|
News analysis and analytical
perspectives
from India and the sub-continent Quotas Versus Merit Does Merit Really Matter? As all manner of Indian intellectuals have weighed in on
the debate that pits quotas versus merit, various
arguments downplaying (or even denigrating) "merit" have been
gaining currency amongst a section of India's politicians, journalists
and non-scientific academics. A humanities professor at
IIT-Mumbai
tried to argue that because "merit" isn't applied uniformly in the
socio-economic sphere in India, one ought not be too perturbed over its
sacrifice in India's centrally-funded institutions of higher
learning.
Moreover, he argued that merit was a concept that was
"over-emphasized" because it was so fraught with human subjectivity and
contextual sensitivities that it wasn't really possible to truly
determine who was
"meritorious" anyway. Jayati Ghosh (a British-educated JNU academic in
the Prime Minister's Knowledge Commission) was cynically dismissiveof
the merit argument,opining that the IITs weren't institutions of
merit anyway presumably because a Chinese study (of rather limited
value and significance) had
determined that because the IITs had produced no Nobel Prize winners,
they could not be considered as institutions of any international import. Even
though Ms Ghosh is neither a scientist nor an engineer by training
(and does not appear to be particularly familiar with the biased
methodology
that was used in the Chinese study) Ms Ghosh enjoys the luxury of being
taken seriously because of her political connections with the CPM. But the fact of the matter is that the average per-capita
research output of IITs faculty members comes in at roughly 2.5
peer-reviewed papers a year. In Asia, this is exceeded only by
researchers at Japan and S.
Korea's top institutions in Tokyo and Seoul. Besides, the 2.5
figure for the IITs would be somewhat higher if original presentations
in Indian national conferences were also included. In
conference after
conference (including those attracting top-notch international
scientists), in several cutting edge fields of science and modern
technology, it is the IITs (along with the BHU-IT, IISc, TIFR, BARC,
CSIR Labs and other related government-sponsored institutions) that are
playing a crucial role in keeping Indian science and technology abreast
with the rest of the world. In fact, notwithstanding the result of
the Chinese study, a recent British study ranked the IITs as third-best
amongst the world's engineering universities. The truth is that the very demand for quotas
in the IITs, IIMs, AIIMS and other such institutions stems from the
explicit (or sometimes implicit) recognition that these institutions
represent quality that is unmatched by most other institutions of
higher learning in the country. After all, there are poorly staffed
government colleges in the country too - but there is little clamor for
reservations of seats in such colleges. Notwithstanding Ms Ghosh's
cheap shots at the IITs, the IITs have earned a reputation for
excellence that has not come by through mere accident or inflated
propaganda. The fact that the IITs have earned such a
reputation, but other Indian institutions have not can only suggest
that somewhere in the equation, merit might actually matter, and if
not, there must be some other quality criterion that only the IITs are
able to fully meet. A more complex argument that has been advanced by
votaries of the extended quota-raj is that the IITs are institutions
that create merit. They have attempted to argue that candidates
admitted
through quotas become meritorious after they complete the program, and
hence, "excessive" insistence on merit at the time of admission is
uncalled for. Yet, unfortunately, the concrete data reveals otherwise.
Extensive internal (and a few externally available) studies have
revealed that most students with inadequate prior preparation and
understanding tend to either fail the program altogether, or drop out,
or take seven years to complete just the undergraduate program, or
else, pass with below average grades. If anything, the data proves the
converse - that students who did well at the school level and at the
higher secondary level are the ones who are most likely to continue
doing well at the IITs. The IITs do not seem to be able to create
"merit" out of thin air - rather, they only enlarge the knowledge base
and skills of those who have already earned a degree of skills prior to their
IIT enrolment. That prior preparation matters is also borne out by many
studies in the US. It is much easier to graduate High School in the US
than in most other developed nations. American students are able to
graduate with far weaker maths, science and language comprehension
skills than Indian students. However, when these poorly trained
students enter college, all the weaknesses in their childhood
educational foundation become exposed. A signifcant proportion of
students either drop out, or take seven years to complete, or graduate
with what are well known to be easily passed "fluffy" courses.
Likewise, it may be pointed out that more than half of all US science
and technology PhDs are awarded to students who received their
undergraduate education outside the US. The implications are obvious. In the long run, there is
no substitute for a strong childhood educational foundation. Quotas can
compel IITs to admit lesser-prepared students, but quotas cannot
guarantee that such students will even pass or complete the course.
These are issues that virtually all the advocates for quotas are
willfully ignoring. In part, this is because the vast majority of
India's politicans and opinion makers have little grounding in maths
and science. As is only too well-known, throughout India, with few
exceptions, students who are poor in scientific and mathematical
reasoning end up in the humanities or social "sciences". It is very
difficult for such individuals to fully comprehend the concept of merit. Merit Matters In
addressing the epistemological flaws implicit in the
anti-merit pro-quota arguments,
it is important to be clear about what "merit" should and actually does
signify in our modern environment. By and large, "merit" is viewed as a
badge of competence. Although quota-advocates may be quite dismissive
of merit in the context of IIT quotas, it is very unlikely that when it
came to treatment of their own seriously ill children, these
individuals wouldn't go out of their way to seek the "best" medical
help. In fact, even when it came to mundane tasks such as getting a
carpenter or a plumber to fix things in their homes, quota advocates
are unlikely to pick a bad carpenter or a bad plumber just to ensure
quota-based representation. In modern city life - even in India,
Indians no
longer inquire about caste when hiring skilled workers - they try and
use their best judgement to gauge if the person they hire can actually
do a good job. That judgement may be based on reputation, a brief
questionnaire, record of previous work, or qualification or
certification. Notwithstanding the politics of quotas, in real life,
Indians do make choices that appear to be merit-based. But even as urban Indian society is in practice
attempting to reward merit, (and hence, by implication, transcending
caste) India's politicians and pro-quota advocates are going through
bizarre intellectual contortions in trying to discount the value of
merit in admission to India's leading institutions of higher learning
and crystallize a new form of caste-based entitlements. Sociologists who argue that "merit" is too vague or
subjective are missing the point that the solution to the "vagueness"
or "subjectivity" of merit is not to bypass merit altogether, but
rather, to constantly refine and improve our criterion in measuring and
determining merit. Throughout the world, in the absence of other better
metrics, standardized testing has become the manner in which
educational institutions have tried to measure merit. To the extent
that "merit" relates very precisely to
achievements in certain standardized tests that are administered in a
manner that is transparent, uniform, and caste-blind, "merit" cannot be
treated as an mere subjective category. One might debate the
efficacy of such tests, but it cannot be emphasized enough that testing
students for adequate preparation is a routine and established
phenomenon in the entire world's educational process. As students
graduate from one class to another, from Primary School to Middle
School to High School and then on to College or University - they are
constantly subjected to tests that strive to determine their academic
attainament and abilities at each level. Students who fail their tests
at a certain level are then prevented from going forward. Implicit in this process is an important assumption that critics of merit are wilfully (or unintentionally) ignoring: that each level of successful learning in the our modern educational system requires a certain level of prior training and preparation. Students learn to read and write before they are asked to cope with subjects that require understanding difficult and complex texts. They learn to spell easy words before they learn more difficult ones. They learn to count before they are asked to add and subtract. And if they haven't learned to add, they can't learn to multiply, and so on. Educators might disagree on the specific methods used to determine a students capabilties, but they would all endorse the need for some level of screening so as to ensure that students who graduate to a higher grade can actually learn the more advanced material that will be presented to them. "Merit" is nothing but an attempt to quantify and concretize this grading or screening process. It isn't too hard even for a lay person to understand
that a good architect must have a sound knowledge of building materials
and structures, that a doctor must have a thorough understanding of
human biology and pharmaceutical chemistry, that an engineer must have
a good understanding of the applicable laws of nature, and that a
language teacher must have a good vocabulary, a clear grasp of
grammar, and good communication skills While individual evaluations of such skills (through
personal
interviews) can indeed be subjective and skewed by personal biases,
standardized tests - such as those administered by the IIT at the
undergraduate
level strive to eliminate precisely such subjective distortions. To the
extent that such tests are also relevant to determining crucial skills
that will be essential or important in the course of an IIT program,
achievement in such tests can then be construed as a fairly reasonable
indicator of "merit". Although it is not difficult to damn "merit" when speaking in vague generalities, when notions of "merit" are tied to accurate assessments of specific and quantifiable skills that are contextually relevant and appropriate, it becomes harder to be dismissive of the concept. In abstract discussions of merit, it is easy to muddy the picture - to make it seem as though merit is an ephemeral quality that is questionable or indeterminate, but in concrete circumstances, and even in our day to day lives, we make all manner of decisions that are premised on merit. For instance, patients from across the country come specially to AIIMS for medical treatment. Underlying their preference for treatment at AIIMS is a subtle assumption about the relative "merit" of its doctors. If "merit" were just an arbitrary philosophical construct unrelated to anything tangible and devised only to "suppress the lower castes" why would India's sickest patients (from all caste categories) struggle and sacrifice to get appointments at AIIMS? Clearly, to ordinary people, merit matters. And it
matters
most when it comes to issues of health. Those who deal with patients
day in and day out also know this. Knowing how each organ works, how it
might get diseased, and how different drugs may act on the human body
is very precious knowledge - to argue that tests that try to measure
such knowledge and the understanding that derives from such knowledge
is irrelevant (or only partially relevant) can only be the work of
quacks and charlatans. If merit were as irrelevant in the field of
medicine, or as impossible to quantify as some claim, one could just as
well seek the services of a traditional village witch doctor. Merit Can be Measured In the humanities, and even in some of the social
sciences, it
can sometimes be very difficult to quantify merit - but to the extent
that the laws of nature have a certain degree of predictability and
determinacy - a students understanding (or interpretation and
application) of those laws in the physical sciences can be measured
with a degree of exactitude that isn't always possible in the
humanities. Likewise, mathematics is a rather exacting field that
disallows the sort of unscientific subjectivity people in the
humanities seem to relish. While there are still many unknown facets of
human biology, at least what is known can be tested through
non-discriminatory means. For that reason, "merit" (when equated to
schemes that test
the scientific knowledge and related capabilities of a student ) is
seen as far less controversial or ambiguous concept in the
scientific/technical community. In fact, if social scientists were a little more
committed to the scientific method, more objective criterion to measure
merit in fields such as history or political science could also be
developed. In fact, the irony is that some of the richest debates on
the scientific method, on epistemology have taken place in ancient
India. Ancient scholars paid valuable attention to the philosophy of
knowledge acquisition. There were debates on how much data one must
gather before drawing analytical conclusions. There were debates on the
accuracy, relevance and authenticity of data. There were debates on
methods of arguments - on arguments that were epistemologically flawed.
Many of those old debates are still illuminating. In fact, although there has been a world-wide secular
trend towards
seeking greater accuracy even in the social sciences (or at least
improved analytical methods), too many Indian academicians from the
non-exact sciences take the epistemological position of "eel-wrigglers"
- instead of making the mental exertion to improve upon criterion
for determining merit in the inexact sciences, they take the easy way
out by adopting equivocal positions, or worse - they run away from the
real issue by raking up unrelated or spurious controversies, such as
diffusing the value of merit even where it may be serving a very
constructive purpose. Take the argument that since merit is not
employed across the board, there ought to be no misgivings about
discounting merit in India's best institutions of higher learning. This
is an utterly specious argument because if merit is an important and
valuable social construct, it should be protected and extended, not
cynically disposed off. The real problem is NOT that the IITs are using
merit-based criterion in their admissions, but that too many other
Indian are not paying adequate attention to defining merit and
screening accordingly. The problem in India is hardly too much merit, but rather, not enough. Another problem that is inherent in the
rejection of merit is what should replace it? While there can be many complexities in determining merit (and more so in some fields), what the detractors of merit haven't realized is that to abandon merit opens up far more dangerous and problematic philosophical issues. If merit is to be abandoned as a social construct, then what should replace it? Even if it were true that students without adequate prior training and preparation could handle advanced scientific or technical educational programs (which isn't the case) there would still be the moral dilemma as to what other criterion should substitute for test scores in entrance exams? This leads us to the very problems that some
quota-advocates appear to critique
- the arbitrariness that results from not insisting on merit - if not
merit - then what ? The subliminal suggestion is that
since the caste system was a non-merit system, replacing it with some
form of apparent "reverse" discrimination can be justified. Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that in a
globalizing Indian society, merit is the only virtue that will give
Indians a somewhat level playing field in the international arena.
Indians can afford to sacrifice merit only at the cost of international
competitiveness. A nation that is so dependant on imported industrial
raw materials, and that is still dependant on imported capital goods
can hardly afford the luxury of abandoning merit. Substituting quotas
for merit is a backdoor way of undermining the nation. India's
politicians - in their myopic zeal to defend narrow and sectarian
interests are betraying the larger interests of the nation as they
cynically expand the Quota-Raj. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
must take primary responsibility for this policy of crass political
opportunism, Sonia Gandhi
(as President of the main ruling party) cannot escape blame as a
wrecker and destroyer. While India does need affirmative action to ensure that
all children receive equal opportunities in education at the primary
and secondary levels, quotas at tertiary levels are mostly
unproductive. Children who are most disadvantaged rarely benefit from
quotas at the tertiary level. But excessive quotas at the tertiary
level not only play havoc with the morale and motivation of meritorious
students, they will ultimately serve as a drag on the progress of the
nation. Consequently, India will need a valiant movement to
resurrect and rehabilitate the virtues of merit. If such a movement
does not materialize, India is condemned to a path that will undermine
its full potential, and restrict it to at best, a second-rate nation
- always dependant on more advanced nations for scientific and
technological leadership. And as a corollary, it will also remain a
sattelite of economically and politically more powerful nations.
Not only are all OBCs undeserving of affirmative
action, there are other disdvantaged sections of society that may be
equally (or more) deserving of affirmative action. As is becoming more
apparent (and especially so in urban India) class is becoming an
exceeding more decisive factor in determining access to vital social
services such as health and education. A Brahmin child who grows up in
a slum (especially in a female-headed household) enjoys few
privileges over other slum children. Gender, physical differences,
sexual or romantic orientation - all these factors can impinge on the
well-being of a child's development and create barriers to genuine
equal opportunity. To continue to focus exclusively on caste
differences is clearly perverse, and dilutes the entire moral and
ethical foundation of healthy affirmative action policies. Moreover, as the above essay attempts to
illustrate, even when justifiable, affirmative action policies ought
not to be framed in ways that jeopardize other important social
criterion such as merit. In addition, affirmative action policies
shouls not merely be band-aids or symbolic entitlements for narrow
social groups but should help tranform entire communities. When it
comes to science and technology, the main hindrances are inadequate
teaching at the primary and secondary level. In addition, because
English has become the de-facto language of science and technology -
familiarity with English - especially technical English takes on
significance. It is now widely accepted that languages are best taught
at the primary level. This means that affirmative action policies (if
they are to be truly viable and effective) must be effected at a very
early age. These could either be in the form of scholarships or
specially subsidized schools properly equipped and staffed for training
disdvantaged children in maths, science and english. There could be a
central scheme where disadvantaged youth with potential for excelling
in science could be picked from every district and offered free
textbooks and special coaching classes. Quotas are just are one form of affirmative
action, and often the least appropriate form of afformative action
- especially when admission policies are otherwise transparent
and non-discriminatory. The angst of India's students protesting quotas isn't
merely about defending "upper caste privileges" as some cynically claim
(although in individual cases, that may be so.) Even for an upper caste
child, an IIT or AIIMS admission is often achieved through a certain degree of sacrifice
and considerable mental focus and personal resonsibility. This aspect ought not be entirely ignored. Finally, it cannot be underlined enough that
affirmative action cannot be a substitute for the failure of government
to provide adequate educational facilities at all levels. Caste quotas
have become a convenient mask for political parties to conceal their
studied indifference towards the provision of mass quality education.
This must be vigorously exposed. For instance, prior to their
relatively recent modernization, caste-like features existed in both
Korea and Japan. But historic caste disadvantages have been much more
effectively mitigated by ensuring that every child has access to
quality education at all levels. This has been a key factor in the
secular rise of these leading nations in science and technology. Nothing less than Quality Education for All
should be the maxim for tomorrow's India. After all, even if quotas
were truly efficaceous (which they are not), it would still leave
millions of Indian children short changed - without access to achieving
their full potential. Genuinely progressive activists should understand
that the whole debate on case quotas has been a diversion from what
should be the real debate - how to ensure quality education for all at
all levels. While there is a real danger that quotas could compromise merit, there is no conflict between Quality Education for All and Merit.
Those truly concerned about India's should not let the bluff and
bluster of cynical politicians distract the nation from reaching
towards a future where there is genuine equal opportunity for all -
something that requires a commitment to mass quality education at all
levels - not mere quotas for a select few that may or may not be always
deserving of them. Merit and Social Justice need not be at odds. They are both important ingredients of an advanced civilization. About the author: Shishir Thadani earned his undergraduate degree from the IIT Delhi prior to earning a Master's degree from Yale University. He has written extensively on the history of Indian science and civilization, and is particularly interested in the progress of science, technology and modern civilization in India.
India's Demographic Transformation The Private Sector's Contribution to Higher Education and Research Human Development and Infrastructure
in the Indian Subcontinent Back for other selections from South Asian Voice for other articles on issues confronting India and the region. Also see South Asian History or Topics in Indian History for relevant essays that shed some light on the history of the subcontinent. (If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian Voice project and help us expand our reach, please click here) To send an e-mail, write to india.resource @yahoo.com
|
