Logwritten
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2009 7:35 PM IST

A fee increase by Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) has become an annual trend. For the two years I have been writing this column, IIMs have increased their fee around the first week of April each year and I have written about it on both occasions. This is my third column on the subject. This time, the top three IIMs have already announced a fee increase and the others may follow suit soon.

Also Read Premchand Palety’s earlier columns

As in the past, the hike is unjustified, especially given the economic slowdown. In fact, it reflects financial mismanagement, especially at IIM Ahmedabad (IIM-A), which is spending at least 60% of overall salary expenditure on support staff. IIMs need to substantially increase their revenue from other sources and reduce their dependence on student fees.

Also See The Key Figures (Graphic)

I have been using the Right to Information Act, or RTI Act, for the past three years to ferret out information on income and expenditure from all IIMs. They usually do not give the latest financial figures because audited figures are not available.

The key financial figures of IIMs are given in the adjoining table.

Let’s take the case of IIM-A. The revenue figures refer to a period when the student fee was about Rs5 lakh for the full course. Even then the revenue and expenditure figures don’t warrant any fee increase.

The expenditure on support staff is 1.5 times more than the spending on faculty members, including their research and secretarial staff. In other words, 60% of expenditure on salaries is on support staff. Other IIMs fare better in this respect although the percentage of salaries paid to the support staff is relatively much higher (in the range of 30-40%) when compared with many lower rung B-schools in the private sector. At the Birla Institute of Management Technology in Greater Noida, near New Delhi, for example, only 20% of salary expenditure is on support staff.

In 2008-09, the total income from fees would have been about Rs40 crore for IIM-A. Assuming there is no growth in revenue from consultancy, management development programmes (MDPs) and faculty development programmes (FDPs), the total revenue from these heads would be about Rs25 crore. Thus, total income would be about Rs65 crore.

This does not include the interest on corpus or the income from sale of application forms, which rose to Rs25 crore for all IIMs last year. Even if the salary of faculty members goes up by 100%, the total expenditure under this head won’t be more than Rs11 crore. IIM-A needs to clearly explain why it needs more money.

In the case of IIM-A, it is also expected that the revenue from fees is only 30% of total revenue and the rest should be sourced from consultancy, MDPs and so on. But in the year 2007-08, the student fee component could have exceeded 60%, as is indicated in the table.

For IIM Lucknow, IIM Indore and IIM Kozhikode, the revenue from MDPs and consultancy needs to have increased substantially.

IIM-A will now be charging Rs12.5 lakh for its two-year programme. A student would be spending close to Rs15 lakh if we consider non-fee expenses during the programme. Middle-class students will be hit strongly by the fee hike as they are not poor enough to qualify for fee discounts but their family income is such that they have to depend on loans to finance their studies. For a loan of Rs12 lakh, the monthly repayment instalment would be Rs48,000, which needs to be paid after six months of getting a job. To be able to pay this amount, the gross salary of the graduate should be around Rs10 lakh per annum. This time the reported average salary at IIM-A for Indian jobs is about Rs12 lakh per annum. This means a good number of students have got a salary of below Rs10 lakh per annum.

Again, it won’t be financially viable for any of IIM-A graduates to join the institute’s doctoral programme, where the present stipend is about Rs15,000 per month. Even if the stipend is increased to Rs30,000 per month, the research scholars will have to depend on their family or some other source to make ends meet. The debt burden will also discourage those students who plan to start their own venture immediately after graduation.

IIMs should not lose sight of the fact that they have been built primarily by taxpayers money. If the fee hike trend continues, studying in IIMs could well become out of bounds for the majority of Indians.

Premchand Palety is director of Centre for Forecasting & Research (C-fore) in New Delhi, from where he keeps a close eye on India’s business schools. Comments are welcome at businesscase@livemint.com

Graphics by Ahmed Raza Khan / Mint

READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
ravindra Said:


How about a financial restructuring of the student loan. A ballooning (gradually increasing) EMI payout by the student which spans about 20 years such that the stress is much less in the initial years and later on; say after 7 years or so even a high EMI payout won't hurt much. This way the marginal utility of the EMI payout by the student could be kept at fairly constant level. I hope, at least, financially poor students may be more than happy with such a "financially engineered" loan.

Posted On 4/13/2009 11:24:06 AM
Prateek Said:


I feel this article is fraught with poor analysis. Whilist the increase in Fee revenue is easy to calculate, am not sure why the Non-fee revenue has been assumed to be constant! The fact whether a trend analysis of Non-fee revenue was done is unclear. But from the clear intent to sensationalize, prima-facie, one concludes that it was not done. Also what the author conveniently hides is the impact of PGPX course on the fee revenue. There is no mention of what constitutes Support staff. Was there an attempt to get the details? Are visiting faculty members considered Support staff? Also, why does the author consiciously want to choose a institute of lesser repute as benchmark is unclear. This is being done on a metric that the authors wants to use to supplement his conclusion. Am sure that the fee to non-fee ratios would be pathetic in the institutes that the author wants to use as benchmarks. I think the only point that the Palatey wanted to make was the fee increase would make the payback period longer for an average student. Which is true! And if that was the sole point being made - why does this journal need to create a eye catching title which is supported by patchy analysis is beyond me!!

Posted On 4/13/2009 1:58:08 PM
Pankaj Said:


Your points are good; specially the last remark that IIMs were started via taxpayers money; and (I extend) they are overstepping their limits by making it a business. For God's sake;The purpose of an IIM is not to make yearly profit. Is it viable to challenge it in court ? ------- I have been through the fellowship programme application stage to IIM-A & IIM-L. To say the least, the application process was highly short-sighted. Not only this resulted into wastage of my time, but also I decided to discard any IIM as worthy(time+money vs benefits) of getting me as student.

Posted On 4/13/2009 2:37:24 PM
Parthan Said:


Its time someone does a similar financial study on IITs and BITS Pilani to realize why BITS Pilani is one among the top ranking universities in India today.

Posted On 4/13/2009 6:07:08 PM
Thought Said:


Maybe IIM A could hire the author as a support staff to figure out whats wrong.:-) I wonder if the author looked into why the expenses are there to begin with and maybe those have helped the institute become what it it.

Posted On 4/13/2009 10:25:04 PM
PRAVIN Said:


IIMs were created by the Indian Government with the aim of identifying the brightest intellectual talent available in the student community of India and training it in the best management techniques available in the world, to ultimately create a pool of elite world class managers to manage and lead the various sections of the Indian economy. In this view, IIM shouldn't collect any fees from students, if they have really understood the basic conception of these institutes. Also, the point on the debt burden is absolutely valid.

Posted On 7/15/2009 3:07:23 PM