In a revelation that raises questions about the alignment of India’s elite engineering institutions with its critical sectors, a mere two percent of the intellectual workforce within the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) can be traced back to prestigious engineering institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). This disclosure emerged as a result of a Right to Information Act query in 2014.
During this time frame, V Adimurthy, Senior Advisor to the Interplanetary Mission at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram, emphasized that not only ISRO but also sectors like roadways and railways had failed to attract graduates from IITs.
The IITs, instituted from the 1950s onward, carried the mandate of nurturing “technology leaders who would lay the foundation of the nation’s industrial prowess.” However, subsequent developments prompt contemplation on whether they have genuinely fulfilled their original mission.
Initially modeled after the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), these institutions were structured to provide a comprehensive educational experience. This included in-depth study of core engineering subjects, as well as exposure to pure sciences, arts, and humanities—offered as elective courses that students were required to complete to earn a B.Tech degree.
The underlying intent was to nurture graduates who would emerge as well-rounded professionals, equipped not only with technical acumen but also with an expansive societal vision, crucial for propelling a nascent India toward development.
Regrettably, over time, many students of the IITs veered away from the “core” engineering subjects, progressing into “non-core” engineering domains, and eventually pursuing careers in finance, management, and administration. This trend was unearthed by a comprehensive study of IIT Bombay students conducted by Namit Agrawal, Sailakshmi Sreenath, Shishir K. Jha, and Anurag Mehra, researchers affiliated with the Centre for Policy Studies at IIT Bombay (refer to Current Science, Vol 124, No: 2, January 25, 2023, for details).
The ramifications of this shift meant that India’s industrial and scientific sectors, including stalwarts like ISRO, became increasingly reliant on the products of non-elite and less-endowed engineering institutions. ISRO, for example, boasts an overwhelming majority of engineers and scientists hailing from such non-elite institutions, a testament to the burgeoning middle class in smaller towns.
While this phenomenon underscores a major and, arguably, revolutionary social development, ISRO’s continued successes stand as a testimony to the robustness of this paradigm. ISRO is rightfully proud of its unwavering commitment to fiscal prudence, boasting the world’s most cost-effective satellite launches. One of the contributing factors to ISRO’s remarkable cost-efficiency is the modest remuneration offered to its personnel.
Had financial gain been their primary motivation, these talented individuals would have undoubtedly sought opportunities within the corporate sector. Instead, ISRO’s personnel prioritize careers in science and technology for the intrinsic rewards they offer, relegating financial incentives to a secondary role.
Namit Agarwal and his fellow researchers elucidate in their Current Science paper that, in the early years of the IITs’ establishment, a significant number of graduates pursued advanced studies abroad, primarily in the United States, with many opting not to return—a phenomenon commonly referred to as the “brain drain,” which dominated discourse in the 1970s.
As time progressed, the external brain drain receded but was replaced by an internal variant. Engineering graduates, upon securing jobs in India, veered away from core engineering fields and entered realms such as management, finance, software, analytics, and more. Some even chose to join prestigious Indian Administrative and Foreign Services.
With the Indian economy experiencing substantial growth in the 1990s, lucrative opportunities emerged in “soft” non-engineering sectors, prompting many to make this shift. The perception of routine, unexciting shop floor work in core engineering, coupled with the challenges associated with launching start-ups in this field, further steered students toward alternative paths.
Students within elite institutions like the IITs began distinguishing between “routine” and “creative” jobs, deeming shop floor roles as mundane and uninspiring. Meanwhile, the rise of start-ups in the core engineering sector faced obstacles. These decisions were often influenced by peer groups, parental pressures, and societal expectations.
The competitive selection process that admitted young individuals into engineering programs was marked by significant societal value. However, once enrolled in engineering colleges, students found that hard-core engineering did not align with their aspirations. It neither ignited their passion nor guaranteed a lifestyle commensurate with the “aspirational class” to which they belonged. Consequently, interest in core engineering subjects waned.
Namit Agarwal’s research uncovered that students specializing in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Engineering exhibited a stronger inclination toward core engineering jobs. In contrast, students in Mechanical Engineering (ME) demonstrated nearly equal preferences for both core and non-core engineering careers. However, students enrolled in larger engineering departments, such as Chemical Engineering (ChE), Civil Engineering (CE), and Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science (MEMS), leaned decidedly toward non-core positions.
Several factors weighed in on students’ career preferences, including compensation, prospects for career advancement, and flexibility. Recruiters from firms operating in non-core engineering sectors enticed potential hires with competitive salaries and the promise of exposure to diverse industries in a relatively short time frame.
Cultural, lifestyle, and personality development elements also influenced sector selection. Students highly valued extracurricular activities, viewing them as essential for personal growth. A substantial proportion, 54.4% to be exact, considered the “culture” surrounding a job as a critical criterion. Non-core positions often carried an allure of glamour and were thus more attractive to students.
Students also sought early responsibilities in their careers, and this tendency was further glorified and encouraged. Consequently, students prioritized extracurricular activities over academic pursuits, leading to potential underpreparedness for core engineering roles that demanded specialized technical knowledge.
Notably, consulting, IT/software, and engineering remained the primary recruiting sectors, constituting 40% of the job opportunities offered. This further fueled the demand for non-core positions and reduced interest in core ones. Core engineering placements suffered from decreased demand among seniors, leading to a decline in student focus on core academic subjects.
The substantial salaries offered in non-core roles, often accessible primarily to Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) students, exerted significant signaling effects. These salaries set aspirational benchmarks and directed ambitions toward these fields.
Non-core positions garnered favor because they required relatively “generic skills” and did not necessitate the acquisition and maintenance of specialized technical knowledge. Students who had lost interest in core engineering roles, or those who perceived no alternative, found coding to be a viable fallback option. A perception of easy entry into the job market prompted many students to embrace non-core roles.
In conclusion, Namit Agarwal and his research team have posed a critical question: Why does India invest substantially in engineering education that subsequently faces misallocation?
As a potential solution, they propose the regular recording and analysis of placement data to inform rational decisions about seat allocation, curricular adjustments, the establishment of multidisciplinary
