Undergraduate program at IISc

It appears that our Institute's worst-kept secret is finally out: IISc is planning an undergraduate progam.

Why do I call it that? Alert folks would probably have noticed all kinds of clues in MSM as well as blogs. Sure, some of it was speculation, but some others did allude to real and serious discussions that were -- and are -- going on in IISc.

Interestingly, the proposal is for a 4-year BS program in the sciences -- the first such program in the country. [see these   posts for some earlier discussions].

The proposal still has a few more hurdles to overcome, but it has the right sort of momentum that I believe will see it through.

* * *

Some of you may remember that the Institute did run a (highly successful) post-BSc undergraduate program in engineering leading to a BE degree. In the 50s and the 60s, it was a 2-year program; it was converted into a 3-year program in late 60s.

The decline in this program's fortunes began in the 1980s due to two key developments over which IISc didn't have any control:

• In 1981, the conventional (post-secondary school) BE/BTech degrees went from 5-years to 4-years (I belong to the fist batch of the 4-year BTech program); this development made IISc's effectively six-year program -- with 3-years of BSc followed by 3 years of BE -- relatively unattractive.

• But, more importantly, it was also during this time when the private engineering colleges began to grow in number -- a process that's still underway. Ever-growing (and easier!) opportunities for a 4-year bachelors program made the 6-year version at IISc even less attractive.

In response to not just these developments, but also to its own perception that it should become a "pure" post-graduate institution, the Institute replaced the BE program with a 4-year Integrated ME program for BSc graduates. But the die was cast: even this program was scrapped 1996, with the final batch graduating in 2000.

But all that was in engineering. The current proposal is largely in the sciences, with engineering departments playing only a supporting role.

* * *

As expected, I'm going to use this opportunity to do some attention-seeking, by pointing you all to this post from 2005 when this idea was, in the memorable words of Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon - 3, I think), "no more than an itch in [somebody's] pants."

I'm also posting here an e-mail (after a bit of editing) which I sent to about a hundred colleagues on an internal mailing list.

* * *

Dear [Colleagues],

Here are some arguments for why, from an institutional point of view, it is in IISc's long-term interests to start a UG program. These arguments (especially 1 to 3, below) are based on my perception of the direction of policy winds, which I have been following on my personal blog for over four years. Your perceptions may differ from mine; if they do, I would be interested to hear your views on these trends.

With that preamble out of the way, here we go, starting with the most important:

1. Sooner or later, the government will demand a UG program. When it does, it'll be insistent, strident.

   [Maybe I need to explain why I think this will happen.]

   India's higher ed system has effectively delinked research from teaching. Universities don't do UG teaching; they do only UG examinations. UG teaching is what happens in colleges, a vast majority of which have little or no footprint in research.

   This state of affairs is now widely recognized as dysfunctional; less than 25 percent of our engineering graduates (and less than 15 percent overall) are deemed employable. Politicians and business leaders have taken notice.

   IITs, IISERs, BHU, and a few Central universities that offer integrated MSc degrees (and, to a smaller extent, some of the NITs) are the honorable oases in our vast, barren higher ed landscape.

   To the extent that India's progress needs an effective higher ed system, it is clear that more and more of our institutions must be transformed into "real" universities that do both research and UG teaching.

   This means that colleges will be asked to do (more) research; more importantly, our universities (and research institutions like IISc and TIFR) will be asked to do UG teaching.

   This is not idle speculation. Prof. Yash Pal has already made this suggestion for JNU, and forced their Senate to take it up for discussion. NKC has recommended that the new universities we start must combine research with UG teaching. These demands will only intensify.

   [Arguments such as "500 graduates from IISc are too small in number to matter" are not valid, because over 95+ percent of those half a million engineering graduates go to colleges whose capabilities are so evidently sub-par. In a national effort to raise the quality of UG education, everyone will be asked to contribute -- and that'll include the universities, and yes, the IISc, too.]

   It is far better for IISc to be proactive in adding a UG program, than to react to external demands. Also, if IISc takes the initiative, it'll get to do it the way it likes.

2. In fact, if IISc were to lead the initiative in offering UG programs, it will cement IISc's leadership position further in the public consciousness. It will be seen as showing the way to the Central and State universities. [By the same token, a PR disaster is a certainty if IISc were to say no after a public demand is made that it start a UG program; if you think this demand will not be made, read 1 again].

   With active researchers -- most of whom have benefited from the very environment that IISc's UG program will create -- IISc is well positioned to pull it off. If it does it now, it will also benefit from a benign funding environment.

3. Elite research institutions like IISc attract huge amounts of government funding (measured in terms of, for example, amount per faculty); it takes just one or two politicians, or activists (or even Council members ;-) to start asking probing questions about what the country gets in return, and if those returns are commensurate with the level of funding, particularly in comparison with other institutions.

   IISc's leadership position in its own bastion is increasingly under threat. IIT-B produced more PhDs last year than IISc did; IIT-KGP is likely to leapfrog IISc as well (if it has not done it already). And Several IITs are not too far behind IISc in terms of publications (Giridhar or Ram may have numerical evidence for these observations). IISc's performance will come under sharp, and increasingly harsh scrutiny in the years to come.

   Bottomline: A diversified portfolio -- that includes a world-class UG program -- is good for IISc.

4. UG program will ensure a stability in funding. In this era of abundance, this argument may look laughably silly. But, don't count on good times to last long; just ask the poor souls who suffered through the horrible crunch of the late 80s and early 90s.

5. Our graduates are our allies. Particularly when times turn tough. Our UG graduates will provide more bang for the buck (in terms of moral and financial support) than our masters and doctoral graduates. The emotional attachment of graduates to their UG institutions is strong, long-lasting. IISc will be wise to create this resource and nurture it.

I admit that 1-3 are based on environmental drivers (in the sense that they are external to IISc). But, institutions aren't islands -- especially those that are almost completely dependent on public money. It doesn't take much -- a couple of scandals will do! -- to change the public perceptions.

Cheers,
Abi.

Performance related incentives for IIT faculty members?

Hemali Chhapia reports in The Economic Times that IIT faculty will go on hunger strike today, since there has been no formal announcement from the HRD Ministry on their pay hike demands (for which they had set yesterday as the deadline).

It's not clear to me if this protest will happen since the IIT Directors made a specific appeal to their faculty yesterday to "desist from any form of protest or demonstrations". The appeal ends with this reminder: "As IIT system we have some stature in society. We all hope that you will hold it as high as is expected from all of us."

The Indian Express report has something else that should be of great interest. In their appeal, the IIT directors also revealed that the HRD Minister mooted a "Performance Related Incentive Scheme ... to provide additional remuneration to the faculty members."

Links ...

1. Let's kick this off with two punchy cartoons from LeftyCartoons.com: A brief history of corporate whining and Bitch if you do, Broke if you don't. The latter reminded me of this gem from xkcd.

2. Sankarshan Thakur in The Telegraph: The Prime Minister's Office wakes up to 100-day deadline.

3. Victor Mair at Language Log: Food choices in Indian airlines.

4. Stanley Kaplan, the guy who made a fortune by training students to do well in SAT and other such exams, died last week at 90. Here's the NYTimes obituary.

   Far more interesting is Malcolm Gladwell's 2001 profile of the man, his method, and his enduring influence on the testing industry.: Examined Life: What Stanley H. Kaplan taught us about the SAT.

5. While on coaching industry, here's a NYTimes story about a South Korean cram school that went online to reach the masses and became one of the hottest tech companies in Korea: Tech Company Helps South Korean Students Ace Entrance Tests.

Augmenting faculty salaries from research grants

This is just a follow-up on this post about a "reform" in which grants from government agencies would allow faculty members to augment their salaries (grants from private industry already allow this).

My colleague and friend Ram pointed out that the Swarnajayanti Fellowship program run by the Department of Science and Technology provides for faculty remuneration of Rs. 25,000 per month (Ram is a Swarnajayanti Fellow himself). This program is essentially a research grant (albeit one that's awarded through a competition). Thus, the "reform" that I suggested is just an extention of the "personal remuneration" provision to the regular grants made by our funding agencies.

Much the same point was made, um, more memorably and colorfully (sacrificing a bit of accuracy in the process) by an anonymous commenter. I think that comment deserves to be highlighted; here it is:

certain research grants from government agencies do allow for personal remuneration (in brackets)

Below 20: KVPY 5K
Below 30: DST 5K
Below 35: Welcomme 20 K
Below 40: Swarnajayanthi 25K
Below 45: Bhatnagar 5 lakhs + 15K
Below 50: Ramanujam 50K
Below 55: Raja rammanna 10K
Below 60: JC Bose 20K
Below 70: Research fellow 50K
> 90: Crematorium. you have to pay

Patwatoli Village: Bihar's academic hothouse

BBC's Outlook has this amazing human interest story on Patwatoli, a village of about 1000 families, which has sent over 50 students to the IITs over the last ten years. Give it a listen. The Patwatoli story starts at 9:30 minutes.

A commenter pointed this out to me and asked:

I also learned from [BBC's Outlook] that there are several Nobel laureates on the faculty of the IITs. Can someone tell me who they are?

Update: Here's an Outlook piece from 2001 on Patwatoli's amazing story (Thanks, Rahul):

In the boondocks of Patwatoli, a hotbed of Naxalite activity, many like Munna are chasing the same dream. Cutting themselves off from sundry distractions, these boys from the backward Patwa (weaver) community study hard, sometimes in the din of noisy looms, for a place in the JEE. The results from this small town have begun showing in a state which has the highest number of school dropouts (58 per cent at the primary level and up to 80 per cent at high school level) and the literacy rate is 47.53 per cent: 22 boys of Patwatoli have qualified in IIT-JEE and more than 75 have competed in other engineering tests since 1996. Before 1990, the place had only 10 graduates and 30 matriculates. Now there are some 25 IITians, 75 engineers and one UPSC qualifier from this OBC collective of 10,000 families. And, mind you, most qualifiers are first generation.

Are brains sexed?

From this fascinating interview of Catherine Vidal, neurobiologist and Research Director at the Institut Pasteur:

Let’s start with a very direct question: is the brain sexed?

The scientific answer is, paradoxically, yes and no. Yes, because the brain controls the reproductive functions. Male and female brains are not identical, in every species, including our own, because sexual reproduction involves different hormone systems and sexual behaviours, which are controlled by the brain.

But the answer is also no, because when we look at the cognitive functions, it is cerebral diversity which reigns, independently of gender. For thought to emerge, the brain needs to be stimulated by its environment. At birth, just 10 % of our 100 billion neurons are inter-connected. The 90 % of remaining connections will be constructed progressively depending on the influence of the family, education, culture and society. In this way, during its development, the brain integrates external elements associated with its owner’s personal history. We call this cerebral plasticity; which is why we all have different brains. And the differences between individuals of one and the same gender are so great as to outweigh any differences between the genders.

In fact, behind your question is the fundamental problem of the degree to which behaviour is innate and to which it is acquired – an essential question that philosophers and scientists have been debating for centuries. This remains an ideologically-charged subject, which the media adore.

The interview appears in the April issue of Research.eu, devoted to gender issues in science and technology.

How not to ask for a pay hike: 2. "All of us - yes, all of us - are outstanding"

In their zeal to hype things up, many journalists tend to portray the IIXs [where X=T,M,Sc,SER, ...] as mega-meritocracies which are one up on Lake Wobegon. IIXs, according to them, are places where everyone is not just above-average, but outstanding! They then peddle the nonsense that the IIXs deserve to create their own rules, including the freedom to pay salaries comparable to those in the private sector!

Not surprisingly, some folks in IIXs are keen to play along, and brush aside the huge disparity in performance levels in their institutions [see this post by Giridhar on the Gini index in reserch output -- which measures the level of inequality in output -- for one IIX: the IISc.]

But what the MSM reporters fail to notice -- I'm looking at you, Manu Sharma! -- are the ample clues in the behaviour and demands of the faculty unions.

Specifically, do they ask for a ruthless hire-and-fire policy? Do they ask for annual performance evaluations that will determine year-end bonuses (or, the raise for the next year)? Do they ask for differential salaries across disciplines -- based purely on demand and supply -- leading to stratospheric salaries for a computer scientist and a below-poverty-line ration card for a physicist?

Faculty unions are not meant for demands like these. Almost by definition, they are meant to take care of the interests of their median (and weaker) members.

Of the weaker members, there are plenty in the IIXs. To their credit, IIXs also have a fair share of high performers.

* * *

It is possible -- and definitely not inconsistent -- to have a salary structure that takes care of the weak and also provides sufficient incentives for the strong to keep up their stellar performance.

But, here's the thing: the Pay Commission is not the mechanism for dealing with high performers. For all its lofty rhetoric, its recommendations have a singular focus on the median worker.

Consider:

1. Take annual increments. While everyone will get a 3% raise, what can a high performer expect?

   4 %. Yes, you read that right. Four percent!

2. Until now, the main mode in which high performers are recognized is through promotions (in some cases, early promotions), without which higher salary bands ("scales") were just not accessible.

   The Sixth Pay Commission has mucked up this one too. With time, almost all the faculty members in IIXs will get into the highest pay band (Pay Band 4). The associate and full professors are already there; so will the assistant professors (after the acceptance of the demand that they be placed in Pay Band 4 after 3 years).

   Thus, assistant, associate and full professors will top out at Rs.67,000. At this top end, the only thing that separates an assistant professor and a full professor is the Academic Grade Pay, and this difference is only Rs.3,000 or 4,000, or just about 5%.

   I'm sure you find this underwhelming. I do, too.

With the incentive structure being what it is, you would expect a huge spread or variability in the quality and quantity of work done by people. This is precisely what you'll find at IIXs: they have many who just amble along, while a few are busy sprinting -- just in case you haven't done so, you really ought to go read Giridhar's post!

Thus, deep skepticism should be the response when someone peddles arguments like "We get 50K here, but we would get 500 K at Harvard; so we deserve at least half a Harvard-salary!" While it is entirely possible that the sprinters would find a place in a top university anywhere, the claim that *all* the faculty in IIXs and especially the amblers are super-fantastic is ludicrous.

* * *

Bottomline 1: Given this scenario, it is entirely appropriate that the new salaries for IIXs are roughly in line with those of other (similarly situated) government employees. It is also entirely appropriate that the faculty associations are restricting their demands to those that remove anomalies in which similarly situated people in the old regime have ended up in drastically different situations in the new regime.

Even the good folks in that Mecca of management mantras, IIM-A, justify their demands for a better deal using this argument:

IIM-A, which has taken a lead among the IIMs, has formed a 3-member committee to highlight the pay commission recommendations. The main grudge is the percentage increase in salary for IIM faculty has been lesser than that granted to their counterparts in other government agencies.

Bottomline 2: Instead of expecting faculty associations and pay commissions to take care their special needs, high performers in IIXs (and other institutions too) should focus on and exploit the many ways that are legally available (and seek to create those that are desirable, but not yet available) to augment their salaries.

Bottomline 3: Extravagant claims about the superiority of *everyone* at IIXs are just that: Extravagant.

So, what happened in yesterday's meeting?

I'm referring, of course, to the meeting our HRD Minister, Mr. Kapil Sibal, had with IIT directors. Looks like a lot of things were discussed, but on the issue of pay hike demands from IIT faculty, no one appears willing to talk. The only substantive stuff we have is about the assistant professors getting placed in Pay Band 4 directly (which, if true, would actually exceed the current demand of the IIT faculty associations; it was something that they demanded over nine months ago when they met the Goverdhan Mehta committee).

After reporting on this yesterday, this is what The Telegraph had to say today:

... Kapil Sibal today indicated to IIT directors the ministry’s plans to hike the pay of assistant professors — the lowest rung in the permanent faculty structure at the IITs, top officials said.

In the absence of details, all we have are these quotes from two IIT directors::

"The minister has agreed to some changes and we are hopeful they will be acceptable to the faculty," said IIT Guwahati director Gautam Barua. "The final package will be quite good for the faculty," added IIT Bombay director Devang Khakhar. The directors, however, refused to divulge any details.

Then, there is this not-so-positive note in one report:

HRD minister Kapil Sibal's meeting with IIT directors on Wednesday resolved the salary imbroglio ... A detailed presentation by the ministry-showing that IIT faculty after revision got more than UGC scale and even DRDO scientists-seems to have done the trick.[Source: ToI]

So, what else did they talk about? Quite a lot, apparently:

1. Though a final decision has not been taken, there is a possibility that common counselling for AIEEE and JEE could be held for successful candidates of both entrance tests from 2010. However, a decision on merging IIT-JEE and AIEEE to become a common entrance test for entry to the country's tech schools will be taken later.

2. [The meeting] also saw the minister assuring the directors that a special cell would be set up in the ministry to facilitate entry of foreign faculty in IITs. The meeting also discussed the need to create, subject to ministry's approval, an international pool of faculty for IITs.

3. To deal with faculty shortage, IIT directors have been told to double PhD intake and prepare a list of students who were awarded PhD degrees this year. The list may be exchanged with directors of other IITs who can consider them for appointment as faculty.

4. The ministry told IIT directors about the SC order that asked IITs and other educational institutions to help SC/ST students at each stage.

Clueless journalists of the day

The 'honor' goes to the editorial team at Mint for inserting this piece of cluelessness in its editorial on Liberating Our Universities:

... Professors [at IITs] cannot get more pay than bureaucrats. [...]

Wrong.

Go to any IIT / IIM, you'll hear stories about consulting superstars who bring in tons of money to the institution -- and to themselves. Legally.

The number of such superstars may be small -- and as a favour to the rest of us, they do maintain a modest lifestyle! But here's the thing: this route to the riches is available, not just to a chosen few, but to every faculty member.

The system has these superstars and allows them to flourish. Mint editorial is clueless in suggesting otherwise.

IIX pay hike demands: Resolution in sight?

Charu Sudan Kasturi reports that the government is likely to not just accept the most important demand from IIT faculty associations, but actually go beyond it.

The Centre has agreed to a jump in the salaries of assistant professors in IITs and IIMs, raising prospects of an early resolution of an unprecedented pay dispute that saw teachers boycotting classes.

The government has agreed to hike the starting salary of assistant professors by almost 25 per cent from that stipulated in a new pay regime it had notified earlier this month, top officials revealed.

The decision was firmed up today, on the eve of a meeting between human resource development minister Kapil Sibal and IIT directors to resolve the crisis.

The meeting is scheduled for today, and we may expect an official announcement later today. Let's wait for the details on how the government responds to the other demands.

Fairness in pay hike recommendations

Another title for this post would be: Why did the university faculty unions accept the new pay regime that's so unfair towards their lecturers and readers?

* * *

How fair have the pay hike recommendations been across different levels in the IITs? How fair are they for our university faculty?

More specifically, are the pay raises for full professors roughly in line with those for assistant professors?

Such a comparison is difficult if one considers people who have been in service for a while -- they would have accumulated a bunch of increments depending on their employment history. The difficulty is due to the complex and different ways in which old salaries are mapped to the new ones.

However, this comparison is possible at the starting point for each position. Thus, I pose the question and answer it in the rest of the post:

If a person joins at the lowest salary in Level X (for which, let's assume he/she has just the right qualification) in December 2005, how large would her salary become in January 2006, the kick-off month for the new salary scheme?

This comparison is in terms of the basic pay (inflation adjustments will not affect this calculation, because they are a certain fraction of the basic pay).

In the old scheme, it would be the start of the salary scale, and in the new scale, it is the corresponding salary in the new scheme, which is the sum of the "Band Pay" and the "Academic Grade Pay."

Let me do this first for IIXs (where X=T, M, Sc, SER, ...):

Position	Old starting salary	New starting salary	Ratio
Full Professor	18,400	58,500 (48,000+10,500)	3.18
Associate Professor	16,400	52,300 (42,800+9,500)	3.19
Assistant Professor	12,000	38,000 (30,000+8,000)	3.17

Okay, the fairness question can be answered now. It's pretty fair.

The only problem is that many freshly recruited assistant professors come in with some increments; by a strange quirk, MHRD has mapped all their (old) salaries to the same new salary of 38,000! It's pretty bad: some 10 salary levels (i.e., 12,000 + 9 increments) have been grouped together, and they have been made equivalent to 38,000.

So, to this extent, the new pay regime is unfair towards the assistant professors. I believe one of the demands is for a better (preferably, 1-to-1) mapping of increments in the two scales.

I have already written about how assistant professors are demanding that they move automatically to Pay Band 4 after three years. This demand is likely to be accepted; if it happens, it's the corresponding ratio of old salary to the new one (at the minimum of the scale) will be nearly 3.5 (45,400 / 13,260). This is a good thing.

* * *

Let's now turn to how this shakes out for faculty members in universities. Here, the number of positions is larger.

Position	Old starting salary	New starting salary	Ratio
Professor	16,400	50,890 (40,890+10,000)	3.1
Reader	12,000	30,320 (22,320+8,000)	2.52
Senior Lecturer	10,000	25,600 (18,600+7,000)	2.56
Lecturer	8,000	21,600 (15,600+6,000)	2.7

If you keep your focus on the last column, the impact is clear: the new pay scheme is pretty unfair to faculty at lower levels.

There's another comparison that one can make across the two tables. In the old scheme, the starting salaries were the same for university professors and IIT associate professors -- Rs. 16,400. But their salaries in the new scheme favour the latter by nearly 3%.

Similarly, in the old scheme, the starting salaries of university readers and IIT assistant professors were the same: 12,000. In the new scheme, however, they are drastically different, however. While it is 30,300 for the former, it is 25 % higher for the latter at 38,000!

* * *

Thus, it would appear that the IIT faculty really do not have a case: their salary structure is a lot fairer than in the universities, and their relative position with respect to similarly situated university faculty is favourable. Then, where's the problem?

The problems are those that I described in my earlier post. The IIT faculty demand, mainly, that

• assistant professors move automatically to Pay Band 4 (like the university readers do), and

• the AGP for associate professors go up from 9,500 to 10,000 (as the university professors have got).

The second demand may appear trivial, but it's not. In the new regime, AGP is the status marker, and certain benefits are tied to the AGP. I also understand that the difference in AGP of 9,500 and 10,000 is pretty large in terms of a certain perks -- specifically, the transport allowance [Can someone confirm this?]. I'm not very sure about the exact quantum of the jump, but I'm told that it's substantial.

* * *

This little exercise makes me wonder why the university folks have accepted a deal that's so patently unfair towards their junior faculty. Is it because they don't care too much about their ability to attract talented youth to join their ranks? Or their faculty unions are loaded with the senior folks who just don't give a damn?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Is salary the only thing?

If you are an employee working in a public sector company, the salary -- and associated perks such as leave travel concession, children's education allowance, etc -- is your only source of income (aside from that from your investments / assets). But this is not the case for universities, and especially INIs -- Institutions of National Importance -- whose faculty are legally allowed to augment their salaries through various routes.

Perhaps it's a good idea to enumerate these routes; as I show below, this exercise also suggests a reform with wide-ranging benefits for pretty much everyone. So, here we go:

1. Research grants from industry: Unlike grants from government funding agencies, grants from industry allow the researcher to set aside a sum of money for "personal remuneration."

2. Industrial consultancy: No need to elaborate on this.

3. Lectures / short courses / technical development programs: These are the equivalent of the Executive Development Programs run by B-schools.

4. Lectures in private (mostly, engineering) colleges: I keep hearing about faculty who do this on the sly, but it is possible to do it legally as well.

5. Serving on job interview panels.

6. In addition, faculty get paid during the summer months (three months at IISc, and probably a little over two months at the IITs). Many faculty use this period on visiting professorships, some of which -- let me hasten to add here, only some of which -- could be lucrative.

I'm sure there are other ways as well -- all legal. Also of note is that faculty members can officially set aside N days in a year. At IISc, it is 52 days, or one day a week -- you can think of this as a version of Google's much-praised 20% projects.

I am sure many of you are enthusiastic about merit-based compensation schemes in which high performers make more money. This is our universities' version of merit-based compensation.

As you can see, all of them are in line with a university's goals of societal outreach, information dissemination, knowledge sharing, industrial interaction, teaching a broader set of students, etc.

Here's the flip side: Most of these activities (except the first) will count for very little when it comes to an evaluation of a faculty member's work at the time of his / her promotion. This is a quirk of our system, which seems to say, "you have got the money, so don't bug me for recognition."

The second point is that most of these routes for salary augmentation favour engineering faculty whose knowledge and skills can be put to use in industry right away. How about science faculty -- especially those with interests in deep fundamental research with no immediate application?

* * *

As I said, this suggests a reform that would go a long way in making it generally fair for everyone, and help strengthen a system of performance-based compensation.

I have argued for a reform [here's a shorter version] that would allow research grants from government agencies also to build in a component of "personal remuneration" just like the industrial research grants do.

• As I pointed out above, this reform is something that all faculty will love: you get recognition -- promotion, awards, etc. -- for the work you do with the research grant, and you get extra money.

• Institutions will also love it because it provides a strong incentive for their faculty to go out and get research grants, which raises their research profile.

• Government agencies should (I don't know if they will) love it because it helps raise the level of research in the country by making it more competitive.

How not to ask for a pay hike: "We are the people behind the JEE!"

The Nature India column -- Pay commission will 'degrade' IIT faculty [free registration required] -- by Aditya Mittal, an associate professor in IIT-D's School of Biological Sciences, is so bad in so many ways that I don't know where to begin.

His beginning is a good place to begin, I guess:

... Many feel that the IITs are not great because of their faculty, but because of the system that chooses students for India's scientific Oxbridge — the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE).

But who is behind these JEEs? From setting the question paper to conducting the exam and compiling the results to admitting the best students through comprehensive counseling procedures, it is an out and out 'show' of the IIT faculty. In fact, it would be difficult to find a single faculty member in the IITs who hasn't ever been involved in a JEE.

This is a curious way to begin a pitch for a higher pay (or, special treatment). Mittal has successfully framed the IITs as JEE organizing machines which just happen to cost the government, oh, over a thousand crore rupees. Research and other such things seem secondary!

Here's the next "argument":

The government can never pay what an IIT faculty deserves. In fact, one can't expect the government to pay what an IIT faculty deserves. It is considered a privilege to teach and do research at the IITs. Not for the money but for the work ethos created and maintained by its faculty - present and past. People come to work at an IIT because of the dignity associated with the hallowed institution. And they work tirelessly at the IITs believing it is a place that nurtures the mantra of 'being the best at whatever you do, no matter what you do.' This is evident in the success of its alumni, as well as in the success of the faculty in competing with the most specialised research laboratories across the globe despite the time and resource crunch it is always faced with.

Notice his framing of *all* IIT faculty -- not "some" but an undifferentiated "the" -- as embodying excellence in not just organizing the JEE, but also in their "success ... in competing with the most specialized laboratories".

Further, how on earth can it be "considered a privilege to teach and do research at the IITs" when all you get is a time crunch and a resource crunch? Also, the privilege is so special that "... one can't expect the government to pay what an IIT faculty deserves." Got it? Me neither.

I wonder what the government will do after reading this piece: I hope it won't make the resource crunch bigger so IIT faculty can feel more privileged ...

Next comes this:

... the sixth pay commission's treatment to the IITs simply reflects a sorry state of affairs of the Indian system. It demonstrates the failure of a country to deal with excellence. The commission has brought pay-packets of entry level IIT faculty at par with (or below) bureaucratic positions. It has also clubbed them with groups of recruits in other systems who most often do not qualify to enter the IIT system as PhD students. This simply reflects the poor mindset of our society that is unable to give excellence its due.

The arrogance is appalling. It's one thing to claim that *all* your colleagues are excellent, but it takes a certain insensitivity to diss a whole lot of folks in universities ("recruits ... who most often do not qualify to enter the IIT system as PhD students").

His problem seems to be that the IIT assistant professors are in the same Pay Band with such "recruits". The fact that they earn considerably more doesn't matter; Mittal is upset that the great assistant professors at IIT-D share the same Pay Band as those "recruits" in "other systems."

What's this -- some new kind of untouchability?

But you know what the clincher is? This:

In giving its verdict, the Union Human Resource Development ministry has ignored the recommendations of the Goverdhan Mehta committee report which had recommended a hike in pay scale of apex technical educational institutions.

What's wrong with this? The difference between the Mehta committee and ministry recommendations are actually quite small: probably 2 or 3 percent. Except, of course, for the serious anomaly that prevents assistant professors from going to Pay Band 4 after three years.

The small difference doesn't mean IIT faculty should accept it without a fight. They are doing the right thing by pointing out the anomalies and seeking a remedy. If their pleas fall on deaf ears, they would also be right to go on strike.

But to take this small difference as a basis for an unreasoned, unreasonable (and arrogant) rant?

Two prodigies at IISc

The first, Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, has just graduated with a PhD in physics at the age of 21. With a thesis that's all of 33 pages, he is also reported to have applied for "the shortest PhD thesis" record in the Limca Book of Records.

The other, Mohammad Ali Aamir, has just joined IISc's integrated PhD program in physics at the age of 15.

Links ...

1. Featured link: Drake Bennett in Boston Globe: Happiness -- A Buyer's Guide: Money can improve your life, but not in the ways you think. Here's the money quote [pardon me for the unintended pun]: “Just because money doesn’t buy happiness doesn’t mean money cannot buy happiness. People just might be using it wrong.” The quote is from Elizabeth Dunn, a social psychologist and assistant professor at the University of British Columbia.

   See also: Jonah Lehrer's comments on this article.

2. Eric Wargo: The New Genetics:

   The metaphor Champagne uses is a library. A library contains many books, but they don't do anything by themselves; in order to have an impact, to instruct and inspire, they have to be actually taken down from the shelves and read. The genome is the same way: Whatever information it contains, it has no effect on anything unless and until it gets transcribed (by messenger RNA) and translated into protein. "DNA, in order to be read, must be accessible; it must be unwrapped from the very condensed form in which it is stored in cells," she explained.

3. Janet Stemwedel in Adventures in Ethics and Science: A [favorable] ruling [a harassment case] but no remedy: what to do when a university grievance process has failed you. Lots of useful suggestions in the comments section. What's interesting for me is the variety of laws and institutions in the US that one could turn to for help.

4. Ethan Zuckerman at My Heart's In Accra: Cute Cate Theory of Digital Activism [and its perennial battle to overcome censorship].

5. Joshua Hortshome in Scientific American: Does Language Shape What We Think? A new study looks at what happens when a language doesn't have words for numbers.