Edtech and ‘job guarantee’ courses: One man’s misery is another man’s fortune
TL;DR
Amidst tech industry recessions and widespread layoffs, Edtech companies are stepping in with promises of “guaranteed” job placements through upskilling courses. This model is particularly thriving in India, driven by high job demand and relatively low infrastructure costs. However, these promises often lead to student disillusionment, resulting in wasted time and money.
This article delves into the challenges posed by Edtech companies and highlights the loopholes in our legal system that fail to protect those deceived by these educational profiteers. It emphasizes the importance of students thoroughly investigating course providers and being cautious of promises that seem too good to be true. A balanced approach is advocated, one that focuses on quality education and practical skills rather than misleading guaranteed job placements.
Additionally, the article proposes recommendations for upskilling companies. Instead of making unrealistic promises, these companies should set realistic expectations and deliver on their educational commitments. By focusing on genuine outcomes and maintaining transparency, they can build trust and provide true value to their students.
Read the article for the full story.
Edtech and Job Guarante Courses
Get a job! A techie job. A job that pays well, provides some security, some sense of worth, that is “future-proof”. Get a foot on the ladder. Get anxious parents off your back. Get a job? When recession grips the tech world? When big companies are firing? When every fresh job ad demands some new skill? How can you keep up? What to learn? Where to learn?
AXIOM: One man’s misery is another man’s fortune. Where there is TENSION, WORRY, FEAR … sell HOPE.
In the context of Edtech companies, hope takes the shape of a course with a job guarantee on completion. India has numerous Edtech companies in the upskilling segment that operate on this model. And by the way, Indian Edtech companies didn’t discover it. For the past several years, the “course with guaranteed job” model has flourished abroad too — chiefly in the USA. India may not have invented it, but it provides an ideal climate for it: a tight job market, lakhs of young men and women desperate to transition to gainful employment. For the entrepreneur, thanks to the revolution called digital learning, outlay on infrastructure is minimal and instructors are available on gig rates. The “job guarantee” model is not only Number One in the upskilling segment, it is virtually fail-proof.
Sell “hope”. And why not? Doesn’t every business respond to market demands? It has long been said that a business is either growing or dying. Like every business, Edtech companies must pursue market expansion and profit expansion. They must identify what the customer wants and provide it … or promise to provide it. The most effective pitch of the upskilling specialist is guaranteed placement for every student. Many companies even specify a minimum Rs 6 lakh per annum package.
But wait … India’s premier IITs and IIMs don’t guarantee 100 percent placement. Prestigious universities abroad make no such promise. In infrastructure, resources and reputation, Edtech companies are nothing in comparison to long-established, high-end institutions so how can they GUARANTEE jobs to their graduates?
Obviously, they can’t. But if they falsely say that they can?
Legal Landscape and Edtech
That should make them liable for prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, on the grounds of Unfair Trade Practices (defined as misleading advertisements, false promises, or any other deceptive practices.) But does the law deem Edtech companies to be liable under the Consumer Protection Act? Welcome to shifting sands and vague boundaries. The law has been slow, and sometimes contradictory, in saying exactly where Edtech companies fit.
Case Studies and Legal Precedents
1. PT Koshy case (2012)
In the PT Koshy case (2012), the Supreme Court held that students are NOT consumers, education is NOT a commodity and educational institutions are NOT rendering a service. The news story appeared in Hindustan Times on Feb 13, 2022 under the title: SC to decide whether consumers laws govern educational services or not.
2. P. Sreenivasulu case (2015)
Three years later (2015) in the P. Sreenivasulu case, the Supreme Court held that educational institutions would fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and that education IS a service.
In 2020 a bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had this to say:
“Coaching centres cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a regulatory authority and confer a degree/diploma on the student, who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the rules and norms specified in the statute and by the concerned universities. Therefore, strictly speaking, coaching centres cannot fall within the definition of educational institutions.”
The bench held that ANY DEFECT OR DEFICIENCY OR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE pertaining to a ‘SERVICE PROVIDER’ like coaching centres DOES fall within the purview of the CP Act, 1986. The news story appeared in the Times of India dated Jan 30, 2020 under the title: NCDRC: Educational institutions out of Consumer Act purview
Intensifying Competition and Regulation
Covid 19 impact
2021-22 – the covid years – saw huge expansion of online learning. Numerous private companies began to offer online courses and competition among these companies intensified. As competition intensified, the perception of the need for regulation was felt more and more strongly.
Regulatory Developments
By now, the legal position has been clarified. Yes, Edtech companies are covered under CPA-2019 and Yes, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs is obligated to regulate Edtech companies.
In February, 2024, Central Consumer Protection Authority called for public comments on Draft Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in Coaching Sector. These guidelines are posted on the website of the Department of Consumer Affairs in the form of PDF.
Deadline for comments/suggestions/feedback was March 16, 2024. Clearly, the days of laissez faire are coming to an end.
Presently, when a student (consumer) pays to receive instruction (a service) the seller and the consumer are deemed to be in a contractual relationship, even if the “contract” amounts to nothing more than a receipt for payment. The company’s advertising and brochure are taken as a legally binding statements of the service being offered. Since Edtech companies of the upskilling segment continue to promise jobs on completion of their courses, does that mean that in fact they are somehow managing to find employment as advertised for ALL their graduates?
A simple way to find out whether or not the Edtech companies are making good on their “100 percent job guarantee” is to go to Google and tap in something like “institute promised job but”. Search will bring up many sites containing words to that effect and many of those sites will pertain to complaints. Sites such as Quora and Reddit are full of sad experiences related by people who were sorely disappointed (and perhaps lured into heavy debt) by upskilling edtech companies that made grand and deceptive promises but never delivered. CPA or no CPA, the online coaching scene is so far very much a world of caveat emptor – let the buyer beware.
Challenges of prosecution
Difficulties in Legal Action
A Google search will also confirm that Edtech companies continue to pitch “100 percent job guarantee”. This indicates:
1. Difficulty of prosecution under CPA-2019 or any other law. (Fighting a legal case is not cheap.)
2. Relatively mild penalty for an edtech company found guilty under CPA-2019 or other laws.
3. Difficulty of proving Unfair Practice based on precise wording of the institute’s brochure (e.g. the phrase in the brochure may be “100 percent job assistance” rather than “100 percent job guarantee”.)
Evasion Tactics
An analysis of some of the terms and conditions in upskilling Edtech companies’ brochures reveals clauses and conditions that give the companies an “out” in the event of prosecution. The Edtech company defines “course completion” and it is at liberty to change the completion criteria, introduce additional tests, set the test questions, require additional project work, etc. Only students who complete the course receive the course certificate. Conditions state that only certificate holders are eligible for job guarantee.
The guarantee may be void if the student did not apply to ALL the job leads the company sent their way, or did not apply within the stipulated time (usually 24 or 48 hours). The guarantee may be void if the student refuses the first job offer they get. · Sometimes the exact wording in the brochure is “100 percent job assistance”, rather than “guarantee”. Admission to the course is conditional on an undertaking by the student that he or she will attend not less than 85 percent of the classes. Failure to maintain 85 percent nullifies the company’s obligation to place the student in a job or refund the course fee.
Realities of Upskilling
In all of this often murky business, the thing that most stands out is the failure of regular, traditional colleges and universities. Failure to be:
Accessible
Unlike colleges and universities, the doors of Edtech companies are open to anyone and everyone who wants to learn. No entrance exams, no first counselling, second counselling, no marks percentage cut-offs.
In the case of the upskilling variety of Edtech companies, it would be reasonable for them to admit only those students with a background that indicates their ability to absorb a particular course content … but the companies make no such stipulation.
Relevant
Technology changes at an extremely rapid rate, therefore skill demands change rapidly too. Contrast the “change imperative” of a computer sciences course with that of something like the Anatomy class in a medical college. The Anatomy professor may teach from the same set of inherited notes for 40 years. It’s okay. Your liver is in exactly the same place as your grandpa’s liver and it works in exactly the same way.
Does any professor in any Computer Sciences department anywhere teach COBAL? It was THE computer language 50 years ago. Now, even the name is forgotten.
Perhaps computer science departments colleges or universities abroad “run like the devil just to stay in one place”, but very few in India make a similar effort. Aside from desperation for employment, people are drawn to upskilling courses offered by Edtech companies because these companies know the importance of keeping up to date with industry requirements. (If they don’t remain relevant to skill demands, the companies will go under.)
It would be great if there were some kind of instructional magic that would instantly catapult a jobless kid into a tech career … but there isn’t. Even on payment of Rs 2 lakh-plus for a course, there is no such magic.
Best advice: Do not look for magic. Focus on programs that offer quality education, practical skills, and a supportive learning environment. Thoroughly investigate a course provider before signing up. If an advertisement sounds too good to be true it probably is. Do not be stampeded by aggressive sales pitches. If education is an investment, then invest wisely.