IIT - A Sociological Analysis

In the following thousand words, let me make an attempt at defining what IIT exactly is – in a critical sociological analysis of the ecosystem that an IIT campus is. For the sake of completeness, I intend to elucidate some of the problems that IIT and related systems face in the light of this analysis.

At the outset, let us not squander time by challenging the potency of the JEE and ride safe on the assumption that the IITs attract some of the brightest minds of the country. What we often choose to neglect is where these bright minds come from. Some may argue that all children are not really born alike. At least the statement must not be assumed false. Let us also not debate these assumptions and avoid claims or comments on the similarity of the sociological break-up of IIT students to Indian society at large. I could certainly prove empirically, if not otherwise, that the majority of IIT students are from the middle to upper-middle class of Indian society. Perhaps the coaching class fee barrier keeps the lower strata out, and probably the charm and viability of higher education abroad applies for the other conspicuously absent section. These arguments on cash flow, however, are hardly convincing.

Moving on from a previous statement, the Indian middle class is generally apathetic, self-driven and self-centred. This is almost truly reflective of the average IIT student’s mentality. It’s a blatant and unrepentant indulgence, sometimes refuge, in a “do-your-thing” attitude. Social issues, for example, are illogically, yet conveniently labelled ‘can-not’. In fact, a definite divisive line could be drawn here between the Indian middle class and their Western counterparts. This resides in the definition of what is ‘public’ and what is ‘private’. Indians inherently believe that as long as their own house is clean, whatever litter they throw outside is legitimate – or worse, they just couldn’t care less. On a particular instance, I saw someone wearing a doomed look after a “drop of ketch-up on my shirt accident”. The same person threw the paper plate he used to clean his act up in a post-box a while later. Don’t feel sorry for him. It’s in his culture. As a contrast, other parts of the world were brought up with the definition of private being anything that could even be partly under your control.

On similar lines, IITians, although individually brilliant, are perpetually engaged in a rat race which gives them no constructive result but makes them pay for a blinkered vision of things around them. Even though IIT may have tonnes to offer in terms of knowledge, learning for students is restricted to a direction that achieves tangible benefits. Arguably, there is a certain comfort level associated within the boundaries and rationales created. As an apt analogy, there is a gated, secluded atmosphere on campus. But in my opinion, that shouldn’t give us an opportunity to ignore harsh reality. Even if life is comfortable, there is no reason to hide from responsibilities towards the greater good – that especially rests on the shoulders of IIT students. Whether they knowingly signed up for the social responsibility is also a debate. However, there is an inherent contradiction here. Given the responsibility of belonging to a developing nation and a recently empowered class that can make a difference, there is still rampant apathy. True, widely accepted success metrics include money, power and challenges. IIT students are no exception. The rat race, though, is not an optimal solution for achieving the same.

IITs also pride themselves in the meritocracy that they have established. Today, however, one’s class, exposure, upbringing and economic status have a staggering reflection on merit. This was the basic argument for reservation when it was established. To prove these hindrances have been removed and reservation should now be abolished is anything but an easy task. Although the entrance mechanism makes meritocracy an innate aspect to IIT, it really isn’t. On the other hand, I would define meritocracy as the egalitarian principles adopted in evaluation during the degree course. There is simply no room for lagging behind. This could be extended as far as saying that there is no room for different, say, creative individuals. Further, there is an ambiguity as to how success is defined, following also from an earlier discussion. The alumni in Silicon Valley are generally called ‘successful’. Are they? Their contributions back to the country, to the taxpayers who paid for their world-class education, leave a lot to be desired. On the other hand, is Dunu Roy, who has spent the better part of his life after IIT uplifting tribes in M.P. successful? Maybe not, he was supposed to be an engineer. The two seem to be contrasting in nature – clear opinions could be formed by different people. I could, on the contrary, side with both given that I can’t equate the two principles.

Minor observations could be the angst characteristic of the age-group in question. Social responsibility, again, is usually restricted to the self in such cases. A leading statement would be to call it immaturity and irresponsibility. Deviance, although not rampant, exists – the post-box incident for example. On the other hand, civil disobedience is also deviance. Another minor observation is a general sense of complacency amongst IIT students. This substantiates the secluded atmosphere on campus – oblivious to the ‘lesser’ mortals and their unimportant deeds and issues. I could bet that a majority of IIT students wouldn’t know about the recent developments in their own fields, let alone the nuclear deal or the assembly elections. What’s worse is that I fear most just wouldn’t care.

Finally, IITs gear to be world class. In that search, the authorities don't want to deal with "messy" issues. Folklore consists only of the success stories – again substantiating the ambiguity of the success metric. Anything bordering on politics is never discussed – has also been accepted by the Public Relations Office. In a compromise on the attempt at staying a full-bodied meritocracy, non-academic staff (not contributing to the success metric) is poorly treated - some are on a temporary basis for the last 20 years. Professors and students are pampered, though. These characteristics reek of elitism – which isn’t always as great as it sounds for obvious reasons.

To be fair, though, the structures that exist breed success, as is known to the common man. Professors acknowledge that students have a higher understanding of subjects, which may not necessarily be in their own pet area. Probably, there is a general correlation between intelligence and intellect. Given the intelligence, the intellect is probably there somewhere. Maybe I just haven’t found a considerable measure of it yet. In the attempt at forcefully teaching every student at other colleges, IIT students have a general sense of freedom. The authorities trust them to make the right choices. The entire process defines this very structure. To that effect, the other places operate on egalitarian principles as opposed to the elitism here, which isn’t – really – always as bad as may sound.

Roe v. Wade

Excerpt from Freakonomics, by Steven D. Lewitt and Stephen J. Dubner.

"This concerns a young woman in Dallas, Texas, USA named Norma McCorvey around the early 70's.

Like the proverbial butterfly that flaps its wings on one continent and eventually causes a hurricane on another, Norma McCorvey dramatically altered the course of events without intending to. All she had wanted was an abortion. She was a poor, uneducated, unskilled, alcoholic, drug-using twenty-one-year-old woman who had already given up two children for adoption and now, in 1970, found herself pregnant again. But in Texas, as in all but a few states at that time, abortion was illegal. McCorvey’s cause came to be adopted by people far more powerful than she. They made her the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit seeking to legalize abortion. The defendant was Henry Wade, the Dallas County district attorney. The case ultimately made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, by which time McCorvey’s name had been disguised as Jane Roe. On January 22, 1973, the court ruled in favor of Ms. Roe, allowing legalized abortion throughout the country. By this time, of course, it was far too late for Ms. McCorvey/Roe to have her abortion. She had given birth and put the child up for adoption. (Years later she would renounce her allegiance to legalized abortion and become a pro-life activist.)

So how did Roe v. Wade help trigger, a generation later, the greatest crime drop in recorded history? As far as crime is concerned, it turns out that not all children are born equal. Not even close. Decades of studies have shown that a child born into an adverse family environment is far more likely than other children to become a criminal. And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade—poor, unmarried, and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortions had been too expensive or too hard to get—were often models of adversity. They were the very women whose children, if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals. But because of Roe v. Wade, these children weren’t being born. This powerful cause would have a drastic, distant effect: years later, just as these unborn children would have entered their criminal primes, the rate of crime began to plummet.

It wasn’t gun control or a strong economy or new police strategies that finally blunted the American crime wave. It was, among other factors, the reality that the pool of potential criminals had dramatically shrunk.

Now, as the crime-drop experts (the former crime doomsayers) spun their theories to the media, how many times did they cite legalized abortion as a cause?

Zero."

Why Bhuvan was right to take up the bet

Imagine you are Bhuvan in the movie Lagaan. You are part of a group of very poor villagers who are finding it very difficult to pay their taxes. A sadistic British officer Captain Russell offers to bet with you. If your village can beat a team of English cricketers, you and all the villages in the district will be exempt from tax but if you lose, the taxes will be tripled. This is why you should accept the bet.

I will be talking to you about three things - a) How in special cases some people can make decisions for the majority, b) How the juxtaposition is fair, keeping in mind the consequences c) Why the probabilities aren't as skewed as shown below and a relative cost-benefit analysis. Finally, I'll follow my substantives with a summary.

First and foremost, in principle, there are and have been exceptions when one man can make decisions for the majority even when it is logistically possible to have a plebiscite. An influential and earnest person, that Bhuvan is, is a respectable member of the community. Now, even though his ideals may not agree with some, a respectable member of the community has the duty as well as the right, to set to paper the pathway for self-determination of the community - if given the option. Bhuvan doesn't have to choose anything, he is paving the way for his community to prosper in the best way he that he can comprehend. The repercussions will and must be shared by the community, no doubt, but so are the benefits. In the special case of being exposed to this option, hence, it is legitimate for Bhuvan to take a call to the best of his rational capability. On the same point, one could further argue that plebiscite would have led to confusion and deadlock when such a gamble is given. Arguments would have continued indefinitely - on whether to take the gamble or not. In such a case, one person must take a definitive call, and the community must place trust in him - expressing solidarity and working towards a better tomorrow for all, given whatever decision he has taken. The keyword here is solidarity. Let the man choose.

Now, secondly, we make bets all the time. This case is only an extrapolation of the same. We make miniscule bets to the order of this: if I have unprotected sex with a stranger, I am gambling for my health and that of the community; if I decide not to go for work today, I am gambling against my profits and that of my employer. Just because in this case the relation to the community is so explicit doesn't mean that you neglect the innumerous times you have taken decisions for the community all by yourself. Cricket and taxes are unrelated, no doubt. But that doesn't mean they can't be wagered against each other. If I'm exceptionally good at something, I would bet anything on it. On the other hand, if I knew a game would be fair and competitive, and had no other option, I would perhaps go ahead with the bet and fight till my last breath. The latter is exactly the case at hand. Hence, there is absolutely nothing irrational about the wager. There are benefits and costs to every wager - but they still exist - which is exact premise of this argument.

Finally, the probabilities of Bhuvan managing to win the match aren't as devalued as shown below. It is a game of cricket, after all, between two amateur teams. It is plain to see that very little skill and strategy is involved. However much is required, can be developed with the help of a memsaab, who knows the game inside out. Strength is of course similar, if Bhuvan's eleven don't have an advantage that is. Ploughing fields and lifting heavy weights renders them strong and competitive in any physical sport for which the lads are trainable. Clearly, it isn't that difficult for them to win. Even the crowd is behind the unkown lads from the village. With a little luck, which is pre-eminent in any bet, the village might be exempt from taxes for life. More than just a benefit, it's the Holy Grail for this community.

In summary, to deny the draught-ridden villagers the hope of being exempt from taxes for life is criminal. Especially when the chances aren't really stacked up against them, when there is a definite chance and an achievable result in sight. Especially when wager is legitimate and when Bhuvan, as a member of the community, has the duty to make the right call. The right call is to take a shot at the easily beatable game of cricket.

Why Bhuvan should not have taken the bet

Imagine you are Bhuvan in the movie Lagaan. You are part of a group of very poor villagers who are finding it very difficult to pay their taxes. A sadistic British officer Captain Russell offers to bet with you. If your village can beat a team of English cricketers, you and all the villages in the district will be exempt from tax but if you lose, the taxes will be tripled. This is why you should reject the bet.

The entire premise of my argument lies on three key ideas - a) Whether one man has the right to take risks on behalf of the entire community, b) What's at stake for the man, and more importantly for the community and c) A cost benefit analysis - if they take the bet and if they don't, which should summarize my case.

Firstly, in principle, one man on his own whims and fancies has no right to choose his community's fate. This goes against the basic principle of the right to self-determination. Let me tell you why. Communities that are not under structured governance are usually utilitarian - they believe in the maximum good for the maximum number of people. Although they realize that impinging on someone else's rights is not just, they do understand innately that it requires a few to forgo in order for the majority to prosper. This is nature. Though they may be illiterate, they have the basic rationality to make a decision of this nature. Therefore, now that it's established that everyone is utilitarian and is rational enough to make the decision, the right to self-determination of the self leads on to the right to self-determination of the community. The adrenaline rush of Bhuvan may or may not be in the interest of the community. I doubt if they would like to leave their prosperity to his whim. A simple measure to solve this is plebiscite - which is not infeasible for obvious reasons in this case.

Next, let us examine what's at stake for the community. Tripling of taxes, which I will show later to be very likely, is exactly what is at stake. To play a game of cricket, and juxtapose it against losing out your life's savings is a clear mismatch and should only be kept aside for story-tales and motion pictures. If you're rational, you couldn't possibly compare something as grave as taxes and a fun and frolic walk in the park, chasing a leather ball. Hence, again in principle, to even consider this irrational bet keeping in mind the two aforementioned things juxtaposed, is a farce. This will become an autocracy only if you allow it. It is in your hands. Further, what is in it for Bhuvan? A clear play on his ego, keeping a memsaab in mind, impressing her Radha and all that jazz. Isn't it plain to see? Even if you're irrational enough to consider the bet, will you delve deeper into the unknown by placing your trust in a man with misplaced intentions?

Further, let's talk specifically about this case. If you agree to the bet, what's at stake as far as the community is concerned? No taxes, or triple taxes. That's an easy call for the community to take. Clearly people would love the concept of no taxes. No doubt. Now throw in the probabilities involved with respect to the bet, and also the deterministic possibility to continue with the same amount of taxes. Also, let's talk about the probabilities. Clearly, the village team has no idea of cricket. Comparing them with people who have invented the game and brought it to this country is anything but sane. Considering Bhuvan has the sole responsibility to inspire, train and captain the team is a tough task for any young man who has the sole distinction of secretly watching the game from a distance. Now that that's dealt with, consider this. You have two and only two options - one, to give me Rs. 1,000 or two, to take a gamble as follows: you give me nothing with a probability of 0.05 and Rs. 10,000 with a probability of 0.95. Simple decision analysis tells you, a rational person that you are, that taking the gamble will lead you into heavy trouble. This is the cost of taking the gamble, which is far less than the Rs. 1,000 to buy your way out of it. Obviously, negative of cost is benefit, and hence maximum benefit is minimum cost. This basically summarizes the cost-benefit analysis.

On all three counts, my friend, may God save you if you take the bet.