Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Education System

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Indian Education System

Postby Singha » 16 Apr 2008 20:15

there are some other univs in India which are slated to be uprated into
more equipped places for r&d. If I am not mistaken Jadavpur univ is going
to be one, and Pune univ is another.

here is full article on new National Insts of Sciences.
http://www.ugc.ac.in/new_initiatives/newnis.html

National Institutes of Sciences

India has an opportunity to become the global R & D Hub. For this, the most important intervention would be to selectively and preferentially raise the standards of science education for a small section of bright students taking up science because overall status of science education suffer from severe handicaps. This is essential not only to meet the requirement high quality people in science to man and lead out national lab system and mission oriented agencies that is likely to face crisis in coming years due to large number of senior people retiring, but also to move up the value chain in global R & D services, where India is favourably positioned. This would also provide a new Model of Science Education in the Country. Therefore, it is proposed that a number of new science institutes (to begin with four) may be set-up at different places in the country to be the Centres of Excellence in Science Education. These institutes would occupy prime position in the area of science education as IITs and IIMs occupy for technology and management education in the global setting today.

These institutes would be established at Allahabad near Allahabad University, at Chennai near Anna University, at Pune near Pune University and at Bhuvaneshwar near Utkal University. They would primarily offer integrated five-year basic and applied science education programme, leading to a Masters Degree and would have linkages with National research labs science agencies and industry right from their inception. With a view to ensure that these Institutes come up fast, these will be incubated as a part of the existing premier universities. Though, these Institutes would be, for all purposes, autonomous institutions of the Link Universities with full academic, administrative and financial autonomy. Although the link university will award educational and research degrees to the scholars and students of this Institute in the initial phase, these Institutes will have complete and total freedom to lay down their courses, frame suitable course structure, method of teaching and evaluation. This organic link with the Link universities would be very crucial in the initial phases. Established Universities would help to nurture the Institute till they mature to be on their own.

Formal announcement for setting up of these Institutes was made by HE President of India on December 28, 2003 on occasion of the concluding ceremony of the Golden Jubilee of the UGC. Academic, administrative and financial details have been worked out and the proposal is in the approval process.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 16 Apr 2008 20:15

here is full article on new National Insts of Sciences.
http://www.ugc.ac.in/new_initiatives/newnis.html

National Institutes of Sciences

India has an opportunity to become the global R & D Hub. For this, the most important intervention would be to selectively and preferentially raise the standards of science education for a small section of bright students taking up science because overall status of science education suffer from severe handicaps. This is essential not only to meet the requirement high quality people in science to man and lead out national lab system and mission oriented agencies that is likely to face crisis in coming years due to large number of senior people retiring, but also to move up the value chain in global R & D services, where India is favourably positioned. This would also provide a new Model of Science Education in the Country. Therefore, it is proposed that a number of new science institutes (to begin with four) may be set-up at different places in the country to be the Centres of Excellence in Science Education. These institutes would occupy prime position in the area of science education as IITs and IIMs occupy for technology and management education in the global setting today.

These institutes would be established at Allahabad near Allahabad University, at Chennai near Anna University, at Pune near Pune University and at Bhuvaneshwar near Utkal University. They would primarily offer integrated five-year basic and applied science education programme, leading to a Masters Degree and would have linkages with National research labs science agencies and industry right from their inception.
With a view to ensure that these Institutes come up fast, these will be incubated as a part of the existing premier universities. Though, these Institutes would be, for all purposes, autonomous institutions of the Link Universities with full academic, administrative and financial autonomy. Although the link university will award educational and research degrees to the scholars and students of this Institute in the initial phase, these Institutes will have complete and total freedom to lay down their courses, frame suitable course structure, method of teaching and evaluation. This organic link with the Link universities would be very crucial in the initial phases. Established Universities would help to nurture the Institute till they mature to be on their own.

Formal announcement for setting up of these Institutes was made by HE President of India on December 28, 2003 on occasion of the concluding ceremony of the Golden Jubilee of the UGC. Academic, administrative and financial details have been worked out and the proposal is in the approval process.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Postby Bade » 16 Apr 2008 21:13

Stan wrote:
There are two different needs for India: fundamental research and day-to-day engg. The goals and the needs of the two are very different. There are, I see, two approaches:
1) For a short term goal: Mass produce engineers and demystify the IITs and hope that over time some place good will come about.
2) For a long term goal: Make the IITs even more elitist, change the selection criteria, focus on fundamental research, and let them be. And mass produce another behemoth to meet the other needs of the country.

I believe that the second one is far more economical and easier to meet both the goals.

Setting up a new structure to do fundamental research will take ages for them to stand up. Instead the day-to-day engg stuff can wait to stand on its own legs and the IIT system's name, brand and faculties can be diverted to do what is essential in the long run: fundamental research. We are not being efficient in identifying our short term needs and our long term needs. Long term needs can hurt us more.

Excellent summary on requirements as they stand before us. I would want option 2 for the existing Big-5 to begin with and quality mass production factories by another name for each state. The Big-5 can pick the brightest of the JEE or equivalent list for a 5 yr MS/Mtech and hope to tap them for the PhD programs at IIT. That should be the goal.

This will make people complain less seeking IIT status for new institutes and the old BTechs should probably tone down their 'brand' rhetoric which makes little sense since there are already established ones like MIT whose brand is not made by their BS population alone.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 931
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Postby Venkarl » 16 Apr 2008 21:38

Brain gain: IITians prefer India over foreign nations
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080047067&ch=4/16/2008%209:04:00%20PM

Greener pastures abroad seem to have lost charm for IIT graduates, as most of them prefer to stay back in India and believe that the country will be a ''promising geography'' in the next 10 years, says a new survey.

Among those who graduated from the IITs in 2002 and later, 84 per cent remained in the country whereas only 65 per cent of graduates during 1964-2000 period preferred to stay back.

The survey of 677 IITians conducted by global analytics and research firm Evalueserve showed that from those who graduated in 2002 and later, about 49 per cent respondents feel that India would provide them better opportunities.

Further, as many as 90 per cent of all IITians have chosen to remain in the country in 2006.

According to the survey, among the IITians who graduated prior to 2002, about 60 per cent viewed developed countries as the destination with the best career opportunities.

Interestingly, when asked that 10 years down the line which geography would hold the ''most promise for success'', 72 per cent chose India, while 17 per cent opted for the US, five per cent Europe and two per cent China. :roll:

Better academic opportunities were the primary reason for IIT graduates to go to the United States. About 70 per cent of IITians who graduated prior to 2002 moved to America, while only 63 per cent of those who graduated in 2002 or later went to that country.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 16 Apr 2008 23:11

sanku wrote:I for one am still confused between DCE and DIT


Pretty funny sanku! I believe DCE has upgraded itself recently, they have a swank new campus and building, the alumni luminaries include Vinod Dham of Pentium fame.

I think many of the questions asked herein have to do with GOI's lack of Edu funding. The %of GDP spend on Edu was less than the ideal 6%. With the current upswing in GDP, GOI has to address the aspirations of the common folks, whose yearning for better Edu facilities needs to be satiated. No issue with having an IIT model in mind but the broader question is a policy of comprehensive Edu. One of the success points of Massa land Edu is that they invested in state level Edu. Pennyslvani, Virgina, Ohio have behemoth campuses built on a land grant basis. A wide swath of land in a rural area was set aside and built up as a state university. India needs to do the same. Have each state sponsor a 5000 acre plus patch in their state preferably under-developed area, plunk down a campus with say JBIC funding and have multi-discipline facility. Let them compete and produce areas of excellence. common entrance exam can be designed, with states sponsoring their own population with fee discounts and other incentives including social quotas.

S.Abhisheik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 10 Apr 2008 22:17

Postby S.Abhisheik » 16 Apr 2008 23:22

bala wrote:
sanku wrote:I for one am still confused between DCE and DIT


Pretty funny sanku! I believe DCE has upgraded itself recently, they have a swank new campus and building, the alumni luminaries include Vinod Dham of Pentium fame.
[quote]

That upgradation happened a decade ago.Only difference is that DIT has a better faculty.

gashish
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 23 May 2004 11:31
Location: BRF's tailgate party, aka, Nukkad thread

Postby gashish » 17 Apr 2008 02:02

Is this the kind of serious argument you wish to make? Everything, nothing!!

The question that was asked deserved that answer.


Can you please list why IITs should not have the same mission as MIT?

I will wait.


IITs being funded by public money should be designed primarily to pick,nurture and train the brightest students who will work for the technological advancement of the country/society. Increasing intake is the need of the hour just to keep up with increasing population and demand for techincal manpower. Brand H&D is not the topmost concern, especially when its not clear how just increasing intake to keep up with pop. would harm it.

I don't care about MIT's mission. So I wont ask you to list the reasons why you think we should ape MIT using public money.

I have; and the chief thing seems to come across as petulance; Stan has had a excellent set of posts but that does not seem to have made any dent on your flippant attitude. Please take them up one at a time and discuss his post.


Prolly didn't comprehend then. Before you joined the nareybazee, you didn't seem to find out what the rally was about.

Here is my first post on this topic which talks about FUTURE of premier institutes and not past IITians, as you suggest. Where is the petulance/flippancy.

Everybody here agrees that there is a need to increase the number of students studying at premier institutes, to keep up with the increasing population, at the very least.

This can be done by:

1)Increasing the intake of current IITs

2)Increasing the number of IITs by converting existing other premier insitutes into IITs

3)Increasing the number of IITs by building the new ones from scratch

All of this is being done and should be continued. #1 is the cheapest and easiest while #3 is most expensive.
Quote:

After all, the very reason for retaining the IIT name (even after expanding capacity, hypothetically) is to ride on the back of those select few from the past (which is becoming a trickle now) who went out of their way in establishing credibility in massa land as well as India, no? Why not have these new Btech_iits establish their own brand name, instead of running with the IITs of old? It takes a while yes, but whatever good or bad they will have it on their own, instead of living a borrowed life



First of all, I don't agree it is riding on somebody's back. Its basically the same thing as the next generation reaping the fruits of hardwork of previous generation.
Lets assume for time being it is. Whats wrong with that? Should taxpayers conisder H&D of those select few more important than the country's current needs of technical manpower? The only point,IMO, should be considered: Does this expansion of IITs preclude some bright kids getting into IIT who otherwise would have made it? The answer is not necessarily. Brightest kids, the kinds of which helped build H&D in the past, will still make into a IIT. Brightest students will excel in any case and they are the ones who *least* need the IIT brand stamp.

The brand dilution argument is very tricky especially given that:
1)we don't have a specific standard to measure against and calculate the RIGHT intake for IITs
2) and no clear idea about how exactly brand value is measured to say dilution has happened or not?

Increasing intake need not necessarily dilute the brand, IMHO.



Is that a trick question? Because the answer is obviously obvious.


Its not. Spell out the obvious. So that we know who you think should be concerned about protecting "the brand".

So if I have a opinion of UCLA grad I will think the same of UCB unless I take a lot of time to figure out otherwise -- and frankly why should I?

In the same vain, frankly, why should a UCB grad care about someone's opinion who doesn't understand the difference between UCB and UCXYZ?

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5853
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Amber G. » 17 Apr 2008 02:56

as an aside, UC Berkeley's reputation in EE field is better than that of MIT.


Both are fine institutes, and you can have your opinion, but reputations of schools not a linearly ordered set. And statements like these really, IMO, makes little sense. (As an aside, US News and World report's 2008 Rankings ranks MIT as #1, in EE, ahead of Stanford/Berkley but that is beside the point)
UC Berkley is good, but many others (eg Irvine, UCSD, and of course other fine schools outside UC systems) are quite good too (specially for graduate schools, depending on your field) and it is by no means uncommon for people to choose one over other when they get into both.

If you or your kids are looking for a school, rankings are, (again IMO) not that meaningful, specially if you are comparing, schools which are pretty close in rankings.

Sravan
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 24 Oct 2006 15:15

Postby Sravan » 17 Apr 2008 03:15

Amber G. wrote:
as an aside, UC Berkeley's reputation in EE field is better than that of MIT.


Both are fine institutes, and you can have your opinion, but reputations of schools not a linearly ordered set. And statements like these really, IMO, makes little sense. (As an aside, US News and World report's 2008 Rankings ranks MIT as #1, in EE, ahead of Stanford/Berkley but that is beside the point)
UC Berkley is good, but many others (eg Irvine, UCSD, and of course other fine schools outside UC systems) are quite good too (specially for graduate schools, depending on your field) and it is by no means uncommon for people to choose one over other when they get into both.

If you or your kids are looking for a school, rankings are, (again IMO) not that meaningful, specially if you are comparing, schools which are pretty close in rankings.


I got into both UC Berkeley and UCSD.

There are several things to consider.

The history of the University...

Berkeley invented the open source linux, sockets, and has always been number one in pushing the limits of silica. It was the first university in Cal

UCSD started in 1952..

Infrastructure:

Right now UCSD has better infrastructure and space available for research. It has 14 nano fabrication labs, berkeley has zero right now.

UCSD has Calit^2 and Berkeley is getting Citris in January 2009.

Projects:

I personally believe Berkeley is leading in this aspect, because they synergise interdisciplinary projects. For example they are building this beetle cyborg which flys on command. It has a circuit implanted into it's larve and can fly on que.

So when I went to Cal Day in Berkeley I got a 600 page published book labeled "Research Summary"...

UCSD is good also, expect to see it in the top 3 within the next 5 years.

Conclusion:

I ended up choosing Berkeley because although both schools have the same caliber of opportunities, one had the college life and the other was suburbia. Berkeley is also known to be proactive in the sense that it initiated the free speech movement and many other things Americans take for granted. It's is also a politically and socially active community which is much more attractive than the sheeple apathetic community you see in other universities.

Plus the dean of my college is Telugu!

My 2 cents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6BP09VHK58

gashish
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 23 May 2004 11:31
Location: BRF's tailgate party, aka, Nukkad thread

Postby gashish » 17 Apr 2008 04:33

Amber G. wrote:
as an aside, UC Berkeley's reputation in EE field is better than that of MIT.


Both are fine institutes, and you can have your opinion, but reputations of schools not a linearly ordered set. And statements like these really, IMO, makes little sense. (As an aside, US News and World report's 2008 Rankings ranks MIT as #1, in EE, ahead of Stanford/Berkley but that is beside the point)
UC Berkley is good, but many others (eg Irvine, UCSD, and of course other fine schools outside UC systems) are quite good too (specially for graduate schools, depending on your field) and it is by no means uncommon for people to choose one over other when they get into both.

If you or your kids are looking for a school, rankings are, (again IMO) not that meaningful, specially if you are comparing, schools which are pretty close in rankings.


Agree with you Amber. I used that as an aside just to show excellence is not any one institute's monopoly even in US.

People who care would also know if UCBerkeley is good in EE, then UCLA(along with USC) is known for its MA/MFA program (Film school). Market knows how to distinguish these Univs. and it just doesn't go by UC name.

The almuni list of USC Film school looks like who's who in the Film world.
George Lucas, one of the famous alumunus, donated $175 million of his own money to expand the school. No crib about dilution. what a contrast!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 07:15

the three new IITs will this year admit 120 students each with 27% OBC and
rest of group 520 extra people with 9% OBC, this year per TV.

if the IITs are to be converted into IIsc type PG instts with mininal or zero
UG enrollment so be it, but then the UG brand conscious types who did PG
abroad (and are abroad mostly) are going to lose their JEE rights :D if
JEE is downsized into admission test for 20K seats on the lines to replace
AIEEE there goes the kota tuition economy.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Postby Bade » 17 Apr 2008 07:45

You got it Singhaji, converting the Big-5 to PG only institutions will take the sheen away from the riff-raff who get in for BTech programs and following graduation immediately go into finance, management etc. Why should the nation pay the price if adolescents who cannot make up their minds are being filled in premier places with subsidized education. Goes against the basic tenets of capitalism that the brand conscious swear by, no ? :P

As per even the 'brand conscious' UG alumni, the Kota system is killing the IIT system. So what better way than to impose a penalty which inhibits the run of the mill wannabes to flock to IITs. Ask them to spend a good 5+ years before they can get out :twisted: with a degree. Do something good for the nation. If you do not like it go abroad and make it to MIT/Stanford/UC on your own abilities and money.

Just cause you are talented and the best available does not make it a birthright to get an almost free education with nothing in return. Fair onlee. Fifty years ago Nehru wanted to create leaders who would go to build other institutes and industries in India. Well the goal was not met for various reasons we all know about and have beaten to death.

Time now for a new goal for the IITs ... Excellence in Technological and Science research while we supplement the other immediate need with many more NITs on steroids.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 08:55

well Sravan - giving up coronado and La Jolla for waving leftie placards in berkeley and "save tibet" t-shirts :twisted:

spot on Bade, the wall street types could have made it to wall street without
wasting 4 yrs on a mech or ee degree. once the vast UG hostels are demolished, UGs mostly all chased out peace will reign on the kingdom.

Phd > PG > profs coffee machine >> UG

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 10:08

gashish wrote:
Is this the kind of serious argument you wish to make? Everything, nothing!!

The question that was asked deserved that answer.


Actually as far as "deserve" goes your entire post doesnt deserve anything :rotfl:

what you are doing is third rate cop out; if you have had a answer you would have given it instead of third rate arguments.

Grow up


IITs being funded by public money should be designed primarily to pick,nurture and train the brightest students who will work for the technological advancement of the country/society.


Obvious -- the question that I asked you is compare and contrast MIT vs IIT since that was the bone of contention.

Increasing intake is the need of the hour just to keep up with increasing population and demand for techincal manpower.


It is to all who will see; refer to Stan's post.

Brand H&D is not the topmost concern, especially when its not clear how just increasing intake to keep up with pop. would harm it.


For the people who are brainwashed to see brand value == H&D it will never be clear. To see you have to first drop that bias.

This is exactly why all your arguments are essentially sour grapes in fancy words.

I don't care about MIT's mission. So I wont ask you to list the reasons why you think we should ape MIT using public money.


Third rate cop out -- you made a statement

gashsish wrote:MIT is a private university hence puts less burden on taxpayers. IITs are not. Their missions cannot be compared.


And now when pressed for the difference you say you dont care? :rotfl:' if you didnt care perhaps you should have said that in the first place instead of loudly proclaiming that there is a difference.

Sorry son this is really sad.

Prolly didn't comprehend then. Before you joined the nareybazee, you didn't seem to find out what the rally was about.


Son; dont judge everyone by your own standards -- you may be doing the narebaaze as is evident; but I stepped in to stop your narrbaazi after reading ALL the posts therein.

Here is my first post on this topic which talks about FUTURE of premier institutes and not past IITians, as you suggest. Where is the petulance/flippancy.


I will point it out but one example

Should taxpayers conisder H&D of those select few more important than the country's current needs of technical manpower? .


The concept of H&D == brand value in your mind is simple petulance.
:D

Is that a trick question? Because the answer is obviously obvious.


Its not. Spell out the obvious. So that we know who you think should be concerned about protecting "the brand".


Duh -- all Indians should care about BRAND IIT -- just as I care about Rashtrapati Bhavan even if cant get in -- similarly the BRAND IIT is important for all even those who cant get in.

In the same vain, frankly, why should a UCB grad care about someone's opinion who doesn't understand the difference between UCB and UCXYZ?


Because I will be employing them or giving them money. I am the market!
:P

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 10:12

Singha wrote:if the IITs are to be converted into IIsc type PG instts with mininal or zero
UG enrollment so be it, but then the UG brand conscious types who did PG
abroad (and are abroad mostly) are going to lose their JEE rights :D if
JEE is downsized into admission test for 20K seats on the lines to replace
AIEEE there goes the kota tuition economy.


Singha Sir; now that Stan has successfully defended the IITs you are after JEE ? Let things be just because some UGs have bragging rights is hardly a reason for you to destroy a system.

Not expected from some one like you.

Also those who made it through JEE before the change will always have bragging rights :P you will never be able to take that away do as you might

"Aur kuch ho na ho Akash see chaati to hai"

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 10:18

S.Abhisheik wrote:
bala wrote:
sanku wrote:I for one am still confused between DCE and DIT


Pretty funny sanku! I believe DCE has upgraded itself recently, they have a swank new campus and building, the alumni luminaries include Vinod Dham of Pentium fame.


That upgradation happened a decade ago.Only difference is that DIT has a better faculty.


Thank you guys you have helped me illustrate the point of how the two are confused by "similar" brand names despite being different -- thus my point on brand value.

Couldnt have done better myself. :wink:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 10:35

Bade wrote:Just cause you are talented and the best available does not make it a birthright to get an almost free education with nothing in return. Fair onlee. Fifty years ago Nehru wanted to create leaders who would go to build other institutes and industries in India. Well the goal was not met for various reasons we all know about and have beaten to death..


:D Let me let you on one of the best kept secrets -- the IITs were not conceived or any such thing by Nehru -- let me quote from The IITians by Sandipan Deb (a book in my hand)

But the IITs were not dreamt up Nehru, They were the brain child of Ardeshir Dalal ... member of cabinet in waiting before independce


-- towards execution name is Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and BC Roy -- Prof Inderesan called the setting of IIT "a bengali conspiracy"

The IITs are amongst the many things that Indians did and the Nehru-to become Gandhi clan hijacked after it became successful -- pretty much on the sorry grounds that they did not block it when they could have :rotfl:

Yeah so Nehru signed the cheque and posed for pics around the foundation stone -- and then talked useless poetry.

I also know that the above piece of plain speak will offend Bade but what to do truth must be told and unlike others I believe in saying it most bluntly. :D

Oh BTW why is all this "fairness" criteira being put on the best (IITians) is it their fault that they are best? If ANY engineering collage allowes its pupils free education without choice constraints why not IIT?

I see a deep seated grudge against the best because they are the best -- the roots of socialist thinking.

Instead of creating conditions where IITians could be used -- all you guys can come with ideas to DESTROY a system -- one which produces great undergrads. fie on you.

Let IITs create great PHDs but why do you have this itch to "remove" BTechs? Cant IITs absorb its own BTechs? Why?

Instead of those serious question you threaten fire and brimstone and retribution like some small time Abhramic god. Fie once more.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 17 Apr 2008 10:44

I think the bashing of UGs is unwarranted. You have to be UG to get to PG and beyond.

Sanku thank you for that not Nehru created IIT history. I am tired of listening to the Nehru vision .... zzzz.

Just curious of those in this discussion who are JEE IIT and who are not. Let me start (yes moi < 100 JEE, and people i know who have fessed up to be IIT/JEE - Vina, Stan, Enqyoob, Calvin, Amber G); Singha I know you are NIT warangal.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 11:18

I confess too -- but that does not cloud my reasoning.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 11:48

well neither brand equity or echandee will fill the country's needs unless
using the brand value to get a leg up on better schols abroad is a desired
outcome.

IITs having limited land, hostels and manpower cannot both be a huge teaching shop for UG (as it is being dragged into today) AND be a huge r&d setup like MiT. the money also doesnt exist at present for such a MKization. Massa has the money , the huge endowments and endless land for this.

so maybe the idea to reduce to UG headcount to minimal levels and focussing resources on making it more like IIsc would be a better use of the good profs and infra there ?

I think this is perhaps what Stan was proposing although his UG loyalty
wouldnt have him nuke the UG totally as IIsc did :) let in onlee 200 super
duper UGs through the gate after holding the worlds toughest exam if you
will ... but my sensors say these A++ people will decamp for MiT after
their degree so long as the difference in living standards and 'prestige' is
wide. want to live in kanpur with its choking blue phat-phatti fumes and
soiled river or alewife ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 11:58

imo one way in which branding helps is if full fee paying foreign students
can be attracted in large numbers like australia and UK colleges try in India.
US Univs also have lots of the fee paying types including UGs.
their fees can subsidize local students and pay opex.

but the quality of campus life and general stuff like toilets and food is
not upto mark to compete with developed world and the fee paying types
want good stuff like that, so it doesnt help.

wouldnt it be great to have all the rich, trendy haavad, bryn mawr,
radcliffe, vassar, colgate english lit femmes in a "school of languages" in
iit dilli ? gpa's would be affected adversely in sciences one expects
:roll:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 12:06

Singha wrote:well neither brand equity or echandee will fill the country's needs unless
using the brand value to get a leg up on better schols abroad is a desired
outcome.


Agree with your post -- but if you look at MIT model they have opted for a "balance" between UG and PG++; this is what IITs are seeking to do now.

It is not THEIR fault if successive dimwitted Edu minister want every one to have the cake of IIT since the people cant have the bread of primary education.
:roll:

While we discuss the "right" thing to do by IITs -- the Idea of "right" for us on BRF and for Arjun Singh is very different and guess what -- ASs (Arjun Singhs) win.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 12:09

Singha wrote:wouldnt it be great to have all the rich, trendy haavad, bryn mawr,
radcliffe, vassar, colgate english lit femmes in a "school of languages" in
iit dilli ? gpa's would be affected adversely in sciences one expects
:roll:


there were similar schools in IITB; the "girls" there were girls but only marginally better than IITian girls in quantity and quality.... No such type would ever go to a IIT

However if there was a different campus then.......

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 13:49

x-training, sensitivity classes and broadening of horizons is so in these days.
maybe a joint iit-d + du school of engg and romance is what the doc ordered to 'uplift' the spirits a tad

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 14:21

bala wrote:Sanku thank you for that not Nehru created IIT history. I am tired of listening to the Nehru vision .... zzzz. l.


My pleasure; good to be on the same side as you once in a while. :wink:

Saral
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 16 Jan 2005 14:05

Postby Saral » 17 Apr 2008 15:07

The JEE stats along with student particulars would be a gold mine for figuring out how talent is distributed.. India, unlike China, has huge variance across people/groups on ability/general intelligence.. The reason why we are competitive is because of this huge variance. The mean is considerably lower than China. This makes everything in India much more elitist.. the elites ARE more important in India due to this spread. Screw the elites also implies that India is screwed..

Unless BTech kids with the capability are lured into PG studies in IIT (many are now teaching there), its going to be hard to have top class research programs. I last had close encounters with IIT kids who graduated in 2000.. they were still sharp as nails (of course they were probably top 10 or top 100 types).. but many of them are entrepreneurs etc.. pretty far away from science... would you rather have 1st rate scientists or 1st rate managers/entrepreneurs? At any rate, they follow the money/independence and thats not surprising..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 15:10

India, unlike China, has huge variance across people/groups on ability/general intelligence.

what is the basis of this eugenic sounding statement ? I would think home
and social environment, schooling tend to produce good students regardless
of where they came from. case in point being the KVs and metro schools
were kids from all communities/regions go. does anyone notice variations
there when this factor is same for all ?

Saral
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 16 Jan 2005 14:05

Postby Saral » 17 Apr 2008 15:24

singhajee

its probably a consequence of extensive endogamy (marriage within clan) for the last 1000+ or more years.. India has according to a population geneticist thousands of such groups.. Latest findings are that evolution (natural selection) of certain traits is actually accelerating (this has been used to understand the extraordinary intel of ashkenazi jews.. Jews didnt have options in medieval europe and were forced into niche areas like moneylending.. what this meant was that those who happened to have what it took to keep tabs etc.. were more likely to survive and have kids.. Jews in the time of jesus were not known for their intel.. unlike more recently)..

in any case, statements about variance can easily be checked if one gets untramelled access to entrance exam stats and such.. these are good enough proxies for verbal and math/spatial intel... its well established the mean IQ of Indians (all groups) is way lower than Chinese.. so greater variance is the only thing that can compensate for that. One interesting unknown is the effect of selective pressures (on natural selection) as a result of caste. Maybe there are some groups who have average intel but are outstanding on some weird ability.. I think its important to know this.. Its no different from sports.. If I were to look for shot putters, I'd focus on Punjab and not waste my time on Assam (and vice versa for gymnasts)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 15:26

nsriram wrote: This makes everything in India much more elitist.. the elites ARE more important in India due to this spread. Screw the elites also implies that India is screwed...


:eek: :shock: :-?

Huh... I have one word for this sort of thinking......

Manuvadi nonsense (was that two words?)

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 17 Apr 2008 18:06

Singha wrote:IITs having limited land, hostels and manpower cannot both be a huge teaching shop for UG (as it is being dragged into today) AND be a huge r&d setup like MiT. the money also doesnt exist at present for such a MKization. Massa has the money , the huge endowments and endless land for this.

The money are there. The priorities are not there. Lets try to see where all cash is needed afai can tell: 1) the day-2-day chores of the institute like electricity, water and other non-avoidable costs like admin -- printing degrees etc, 2) research money for travel, printer etc, 3) salary for professors/admin, 4) facilities upgrade + building new infra, 5) running expenses of students' teaching, 6) something else I may have missed.

The infra for students teaching is already there like classrooms etc. The recurring cost is the salary + upgrades/building new infra for taking in more students. It used to be the pet whine of every bozo in town that GoI pays a significant chunk of the students facilities' upgrade. Was true twenty years back, not so now. The fee an IIT student has to pay these days is good enough for that. Most students pay now around 40k per semester, good enough to meet most of the needs. The deans try to rope in cash from alums and well-wishers for research money -- and before one starts pointing out George Lucas and similar examples, IIT alums lend a lot more cash than gets known. Gururaj Deshpande is the most prominent IITM example, there are a 1000 other people who send in small contributions and this is a significant chunk. Every time dean Ananth comes to the US for any event, the first and foremost thing he asks from alums is payback.

So the point behind this seemingly vague roundabout is that GoI money is important yes, but only for building new facilities. If the GoI prioritized its investments on education with an explicit goal to building capacity, there is no reason why the UG and PG program cant run at the same place efficiently. Fiscal prudence should start at the top. Unfortunately, we have uneducated goons who can blow cash on MPs paychecks, but would have their dhotis in a twist when pointed out.


so maybe the idea to reduce to UG headcount to minimal levels and focussing resources on making it more like IIsc would be a better use of the good profs and infra there ?

The priorities of IIT education are becoming completely absurd. Lacking vision. There is no long term initiative. For folks who want to come back like me, thats a huge nightmare. I cant possibly convince myself that the teaching loads will be commensurate with my capabilities. The travel money is another big mess. This is true even in places like IISc. Every one of these institutions has become such a big behemoth with large quantity without improving the quality. In this case, we are closely aping China and needless to say, much of the output from the IITs/IISc is unmitigated disaster.

There are a few vestiges like TIFR that are isolated/immunized from this pressure that GoI puts on new/possibly new recruits. The fear factor and the lack of confidence in the vision of GoI is a big dent on people returning back in much larger numbers than that is happening now. I wish socialist monkeys like AS or interfering nutmegs like MMJ who make H&D a big deal are not given the HRD portfolio. MMJ and AS have set back this country quite far in terms of recovery: MMJ with his "dont charge students fees or change the syllabus" crap and AS with his "should make it more accessible, but we wont provide you with nuff cash ok" nonsense.

As of now, the best use for profs in IISc/IITs is to stop loading them with three courses a year tripe often nuff. Hire more lecturers and TAs for the teaching needs. Allow the professors to focus on research. Throw away the old lot that cant refocus on research -- and trust me, there are these old baggages whose only mojo in life is teach and teach well, I do. Unfortunate as it seems, teaching is a priority for all the big universities in the US, but teaching comes nowhere if research component aint going anywhere. There is this recent trend of teaching as research, but thats all like singing paens to the choir.

Why will students want to do a PhD or even masters, when right out of the BE/Btech program they can make around 50k a month? Where are incentives for students? Where are fellowships, where are scholarships, where are RA positions that pay enough to make ends meet for students? We can put the blame on GoI for quite a bit, but the "culture" in IITs should also take a major blame. In the US, there is this notion of tenure which necessitates new faculty to hunt for cash/funding students/publish more. In India, this culture is almost absent. Of course, one cant get paid in the associate scale (a pittance of ~30k from ~23k at the asst level) unless one publishes enough to get a promotion. But they would nt chuck a faculty member out if he publishes like 1 or 2 a year. That culture has nt set in yet. There are many "assistant" professors at age 50+ in most of the IITs, just take a look at the fac list. Unless this culture is nipped in the bud, there is no way any amount of cash infusing can help.

Maybe the GoI can do a big tickets investment where they lure some of the biggie desis to come back. Of course, a lot more carrots need to be dangled for this. But heck, thats a small price to pay for the cultural impact these big tickets will provide to the IITs. Every place in China would offer the weight in gold to a big ticket if he even sounds out the possibility of R2C. We in India are an egoistical lot. In the sense that, we are like "If you think you will feel good, please come onlee. Else, we are fine onlee in our shitholes onlee." Like it or not, big tickets have huge egos. HUGE. Dangling carrots is a way to satiate their egos. Thats an unavoidable price. There are many who would r2i provided the right incentives are made. Most of them fear the administrative overload, not without a reason. If we can convince the entrenched lot about the change in culture, the steady trickle will become a huge wave. And thats what we need to infuse life in to our stupor-induced research programs. Its more a cultural issue, before it becomes a money/facilities issue.


I think this is perhaps what Stan was proposing although his UG loyalty
wouldnt have him nuke the UG totally as IIsc did :) let in onlee 200 super
duper UGs through the gate after holding the worlds toughest exam if you

Boss, if you have seen the UG products from the IITs across a wide spectrum like I have, you will feel the palpable drop in quality. An UG in the 80s need nt be a PGM or GGM to be good on on overall scale. Most of the UGs were well-rounded out, who could do as well in education as they could in everything else. The current lot has a huge set of smart ones, of course. But the process of selecting the students is so fcked up that many of the undeserving ones are let in through the JEE. When I want to cut down on the numbers, I want the second group's numbers cut down to a manageable level. Right now, the second group overwhelms the system resources and sets in a bad culture. You take the people from the IITs or the competition, that place stinks. The cultural aspect of an IIT education has been so dumbed down -- my point is the IIT culture has been significantly skewed in the last twenty years that there is a need for course correction. Cutting down numbers and selecting students in a more non-Kota way is what I am proposing. Not a blanket ban on this or that. Actually, I hate the UG population a lot more than I sound. Most of them are sprinters -- not good for fundamental research that needs marathoners. In fact, there are like 2-5 (max) in my around-about batches (seniors/juniors) that are STILL in the research business. 2-5 out of a class of 90 odd. Thats lame. I have seen infinitely more people give up and run to make cash in NYC and SV than I have seen folks who stay put and keep doing research. I blame the incumbent culture of the IITs for that.

"Cutting the line" (argee-ing) as it is called has become the dominant trend. Students cheat around like crazy. While some of that like the UG power labs are unavoidable, cheating in Btech projects has become so mainstream. Its the norm. The Kota-coast mode folks have set in a bad precedent. I do understand a bit of coasting in the first two semesters after the torturous JEE etc, but coasting for 8 semesters is not passe. That is a rot from the inside. When you talk about "UG loyalty", it is that. I am hating to see bozos come from these places and tarring the name of the IIT system that took ages to build. There are a lot more angrier folks than me. I am just the rambling one. Loyalty as to what the intended message behind the whole place was. That has been frittered away.


will ... but my sensors say these A++ people will decamp for MiT after
their degree so long as the difference in living standards and 'prestige' is
wide. want to live in kanpur with its choking blue phat-phatti fumes and
soiled river or alewife ?

In contrast to what you think, going to MiT or wherever is NOT a big problem. We want people to go everywhere. As long as they know they have to r2i at some point and start contributing. I see this inbreeding as a big disease. If every Btech were to stay back in India and do his PhD here, I will be afraid of the consequences. It will be like brainwashed monkeys dancing to the internal tunes. We need diversity of thought, diversity of opinions, we need people who can see things from different angles. Unfortunately, a culture that lacks migration (back and forth) will be terrible for fundamental research. More so now than the good old days of Russian probabilists of the early 20th century where one could be isolated in Siberia and still do great stuff a la Kolmogorov and Markov.

Going out is not the issue. We need to compensate those who go out with those who return and contribute. And in contribute, I dont want to discount the folks who are not within India but make a big difference in cross-oceanic research. If we put a strong box on how one can contribute, it will become a system on its own and the entire focus of productivity/creativity will be lost. JMTs.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 18:44

actually I was also TA in two 4th yr UG courses in my time. some of
you were inside the box, I was outside the box with a neutral observer
status. the class was cse in kanpur - packed with top 100 types. there
was plenty of cheating and copying going on projects and assignments
even then (mid 90s) long before kota system had risen to stardom. after
careful observation of the class of around 30 I could notice several groups

A-group: very high gpa, well rounded, generally quite anglicized from
metro backgrounds, had maybe used 50% of potential to attain high jee
rank. uniformly all of this group got good schols abroad, but as you said
only 2-3 stuck around for Phd , the rest joined the booming internet SV
eco after MS and a couple went on into Mba. a bit highly strung on the
ego side some of them. most of them had no real interest in
programming type drudgery, instead cleverly copying off pals in the
b-group or choosing theoritical subjects wherein they could quickly
and efficiently get high marks with minimum CAP time.

B-group: had used full dry thrust to get in, hence 3rd and 4th yr courses
dealing with the high T:W ratio and sustained turn rate & aesa of the
A-groupers was proving tough. the odd C and D were slipping in and
the game was fraying a bit. this group strategically chose courses with
large number of students or small courses with no prominent A-grouper
to skew the grade A cutoff dangerously upward. this had several "guru
hackers" of the type who could check emails of whichver girl caught
their interest, extensive stashes of p$rn. one was caught after he
hacked a profs PC and changed a grade sheet to his advantage. the
prof had a paper copy too and he x-checked!

C-group: afterburners + intensive coaching, bad Gpa, no hope for top
univs, so they saved their energy and focussed on jugaad , easy
courses, Mba prep, drink...they must have been really good in phy,
chem, math but cse core courses were not for them.

Outliers and freaks: a couple of students had zero intersest in cse as a
branch but since they were in, they were in....their real interest was in
areas like maths and they could solve any theoritical cs & math problem
quickly but poor in more practical areas of cse. they had some trouble
getting jobs also because they lacked polish.

Branch changers: these were a couple of outstanding students from other
branches like mech or chem who changed over after 1st yr. they were
in A-group.
Last edited by Singha on 17 Apr 2008 19:00, edited 3 times in total.

Kati
BRFite
Posts: 1060
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: The planet Earth

Postby Kati » 17 Apr 2008 18:50

Adult Literacy: A Unique project from rural Bengal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literacy, from kids with love

OUR CORRESPONDENT, The Telegraph, Kolkata, April 17, 2008

Indrani (Murshidabad), April 16: A bead of sweat trickled down Kadam Sheikh’s forehead as he waited outside his examiner’s room this morning.

The 40-year-old farmer had turned up for a literacy test. By the time, he was out of the room, the bead of sweat had been replaced by a teardrop — for having made his teacher proud. The teacher, as nervous as Kadam, is his son Asadul, a Class XI student.

Asadul and many other students of Indrani Hasna Mayanee High School are on a literacy mission, and they have started at home.

For students of this co- educational school, teaching parents to read and write is their subject for work education, which carries 50 marks.

District inspector of schools (secondary) Subhashis Sanyal said this was the first time work education had such a “uniqueâ€

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 18:53

imo ideally
A-group -> Phd -> r_d corporate labs, academics
B-group -> outstanding MS engineers & mba's
Outliers/Freaks -> Phd -> academics (more probability of making
fundamental breakthroughs due to god gifted freakish ability in
some domain and non-linear thinking)
C-group -> ???

now it seems the coaching school system could be pumping in lot of this
last group ?

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 17 Apr 2008 19:05

Singha wrote:actually I was also TA in two 4th yr UG courses in my time. the class was
cse in kanpur - packed with top 100 types. there was plenty of cheating
and copying going on projects and assignments even then (mid 90s) long
before kota system had risen to stardom. after careful observation of the
class of around 30 I could notice several groups

The concept of cheating is pretty much universal. But coasting is something new. That, I believe, is a rot set in/aggravated by the kota system. People slog so much for so long that when they enter the IITs, they just want to relax and chill. It is wrong to say that coasting was never present before the kota system etc. But it was more of the manageable kind, people would coast for a sem or two and then quickly get back if their grades showed a downward spiral. Granted that some of the rape branches had rod courses that would set the GPAs down quite a bit, this five-point-something (as something not so uncommon) is a recent phenomenon. The Kota system only worsens the situation.

The JEE has become a farce wherein smart, lateral thinkers, who would actually do a marathon instead of a sprint and contribute so much more are thrown away. Frittered. Now if the deans whine about how they have to select at least 3000 students and JEE is the only realistically possible way, can we do anything else?

The IIT system is the classic example of a teaching university. It has become teaching heavy. UG heavy. Btech centric. The culture needs to change if it has to become a research university. The scope for which, if I read the tea-leaves right, at least in the short run is so minimal to not bother.


Outliers and freaks: a couple of students had zero intersest in cse as a
branch but since they were in, they were in....their real interest was in
areas like maths and they could solve any theoritical cs & math problem
quickly but poor in more practical areas of cse.

We need those outliers and freaks. We need to channelize them in a constructive way. Most people are smart at something or the other, if we can only let them figure what they are good at and let them focus on that, it will all be so much better. Where is the system and the culture for that? The problem with IITs is that it has become a "peer-driven" force instead "figure what you like and get there" force, which is what it used to be till the rot set in.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Postby Bade » 17 Apr 2008 20:05

I also know that the above piece of plain speak will offend Bade but what to do truth must be told and unlike others I believe in saying it most bluntly. Very Happy

Sanku, no one is ever offended by the fact that IITs selected only a limited number (in the past 2000 to maybe a factor of 2 more now). The offence is when remarks are made of universal superiority of the JEE list as some real super genius short list. The branding idea comes from that alone. It is only natural that if you are a UG then it is hard for you to see it. Read Stan's comment and digest what he is saying. The real rot is happening and all this branding will lead nowhere in the long run. :roll:

If you think a lot deeper you will realize branding is all about average performers hiding behind the outliers (like Deshpandes etc) and is very typical commie/socialist behavior. :P The talented individual should be a brand on his own. Should not need crutches. Besides, in the US system Acads as well as national labs, the only time brand matters is entry level largely. After 5-10 years they ask what have you done lately. Whether you are from MIT/Stanford/Cornell matters less at that point.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Postby Singha » 17 Apr 2008 21:41

perhaps allowing students to freely change branches even at end of 2nd yr might help crystalize what it is they like. everyone studies the same in 1st yr so branch change preferences follow whatever is the perceived echandee hierarchy of the day.
also giving more flexibility with inter disciplinary courses might help ee, cs,
elec, mech to mingle better. pools of profs from various depts could have
joint project funds and students from multiple branches...as abroad.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 22:00

Bade wrote: The offence is when remarks are made of universal superiority of the JEE list as some real super genius short list. The branding idea comes from that alone.


Sir is your contention that the brand of IIT comes from JEE cut off alone? :roll: and nothing that the profs did and the board of directors etc have anything to do with that. And the system that is IIT built on?
:roll:
:roll:
:roll:

Some deep understanding there man.

And "who" exactly says that it is a genius list? Please quote?

It is only natural that if you are a UG then it is hard for you to see it.


And if you are not a UG you will never see it is it? So according to you its a UG vs Not UG debate :shock:

Read Stan's comment and digest what he is saying. The real rot is happening and all this branding will lead nowhere in the long run. :roll:


I think I should offer you the same advice -- since what he is saying and what you seem to be reading is quite different -- yes the rot has set in yet his reasons remedies and your interpretation are really poles apart.

If you think a lot deeper you will realize branding is all about average performers hiding behind the outliers (like Deshpandes etc) and is very typical commie/socialist behavior. :P


Sir I think you have to go back to the dictionary and read what the word "brand" really means instead of inventing your own definitions. From wiki

Brand is the symbolic embodiment of a product or service.


From Merriam Webster

a characteristic or distinctive kind


A brand is a brand when all the products associated with the brand have a certain characteristic -- which means minimum expected from each!

Grok it?

The IIT brand exists because there is a certain belief that its graduate will meet a minimum requirement (which itself is quite high)

The talented individual should be a brand on his own. Should not need crutches.


Uh so destroy and burn MIT down to ground too -- MIT education is a crutch fie fie. :rotfl:

A person will always create his own brand when he succeeds -- but a group of people by their common success can also create a brand -- one which causes you great heart burn.

Besides, in the US system Acads as well as national labs, the only time brand matters is entry level largely. After 5-10 years they ask what have you done lately. Whether you are from MIT/Stanford/Cornell matters less at that point.


Buddy some things not too late for you to learn
1) World != US; get out of your US centric mindset
2) I have worked ages in US and your example is plain UNTRUE. You may like to believe it but your saying it does not make it true. Yes after a while personal trajectory overtakes college trajectories; but the intial velocity as well the reserve rocket of the brand always helps. And this is same in US as it is in India.

In fact grads from mediocre colleges come together to shut out better colleges by creating a college ghetto -- seen it in US seen it in India -- this is their way of creating a local brand and shut out the more deserving.

Oh for those who still dont grok it -- the success of Kota system was closely linked to expanding of seats majorly in late 90s.

I dont know whether Bade's post causes me mirth at his biases and understanding or should I be sad that well educated stalwarts like him show such partisan mindset. -- Now thats a tough dichotomy.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 22:03

Singha wrote:perhaps allowing students to freely change branches even at end of 2nd yr might help crystalize what it is they like. .


A lot of this with minor and major system is in place in IITB.
:P

And the flexibilty of change was already there -- the criteria used was first year CGP scores.

Rye
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 05 Aug 2001 11:31

Postby Rye » 17 Apr 2008 22:04

All the IITians here can quit worrying -- yall are very smart and India loves you very much. People going on the IIT brandwagon need to step back view the larger picture outside of their own narrow worldview. India needs as many *thinking, capable, inventive* people as other developed countries, not more average people hiding behind some brand name or another.

CMU and MIT do crucial research that keeps the USA many generations ahead in terms of technological capability, where IIT is just a teaching school....so guess which one is more valuable to the USA as a nation...a research or a teaching school.

Added later: Any one picks one of the two is wrong...both are required, but the entrance requirements for the two domains are different, and this the selection criteria has to be different, which is the logic behind Stan's and Bade's prescription, and the relevance of Singha's breakdown of the population into A,B, and C groups...we all have our pet prejudices, but sticking to them is not going to help us understand reality.

JMTs
Last edited by Rye on 17 Apr 2008 22:19, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Postby Sanku » 17 Apr 2008 22:13

Stan_Savljevic wrote:
As of now, the best use for profs in IISc/IITs is to stop loading them with three courses a year tripe often nuff. Hire more lecturers and TAs for the teaching needs. Allow the professors to focus on research. Throw away the old lot that cant refocus on research -- and trust me, there are these old baggages whose only mojo in life is teach and teach well, I do.


OK this is where I start disagreeing (a dbeate I had with AlokN ages back too)-- US universities have gone way too much to the research side; there teaching part has suffered severely. I for one have seen the remarkable drop in the quality of students in US and attribute it to lack of good old teaching. US can make up for it by importing huge numbers from India, China, East Europe and other parts but its basic system is not healthy either.

I believe we should not APE the US system -- there are too many people here on the board who due to their own experience thinks that US is THE system to follow -- primarily since most of their adult experience is there -- but I dont agree.

There are good things about the IIT system we must retain those as we make chanhges


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests