Just watched the following discussion on the Delhi University cut-offs (click here for the video). Apart from Chetan Bhagat's revealingly thoughtless accusations and assertions, there are several other clarifications that are in order. I am in no way defending status quo. However, what I am saying is that we could see the education system as a set of 'markets' or domains - the high school domain, the graduation domain, the post graduation domain and so on. There are several 'market failures' in each of the domain. Trying to set right one of the domains without correcting the failures in the other domains would be inefficient. The familiar theory of second best is inapplicable here because the failures in the other domains are not intrinsically immune to being corrected. With this in mind, I begin my discussion of the DU cut off system.
Firstly, the appalling suggestion by Chetan Bhagat that SRCC and other 'good' DU colleges should set up more campuses. At one level, it is hypocritical on his part ('excellence is exclusive', according to Bhagat. Click here for the video) to oppose dilution of quality in IITs and to suggest something similar in DU. However, I do not intrinsically subscribe to the fact that excellence is exclusive, and hence leave such a shallow argument at that. More importantly, to set up new campuses for SRCC, Hindu etc requires a whole lot of infrastructure. While we can talk about diminishing returns to a factor, we must consider what exactly is the limited factor we are talking about. In view of my previous discussion of market or (in the case of education, when 'market' doesn't sound all that right) domain failures, the domain failure that I see here is one of post graduation.
It is the most obvious thing to any Economics student at Delhi University, for example, that even India's best economics degree suffers from a severe and crippling shortage of quality teachers. One of my co-interviewees at the Rhodes Scholarship interview confessed that even fresh postgraduates with no teaching experience and unverified aptitude would be invited to teach at one of the colleges. If we go about increasing the intake without considering such factors, we will just create a situation where Economics, for example, will be the new engineering - lots of third grade institutions that add nothing to the students. New colleges cannot be set up unless we increase the quality of output from our postgraduate institutions. Period.
Second is the system of cut-offs. I agree with critics that treating all state and central boards as equivalent is criminally objectionable, to state it mildly. However, we must realise that it is a court order that forbids colleges from taking out percentiles in each of the different boards (this is what I have read somewhere, but am unable to find a link right now). At best, Delhi University has committed a crime of inaction in not challenging such an order.
Secondly, to argue that we must de-link admissions from the Class XII boards is pointless. If admissions to even the liberal arts or pure sciences are de-linked from the boards, what is the purpose of having the boards in the first place? There is a domain failure in that the boards do not reflect the aptitude of students*. Do we correct it by making the boards more relevant, or do we correct it by having this pointless appendage called the boards, and then also have an entrance examination for various courses? Again, we must realise that there will be multiplicity of entrance exams, since an Economics (H) entrance exam will have to be different from a Philosophy (H) entrance exam and so on. The rot begins at the boards level, also because there is an incentive for state boards to inflate marks as as to better the lot of their students. Hence, basic economics demands that it is at this level that the problem must be addresses. Delhi University in this case is the victim, not the perpetrator.
Finally, we come to the suggestion of having interviews. Given my experience at St. Stephen's College, I believe that interviews are the best way of gauging suitability of a student for a particular course. I will not feign knowledge of why other colleges do not have interviews, for I am sure there must be some reason. In case the reason is some rule of Delhi University, then more autonomy must be granted to the 'institutes of excellence'. If there is some other reason, then we must address it.
A little footnote about media coverage of the issue. The way the media handles this issue year after year has something to say about the intelligence level of those running such shows. Remember the ruckus over the 100% cut-off at SRCC last year? Firstly, they failed to qualify the 100% cut-off. It was for science students who now wanted to pursue B.Com (H) now; hence, it was the result of a 4% gap between commerce students and science students that SRCC had committed itself to (this year's lower cut off, hailed by the media, is just a sleight of hand, with the 4% margin having been reduced). Even now, they say that the cutoff for science is 99.25% at Hindu, without qualifying that statement as to which course, and for students from which stream. Is such misleading coverage not worth condemning? Secondly, one student cleared the 100% cut-off this year. Even in my year when the science cut-off for the same course was 98.75%, only one science student cleared the cut-off (incidentally, my dear friend Manchit Mahajan). If one student cleared the cut-off anyway, how does it make a difference whether it is 98.75 or 100? The media certainly needs to be more intelligent.
-------------------
* - I have no hesitation in saying that my marks in physics and chemistry did not reflect my aptitude for the subject. The only justification I see is either that I worked hard, or that I severely over-estimate others' aptitude. However, hard work cannot always be a substitute for aptitude per se, as my CAT experience taught me.
No comments:
Post a Comment