Excellent ideas, Amlan.
On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:46 PM, amlan saha wrote: > I agree with all your points. In addition, I think that one way of removing > the vast subsidies that the whole of India provides to the few who get in to > the IITs would be this: > > 1. Recognize that the subsidy from the rest of the country stems from the > fact that the institution spends more (by orders of magnitude) to educate > the student than is paid by the student in terms of tuition and other fees. > 2. Recognize that an IIT education vastly increases the earning potential > (and the likelihood of realizing it) and, consequently, future cash flows > associated with the recipient of the education - the student. > > Then do the following: > > 1. Raise tuition fees such that they are realistic reflections of the > cost of education. > 2. Keep admissions needs-blind but offer the following: > - Student may choose to pay the full tuition fees from his/her own > pocket with no further obligations. > - Student may choose to pay the subsidized rate (which may be the > current level or some other drastically reduced level) or > nothing at all in > return for six (or some other number) years of public service or in a > pre-approved private sector in the country that is determined > and included > in a list by independent policy/economic agencies from time to > time based on > the overall needs of the economy. > - Student may take out federal/private loans, which will be readily > available with the "admission acceptance" being the sole > collateral (removes > the need to demonstrate deep establishment or family connections/wealth), > and whose servicing will start only after graduation. The > student will be > free to join any sector of the economy in the country and/or be > anywhere in > the world with the only obligation of paying back the loan. > > Although this does not speak to the admission-method issues you identified > in your email, at least this corrects the gross "tax" that is levied on the > rest of the country for the benefit of a select few. > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Chan Mahanta <cmaha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The following was my response to a private e-mail regarding IITs' admission >> policies being challenged for not being merit-based enough. First scroll >> down to read the original post. >> >> cm >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Chan Mahanta <cmaha...@gmail.com> >>> Date: August 25, 2010 9:48:34 AM CDT >>> >>> Subject: Re: It is everywhere.Image of IIT-tarnished? >>> >>> Greetings ***. >>> >>> Thanks for including me in this private mailing list. I hope recipients >> of my response here will excuse me for invading their privacy. Ordinarily I >> would not have done that, but I had an interest this particular subject and >> banking on your knowledge of your circle of friends' interests, figured >> they may be interested in my two bits as well . >>> >>> Some of you in this list I know are IIT-KGP (or other IIT )graduates, as >> I was too ( KGP, Arch. 68). Actually I was the third of three successive >> siblings who went to IIT-KGP. Two of my elder brothers studied electronics >> engineering and I did architecture. I have no idea what the acceptance >> criteria were , way back in 1963 when I entered IIT-KGP or earlier. Or for >> that matter later. I know I got in by the skin of my teeth :-). I came from >> what used to be known as the Pre-University course in Science, a post >> high-school, one year junior college course at Cotton College, Guwahati ( >> barely 6 months in reality), which was way below par in its curriculum, >> compared to say St. Xaviers' Coillege or Southpoint School or Calcutta >> Boys' School from Kolkata and other such preparatory schools and colleges >> from elsewhere in India whose grads. dominated the roster of accepted >> students. They also got the choicest disciplines of engineering, like >> Electronics, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical and so forth, depending on >> test scores alone, never mind whether they had any aptitude for the >> discipline. >>> >>> I did pretty poorly in my test, did not know half the subjects in >> physics, chemistry, algebra and so forth. I got in primarily because I >> wanted architecture and had enough to show for my aptitude and because one >> of my interviewers was the Head of the Dept. of Architecture, who definitely >> wanted me in. My class of about 30 students of architecture had exactly >> seven who WANTED architecture. The rest were assigned to it, because they >> did not cut it for other engineering subjects, because of their >> not-so-enviable test scores, like mine. >>> >>> So far so good. There was this APPEARANCE of an entirely merit based >> system, merit being measured by the entrance test scores ALONE that everyone >> thinks WAS or IS the only RIGHT way to do it. It was there then and >> apparently it is there now. >>> >>> That is what *I* take issue with, for a number of reasons: >>> >>> A: The IITs were entirely supported by public funding. All of India paid >> for it. But certain regions and states hogged those resources with their >> children, while others were left holding the bag. In my batch we were just >> three from Assam in a class of over 400 or so freshmen at IIT-KGP. Why were >> there so few from Assam? We just could not cut it with our 'MERIT', merit >> measured with a set of skewed scales that rewarded those who could attend >> those choice private or public schools and colleges from more advanced >> regions or states. >>> >>> But were we any LESS than those others, deemed more meritorious? Not by a >> long shot! It was hard getting in, harder the first year in, but we not >> only made up but did pretty well. Two out of us three topped or nearly >> topped our graduating classes. >>> >>> My point? My point is that this so-called MERIT based system in which >> entrance test scores ALONE is the measure, is a grossly unfair system. >> India is NOT a homogeneous country. Access to education and its quality is >> unimaginably disparate. Under the circumstances, it is not only FAIR, it is >> the RIGHT thing to RECOGNIZE and give adequate consideration and weightage, >> in ADDITION to the merit measured by test entrance scores, so that >> educationally less advantaged students from regions like Assam and elsewhere >> get a FAIR shot at entering these premier institutions, supported by ALL of >> India. >>> >>> B: Even though the landscape of what the choicest disciplines of study >> were or are, has changed over the decades and will continue to evolve, one >>> undebatable fact stands out that A VERY LARGE percentage of IIT >> graduates, trained with the country's scant resources leave the country to >> become successful people in fields that have nothing to do with engineering >> or other fields they were trained in. >>> >>> What is wrong with that, you might ask. >>> >>> This is what is wrong: Engineering and technical education requires a lot >> of expensive infrastructure that India expends in its IITs at the cost of >> other institutions, whose grads. don't get to leave the country in such high >> numbers to become accountants, business managers, stock-brokers and what >> not. >>> Not that anything is wrong with that as far as the individual is >> concerned, but it IS wrong for India to expend disproportionately high >> amount of its resources >>> to produce non-engineering professionals who leave the country for good. >>> >>> Two things need attention here: >>> >>> * Admit only those who can demonstrate engineering aptitude for >> the field they opt for, in addition to the merit measured by test scores. >>> Others can always go to institutions better suited for their >> personal needs, thus making room for the truly technically oriented. In >> spite of the >>> remarkable bank of intellect, India's appalling lack of >> engineering and technical innovation or achievements is a proof of the >> prevailing >>> system's inadequacy. >>> >>> * Inject some means of promoting and holding its graduates instead >> of leaving for good. >>> >>> Apologies for extending my two bits to two-hundred. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> Chandan Mahanta >>> St. Louis >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 24, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Kumud Das wrote: >>> >>>> HC notice to Centre over IIT admissions >>>> Aditi Tandon/Tribune News Service >>>> New Delhi, April 8 >>>> A development that has put under scanner the admission procedure of >> IITs, the Delhi High Court today issued notices to the Ministry of Human >> Resource Development, IIT Council and Joint Admission Board (JAB) on a >> petition alleging irregularities, tampering and fraud in the system. And the >> move has come three days ahead of the IIT-JEE 2010, in which about five lakh >> students are slated to appear on April 11. >>>> Notably, this is the first comprehensive PIL ever filed against IITs, >> which raises questions over the admission procedure — from “arbitrary” >> fixing of cut-offs to “benefit” some students and eliminate top scorers, >> unattended errors in question setting and evaluation, tampering and >> shredding of optical response sheets (ORS) in unexplained haste, selection >> of faculty wards and closed admission counselling resulting in vacant seats. >> Even today, five to 20 per cent vacancies exist across IITs despite huge >> demand for seats. >>>> Slamming the current “non-transparent” admission system, petitioner Prof >> Rajeev Kumar of IIT Kharagpur sought court’s intervention for a special >> investigation team (SIT) inquiry into the alleged irregularities in all JEEs >> from 2006. He demanded that a committee of independent experts, not from >> IITs, be formed to fix rational cut-offs, which students must attain to >> qualify for admissions to the institutes. The current system of fixing >> cut-offs is ad-hoc. >>>> In February, The Tribune had highlighted gross deficiencies in IIT >> admissions based on the information Kumar had gathered under the RTI on JEEs >> 2006 to 2009. Shocking revelations followed on how 994 top scorers failed to >> make it to IITs while low scoring candidates succeeded in doing so. In JEE >> 2006, brilliant candidates were rejected because IITs calculated cut-offs in >> a faulty, arbitrary manner. >>>> “Those with 156 marks were selected; those with 279 rejected,” the >> petition states, seeking SIT probe into JEEs, especially 2006, which saw >> wards of IIT faculty scoring high marks in chemistry. The marks they >> obtained were in typical patterns which couldn’t have occurred except >> through ORS tampering, the petition alleges. >>>> Kumar also requested the court to institute IIT-JEE reforms under >> independent experts, rather than a closed panel of four IIT directors, which >> the HRD ministry recently constituted. >>>> Besides, as earlier reported by The Tribune how current IIT practices >> (they don’t disclose answers on the day of test) aided coaching institutes, >> the PIL seeks directions to JAB to release model answers soon after the JEE >> is held. The court has put the ministry and IIT Council on notice for May >> 19. >>>> >>>> >>>> The whistleblower IIT professor >>>> Aditi Tandon/TNS >>>> New Delhi, April 8 >>>> He has braved threats for taking on the IITs and slogged three years to >> get the institutes to answer his RTI queries. For Rajeev Kumar, it’s all in >> the game that started in 2006 when the 50-year-old computer engineering >> professor at IIT Kharagpur decided to fight for transparency in the IIT >> admission process, which has remained opaque since 1961 when the institutes >> were set up under the central act. >>>> Armed with RTI, Kumar finally got the highly-secretive IITs to disclose >> their admission secrets. The information he obtained under the RTI Act now >> forms the basis of the first PIL against the IIT-JEE system, which has >> operated arbitrarily all these years. >>>> “My battle began when my son missed the IIT seat by three marks in JEE. >> He got through all other exams. I was curious to know why he missed the >> IIT,” Kumar tells The Tribune. >>>> While his son went on to join BTech computer science at Jadavpur >> University in Kolkata, Kumar went on to dissect the IIT system, exposing one >> admission anomaly after the other and forcing even HRD Minister Kapil Sibal >> to sit up and think. The latter advised him to go to court or represent >> before the ministry instituted IIT-JEE reform panel. But Kumar had a >> problem. He couldn’t have represented his case before people who were part >> of the problem. Hence, his demand to the Delhi High Court to order SIT probe >> into JEEs for admission to 15 IITs, Institute of Technology, BHU, and Indian >> School of Mines, Dhanbad. >>>> Incidentally, it was on September 5, 2006, when the Chief Information >> Commissioner ordered the UPSC to reveal its admission procedure that Kumar >> saw some hope. So started his journey to discover how IITs selected their >> students. For the first time in 2006, IITs revealed marks students obtained >> in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE). >>>> “When they released the marks in August, students couldn’t find a >> pattern to selections. My son with a high aggregate of 224 marks was >> rejected but a low scorer with 154 got a counseling call,” says Kumar. >>>> He eventually forced the IITs to admit before the CIC that there was “no >> set procedure to determine cut-off marks”. Till date, the institutes haven’t >> been able to explain how they reached the cut-off in JEE 2006 whereby 994 >> top scorers were rejected. >>>> The court will help, believes Kumar. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kumud C. Das, >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> assam mailing list >> assam@assamnet.org >> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org >> > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > assam@assamnet.org > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
