Shams Madhani

Finally, a long time wish of mine coming to realization. I am back online with my passion to write. My fingers are, once again, rolling over my keyboard with the zeal I always feel while writing. My almost a year long “sanyas” from authoring articles comes to an end with this post.

Out of the time that is available to me now, I am writing about my experience on application procedures for Masters studies in Swedish Universities. People with understanding of university application procedures will be better able to understand; though others will still be able to grasp my critics on the “unique” and “one-and-only” university application system in the world. Just a quick wrap over the Swedish system: they have a nationalized admission system, somewhat similar to centralized state-level admissions we have in India, wherein one applies with a common form for upto fours Masters courses in Sweden. I had selected one course each in Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Chalmers University of Technology, Lulea University of Technology and Malardalen University. Now, remaining details like formal procedures etc. in some other article, lemme get back to the topic of this article.

Imagine you are computer engineer and are dating a girl who is neither an engineer, nor does she know much about the engineering profession in general. (Of course, most nerds won’t like to date such a dumb unless she is a real bomb-shell!) Suddenly she throws in a jerk, “So Mr. Computer Engineer, what do you do? Do you make computers in your office?” First, you would try to swallow the moment, then would think of explaining her about your profession, but then give up admitting that there is no point in giving her a space ride. Well, such occasions come in every engineer’s life. Earlier when most people didn’t know much about engineering profession, they would often call a mechanical engineer friend to ask him what could be wrong with their car; or an electronics engineer to find what went wrong with their radio. Normally people don’t understand other professions as much they do their own; they tend to limit their horizons with time. Or simply, like in many case, they don’t want to learn what people in other profession know and work on. The biggest tragedy, in this matter, is with Chemical Engineering profession. I have been asked numerous times: “So what kind of chemicals do you chemical engineers make?” And I would simply answer: “We don’t make chemicals “normally”!” 

This dilemma turns to quandary when you ask the same question to a budding chemical engineer. Often chemical engineering students don’t know much about their own potential profession in general (though education application rate of chemical engineering curriculum is highest among all the engineering streams). I have even heard sarcastic remarks from many of my colleagues as “we are simply higher order of plumbers”, which comes from the fact that chemical engineering curriculum contains significant part of fluid flow related subjects (consisting mainly of pipe flow problems), subjects like fluid flow mechanics, dynamics, transport phenomena contribute maximum. Chemical engineers do work in chemical manufacturing companies, sometimes as chemists as well, due to the flexibility chemical engineers are equipped with. However, the profession in itself has a very scope and they can be found almost in any industry. 

Though it is true that chemical engineers are good with chemistry, it would be inappropriate for a high school student aspiring student to say that just because s/he is good with chemistry, s/he will be a good chemical engineer. I had very bad terms with high school chemistry, which I study since I wanted to study engineering later on. But eventually I like the other subjects of chemical engineering like fluid mechanics, heat transfer, transport phenomenon, thermodynamics more than the chemistry subjects. In fact in practice, these subjects help a chemical engineer more than chemistry related subjects. This is one of the reasons why most graduate schools don’t even ask for chemistry GRE subject test for admission to their programs. 

But the main question is still unanswered! The headline of the brochure for the American Institute of Chemical Engineers states that chemical engineers are responsible for the production of items, “from microchips to potato chips.” As I said earlier, chemical engineers are found everywhere – in aerospace industry, automobile, fuel, petroleum, food, drugs and pharmaceutical and where not. The responsibilities include research and design, development, production, technical sales, and management for those with good communication skills. The chemical engineering curriculum includes wide arena of subjects, some taken fro mechanical engineering curriculum, a couple of them with applications from computer engineering, a subject probably on electrical engineering, some from management science and some exclusively patented for chemical engineering like mass transfer, transport phenomena, process modeling, etc. This vivid recipe makes a chemical engineer successful in almost any technical or technical management profession. 

To exemplify on where you can find chemical engineers, let me give a quick fact on some famous chemical engineers. A chemical engineer is either currently, or has previously, occupied the CEO position for: 3M, Intel, Du Pont, General Electric, Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, Exxon, BASF, Gulf Oil, Texaco, and B.F. Goodrich. Even a former director of the CIA, John M. Deutch, was a chemical engineer by training. Richard Hu, who was Singapore’s former Minister for Finance from 1985 until his retirement in 2001, was a PhD in Chem Eng from U. Birmingham. George M. Richards served as President of Trinidad and Tobago for a 5-year term from 17/3/03, was also a chemical engineer from U. Cambridge. Dr Raghunath A. Mashelkar, FRS, Padma Bhushan, Third Indian Engineer and 36th Indian Scientist to be elected FRS (London), served as Director-General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India, and Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), Government of India is an chemical engineer alive, and is serving as President of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, UK presently. Another famous businessman, Mukesh D. Ambani who is the head of Reliance Industries Ltd., and holds fourth rank in Forbes’s 2008 Billionaire list, is a chemical engineer from UDCT, Mumbai. Though off the track, famous model Cindy Crawford initially selected chemical engineering as her career at Northwestern U., but later moved on to modeling. 

To sum it all, a very deep thought by Wayne Pafko on the profession in discussion: All engineers employ mathematics, physics, and the engineering art to overcome technical problems in a safe and economical fashion. Yet, it is the chemical engineer alone that draws upon the vast and powerful science of chemistry to solve a wide range of problems. The strong technical and social ties that bind chemistry and chemical engineering are unique in the fields of science and technology. This marriage between chemists and chemical engineers has been beneficial to both sides and has rightfully brought the envy of the other engineering fields. The breadth of scientific and technical knowledge inherent in the profession has caused some to describe the chemical engineer as the “universal engineer”.

10 Greatest Achievements of Chemical Engineering

FIT’s 13 First’s of Chemical Engineering

What is the point of having a mark sheet which states that you scored over 80% in your BE, when you can’t land in a job? What is the use of such education which can’t help even on the very first job assignment, when your knowledge is fresh out of the oven? Claims have always been there that Indian education scenario scores pathetic when compared to the industrialized world. ^[1] [2]

Going back to the basics for a while, statistics show that India has 35% of world’s illiterates. In the Global Monitoring Report (GMR), 2008, India is ranked 105th in the world, slipping down from last year’s 97th rank. ^[3] The Government has levied 2% education cess on all transactions in all the states, chiefly to promote primary education. Under this scheme, the Government has collected approximately Rs. 20,000 crores (Rs. 200 billion) from 2004-05 to 2006-07. ^[4] This initiative has certainly worked towards improving the rate of primary education in India, which is a basic necessity when we say that India is moving towards industrial prosperity. Since any social change takes a long to show its shape, we need to be hopeful about the scenario to change positive soon, in the primary education segment; however at the same time we need to keep an eye on the figures to make sure that our investments are being utilized in a fruitful way and the result is improving year after year.

Now let’s get back to my original argument on scenario of Indian higher education system. India has 338 degree granting institutions, which includes various state universities, central universities, deemed universities, private universities, institutions of national importance and the institutions established under State legislations. Of the 232 state and private universities, only 161 are recognized by the UGC for grants under Section 12B of the UGC Act. ^[5] The rest, clearly, are self sponsoring themselves. For this, they must be supported by industrial and state assistance. However if 71 Indian universities are having standards such that the industry is sponsoring their activities, then why are we falling short of high quality trained personnel, in the likes of IITs, IISc et al.? Also of the 161 universities supported by UGC, how many actually utilize the funds in an effective way so as improve the quality of education and research, the two primary functions of universities?

Under the system of education in India, there are thousands of colleges which are associated to the various universities, primarily for the purpose of education only. In Science and Technology (S&T) at least, colleges can easily get good industrial funding if they maintain appropriate research standards. For the year 2007-08, India has 2020 engineering colleges spread across the country affiliated to various universities. Of these, 63% are in just 5 states; in the order of maximum colleges first, A.P., Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. ^[6] Notably more than 60% of these institutions are less than 10 years old. That goes to show that the quality of education is not cared after and just the number is being increased. Naturally, this gives rise to various arguments that claim “education sells in India”.

Another factor that I want to throw light on is the number of engineers graduating every year vs. the number of PhDs awarded in India in the same period. Astonishingly, India produces close to 300,000 engineers every year, across all states and institutions of higher education. From the source data, only 298 doctoral degrees were awarded in India in engineering. Forget about the ratio, the figure itself is very low compared to China, which has same population for the matter of discussion, which produced 4341 PhDs in the field of engineering. Though India conferred more PhDs than China in the field of natural sciences, what the engineering and technology industry mainly look after is engineering and inter-disciplinary science PhDs. ^[7]

According to Ministry of Planning, Government of India, fees for professional courses are being hiked in order to meet the R&D standards followed around the industrialized world. ^[8] However, according to official statistical data, India spent only 0.8% of GDP (2002-03 data) on S&T research and development; far less compared to Israel (5.11%), Sweden (4.27%) and Japan (3.11%). Among the nations of close interest, China spent 1.23% and Russia 1.24% of their respective GDPs; note the difference between the GDPs and population between these countries and India. These figures also show that the S&T spending in India is by far low than the required standard in comparison to the counterparts.

Going after the statistical analysis of the argument, one finds that we are way behind most of the countries in terms of education and research. India, if needs to improve this situation, is required to take appropriate and accurate steps soon. Otherwise time might again show us that we are very late in taking important decisions and Indian strategy makers are not as effective compared to their western counterparts. We have already seen such an example in recent economic slowdown of India, and I am certain we wouldn’t like this to be repeated again.

Being an engineering senior, I am not too comfortable with the business dialect. Also I am from India, so my views are more inbound or at most eastward, rather than US-centric.

I remember some years back when India’s GDP was ~600 USD (this figure has risen exponentially over the last few years), people will come to my father and say “We should try and move to the US or UK, that is where all the fortune lies.” They were true then (and now as well, to an extent statistically). However, as I grew, I noticed this getting changed to something like “Why not try a business in India rather than slogging your ass in the States?”. Then, people would say “education is door to US greencard”. Now with a GDP of ~3800 USD and a bit of freedom of thought and speech, though the earlier feeling is not complete abolished, people will compare different options, on the basis of investment and opportunities, to determine whether they should go to the US, stay back in India or go to some other suitable place.

In fields like engineering or social sciences, people would prefer a PhD from the US. For an explanation to this, my argument is more or less based on statistics and personal observation. The reason is simple, out of hundreds of thousands of engineers graduating in India, only a handful get a chance to study in the top Indian institutions (IITs, IIMs et al.). When you are saying that Indians or Chinese come to the US just because of the salaries or greencards, think of the population in the East as well. With almost 40% of world’s population and relatively poor and developing economies, these countries cant generate enough opportunities for all the students that graduate and want to study further. Then, when it comes to selecting between an MS and PhD, I know some of my seniors went to the States for an MS and later on got themselves shifted to PhD with support from the faculty there. Most of them got assistantships for their Masters as well, so apparently there was no reason for them to worry about the money factor when they were to decided whether to go for Masters or PhD.

For business PhDs, the opportunity cost would definitely count. I remember while going through a report by TopMA.com on average starting salaries for MBA graduates, I noticed that they had not included India and China for statistical analysis as that would have reduced the Asian figure drastically. They claimed that in India the average starting salary is less than USD 25,000, which I feel is in fact a way too high for domestic placement figures at most local B-schools (not taking into account the top ones like IIMs et al.). For the students of these schools, the US PhD is de facto a better option compared to starting in India with comparatively very low salaries, eventually adapting to low standard of living and the latter dipping down further with rising inflation.

The only argument I would agree to, with universal acceptance across all the disciplines, is the fact that since US has most of the top programs (and in general universities), and that the cost of attending an European or British university would eventually, be higher than in the US, third world students select the US, which is an easier decision to make. However, it should be noted that many students do come back to India after studing for their PhDs in the US; and be part of either the local industry or academia, thereby giving their significant contribution to improving the academic and labour standards in India.

The global economical slowdown is showing its toll on Indian Markets as well, as we all know by now. July 01, 2008 was no different, when Sensex fell by 499.92 points or 3.71 percent to close at 12,961.68 points, along with most of the European markets showing downslide. NSE is at its 15 month low, closed at 3,896.75 yesterday, netting a loss of 143.80 points or 3.56 percent. Notably, Nifty low is now below the psycological barrier of 400 points. Experts said investor sentiment was already dampened by a lethal combination of inflation, higher interest rates and crude prices.

While the markets were dipping down, global oil rates further surged to close above US$141 per barrel in the Asian markets. This is the major corcern now, as it looks that Petroleum economics is defying all laws of market economics.