ToI asks for a rethink on OBC reservation

[Over] the years, caste has increasingly become synonymous with class for the purpose of reservation. There is enough evidence to suggest that OBCs such as Yadavs in the north and Nadars in the south, to name a few, have benefited greatly from reservation and cannot be considered backward anymore.

They have become dominant groups in terms of political and economic clout. Conversely, those who for various reasons have not been able to profit from reservation continue to languish. The latter group is now referred to as the Most Backward Classes, resulting in a hierarchy within the OBCs.

The time is ripe for a rethink on the OBC category and the policy of equating caste with class. [...]

In its editorial today.

Obligatory post on the World Cup

Well, I do have to say something about the World Cup, right?

I can't do better than linking to this wonderful collection of links to articles on the science of football, compiled by the friendly folks at New Scientist.

Also, do take a look at this NYTimes article about the major new innovation in this edition of the 'Cup: the ball is "rounder than any of its predecessors".

* * *

Thanks to Political Theory Daily Review for the pointers.

When science poaches on humanities turf ...

... Why, it can only be a good thing!

[...] Where philosophy presumes human autonomy, history presumes human singularity, the distinctness of the species from other animals, the environment and machines. Criticism of the arts focuses on human creativity, which it defines as the human capacity to produce meaningful representations or forms.

These presumptions have governed scholarship in the humanities, but while humanistic scholars have been presuming core facts about human nature, human capacities and human being, scientists have been getting to work. One of the most striking features of contemporary intellectual life is the fact that questions formerly reserved for the humanities are today being approached by scientists in various disciplines such as cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, robotics, artificial life, behavioral genetics and evolutionary biology. (Indeed, some of the most suggestive work is being done not just outside the humanities but outside the university, by inventors and innovators in the for-profit sector.)

Aspects of the question of autonomy are being taken up not just by philosophers but by investigators in cognitive science, genomics, biochemistry and the technology of bioinformatics. In all these fields, the presumed autonomy of the free human subject is being interrogated and complicated. The presumption of singularity that informs history is also being pressed hard by those working in computational science, animal intelligence, genetic engineering and evolutionary biology, all of which are making it harder to speak in traditional ways about the splendid self-sufficiency of the human species.

And creativity—the most splendid of all properties of human being, according to the humanities—is now being itself redefined by linguistics, cognitive science, neuroscience and even software development, which are assigning new meanings to this term, meanings that do not necessarily funnel back to the individual human being in a state of inspired frenzy.

Just how did the Mandal Commission arrive at its estimate for OBC population?

Several people sent me the link to this Hindustan Times op-ed by Karan Thapar about the now famous September 1990 speech in the Parliament, in which Rajiv Gandhi trashed the Mandal Commission's methodology, and raised significant doubts about its conclusions.

We now have a reply of sorts. S.S. Gill, the bureaucrat who was the secretary of the Mandal Commission, gives the details of how exactly the Commission did its exercise. I am not sure if his answer is going to convince Mandal's skeptics. It certainly didn't convince me fully, because Gill fails to address the specific complaints people have raised, and gives us just the summary of the methodology. For example, in Rajiv Gandhi's speech, he quotes B.P. Mandal as saying that not much information was forthcoming from the States when the Commission made its request. If Gill wishes to convince people of the essential correctness of the Mandal estimates, he has to address such specific concerns. [It's entirely possible that social scientists have addressed such concerns in academic papers; however, none of it seems to have made it to the popular press].

Towards the end of his piece, Gill tries to pour cold water on the NSSO data that quota-opponents love to cite:

Some commentators have pointed out that the National Sample Survey Organisation's investigations show that OBCs constitute 32 per cent of the population, and National Family Health Survey places the figure at 30 per cent.

These two surveys cannot match the span and depth of Mandal Commission's investigations, and its findings can be revised only if an exercise of the same magnitude is attempted.

Let me repeat the mantra again: I support a large scale survey -- "an exercise of the same magnitude" -- that will give us a more accurate picture of (a) population share of various castes, and (b) educational, economic and social status of each caste.

Dr. Devi Shetty too says, "let's expand the supply of educational opportunities"

Shekhar Gupta: This country requires a lot more doctors.

Dr. Devi Shetty: We get 18,000 doctors every year. We need more than one lakh doctors every year.

Shekhar Gupta: And we can produce them?

Dr. Devi Shetty: Easily.

Shekhar Gupta: So it is artificial undersupply.

Dr. Devi Shetty: You talk to the highest authorities in healthcare. If you ask them how many doctors are working in the country presently, believe me, nobody knows how many doctors are working. So we need a very different view, of creating the adequate number of training positions and maintain the quality of doctors coming out. Unless we address these two issues, putting money in healthcare will not work.

From this Walk the Talk interview of Dr. Devi Shetty of Narayana Hrudayalaya, a research hospital specializing in heartcare. When asked to give a take-home message to the aggrieved students and to the government, this is what he said:

My advice to the students is they should ask the government for an opportunity to become specialists and super- specialists by creating additional seats. And my advice to the government is they should create additional seats by opening the education sector for Indian entrepreneurs and overseas universities. So that there is no shortage of teachers and infrastructure.

He went on to say, "You should create surplus of opportunity. So, those who want to get into medicine or any other area, they have an opportunity. If they are not good in the field, don’t give them a degree."

At one point, Shetty described the doctors' lobby as "powerful". This was also the view expressed in this Hindu editorial:

Traditionally, the Indian Medical Association, a national body of doctors, has been opposed to any increase in the number of medical college seats. Although the negative position is couched in terms of opposition to a dilution of standards and privatisation of medical education, the self-serving, protectionist streak is unmistakable. The greater the number of doctors, the more competitive medical practice gets.

Laugh Lab

Professor Richard Wiseman carried out an internet experiment five years ago to find the world's best gag.

A joke about two US hunters who go into the woods topped the poll after more than 100,000 people around the world cast their vote on 40,000 jokes.

That's from this BBC story about how Wiseman traced the origin of this joke back to a skit from 1951. What interested me was the analysis of the results of Wiseman's experiment at the LaughLab website. Here, for example, is something from country-wise analysis of the kinds of jokes people like.

[Many] European countries, such as France, Denmark and Belgium, liked jokes that were somewhat surreal, such as:

An Alsatian went to a telegram office, took out a blank form and wrote: “Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof. Woof.”

The clerk examined the paper and politely told the dog: “There are only nine words here. You could send another ‘Woof’ for the same price.”

“But,” the dog replied, “that would make no sense at all.”

You can get to the award-winning jokes (and to some more analysis) from this summary page. Prof. Wiseman's home page is here. One of his research interests is the psychology of luck. Here's a quick extract from the Guardian profile, reproduced on his site:

Wiseman identified four principles at play among lucky people. They maximise their chance opportunities by having networks of friends and being relaxed enough to be open to different ways of achieving their goals; they are open to intuition and listen to their hunches; they expect to be lucky; they are able to see the positive side of bad fortune and so are better able to deal with it.

If you reckon this is just a load of new age psychobabble, think again - Wiseman has been happy to put his theories to the test. [...]

Bibek Debroy too says, "It's the supply, stupid!"

In an Indian Express op-ed, Bibek Debroy makes an important point:

[Whenever] we think of higher education, we tend to think of it as a public good that must be provided by the state, because there are market failures. Economists have a technical definition of a public good. By no stretch of the imagination is higher education a public good. Nor is this sector one where there is market failure, with private sector entry and provisioning impossible. The problem lies in licensing restrictions that constrain private sector entry through HRD ministry, UGC, AICTE, Medical Council, Bar Council and so on, barring a few areas. Given asymmetry of information, one does need regulation, but licensing is not the same as regulation. If one is interested in broadening access, improving quality and providing services linked to what the market wants, the appropriate policy response is to trigger supply-side responses, instead of presuming the public sector has to deliver higher education. Expenditure on education may very well need to be 6 per cent of GDP, and that on higher education 3 per cent, but who has said this has to be public expenditure? Even if higher education is a merit good that warrants subsidies for the poor, the private sector, in India and elsewhere, does offer cross-subsidies. And there are better ways of routing public subsidies also. In this entire quota debate, we are not attempting to solve the root of the problem.

Much the same point was made by Satya when he said, "It's the supply, stupid!"

Quote

To get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.

-- former US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun [quote found here].

Karan Thapar takes rhetoric lessons from Kamal Nath

Two extracts.

The first is from this Devil's Advocate interview of Kamal Nath, Minister of Industry and Commerce, on 14 May 2006. This part of the interview discusses whether there really is a need to 'impose' reservation (or, affirmative action) on industry through legislation:

Karan Thapar: You have clearly established the government's position. How do you know that corporate India isn't doing what you are asking for? Companies like Hindustan Lever, Ashok Leyland and Bajaj Auto say that even today more than 50 per cent of their staff comes from SCs/STs and OBCs. If that is the case then they are doing what you want.

Kamal Nath: Then why are they not coming up with that.

Karan Thapar: Well they have come up with that.

Kamal Nath: So if they are doing it then they should say please enforce it because they are already doing it. Then why should anybody resist it?

The second is from yesterday's interview of P. Chidambaram, Minister of Finance. This part of the interview is about the then striking medico's demand for a review of the efficacy of quotas as implemented so far.

Karan Thapar: [...] Another issue that the students have raised with you is their demand for a non-political expert committee to review the way reservations have functioned for the last 50 odd years. The Government, in its reply has said that it will examine this demand. Does that mean 'yes', does that mean 'no' or does it mean that you are simply playing for time?

P Chidambaram: As I understand the Government's reply, there is no ground to review whether there should be reservation or not - there is no ground at all.

Karan Thapar: What about reviewing the way they function?

P Chidambaram: If you want to review how the reservation is implemented, it is fairly simple.

Karan Thapar: Not how they are implemented, whether they are functioning effectively.

P Chidambaram: Oh, they are.

Karan Thapar: We all know how they are implemented, what I am questioning is the efficacy.

P Chidambaram: The effect is, as I said at the beginning of the interview, can be seen in the Southern states. Members belonging to the OBCs have risen in the society and in the economy. There is an aspiration among those classes, which cannot be suppressed for too long.

Karan Thapar: If you are so confident that reservations have worked in the Southern states, which many people are strongly and strenuously disputing, then agree to the review, cause the review will presumably prove your point. Why aren't you agreeing to the review?

Needless to add, the bold emphasis in the last bits of the quoted texts is by me.

The value of a Harvard MBA

Research varies on the value of an M.B.A. A 2006 study by the Lubin School of Business at Pace University, looking at 482 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, found that only 162 of them had chief executives with graduate degrees in business. The companies with chief executives who went to more prestigious schools did no better than those who went to less prestigious schools, according to the study. Why this was so is unclear.

From this NYTimes story about the value of an MBA -- and the value of a Harvard MBA, in particular. The story itself is not all that great, but it has some interesting data, and some nice quotes. For example, Henry Mintzberg of McGill is quoted as saying, "M.B.A. programs train the wrong people in the wrong ways with the wrong consequences. ... You can't create a manager in a classroom. If you give people who aren't managers the impression that you turned them into one, you've created hubris."

Commencement speeches ...

NYTimes has snippets from some of the commencement speeches at American colleges and universities. The list of speakers includes Jeffrey Immelt, Jodie Foster and Wynton Marsalis. Not all of them are great, but this one, delivered by Lance Armstrong at Tufts University, is worth quoting.

In 1998, when I decided to come back, there really were no guarantees. I was a year and a half off the bike. I got back into the sport, and as I mentioned, you have to have a team. Well, I barely found a team, and I started to train and I figured that since I was so sick before — I had just done the Olympic Games in '96 — I figured if I ridded my body of all the cancer, I would come back on the bike and I would win immediately. I had abdomen, lung and brain metastases, and I thought, let's get rid of all that stuff, I'll win everything.

I trained that way and I raced that way, at least I started to race that way. The sad news is that I didn't win. I didn't win at all. I was completely disillusioned. I fell out of love with the sport. I fell out of love with the bike. I didn't like my job. I didn't like Europe. I quit and I came home in the spring of '98. That's a story that nobody tells. I was done with cycling forever.

I proceeded to hang out with my friends, drink a few beers, play golf. I certainly was not living the life of a professional athlete, until, one day, a group of friends sat me down and said: "You can't go out like this. You've got to get back on the bike, at least finish the year. You made a commitment to your team and to a whole population of cancer survivors that you'll try this. You have to at least finish the year." So I did that, and I went and found a remote training camp in Boone, N.C., with a coach and a friend. For eight days in the pouring rain, 40 degrees, I fell back in love with the bike. That was the start of the comeback.

Armstrong's speech is here. His honorary degree citation is here.

Another speech by Wendy Kopp, President and founder of Teach for America, is also worth quoting:

During my senior fall, I helped organize a conference about education reform, where one of the topics was the shortage of qualified teachers in urban and rural communities. It was at that conference that I thought of an idea: why doesn't our country have a national teacher corps that recruits us to teach in low-income communities the same way we're being recruited to work on Wall Street? From that moment, I was possessed by this idea. I thought it would make a huge difference in kids' lives ... and that ultimately it could change the very consciousness of our country, by influencing the thinking and career paths of a generation of leaders. So I did the obvious thing. I wrote a very long and very passionate letter to the president of the United States suggesting he start this corps. That didn't get very far — I received a job rejection letter in response. So in my undergraduate senior thesis, I declared that I would try to create such a corps myself, as a nonprofit organization. When my thesis adviser looked at my budget, which showed that to recruit 500 new teachers into this corps during the first year would cost $2.5 million, he asked me if I knew how hard it was to raise $2,500, let alone $2.5 million.

Kopp's speech is here.

The results are out: People favour the reservation policy

That's the bottomline of the survey commissioned by CNN-IBN and the Indian Express. [Hat tip: Albert].

The OBC reservation policy was favoured by a margin of 57 to 37 percent. In the TV debate-cum-panel discussion yesterday on CNN-IBN, Yogendra Yadav said that quotas have been supported by the people by a 70:30 margin for well over two decades; the lower margin in this poll is probably due to urban areas being over-represented in it. The IE report too echoes this view.

The castewise break-up too is interesting: quotas were supported by some 38% of upper-castes, and by 60 to 70 % of OBCs, SC/STs and minorities. A majority of all sections (including the upper castes) agreed with the view that quotas promote 'equal opportunity'.

The other interesting finding of this survey is that 67% of the people prefer quotas for the 'poor of any caste'.

Academic blogs

The students’ first online journal entries will focus on their intellectual interests, academic concerns and educational experiences. Many bloggers will outline their strengths and weaknesses, and create a personal mission statement.

The academic blogs aren’t meant for mass consumption. Only the student, an academic adviser and authorized university officials will be able to see the content. The idea is to formulate talking points for when freshmen first meet their faculty mentors in the fall.

“We’re trying to give the adviser some context, so the relationship doesn’t start as ‘who the hell are you?’” said Dennis DeTurck, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and a professor of mathematics [at Penn State]. [...]

Only the summer entry is required of incomming freshmen, but many advisers are likely to request that their advisees update the content at least once a semester. The idea is for students to use the forum over all four years and see how — or if — their academic interests change.

What an interesting idea!

This is your brain on blogs

This incredible upsurge in [blogging] activity has caused us to wonder: What effect is all this blogging having on the brains of bloggers?

Why ask this question? The primary reason can be found in one of the central tenets of modern neuroscience: "The neurons that fire together, wire together." What this basically means is that our mental activities actually cause changes in the structures of our brains--not only what we think, but how we think as well. Given such activity-directed change, it always makes sense to ask whenever large numbers of people start using their brains in new and different ways, what effects these new activities are likely to have on brain structure and function. Blogging, which only seems to be accelerating in popularity, is a prime candidate for such investigation. After surveying the general range of materials that the blogosphere has to offer, we believe the following basic largely supportive conclusions are warranted ...

Read this post for the conclusions. If you don't already have a blog, this post will spur you into starting one right away.

In case you didn't notice, it's a post from March 2005. I just discovered it through Gaddeswarup's blog which, in turn, was discovered through technology-assisted self-search ...

Twenty new IIITs?

Here is a news report about the inflation in the number of IIITs in India:

An Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) in each state is the ministry of human resource development’s latest ambitious plan to improve the quality and quantity of technical manpower in the country. The proposed 20 institutes will open their doors from July next year, as per the ministry’s plan.

The ministry’s detailed project report will require funding of Rs 3,700 crore over a period of six years. The plan, submitted to the Planning Commission, says Rs 2,500 crore will be by way of plan expenditure. The government’s plan has also been endorsed by NASSCOM.

While I have nothing against the IIITs, I have to admit that I am outraged by this loony idea. Creation of specialized centres that are marked out for pampering by the federal government has been the bane of the higher ed system in India. There once were CSIR labs; then came the IITs; current fashion seems to be IISERs and IIITs.

At the state level, too, there has been a shady kind of consolidation that favours formation of universities that cater to focused areas such as technology, medicine, etc.

These trends are bad, since (a) they kill the benefits that would flow from a diversity of approaches to education (in engineering, medicine, etc) and (b) they build a wall around disciplines, and make it difficult -- if not impossible -- for cross-disciplinary research, which is really where a lot of really exciting ideas bubble up.

The alternative to specialized centres is most certainly not creating more of our hub-and-spoke universities. This model has its own problems, the most important of which is that UG students are taught in the affiliated colleges ('spokes') with no real input from practising researchers who are concentrated in the 'hubs'.

What we lack is a modern research university -- like Stanford (in the private sector) or the University of Illinois (in the State sector) in the US -- that does both cutting edge research and undergraduate teaching. The Banaras Hindu University is the only place that I can think of which comes close to this ideal. Instead of creating such multi-disciplinary 'real' universities, we are repeating the mistakes of the past by creating specialized centres of higher education such as IISERs and IIITs.

A broader question is: what is so special about IT? Or, for that matter, science, engineering, or medicine? Sure, our country needs good, well-trained engineers, doctors and scientists. But, don't we also need good, well-trained sociologists, economists, historians, linguists and anthropologists? Aren't we better off getting our future leaders in all these fields trained by leading researchers in a real university?