Why India does not achieve academic excellence?

While such an important question merits a much detailed and comprehensive approach, here is something that you might consider relevant especially if you are just on your morning coffee on a Sunday and you just want to ponder over it. In other words what I am going to write is perhaps a terse but lists one of the most important factors, and in my defense its just a blog.

Why India does not achieve academic excellence, I will just give example of one primary reason: arbitrary rules wrt qualifications, merit, skills, caste, age, time line.

For a glossary of certain terms which are nonetheless self evident (at-least for an Indian audience) you don’t need to scroll to the dead-end. Here they are; PG: Post Graduate, UG: Under Graduate, NET: National Eligibility Test, SET/SLET: State Eligibility Test, B.Ed.: Bachelor of Education, M.Phil.: Master in Philosophy.  

qualification: it has always been arbitrary. We are not sure whats enough or adequate to teach. Sometimes a person with PG isn’t considered good enough to even teach in high school or junior college, without additional degrees of any moiety of relevance. Sometimes lower qualifications than PG are fine for teaching such classes, with (mostly) irrelevant degrees or qualifications. eg someone with B.Sc.and B.Ed. is qualified to teach high-school but someone with PG, or PG+PhD may not be qualified to teach high-school or junior college, although its fine for him/her to teach senior college with a PhD. Also with PG qualification you can’t teach UG. But with PG, one entrance (NET/SLET) can decide your qualification to teach both UG and PG. I am talking about basic minimum qualifications. So you are not considered qualified without certain irrelevant factors. Its not like you are considered and given a time line to achieve any required additional qualifications.

My graduate student days.

My graduate student days were fun — most of the times.

I had 3 different professors — in 3 different semesters, when I was their teaching assistant (TA).

None of them was any acerbic to me ever, even when I would be at fault.

Professor 1:
Guy Indebetow was the very first one. A cheerful person and very friendly. He would say — in spirit, not necessarily all the wording, “I would not interfere in how you grade the students, but wisdom says you give them a little lose marking, if anyone comes with any grievance though, I would redirect them to you.”

It so happened that the only students that would come banging on my doors are the ones who would often just seek some more marks, than “deserve it”. — I am not speaking from their POV though, I wasn’t taking theirs — you see.

I remember two cases.

Case-1
A student who was originally from Pune. He would come looking for some marks.

Me: I am sorry you don’t deserve more here.

Wrong question in GATE 2018 physics?

I think the above question asked in GATE 2018 (physics) is wrong.

Any vector has two components. The component perpendicular to the parity axis has even parity and the parallel component to the axis has odd parity.

The opposite is true for axial vectors.

E, A vectors.
B, L axial vectors.

The correct answer per gate exam body is E, A. Why not B and L? It’s an arbitrary situation and perpendicular components of these fields will have odd parity.

My analysis of Odisha elections — 2017

Odisha Panchayat Election 2017

The concurrent election in Odisha just drew to a close and I did an analysis on the results available tentatively. Notice that there is no visible errors here, even if I e.g. adjusted 854 to 850 and so on.

If you add up the % figures they add to 100% perfectly — I simply did the calculation and applied no tricks, that means there is some simple pattern in the data which is the reason I made this post.

Making small changes in large numbers calls to Euclid every-time and makes sure nothing changes as such. Even if there would be a little change it would really matter not if numbers are properly normalized ( that is adjusted to 100% ) which becomes difficult if there are inherent larger errors.

Last election ( 2012 ) # of seats won ( % of 850 ) followed by the same in 2017.

2012 BJD: 76, Cong: 14, BJP: 4, Others: 6.
2017 BJD: 53, Cong: 8, BJP: 37, Others: 2.
Do you see what Odisha did to BJD?

In 2012 there was a 52 % disparity between seats won by ruling party BJD and seats won by oppositions members. The mentioned asymmetry was calculated like this