An article by Jayathi GhoseThe most common argument against reservations is that they will affect quality and undermine “merit”. But the supposed contradiction between reservations on the one hand, and merit and efficiency on the other, is a false one. First of all, there are many reasons to believe that drawing upon a wider social base increases the diversity and, therefore, the quality of institutions of higher education. Secondly, there are good reasons to be sceptical regarding the extent to which current systems of selection are genuinely “merit” based. Internationally, there is substantial theoretical literature on the coexistence of markets and discrimination (whether in terms of caste, community or gender), and on how such discrimination reduces the efficiency of the economy – in which case affirmative action to reduce such discrimination can only increase efficiency.
It is well known that the Indian private sector employs wide-ranging discriminatory practices (such as inheritance determining managerial control, preferential employment based on social networks, and so on) which are inherently inefficient. It is now widely accepted across the world that diversity makes economies more, rather than less, competitive. The example of countries like Malaysia, which combined a very severe and restrictive form of reservation and other affirmative action with remarkable economic growth for several decades, points to this.
But how truly competitive is the current system of selection that operates for the elite higher education institutions in India? We are all agreed that there is huge excess demand for higher education in the country, and that good quality higher education is extremely under-provided. Therefore, there is severe rationing for places, especially in the best institutions. The question is therefore not whether we should have rationing or not, but, which form of rationing is the best in the prevailing social circumstances. It is currently believed that the current system is based on “merit”, that is, ranking of performance in all-India entrance examinations or such similar criteria. Yet any teacher or administrator at some of these top institutions (such as IITs or IIMs) will agree that there are typically several hundred candidates of equally good quality at the top, and they are able to admit only a small fraction of them, so that there is a large element of luck and randomness in the process of selection. For example, at the national entrance examination to the IITs every year, there are more than 3,00,000 entrants, yet only around 3,000 gain admittance to the various IITs. Yet it is quite likely that the top 20,000 are equally good if not better than those few who are fortunate enough to get selected, since performance at one single examination is rarely a complete indicator of actual aptitude or quality.
In any case it is also well known that these entrance tests typically test not intelligence or ability in the subject per se, but a certain aptitude for answering such tests. This is itself a skill that can be learnt, and there are now training institutes all over the country, especially in certain cities for this purpose. Such training in turn costs time and money, which effectively excludes most potential candidates. So the flourishing “coaching” industry for these competitive exams amounts to another form of exclusion, or “reservation” for those who can afford to spend enough time and resources to ensure this prior coaching. A further reservation effectively exists for those who can come in through “NRI quotas” which are now to be found in many institutions, or in institutions which require capitation fees or charge very large annual fees from students. This is a system of reservation of seats in higher education based on wealth, parental income or access to credit in the expectation of future incomes – all of which exclude the majority of the population. It is interesting that the sudden and apparent concern about merit has not touched on the implications of such admissions based on fees and whether students who get in through this means are “deserving” or not, although such processes have been going on for years. If we accept that intelligence and talent are not the monopoly of any particular social group but are normally distributed across society, then this means that the current system is inefficient since it is effectively picking up candidates from only a small section of society instead of the whole population.
It is elementary logic that this would give sub-optimal results for society. This is an argument on social efficiency grounds, which is quite separate from other arguments about creating a more democratic and inclusive education process in general. The most convincing empirical argument against the idea that reservations will inevitably lead to inferior quality comes from the actual experience in several southern states, where there have been large quotas on seats in higher education in operation for several decades. In Tamil Nadu, for example, reservations account for around two-thirds of such seats, even in private institutions, and in Karnataka they are close to half. Yet there is no evidence of inferior quality among the graduates of such institutions; instead, it is widely acknowledged that graduates from the medical and professional colleges in the south are among the best in India. Surely no one would contest that Vellore Medical College, for example, is one of the best medical colleges in India; yet, it has consistently operated with an extensive system of reservations accounting for more than half of the seats. It is notable that even in the north, elite “minority institutions” such as St Stephens’ College in Delhi University have functioned for decades by reserving around half the students’ seats for different categories, and still maintained their reputation of being among the best in the country.
Read the full version at
http://www.epw.org.in/articles/2006/06/10208.pdf
Related Reading
- A touching poem by Vara Vara Rao
- Logic sucks for Antireservationists
- Why Creamy Layer should not be excluded for Higher Education?
- Racist Medicos and their strike
- See the LOGIC sucks for anti reservationists and Narayana Moorthy Iyer!
- Another SHOCKING data from TamilNadu Medical Admissions
- SHOCKING ( to who!) FIGURES FROM TAMILNADU
- Racism in UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (UCMS-DELHI) EXPOSED
- The present anti reservationists will get only 10% soon in IITs.
4 comments:
Show me one reserved category student in IIT who has not received coaching! I say it again that reservations cater only to the creamy layer.
I went trhu your article. For the first time I could see a pro-reservation article in a logical and structured manner. I am not against reservation. However I feel that you article misses the know in the following cases
a)In your article you've used the term 'Majority of the people' in more than one place. While at one place it refers to the OBCs in the other place it refers to the poors. So you too are giving a sense that the OBCs are and are alone poor.
b) While you agree that the OBCs were not deprived of privilleges as was the case with SCs/STs you've intentionally or unintentionally used the term 'Excluded' to state that they were not represented in IITs and IIMs. This creates a picture as if though they were intentionally kept out. Instead the actual fact is that most of them opted out of education on their own accord. As a person with too many friends belonging to the OBC, I've myself personally seen these people dis-continuing the education for no other reason but because they don't believe in the benefits of the education and instead prefer business or similar occupations.
c) Thirdly, while you approve the system of deprivation index which considers various factors and not caste alone, you've concluded that it should not be brought in because it is difficult to administer. I would like to state that administrative difficulties should be tackled with administrative policies and not with Social or Economical policies. Has our ability to find creative solution hit the trough that we resort to a change in social policy for problems encountered in the administrative front.
While I do not deny that inorder to uplift the OBCs (even if their current position is the result of their own decision) they need to given some sops, I couldn't digest a system whereby they would benefit at the cost of someone who really deserves it.
OBCs resorted to business and other such occupations and quite a good number made money. Others in middle class resorted to education foregoing the money. Now you say give the OBCs special treatment in education because they lack it. Why don't you also say that give the others special treatment in business or money because they lack it.
Perhaps a professor like you shouldn't have analysed after concluding.
Vishvanathan I am happy to see some one with some decent points and views... My views are
1. Majority of the people = Villagers, OBCs, SCs excluding the so called messiahs of the INDIA, merit n equality... who cracked jokes and killed our poor patients!
2.OBCs were not deprived of privilleges as was the case with SCs/STs you've intentionally or unintentionally used the term 'Excluded' = Hope you know the villages of TN and in the villages who are living... FCs? or OBCs and SCs. Some may leave for business.. we welcome it...cause they creat employment.. instead many are longing for it.. so better in that way...but why FCs are always paycheck mongers.. afraid of risk taking?!!
3. while you approve the system of deprivation index = Hope you are aware of my arguements based on social equality and discrimination than financial equality or inequality or affordability.
I didnt reply to many comments cause they lack systematic arguements but i honour the freedom of expression and you have all the right to express your views here. we may agree to differ. More over this blog is created as an antidose and not to express our/defend our sides.. we are insulted online with so many quota jokes and obc doc jokes those are very derogatory. so we have added few karam masalas/rhetorics, in our voices/wordings, otherwise we are not streetfighting politicians!!lol!
Keep in touch.
I too see a serious flow in the way various conclusions were draw in this as well as other articles put on here.
If you really want to have a deeper understanding of the this issue then try to ask people/faculties from IIT/ IIM's themselves. Dont try to arrive at conclusions on your own. They are better at doing these things than you. Try reading this
OBCs should throw away the demeaning crutches offered
I think this article will be better suited to you as well people in your support as its from an OBC faculty at IIT. A learned man from your own community wants its cast to refrain from being depended on reservations , and to stand up on its own. Here's an exceprt from his article
"If you are socially disadvantaged, you must strive to overcome that disadvantage and the only way to do that is to educate yourself and your children. Ask for good schools, good teachers and scholarships. If you opt for charity and crutches, you will always remain for generations to come, a receiver of charity limping on borrowed crutches. Charity demeans both the giver and the receiver."
and finally since I am a graduate in advanced mathematics I would urge you to read some good references like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic before you decide what really is logical and whats not.
Post a Comment