Why do I need to go to school - II

Last night my daughter told me that I should tell her when my lipstick runs out. "We will make it at home".

How?

"See, first you take some oil. Then you add beetroot juice. And then some wax."

Ah. And where did she learn this cool formula? Backyard Science on Disney TV. This is one of the shows she watches religiously, even the repeats. It airs every weekday at 4.30 pm, right after she gets home from school.

The show features a lot of simple experiments which kids can do at home to understand basic principles of science. Apart from making lipstick!

I share this story in connection with Ambuj commenting that:

If your kid drops out of school now, she runs the risk on not knowing the importance of Bal Gangadhar Tilak in Indian History, our Fundamental Rights, the monsoon phenomenon, and even her own body!

School syllabus does give you all of the above but so do many other sources. Including television.

However most parents including me have mixed feelings about TV. When I was working full time the only thing I was paranoid about was:"Is my child watching too much TV?"

I do have the option of not having cable TV at all but I think anything you deny becomes more attractive to kids. And they will simply go to the neighnour's house and indulge.

Neither do I think we can force kids to watch only Discovery channel and History Channel because they are 'educational'.

Of late I have watched some of her favourite shows with her (Shararat, Suite Life of Zack & Cody) and I think they are very imaginative. And in their own way teach kids how to deal with a variety of social and emotional situations.

The one show I don't know what to make of is Shin Chan. But then it is a phase I guess she will grow out of (I hope :)

The point is that we label certain things as 'educational' (school) and others as recreational (TV, video games). Whereas all these things really make up the dots Steve Jobs refers to (and which not one but two of you brought up in comments to my last post).

Most of what I remember of history and almost all of my Indian mythology is courtesy Amar Chitra Katha. Not what I was taught in school!

The issue is, when school takes so much of our children's time and energy, is there enough time to paint more dots on the canvas of their minds? And is school itself really adding enough dots or just a dry paintbrush which leaves no mark?

Well, the debate can go on an on. One thing I do know is we as parents can do our bit. The question is, after a hard day @ work, do we really have any bright and happy paint in our own palettes?

Why do I need to go to school?

A day after her ninth birthday my daughter has posed a fundamental question:"If I want to become a fashion designer or singer why do I need to go to school?"

I don't really have a good answer.

As the participants on 'Paanchvi Paas' have demonstrated, most of us don't remember anything we actually studied in those classrooms. Forget the advanced stuff like trigonometry, basics bhi gul hain.

Looking at the class IV CBSE textbooks I would say that by the end of this year Nivedita would have learnt all the stuff we really need to know in life. ie

Reading & writing: English, Hindi
Basic maths: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division
Basic science & social studies: what is photosynthesis, different regions of India and so on.

But no, she will have to plod on to higher classes and study more. 10th, 12th and then some form of college.

Why? Well, these are the reasons I could think of:

* Because I did it, he did it, she did it, they all did it. You gotta do it to be known as 'educated'.

* Because any document you apply for - passport, visa, bank account - you will be asked for educational qualification.

* Because without a formal certificate/ diploma/ degree you will be counted in the 'illiterate' category even if you are more street smart and excel at at your profession.

Besides, I said. what if you change your mind and want to do something other than fashion design when you are 14? You can't go back and rejoin class V.

She doesn't buy it.

In my heart I know the answer. It is me as a parent who is afraid to make my child an exception to the rule. Even if I know that part of this creative little soul is dying everyday on that wooden bench, copying Q & A from the blackboard.

It is me as a parent who is also unwilling to take the responsibility of bringing her up, 'educating' her, alone. Although there are brilliant examples of parents who are choosing home schooling.

Like Cdr T R A Narayanan who withdrew his two sons from formal schooling. One of them is now a wildlife photographer and the other, an origami artist.

Our decision to pull them out came when Shivaram returned from Mumbai after wrapping up an Origami programme where over 3000 children participated. He had missed his half yearly exams and wrote them on returning. Quite predictably he did not do well as he had no time to prepare.

But, the school authorities said that we had our priorities all wrong and that his talents in this little known art would get him nowhere. Studies and marks was all that mattered to them.

So, we decided that we would not allow the system to drown our children's talents - whatever the field may be.

The Narayanans enrolled the boys in the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) which gave them ample time to develop other interests. Well, hats off to them, but I don't have the energy or the devotion to go down that path.

At the end of the day, I rationalise, Nivedita is an only child and school is where she is learning valuable social skills. And the System is also teaching her that life means buckling down and doing things you don't really want to do or like to do. Because, they have to be done.

She may want to spend the evening exploring her many birthday gifts. But that will have to wait until after she completes her workbook.

And as she does that, I continue to ponder on that question... Unable to frame an answer that will make sense to her.

Update on IIM Shillong

Just noticed, it's Rajiv Gandhi Indian Institute of Management Shillong. RGIIM? As anyone who's attended an IIT or IIM would know the acronym 'RG' is strangely ironic!

Actually more than the name it's the location which will RG this new effort. That's what happened to IIM Kozhikode. In an insightful column published in Mint Premchand Palety notes :

There is no direct flight from Delhi to Kozhikode. The only Indian Airlines flight goes via Mumbai and it takes six hours. After the usual delay, the flight finally landed in Kozhikode...

...From the airport, it is a 45-minute drive to the IIM-K, which is located at Kunnamangalam, a small town famous for a large number of small, green hills. Situated on two hillocks, the institute is a great place for nature lovers... Had the government set up a resort there instead of an IIM, it would have been an instant success.

Based on feedback from students, faculty and a former director Palety concludes:

“Setting an IIM in a place so far away from industry is a mistake. Setting the same campus in Cochin would have been a relatively better idea.”

I'm guessing the next best option for an IIM Shillong is to combine placements with an IIM Calcutta. But what about faculty? Once again it boils down to social objectives over practical ones. But that's the pound of flesh the government takes for its funding.

So where would I recommend setting up new IITs/ IIMs? In the general proximity of large metros. For example: New Bombay or Pune (near Mumbai), Gurgaon, Jaipur or Chandigarh (near Delhi). Even a destination like Goa with great connectivity.

Meanwhile if we can have an RGIIM we can well imagine an RTIIM (Ratan Tata IIM), SMIIM (Sunil Mittal IIM) and so on and so forth. After all who were 'Harvard' and 'Stanford' but wealthy donors?

More IITs, IIMs: how, why, when

On the 60th anniversary of India’s independence Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced spelt out his vision for eradicating poverty. This vision rests on ‘a revolution in the field of modern education in the next few years’. And it encompasses:

6,000 new “high quality” schools
370 colleges in districts with low enrollment rates
30 new Central universities
5 Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research
20 Indian Institutes of International Technology
And the icing on the cake…
7 new IIMs, 8 IITs

But let’s forget the specifics of the announcement and look deeper into the spirit behind it. The connection between getting an education and getting out of poverty is finally clear. Not just to the classes, but the masses.

The mai baap sarkar can finally move away from the promise of the occasional fish, to say, “We’ll teach you how to fish instead.” The aam aadmi recognizes there’s an ocean of Opportunity out there . And that an education is the modern fishing boat with which the next generation will chart New Economy waters.

So far, so good. But when and how will this vision translate into reality? Last heard the government was agreed on putting all its eggs in the primary education basket, Most notably, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan. Why then is there talk of more IITs and IIMs?

The kindest explanation is that the vision is a far sighted one. When you send more and more kids to school, there will be increased demand for good colleges. And so, the government steps in and expands capacity.

The more cynical explanation is that IITs and IIMs are like the Taj Mahal. While the monument of love is one of the seven wonders of the world, the IITs and IIMs are one of the few wonders of modern India.

These institutes stand for excellence. For ‘merit’. For fairness and incorruptability. The IITs and IIMs are symbolic of the Great Indian Dream. Dimaag ki taakat aur mehnat se har koi is mukaam par pahunch sakta hai. Money or power have no role to play.

Of course, this belief is not strictly true. Access to good coaching (esp for IITs) and fluency in English (esp for IIMs) make a helluva lot of difference. But there is enough popular folklore of poor but brilliant and hard working young men and women who made it to these institutes to give the common man a feeling, “Perhaps I could too.”

The value of a lofty goal in firing the imagination - is never to be underestimated.

Nitty gritties
But how will the government itself get these projects off the ground? To frame it like the typical CAT question:

If 6 IIMs : 60 years
Then 7 IIMs : ? years

Let’s take a look at the case of IIM Shillong for the answer. The proposal to set up an IIM in the Northeast (either Guwahati or Shillong) goes back to the year 2004. The actual IIM – in Shillong – is to come up in the year 2008.

However, things might be changing. The Planning Commission is to meet on August 28 to discuss several important education related issues. The Plan panel proposes to increase public spending on education to around 5 per cent of GDP from the present level of 3.79 per cent. The panel is also expected to take a decision on funding of the newly proposed IIMs, IITs.

One of the proposals put forth is to set up 4 of the proposed 7 new IIMs in the public-private partnership (PPP) mode.

The term ‘public-private partnerships’ in brings to mind infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports and such like. The cost of the project and onus of development is shared between the government and the private party. And the private party, in return, gets a share of the spoils.

I am, however, unclear how such an arrangement would work when it comes to education. Apart from the philanthropic angle (“let’s give back to the community’) and prestige value, how would the ‘returns’ kick in?

And would private involvement necessarily make the IIMs more ‘autonomous’?

Vested interests
"The IIMs should be granted autonomy and they should not depend on the government for funds," said Rahul Bajaj, Chairman of Bajaj group and a member of Parliament in a recent interview.

"Till these IIMs depend on the government for funds, the government will
have the right to take decisions for them," he added.

Mr Bajaj’s statement implies that non-governmental funds will be completely free of vested interest. But nothing could be farther from the truth! The American university system, funded by wealthy donors and alumni, for example, is actually bhai bhatijawaad and paisa power at its worst.

The stench of money and influence has long been concealed by the heady fragrance of ‘High Up There’ college brand name. But a recent book by Pulitzer Prize winning Wall Stret Journal reporter Daniel Golden painstakingly unmasks it all.

‘The Price of Admission’ chronicles how America’s ruling class buys its way into elite colleges. And ‘who gets left outside the gates’. Now I was dimly aware that universities Harvard let in a few rich kids whose great grandfathers may have donated a building or two to the college. But the book tells you just how many such rich kids make their way in – and how. And the numbers are shocking, to say the least.

The book offers insights on:
- “How the ‘Z list’ make the ‘A list’” (or how losers like Albert Gore jr make it to Harvard.)

- “Recruiting the Rich” – how Duke university built its corpus by admitting kids of wealthy parents who pledged to donate substantial monies to the college. These applicants are actually referred to as “development cases”.

- “A break for faculty brats” – Free and easy entry for children of professors

- “Rise of the Upperclass Athelete”- by offering ‘scholarships’ for sports like fencing, rowing and polo, colleges create an easy entry route for elite, white, private school applicants.

And oh, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The biggest scam so to speak is ‘legacy enrollment’. Or preference given to sons and daughters of alumni. To quote an example, “Harvard, America’s oldest university, admitted 63% of its applicants in 1952. Half a century later, it admitted just 11% of applicants overall – but 40% of legacy candidates”.

And these kids are certainly displacing very bright but non-connected candidates. Most legacies have lower SAT scores and less impressive high school records. A few are downright embarassments.

The Ivy League boasts a lofty ‘need blind’ admission process. But the process ensures that only 3 to 11% of students in these most selective colleges come from the lowest income quartile in the first place.

Golden notes: “Legacy preference provides affluent families with a form of insurance from one generation to the next, which might in turn lead to a decline in wealth and power. Just as English peers hold hereditary seats in the House of Lords, so the American nobility reserves slots at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other august universities.”

Over the years the alumni donation-offspring admission nexus has become firmly established. Alumni contributed $ 7.5 billion to higher education in 2005, representing 27.7% of all private donations to colleges. No college dares rock the boat!

Clearly corporates, alumni and wealthy donors take a generous share of cookies from the cookie jar. In much the same way as our government has been demanding more and more ‘quotas’.

It could happen here
In India, we’ve historically had two distinct breeds of colleges: the Merit based and the Donation based. Government established colleges like IITs, IIMs, NID, NIFTs, IHMs lead the ‘merit’ brigade. The premier government run engineering and medical colleges also fall in this category.

However, of this lot I think only the IITs and IIMs (and perhaps NID) can boast of never admitting a politician’s son or daughter under duress.

On the opposite side of the spectrum are private institutions where, officially, there is a management quota. Under this quota, most institutes will admit just about anyone who can pay enough money. The smart ones – like a Harvard or Yale - strike a balance between merit entry and money entry. But the short sighted and the greedy go all out for the moolah.

Such colleges fail to attract top notch students and while they may be profitable businesses, their sphere of influence remains stunted.

The bottomline is: Education brands require investment and long term vision. Promoters must build facilities, foundations, faculty and freedoms that result in individual advancement as well as a greater common good.

In the context of India, that good lies in IITs and IIMs remaining islands of ‘merit’. Untouched by quotas – whether government, or ‘management’. We need these ‘Taj Mahals’, to keep our faith in an otherwise fallible system. To keep alive the dream of Ultimate Upward Mobility – for all.

Sons and daughters of IIM grads, IIM profs, mediamen, moguls and mantris – there’s always Harvard and Yale if your kid can’t clear the CAT.

Comfort, commerce, cut-offs

There is a mad rush for seats. Not in local trains, but at colleges.

Actually, it's not 'seats' which are scarce but seats in certain institutes are more in demand. Others, students don't wish to attend at all.

Over 56,000 seats in Mumbai lay vacant after the first round of FYJC (class 11) admissions. As the TOI put it: "There are enough seats for everyone in all streams, say principals, but even average students want to get into reputed colleges" .

And there just isn't enough reputation to go around. This is the 'hearsay' education economy where people believe there are only a few stairways to professional paradise. They're only partly right. The mad rush for commerce seats is a case in point.

The state education department found that on the 4th of July - the day on which the first round of admissions closed – only 4706 students confirmed admission in the arts stream. 22,692 joined the science stream while 53,188 confirmed admission in commerce colleges.

Most students sat on the fence, waiting for second and third lists to come out. But cut-offs dipped only marginally, leaving thousands dejected.

The desire to join a 'reputed' college one can understand. It's a different thing that most of the repute is paint-deep. But lack of inspired faculty or overcrowded classrooms is hardly an issue. Who's planning to attend lectures anyways?

The number one concern for the 10th class student entering college is:"Is there any attendance ka jhanjhat?" The idea is to enrol onself in college but spend all your time in coaching classes for engineering/ medicine.

But fashions change - and not just in clothing. Like white becoming the new 'black', commerce is the new, cool alernative to science. There are still a lot of takers for the engineering-medicine slogathon. And another bunch plod through science in order to 'retain all options'.

But a growing number of students believe commerce 'has it all'.

Prestige bhi hai (cut-offs for commerce rose by 4-5% in Mumbai colleges like HR and Podar this year).

Padhaai bhi kam hai ("One week study before the exams is good enough!" BCom students gloat).

And most important of all: Attendance ka koi locha nahin hai.

HR college - one of the 'most wanted' commerce colleges in Mumbai - claims to have compulsory attendance. The reality is quite different. "The reason most students take up BCom is so they can do something else side by side," explains a second year student. She has just completed an event management course.

College timings are just 7 to 10 am. And attendance isn't actually enforced.

It's the same at Podar, where admissions closed at 87.08% this year, up from 84% in 2006. "I attended 15 classes in 3 years," says a recent Podar graduate. The majority of the junta is busy preparing for CA or CFA alongside. An enthusiastic few focus their energies on extra curriculars. The rest are busy working . College is for recreation - ek tarah ka mental 'recharge'.

That leaves us with Arts. It's the 'dumb blonde' option as far as the average 16 year old is concerned. Why? Because. That's the way it's been for a long, long time.

Argument 1: Arts does not teach you anything 'useful'
Well, neither does commerce, unless you want a job as a book keeper.

Argument 2: You have to attend classes... even study!
Believe it or not, Arts may actually require more attendance, more extra reading, and a lot more writing in exams.

Who wants that?!!

Degree college is something like an airport waiting area. As far as students are concerned, Arts is the general plastic seats - plebian and uncomfortable. While Commerce is executive lounge. You're both stuck in the same twilight zone before your career actually takes off. It's just that the latter is so much more comfortable.

And if more and more ‘bright’ students are opting for comfort as their primary motivator – surely that is cause for concern! And it's not just a 'commerce' mindset.

The 'bright' and the bored
A recent audit at IIT Delhi found that at least half the students skip 25% of the classes and around 10% fail to meet the 75% minimum attendance criteria.

Faculty say this trend has become more pronounced in the last 3-4 years. "Most students are extremely career-oriented and so much pre-occupied with preparations for tests for higher studies abroad and CAT that they neglect their engineering studies," said IIT D’s R R Gaur to the TOI.

The irony of it! First you spend 2-6 years of your life preparing to get into IIT. Once you get there, there’s no desire to excel anymore. Maybe there’s no bheja left after years of entrance exam bheja fry. But at a more fundamental level it’s knowing you’re not there to gain knowledge or skills.

IIT is a ‘superbrand’ - it prepares you for anything.

Stanford psychology professor Carol Dweck disagrees. "Labels, even though positive, can be harmful", she says. "They may instill a fixed mind-set and all the baggage that goes with it."

People with a fixed mindset view themselves as fundamentally good, or fundamentally bad. The good ones believe they don’t have to work hard, and the bad ones believe that working hard won’t change anything.

On the other hand, there are people with a ‘growth mindset’. They view life as a series of challenges and opportunities for improving.

Essentially it's a performance mindset vs s learning one.

India is a performance oriented country. Reach X or Y institute and ‘your life is made’, is what we’re told. Until we reach the ‘destination’ we learn and grow. Once we get that label fixed on our foreheads, we too become fixed. “Hum to smart hain hi. See the proof!”

The lucky thing is, so far it’s worked. Because many employers also have a fixed mindset. They minimise their risks by putting their golden eggs in a few, known baskets.

But the other, more potent reason is this: the guys who fail to get into a cool college or a happening stream also develop a fixed mindset. "We’re no good… hamara kuch nahin ho sakta." Naturally, they remain stuck where they are.

We are not born to stagnate. We are born to seek and explore. To discover our potential, to give wing to dreams.

Let our dreams not be small and restricted. College admissions, choice of streams - these are only small victories, or minor setbacks.

As a nation, we've managed to get out of the ‘fixed’ mindset – grown far beyond the ‘elephant and snakecharmer’ labels. It’s time we grew as individuals as well!

'Affirmative Action', Symbiosis style

Taking yet another historic step towards empowering India's masses by spreading the light of knowledge, Symbiosis International University voluntarily decides to implement the recommended 27% seat allocation for OBC students. This is being done by creating additional seats over and above the sanctioned intake of each programme...

- ad in leading newspapers earlier this week.

This increase starts with a 7% hike in seats this year, going upto 27% in two years time.

This ad was cannily released right after the IIMs released their admission list, minus OBC quota. The OBC question will come up once again for hearing on May 8 in the Supreme Court.

Given the time the judicial system is likely to take, the OBC issue may remain unresolved by the time the academic session begins in June. So what happens to OBC candidates? Well, most likely, they would have given other admission tests like Symbiosis SNAP.

So Symbi swings into action. This is both a chance to gain some PR points with politicians and assume a sort of higher moral ground. "Affirmative action", after all is practised in American universities. Sounds so much better than 'reservation' as well.

The trouble is this:
- Nowhere on the Symbiosis website do I see a mention of SCs and STs. If one must begin to 'empower India's masses' on the basis of caste then surely you can't start with OBCs.

- There is no mention of creamy/ non-creamy layer. The whole debate about merit vs reservation rests on the argument that caste does not necessarily equal backwardness. An OBC and a Brahmin with similar economic and educational backgrounds should be treated as equals.

In fact there is no mention of the word 'underprivileged' with OBC at all, so one can only assume this initiative is going to empower those who can pay for their education.

- The use of the term 'affirmative action' is misleading. As the Princeton Review notes:

..affirmative action is not about quotas—that is, it's not meant to force schools or businesses into accepting or hiring a certain percentage of minorities or women. Instead, affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and ensure that schools and businesses are not intentionally discriminating against minority groups.

No college is permitted to have separate admissions criteria for different racial groups; all students must be in competition with one another regardless of race.

What Symbiosis is implementing is a quota. Voluntary it may be, but the spirit behind it is pure commerce.

And now, a 'school of government'

MIT (the one in Pune - not Cambridge, MA) has introduced a 'Master's Program in Government'. A 1 year full time program for any graduate under age 35. Admissions will be through an online objective test followed by personal interview by an 'elite panel of leaders'.

So far so good.

We often debate why the country does not produce political leaders of a certain calibre. The answer is: there is no ‘career path’.

No course can lead to a 'campus placement' as Member of Parliament but yes, it may provide some kind of platform for those from non-political backgrounds. Especially the urban, middle class educated type - they're always keen on entering a profession with the right 'qualification'.

The question is, will this course serve that purpose?

Pros and Cons
MITSOG claims to be the 'first ever professional leadership program in India and Asia for a career in politics and government'. Frankly the only other 'School of Government' I know of is at Harvard. However, the JFK School of Government seems more focussed on public policy than serving as a stepping stone into politics itself.

The MITSOG course promises to be a blend of classroom lectures, field visits and national study tours to Parliament, state legislative assembly, zilla parishad, panchayat, NGOS, model villages etc. There is a thesis which includes 'internship' with a political party and a 15 day international visit to The Hague, British Parliament etc thrown in as well.

Secondly, in the manner of industry supporting a bschool, the MITSOG seems to have the support of the political and familiar-with-politics class. The ad, published this Sunday, features the name of T N Seshan as 'Chairman'. The website indicates 'leaders as faculty'. Leaders such as L K Advani and Shri A K Bardhan ("I am willing to play the role of Professor Emeritus").

And herein lies the catch in what is otherwise a well meant and much needed initiative...

a) Do practising politicians make effective teachers? Or desirable ones? Yes and no. They can share their experiences and offer valuable insights. But constrained by the politics they must practice, what they choose to share will be carefully weighed. And watered down.

The old guard may simply dampen the idealism of the young people who want to make a change by asserting ‘things have always been this way’!

b) Secondly would they enter the classroom prepared for rational discussion and debate, even on sensitive issues? Say a student questions Advani on Gujarat or Bardhan on Nandigram - would the faculty respond objectively or simply storm out of class?

c) The presence of big names - even if only for the odd lecture - adds glamour to the course (and ensures internships). But what about some of the other names on the list? There's Poonam Mahajan - 'leader - BJP'. So raw and inexperienced, she may need lessons herself.

Then there are the likes of Arjun Singh and Anbumani Ramadoss ... What will they teach - Quadratic Equations to Solve Caste Politic Puzzles?

d) International study tours sound great but are not really necessary. What most candidates who join such a course need is more exposure to the 'real India'. Also such tours cost a great deal of money… must be an optional element of a course which currently costs Rs 1.5 lakhs.

e) Lastly, emphasis on oratory and leadership development is commendable. The first is a technique one can teach - the second requires correct selection of raw material. It would be interesting to see the composition of the inaugural batch!

I'm also wondering what is the policy when it comes to selecting sons and daughters of politicians – if they apply. Do they get treated like everybody else - or do they have a competitive advantage/ disadvantage?

Having said all this I still think it's a good initiative. Because it's not about academic learning alone but practical exposure and hands-on experience.

But it will work only if politicians are restricted to taking a few guest lectures and admissions are clean and transparent. Neta log need to see a ‘School of Government’ as more than a course. It can be a pipeline of raw talent, of fresh and idealistic young blood and bold new ideas.

Bottomline: The support of the political class adds credibility to the MITSOG. But making politics itself a credible career option is a far more difficult task

I wish the MITSOG every success - we shall be watching closely!