Determinants of Students' Choice of Engineering Disciplines in India

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 163 - 180, 01.08.2020

Jandhyala B. G. Tılak

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.017000

Cited By: 5

Abstract

Engineering education has expanded fast in India during the last three decades. However, all branches of engineering education have not grown at the same pace. While standard traditional branches like mechanical, civil and electrical engineering have bad been popular for a long time, areas like electronics engineering, computer science engineering and information technology related engineering have evolved fast in the recent years. Senior secondary school graduates face a dilemma of making a rational choice in selecting the disciplines of their study. Using the data collected through a survey of about 7,000 students enrolled in 40 engineering institutions in four different states in India, an attempt has been made in this paper to examine the determinants that explain students' choice between 'traditional' and 'modern'/ 'information-technology-related' branches of engineering, by estimating a probit regression equation. A few sets of major factors - individual, household, academic background of the students, current education, future employment prospects and further educational aspirations etc., have been identified and used in the probit analysis and the results are discussed in detail.

Keywords

Disciplinary choices, engineering education, engineering disciplines, higher education, India, modern streams, student choice, traditional streams

Supporting Institution

Hindistan Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Konseyi (Indian Council of Social Science Research)

Hindistan'da Farklı Mühendislik Dallarını Seçen Öğrencilerin Seçimlerini Belirleyen Faktörler

Abstract

Hindistan'da mühendislik eğitimi son otuz yılda hızlı bir ivme kaydetmiştir. Bununla birlikte, mühendislik eğitiminin tüm dalları aynı hızda büyümemiştir. Makine, inşaat ve elektrik mühendisliği gibi geleneksel alanlar uzun zamandır pek rağbet görmemekte, ancak elektronik mühendisliği, bilgisayar bilimleri mühendisliği ve bilgi teknolojisi ile ilgili mühendislik alanları ise son yıllarda hızla gelişmektedir. Ortaokul mezunları ileride uzmanlaşacakları alanları seçme konusunda akılcı bir seçim yapmak zorundadır. Bu çalışma, Hindistan'daki dört farklı eyalette bulunan 40 mühendislik fakültesine kayıtlı yaklaşık 7.000 öğrencinin cevapladığı anketle toplanan verileri kullanarak, öğrencilerin 'geleneksel' ve 'modern'/ 'bilgi teknolojileri ile ilgili' mühendislik dalları arasındaki seçimlerini açıklayan belirleyicileri probit regresyon denklemi yoluyla incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Öğrencilerin bireysel ve hane halkı özellikleri, akademik geçmişi, mevcut eğitimin özellikleri, gelecekteki istihdam beklentileri ve eğitim hedefleri gibi bazı temel faktörler belirlenmiş, probit analizinde kullanılmış ve sonuçlar ayrıntılı olarak tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Dal seçimleri, geleneksel alanlar, Hindistan, modern alanlar, mühendislik dalları, mühendislik eğitimi, öğrencinin seçimi, yükseköğretim

References

• Arneson, R. J. (1989). Equality and equal opportunities for welfare. Philosophical Studies, 56(1), 77–93.
• Arneson, R. J. (1990). Liberalism, distributive subjectivism, and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19(2), 158–194.
• Arneson, R. J. (2000). Luck egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Ethics, 110(2), 339–349.
• Banerjee, R., & Muley, V. P. (2009). Engineering education in India. Mumbai: Observer Research Foundation/Indian Institute of Technology Mumbai.
• Carnoy, M., Loyalka, P., Dobryakova, M., Dossani, R., Froumin, I., Kuhns, K., … Wang, R. (2013). University expansion in a changing global economy: Triumph of the BRICS? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Chakrabarti, A. (2009). Determinants of participation in higher education and choice of disciplines: Evidence from urban and rural Indian youth. South Asia Economic Journal, 10(2), 371–402.
• Choudhury, P. K. (2012). An economic analysis of demand for higher education in India. Unpublished PhD thesis, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi, India.
• Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99(4), 906–944.
• Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign virtue revisited. Ethics 113(1), 106–143.
• Dworkin, R. M. (1981). What is equality? Part 2. Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(2): 283–345.
• Dworkin, R. M. (2003). Equality, luck and hierarchy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31(2), 190–198.
• Elchardus, M., & Spruyt, B. (2009). The culture of academic disciplines and the sociopolitical attitudes of students: A test of selection and socialization effects. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 446–60.
• Goyette, K. A., & Mullen, A. L. (2006). Who studies the arts and sciences? Social background and the choice and consequences of undergraduate field of study. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 497–538.
• Hofstein, A., Ben-Zvi, R., Samuel, D., & Kempa, R. F. (1977). Some correlates of the choice of educational streams in Israeli high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(3), 241–247.
• Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466–479.
• Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) (2018). All-India survey on higher education 2017–18. New Delhi: Government of India. Accessed through <https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/ statistics-new/AISHE2017-18.pdf> on November 1, 2019.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2006. Evolution of student interest in science and technology studies — Policy Report; Global Science Forum. Accessed through <http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/36645825.pdf> on October 1, 2019.
• Panda, G. (2006). Women in higher education: A study of engineering colleges in Orissa. Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.
• Rimfeld, K., Ayorech, Z., Dale, P. S., Kovas, Y., & Plomin, R. (2016). Genetics affects choice of academic subjects as well as achievement. Scientific Reports, 6, 26373.
• Rochat, D., & Demeulemeester, J.-L. (2001). Rational choice under unequal constraints: The example of Belgian higher education. Economics of Education Review, 20(1):15–26.
• Singh, A., & Singh, S. (2015). Marketing practices adopted by private players: A study of private engineering institutions in Delhi NCR. In: R. P. Pradhan (Ed.), Frontiers of infrastructure finance: Problems and prospects (pp. 53–66). New Delhi: Bloomsbury.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2015). How inclusive is higher education in India? Social Change, 45(2), 185–223.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2019a). Why do students go to private colleges in India? Determinants of students’ choice of engineering institutions in India. Paper presented in the World Congress of Comparative Education Societies, May 20–24, 2019, Cancun, River Maya, Mexico.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2019b). Determinants of household expenditure on engineering education in India. New Delhi: Council for Social Development. (Unpublished report).
• Tilak J. B. G., & Choudhury, P. K. (2019). Inequality in access to higher education in India between the poor and the rich: An analysis of the 64th and 71st rounds of NSSO data (2007–08 and 2013–14). Working paper CSD-2/2019. New Delhi: Council for Social Development. Accessed through <http://csdindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Prof-Tilak- Inequality-in-Access-to-Higher-Education-in-India.pdf> on July 1, 2019.
• University Grants Commission (UGC) (1987). Annual report 1985–86. New Delhi: UGC.
• University Grants Commission (UGC) (2018). Annual report 2017–18. New Delhi: UGC.
• Voigt, K. (2007). Individual choices and unequal participation in higher education. Theory and Research in Education, 5(1), 87–112.