The Directors of IITs have been telling us that the new JEE is a magic bullet. If we bite it, miraculously, our schools will improve.
What is the evidence?
Oh! We believe it. Our Minister believes it. Isn't our collective belief a good enough evidence? We are the Directors of the best institutes in India. We are smart people, much smarter than you are. If we collectively believe in something, that is evidence.
And I thought if they don't learn from me, that is ok, but they should at least learn from their boss, who is one of the finest lawyers, and what is law without evidence.
But I persisted. Belief is not evidence.
That is exactly why we are the Directors and you are a professor. Belief is evidence, if boss accepts this as evidence. The sooner you learn this, the better it will be for your career.
But, why not look at states which started using board marks for engineering admissions either fully or partially. Have we noticed the improvement in performance of students of those states in a quantifiable way. (For example, is there a study which shows that school education in Tamilnadu has improved in any significant way, since they started using the board marks for admission to engineering.)
One honourable member of the IIT Council from Tamilnadu told me that the school education has suffered tremendously since they started using board marks for admission to engineering. He told me that there are model question papers, question banks based on last 5 years question papers for each subject, and different coaching institutes will train you for answering all those questions, and one is reasonably sure that if one just remembered a few hundred questions and their answers in each subject, then one will get excellent scores. Since the "value" of board exam has increased tremendously, learning has suffered, and the students are only concerned about marks in the board.
I do not know whether to believe this or not. But what I find strange is that the same IIT Council member does not suggest to the Council that we go slow and do some study before repeating Tamilnadu experience in the entire country. When this happens, it is difficult not to think of motives.
But Directors are not impressed by these questions. Their belief is more important than any data, facts, and analysis.
In research, it happens many times that I have an idea, but I can't mathematically prove it. The system is too complex to come up with an equation. What do we do. We do some simulations. We make some simplifying assumptions and then try to analyse it. We learn about the system better, and then we make a more complex system. Basically, we go in steps.
But one of the IIT Directors have famously said that the methodology for deciding education policies of the country do not have to follow the methodology of doing research. He is essentially admitting that when one decides education policy, it is alright to be arbitrary and ad hoc, and one can play with the careers of millions of people, based on the "feelings" of a few smart Directors. No research is needed to decide education policy.
Most educationists tell us that schools will not improve unless they have teachers, unless there are class rooms, unless there are black boards and chalk, and so on. But our Directors believe that if 12th class marks are considered for admission, this will improve the schools. I find it hard to believe, and hence am asking for scientific validation of this belief.
What is the evidence?
Oh! We believe it. Our Minister believes it. Isn't our collective belief a good enough evidence? We are the Directors of the best institutes in India. We are smart people, much smarter than you are. If we collectively believe in something, that is evidence.
And I thought if they don't learn from me, that is ok, but they should at least learn from their boss, who is one of the finest lawyers, and what is law without evidence.
But I persisted. Belief is not evidence.
That is exactly why we are the Directors and you are a professor. Belief is evidence, if boss accepts this as evidence. The sooner you learn this, the better it will be for your career.
But, why not look at states which started using board marks for engineering admissions either fully or partially. Have we noticed the improvement in performance of students of those states in a quantifiable way. (For example, is there a study which shows that school education in Tamilnadu has improved in any significant way, since they started using the board marks for admission to engineering.)
One honourable member of the IIT Council from Tamilnadu told me that the school education has suffered tremendously since they started using board marks for admission to engineering. He told me that there are model question papers, question banks based on last 5 years question papers for each subject, and different coaching institutes will train you for answering all those questions, and one is reasonably sure that if one just remembered a few hundred questions and their answers in each subject, then one will get excellent scores. Since the "value" of board exam has increased tremendously, learning has suffered, and the students are only concerned about marks in the board.
I do not know whether to believe this or not. But what I find strange is that the same IIT Council member does not suggest to the Council that we go slow and do some study before repeating Tamilnadu experience in the entire country. When this happens, it is difficult not to think of motives.
But Directors are not impressed by these questions. Their belief is more important than any data, facts, and analysis.
In research, it happens many times that I have an idea, but I can't mathematically prove it. The system is too complex to come up with an equation. What do we do. We do some simulations. We make some simplifying assumptions and then try to analyse it. We learn about the system better, and then we make a more complex system. Basically, we go in steps.
But one of the IIT Directors have famously said that the methodology for deciding education policies of the country do not have to follow the methodology of doing research. He is essentially admitting that when one decides education policy, it is alright to be arbitrary and ad hoc, and one can play with the careers of millions of people, based on the "feelings" of a few smart Directors. No research is needed to decide education policy.
Most educationists tell us that schools will not improve unless they have teachers, unless there are class rooms, unless there are black boards and chalk, and so on. But our Directors believe that if 12th class marks are considered for admission, this will improve the schools. I find it hard to believe, and hence am asking for scientific validation of this belief.