefit of doubt and see if all these notifications promote these avowed objectives?

Transparency 
AICTE claims that passing admissions to State councils would bring in transparency. May be it would. But there are easier ways of ensuring the same. AICTE norms already clearly mention that institutions must announce their admission weights in advance, must put up weighting lists and allocate roll numbers to admitted students.

Half the approved colleges do not do so.  Instead of implementing its rules effectively, which would have actually gone a long way in transparency, AICTE, by passing the admission to State councils is simply passing the buck. Moreover, there are much more important aspects of a B-school that demands attention. Placements, for example is one of the most important elements in the selection of a B-School.

AICTE has no norms for the schools in reporting the same. Finances of the schools is another area where the AICTE is completely mum. It seeks no transparency in issues that are most crucial to students. 

Moreover, State governments invariably end up reserving bulk of the seats to students who are domiciled in the states. For at least 10% of the PGDM institutions, the catchment area is rightfully national. Such a diversity is incredibly valuable. AICTE notifications kill such possibility completely.

"It is an unwarranted intervention on the part of AICTE . Its primary objective appears to be one of creating unnecessary obstacles." Bobby Srinivasan President, IFMR

“Usually regulator ensures full disclosure and leaves the final choice in the hands of the customer. AICTE   wants to be the judge, the jury and the hangman.” Dr Amit kapoor Professor, MDI

“The AICTE notification is vague. It says admissions will be conducted by State Governments through their 'competent authorities'. No mention of who they are?” DR. A.M. Sherry Admissions Chairman, IMT Group of Institutions