With a view to improve quality of management education in India , should AICTE think in terms of prescribing that at least 40 % of faculty must have industrial experience of 10 years or more ?

This was part of a discussion in which I participated at a different place. But since what I learned from it is very relevant I would like to share it with my readers here.

The topic of discussion here is stated above. I am trying to add my two cents to what is being discussed by the other members participating.

50% would be good for a start. The other 50% would be for people with only academic experience. Plus minimum marks. 50% would be good from Class-X to PG. I give an example to explain this.

For Industry Recruits: 

A person with 5-years corporate experience would be eligible to apply for the post of Lecturer in any b-school, recognized or unrecognized, affiliated or unaffiliated, recognized or unrecognized by AICTE, UGC, whatever. 

A person with 10-years corporate experience for Assistant Professor. 

A person with 15-years corporate experience for Associate Professor. 

A person with 20-years corporate experience for Professor. 

The above experiences are applicable to people who are applying after working in the industry for the minimum years referred to. 

Otherwise, after a 5-year corporate stint and joining as Lecturer, the person gradually becomes a Professor if he or she remains in academics. For them research work and Ph.D. would be a must to be eligible to get promoted to the post of Associate Professor onward. Ph.D. will never be a must for industry recruits. Their years of experience which are much more for each post as shown above compensates for that. 

Otherwise there will not be any improvement. You will see the same thing happening over and over again in any b-school. An Assistant Professor having less than 10-year experience, mostly academic, sitting beside a person having 20-years experience in the industry. He is also an Assistant Professor and both have the same salary. Poor chap is cursing himself why did he leave the industry.
Yes, I agree that a lot of motivation is required for people to leave the Industry with all its rewards and shift to teaching. People who have the passion to teach and contribute to institution-building are successful. But the point is monetarily they are always at a loss. Here I am referring to those who quit and come for full-time teaching, say in the age group of 35 to 45, and not after retirement at the age of 58 or above. If their experience is given adequate weightage they can contribute a lot to b-schools in particular. Doing PhD always remains an option with them but that should not negate what they bring to the institute. Yes most people do not leave industries and change their career path.

The problem is private and even government Institutions do not recognize and reward them.

The quality of education imparted particularly in the MBA course depends on how well the faculty is able to correlate the concepts, whether it is finance, marketing, HR or operations, with industry applications. For a person who has never worked in an industry it becomes very difficult to do this. The students never learn much beyond what is given in the text book. And this has been the general complaint of MBA students.


But I agree with a member that it all depends on the nature of experience and the intellectual ability and capacity.

I agree with a member that the regulator whether it is UGC/AICTE/concerned university needs to define the experience and what it wants from the people who come from the industry. It has to be evaluated by certain established parameters.


A member has a good suggestion and I agree that the industry needs to welcome people from academics if they are able to deliver. They should reciprocate and welcome faculty members and count their experience. I would say people who have already worked before stand a better chance. For people who would work for the first time and who are above 40 it may be rather difficult.


To substantiate further, the following areas make such people the best to contribute positively in the growth of b-schools.


1. Industry interface: They can help immensely in the b-school's brand building. This is very much required in today's world of cut throat competition in education. They can assist the corporate resource cell. Whether it is the corporate connect program where they will be very useful in bringing the right people across verticals and domains who make the MBA students know right from Day-1 what is it that the company in particular and industry in general expect from them at the workplace. As a member has correctly said, employability is the thing that they look for.


2. Industry visits. Here also they can be better utilized with their experience.


3. Yes they are cut out for assisting in placements. This is an area of concern    where even after having the resources things are not happening the way they should.


But all said and done they should have the passion to do these beyond teaching. Otherwise their experience will add little or no value to the students as well as to the b-school where they work.


People with industry experience are in a much better position to teach in b-schools is not an assumption. It is a fact. But having said that teaching is not cut out for everybody. If a person does not have the passion to teach the number of years of corporate experience will not take care of that problem ever. At the same time preparing question papers, assessment of the students, how to guide them are all things which people learn as they teach. People who cannot speak for even 30 minutes do not deserve to work. Teaching is a much more difficult thing to do.


In the earlier part of this discussion I have suggested what should be the minimum industry experience that makes a person eligible for teaching in different posts. I have been fortunate to have worked in the best b-schools with people who have added a lot of value from the industry.