Basic instinct

That the Indian education racket is not limited to maritime training is hardly unknown. Maritime education and training institutes are not the only ones that delight in churning out graduates lured in by miss-selling and seduction. Besides, students elsewhere are also poorly educated, are often not fit for purpose, and are under-employable (or downright unemployable) when they graduate. Add to this the fact that the youngster’s choice of profession has often been made without much thought to anything else except hyped pay packages- the process resembles an abattoir assembly line more than anything else- and you have a recipe for disaster.

Take Business schools, for instance, the much preferred destination for tens- if not hundreds- of thousands of students. The fact is that, in India, many of these have been operating at a reduced capacity for a couple of years or more. Employment rates are falling (down to 18% this year, according to the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry). Thousands of MBA grads are unemployed. The elite schools do not have this problem, of course- they rarely do in any industry.  But, “More than 220 B-Schools have already closed down in 2013," says Secretary General of Assocham DS Rawat. More than 160 management schools have shut down in India in the past two academic years; 94 more want to shut down today.

Take another popular career choice- engineering. Post the software boom two decades or so ago, software engineering colleges mushroomed like fungus. Never mind that four out of five all their graduates were unemployable. Never mind that the software industry was spending a billion dollars a year in making these graduates useful after they employed them. I was looking after a software company during some of this period; the percentage of engineers with poor English, academic, professional and soft skills was- akin to the story seen in maritime training today- appalling. The situation is no different today, and, by all accounts, cuts across engineering disciplines. 

Unsurprisingly then, many engineering colleges have shut down and many more are up for sale today- especially in the South, which saw huge growth not so long ago.

So what has all this got to do with maritime education and training?

I will answer this question with another- Why is the MET space so sanguine about its long-term viability? What makes them think that maritime colleges are insulated from closure even if demand vanishes?

In my opinion and keeping the experience of the business and engineering schools in mind, the maritime education and training space needs to remember or recognise a few things:

Most importantly, that educational institutes do close down when the bubble of market oversupply bursts, or when enough students realise that the emperor has no clothes.

Another, that political or bureaucratic patronage and corruption- that may have got you the required approvals in the first place- are eventually no protection. You can still be forced to shut down if you cannot make money.  Remember that many of the engineering and business schools have surfaced in identical murky circumstances of patronage.

Three, oversupply in MET shows up more easily than elsewhere, because a typical maritime institute graduate is not really educated or trained to be anything else except a seaman, and does not get decent employment anywhere else.

Four, it may be wise, given the state of affairs in the MET space in India, for institutes to have an exit strategy if the bubble bursts. (Can’t resist a tongue in cheek comment- will they open an engineering college instead? Or a poultry farm?)

But before they realise all this, MET institutes - and not just the private ones; look at the mess within the Indian Maritime University- need to realise this first: The best protection for your business is excellence in training and education. It will not bother you too much if other colleges are collapsing if you are not. And that will happen only if your graduates are preferred by employers.

Therefore, the stress should not be on marketing, sales or misplaced seduction; the stress should be in delivery. In ensuring that the calibre of your graduates is recognised.

As happens often in life, the basics often deepen the moat around you.

.

.

Indian seamen- declining standards after each recession?

Many factors are blamed for the decline- in calibre, numbers and demand- of Indian seamen. Like in the fable of the blind men and the elephant, everybody seems to have a pet theory.  I, for example, have often blamed the STCW regime for, in reality, lowering standards instead of raising them. However, what almost all of us have ignored so far is the long term impact of recessions on the psyche of the industry and its people afloat and ashore, and why this cumulative impact is a significant contributor to this decline. 

Indulge me for a moment while I explain.  Before approximately 1980, an overwhelming majority of deck cadets went out as apprentices to Indian companies after they had undergone some pretty good training- academic and practical- ashore.  On-board training lasted for two or three years and was the first step into a permanent job that was theirs for the taking. The system was similar for junior engineers.  Officers on board took the trouble- even the sadists amongst them! - to teach and train these youngsters. This was an unspoken tradition that was almost never breached. At Scindias, the company I joined as an apprentice, this sense of tradition was palpable, but other companies were almost as invested in their trainees.

Then, in the early eighties, the recession hit. In India, the face of the carnage was Scindias floundering (and eventually closing down), SCI – the largest employer of Indian seamen and officers by far- telling some of its junior officers there were no jobs for them ‘for five or six years,’ massive numbers of laid up ships, desperate cost cutting in maintenance and all crew matters, gross ill treatment of Indian crews by most shipping companies whether Indian or foreign, protest marches by seamen in Bombay and Delhi, magazine headlines and stories of Second Mates parking cars in Delhi to survive. And crowds of applicants landing up at shipping companies for every job advertised.

That the end of that recession did not end the many unsavoury- sometimes downright illegal- malpractices connected with ships and their crews is a known fact; many of these continue even today. What happened in addition is that the idea of a permanent- or even long term- employment in Indian shipping companies was thrown out of the window.  There was never a feeling of permanency in foreign companies anyway, but the concept that Indians would work on Indian registered ships on contractual terms –as happened in and after the eighties- was alien. This practice is well established by now, as is unfortunately established a widespread belief that working conditions- not just wages- in even the better managed Indian companies are much worse than those in even average foreign companies. 

The loss of a sense of belonging to a company gradually translated into little attachment to it. A culture of low commitment has encouraged unprofessional behaviour ashore and afloat. Not surprising, then, that, for example, the Indian Chief Officer who trained his Indian cadets with professional pride and a sense of duty has ceased to exist. Foreign companies are a mishmash of nationalities anyway, although a few are trying to get around the problem by imposing stricter on board training regimes. And, while there is truth in the complaint that Indian shipping companies trained earlier generations of officers, many of whom then left them (usually after their Command or promotion to Chief Engineer) for foreign companies, there is no doubt that the emotional disengagement of seamen from their companies accelerated hugely after the end of the eighties, whether in Indian companies or foreign.

The end result is that, in this industry of low commitment and short term relationships, few anywhere have any belief in the old tradition that said, with pride, that we will pass on our experiences to the young.

Postscript: Will history repeats itself? Many Indian shipping companies are in deep financial trouble today; some are insolvent and others are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

.

.

Wasting time

I remain critical of shipmanagement companies on most counts; indeed, I believe that the third-party shipmanagement model much of shipping operates under is deeply flawed and negatively impacts a seaman’s working life and his career. A seaman- or a ship owner worth his salt- does not need a body-shopping middleman who is not interested in either of them long-term, lip-service aside. I understand the advantages the shipmanagement model offers an owner with no knowledge of shipping, but for seamen, shipmanagement companies are the places to be if you are mediocre. Owners will appreciate you and reward you if you are good and they are dealing directly with you. Shipmanagers, on the other hand, will reward you most if you are near incompetent. You will not lose your job; you will be shunted to other, less important, client ship owners in their pool.

That said, there is one thing a handful of big shipmanagement companies are doing right in India; their training and placement of cadets- engineering or deck- is far superior to those of individual training institutes. I am convinced that unless the body of individual MET establishments overhaul themselves drastically, and unless the authorities revamp completely the Pre-Sea training mould that stand-alone institutes follow, a time will soon come when the shipmanagement training model will be the only real game in town. 

The one major advantage these companies have over the institutes is that they can guarantee sea training berths for their cadets, of course. (That the rest of the industry needs to also go this way is a given, but nobody wants to kill the goose laying the golden eggs yet, so this will not happen in a hurry.) Whatever, the obvious and collateral advantages of a potential student knowing that he has an on-board training berth waiting for him are many- a much better academic calibre of intake, superior language and basic science skills, greater incentive to perform well during training and the like. In contrast, cadets at individual MET institutes are often found abysmally wanting in basic English and science skills, are generally academically poor and are less motivated- and that motivation nosedives further when they know that they will have to struggle to get a cadetship at the completion of their training even if they are willing to pay touts and corrupt personnel in shipping companies.

Other advantages that shipmanagement company owned training establishments have are smaller. I agree that many smaller MET setups will never have the deep pockets that shipmanagement companies enjoy and so will struggle as simulation based training widens or greater funding is required for infrastructure. But these smaller organisations can still afford, if they want, decently paid faculty (well, no maritime faculty is paid decently, but still..) and can offer individual attention to their (usually smaller) batches of students. That most don’t has much to do with the fact that producing excellent graduates seems less important than making a few extra bucks, and also because the small MET setup- unlike the bigger shipmanagement owned one- is not invested in the quality of output and has no stake in what kind of officers its cadets eventually become. It usually doesn’t even know how good they are at sea.

It would be easy to make the prediction that the smaller MET setups will close down because their output continues to be either jobless or substandard. However, I don’t see that happening too easily. Corruption or influence will keep the system going far longer than we think. Actually, I feel a little sorry for smaller setups, because they have to spend a fair amount of money on infrastructure and in following the regulator’s ‘guidelines,’ they have no control over training berth availability (except the tout route, and that is deeply flawed and downright criminal) and are pressured into spending, additionally, tens of millions on expensive simulators and the like today. I also feel sorry for them because it is not only their fault that the system is flawed or corrupt. 

Come to think of it, the only real advantage the shipmanagement company owned training setups enjoy is the guarantee, to their students, that they will be able to sail as cadets on ships. So, if the Ministry of Shipping wants to pursue its long term (and presently laughable) strategy of increasing the global percentage of Indian seamen with any seriousness at all, the way forward is actually quite simple: Push training berths at sea. And do not allow anybody to undergo Pre-Sea training that cannot be guaranteed one of these sea berths.

If we do this much, the rest will follow, as it did when I went out to sea. As it did, not all that long ago, when thousands of Indians replaced Europeans and others aboard the merchant ships of the world. And we did it without some big and complicated plan; it just happened.

Unfortunately, we need a clean system to do what needs to be done. What we have, instead, is exactly what we don’t need- a corrupt and self-interest riddled system at home backed by a corrupt and self-interest riddled international ‘STCW training’ regime promoted by the IMO. Unless we break these shackles- one with strict policing and by selectively training only those we can employ, and the other with thoughtful and selective implementation of ill conceived regulation- we will get nowhere except to that dark corner on earth reserved for hand-wringers. And for those who waste time reading and writing columns such as this.

.

.

Blaming gravity

(Disclaimer: I am connected, amongst other things, with maritime training. Try and ignore that when you read this, please; I have.)

The Indian administration will soon roll out a Comprehensive Inspection Programme that will outsource periodic audits of Maritime Education and Training institutes to classification societies. In a first, inspections will grade MET setups under a wide variety of headings including infrastructure, faculty, pedagogy, CSR activities and the institution’s post training job ‘placement’ records instead of simply checking for compliance with the Directorate General of Shipping’s rules. There are six grades in all in the CIP, covering a score from ‘below 50 per cent’ to ‘above 90 per cent’. Although the programme is intended to cover Pre-Sea training, there are plans to have it cover Post Sea courses as well later. Amongst other things, gradings will influence an institute’s DGS approvals for additional courses and increased intake in existing ones.

This piece is not meant to be a dissection of the CIP, which can be (and I am sure, will be) nit-picked by others. I, for one, think that it has many strengths, the main one being that it is dynamic; it goes beyond idly ‘meeting DGS requirements’ and grades instead. It tries to differentiate the good from the bad- or the downright ugly- based on quality of infrastructure, training and overall commitment. That can only be a good thing. 

I wish the CIP had addressed the grading of MET setups based on their size, though. A small setup conducting just one ratings course, for example, will find it much more difficult to hit the top grade now. Because it will be more difficult for it to find or allocate resources- including, most importantly, in personnel- when compared with a large institution conducting, say, a dozen courses. Even though the focus on quality may be visibly higher in the smaller setup, its grade may be lower because of resource constraints.

But that is a smaller issue. What is more disappointing in the CIP strategy is that, once again, the entire onus for improving quality of future Indian ratings and officers has been completely (and unfairly) put on the MET establishment. This is because the CIP, like the earlier regime, seems to think that giving jobs or training berths to graduates is the training institute’s responsibility. It allots almost a quarter of the maximum scoreable ‘credit points’ (used in grading) under ‘Recruitment and Placement’ in the CIP.

That this is a majorly flawed strategy has been proved over time. Firstly, institutions not connected directly to shipping companies are in no position to guarantee jobs or training berths to their graduates. Adding to this is the lack of industry interest in freshers, not to speak of naked corruption, in many private and public sector shipping companies, Indian or foreign. In most instances, a graduate can only get his first sea berth if he pays somebody or he knows somebody. Doing nothing about that entrenched and accepted rot while simultaneously grading MET in ‘placement’ is setting ourselves up for failure. I rest my case by pointing out that even toppers in the GP Ratings’ post Pre Sea training Board Exams (conducted under aegis of the DGS, I may add) cannot get jobs today without bribery or nepotism. If improvement in quality is the goal, this way of trying to reach it is futile.

Incidentally, ignoring the corruption in the first-job market has also direct fallout on quality of MET intake. Some people think that the recently reported poor job market in India, coupled with the rising dollar, will make shipping more attractive to youngsters.  I disagree. I doubt any increased interest will be significant, because I think the rot in recruitment runs too deep, and everybody, including potential entrants to the profession, knows about it.

A MET setup can take the smartest eighteen year old in India and train him superbly, producing a stellar cadet or rating at the end of the exercise. Then what? Since they don’t own or manage ships, MET setups can only then ask- in the circumstances of today- that youngster to pay a bribe to get his first on board training berth.  How many smart eighteen year olds do you think we will get that way? How will quality improve?

(My generation paid sweet nothing to get a job or training berth. Why have things deteriorated to this extent in thirty odd years? Why have they been allowed to?)

By the way, a MET setup placing its graduates by bribery and corruption can still be top graded under the CIP, because its records will show ‘100 per cent placement.’ Is that the way we want to grade our institutions? 

The introduction of the CIP is not going to improve quality unless we accept what we know already, and act to fix the problems in the domains where they lie. Placement of graduates in the job market cannot be the sole (or even the major) responsibility of MET. I say roll out the CIP, amending the placement weightage appropriately. Simultaneously, clamp down on the many malpractices that are part of the recruitment and on board training sewer today.

The CIP is a good idea- maybe even a great one. But not if we make MET institutes responsible for ‘placement’. Not if a quarter of their grading is dependent on their ability to secure jobs for their people- something they have little control over. Unless the administration fixes responsibility and accountability appropriately, the CIP- that good idea- will fail. 

As Einstein said, you can’t blame gravity for falling in love.

.

.