Is Commercializing Curricula a Good Idea?

We in India, are already way ahead in this respect. The education is privatized particularly in all non-medical education (and to some extent in medical education).

Normally curricula is designed by Universities, and the educational institutes are bound to follow those unless educational institutes attain the status of deemed university.

This has both outcomes... good and bad.

Good is the collages are well equiped than the government run collages. If the institute is run by some industry it yields good students.

Bad: The cost of education has gone very high.Besides, if institute is initiated by some polititians, chances of having bad yield exists. (Few students getting through by some unethical ways)

But the industry absorbing the yield is wise enough to sagrigate between good and bad yield.

Industry often knows what qualification they want in a new employee better than academia. I've been on a university chemistry dept's Industrial Advisory Board, and we sought advice from industry about how to make our curriculum more relevant to Industry's needs. The objective of the dept. was to make its graduates better qualified and more "hirable" by industry. A popular course was "Industrial Chemistry", and speakers from various industries were invited to talk about their industry, their company, their products and applications and the chemistry involved. I was a guest lecturer several times and got companies to sponsor my lecture with a $500 donation to the chem dept. In exchange, I hung the company's trade show banners up in the class room and said a few words about my sponsor. The sponsor company was involved in the chemistry covered in the lecture. Yes, it was commercial, but it was relevant to the subject and made students aware of potential employers they might not know of otherwise. And the donations were greatly appreciated in times of tight finances and budget cuts.

In general I think this is a very good idea. If you only aim at one industry and they tank you are suddenly without a program. IF you do use industry input try to get more than one partner. The more the better--speaking from experience.

It can be good if the companies help the programs as long as it stays in an advisory manner. The companies goal is to make money, not to educate so their motivations can/will distort if given enough influence.

My college had an Industrial Advisory Board that gave donations, met with students but it was a broad range of industries and disciplines so I feel it can work as long as it isn't manipulated.

Slightly off topic but the reason our nation uses the Keynesian Economic Philosophy is because the banking powers got too much influence over the economics programs in the US colleges near the dawn of the 20nth Century. They were able to control the curriculum and what was deemed "facts". Hopefully this never happens in engineering disciplines.

When industry contributes to the costs of academic pursuits, the curricula can be strengthened with more teaching resources, labs, research grants, etc.

When financially contributing industry becomes involved in curricula design, the curricula reflects the particular interests of the sponsors.

It's kind of a catch-22 for the sponsors. They'd like to get graduates familiar with their needs; but the graduates they get are not versatile enough to bring them fresh ideas, and they often need to outsource or research elsewhere to get those.

Perhaps the difficulty lies in the desperate need for colleges and universities to get operating capital and their willingness to sell curricula in order to attract investment.

When industry begins to recognize that their needs will be better-met by a more well-rounded engineering graduate and substitutes its participation in curriculum design for scholarship programs designed to entice graduates without constraining their interests while at the same time maintaining their fiscal contributions, the situation might develop into more of a win-win for all concerned.

A good example of the loss of quality for students is to be found in the Marine Engineering faculty I attended, where sponsorship and curriculum participation by the shipping industry produced graduates lacking depth in yacht (e.g. hull & sail) design, alternative propulsion styles, structural management in pier design and shore protection, metal, chain molecule and gases analyses, etc. The labs had old and unused equipment for teaching all of these topics probably purchased in a past time when the faculty was established in hopes of a wider-reaching curricula. These and other topics central to the profession were only lightly pursued, while other engineering topics such as cargo ship design got great in-depth attention. Fortunately, graduates were well-rounded enough in general Marine Engineering disciplines to adapt, although this might not continue to be the case for future graduates. My classmates have run national shipping interests, designed, built and tested cruise ships for major shipping companies, run nuclear power stations, and even in my own case researched and designed both yacht import updates and industrial air pollution abatement equipment, a fish hatchery, and factory air conditioning. In every one of those endeavours, however, we found ourselves having (and thankfully able) to get up to speed.

A dream I have long held is an 8-year heavily technically loaded program producing Marine Engineers at the doctorate level with emphasis in a wide range of applied studies in maths & physics. The curricula would begin with developmental courses in mnemonics and speed reading with comprehension.

Mark