The demerits of merit (OBC reservation)
The demerits of pure merit:
The whole concept of “merit”, that in the recent past has been made out to be this hapless ideal raped at the altar of politics, is in my opinion, not such a virtuous entity.
The relevance of pure merit in the current context rests on two basic pillars: least worst system and comparable opportunity.
Least worst system:
Merit in the form being referred to, as in entrance examinations such as the Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the IIMs, is not the ideal way to judge the potential or suitability of a candidate for a place in an educational institute, in fact, it is far from ideal. It is designed to indicate only a small fraction of the traits possessed by the candidate, not nearly enough to gauge his/her potential to be a good manager.
Is it justifiable to say that a person securing a 98 percentile is necessarily better suited for a program in an institute of learning than a person securing a 96, or for that matter an 86 percentile? Not with any degree of certainty.
Yet it is globally accepted, and more so in India, that given the huge scale, the skewed ratio of aspirants to seats, the resources on disposal, the ambiguous nature of quantifying otherwise unquantifiable qualities, standardization of assessment, etc. this is the preffered process for selection.
I do not seek to rant against our selection system but my attempt is to point out that the results we take to be the gospel truth as to the suitability or the potential of an individual is really only an indicator, at best, limited by very practical constraints.
The point in the context of this essay being that we mustn’t necessarily assume an individual with a lower entrance percentile will necessarily make a worse doctor or manager as is a common insinuation doing the rounds and has recently come to be the butt of many an SMS joke.
Opportunity:
But then the other issue crops up as to why should a person with a lower score get a leg up over a higher scoring aspirant?
Therein comes the other lacuna in the pure merit system
When one compares two people for a seat in an institute of learning, from an institute’s point of view it would be simpler to measure them with the same yardstick and pick a winner. But one must necessarily look at the situation from the point of view of all the affected parties.
I will resort to the much cliched comparison with sport. In boxing we do not have one single competition to decide the champion of the world. No one can even think of pitting a super heavy weight against a feather weight in a competitive bout. Neither do we race 500cc bikes against 250cc ones in a race.
It would be against all principles of fairness and moreover it would prove to be an exercise in futility.
Similarly, compare two individuals – one who hails from an affluent family of well educated pedigree, who has lived all his life in the city, got educated in the best private schools, joined a coaching class for the entrance exam. Essentially, one who was provided all the required tools of success at his disposal.
Contrast this to an individual who is the offspring of daily wage earners, studied in a govt. school in a village where the quality of education was pathetic, over which he is required to work to support his family.
Can u honestly and fairly compare these two individuals with the same yardstick?
I might be accused at this juncture of being overly dramatic with my comparison, but the point I am attempting to put across is that to compare every individual with the same yardstick is bound to result in a highly skewed selection, that is one favoring the more fortunate. And the fact that 35% of the population (upper castes) occupies 85% of the open seats in institutes of higher learning is testament to this.
So what is the alternative, get into the history and background of every candidate and see who’s the most deserving? No.
The logical solution would be to broadly group them in a manner which is an indicator of their opportunity quotient and then select the “best” of each group.
Which is nothing but reservations!
Now as to how this opportunity quotient is arrived at and on what basis is another issue all together, several methods of which have been put forward in the recent past. But the fact that such demarcations are a necessity in institutes is beyond doubt. Especially those setup by the Government of India, which we often tend to forget has a commitment to social justice and the long term development of the entire spectrum of society. Also, the fact that reservations achieve what they have been set up to do, to some degree at least is aptly demonstrated in Tamil Nadu that has seen cut-offs in the reserved list steadily closing the gap with the open category year after year.
Yes, there might be a dilution in the brand equity of an institute, as many a concerned anti-reservationists has cried hoarse about, but frankly that is of lesser concern to the government, and in my opinion rightly so.
The most vociferous argument put forward by the anti-reservationists is that reservation is not the solution and that the need of the hour is to upgrade primary, secondary and higher education across all sections of society throughout the length and breadth of this country.
On this point I am in complete agreement with them, in fact no one can argue that this is not the best possible way forward to level the playing field thus making pure merit relevant.
But what happens till then? Should we just deprive the less fortunate until the country gets its act together with respect to education, which by even the most optimistic estimates is two decades away.
Reservation doesn’t seek to be a permanent solution to a very real and very complex problem. It is at best a stop gap measure until the conditions are ripe for it to have outlived its relevance thus rendering itself redundant. It attempts to give a ray of hope to a people who have historically always been looked down upon and treated like second grade citizens in their own country. It is a small crack in the door of opportunity that has the potential to galvanize an entire section of the populace to realistically aspire to a brighter future for themselves as well as for the generations to come.
The whole concept of “merit”, that in the recent past has been made out to be this hapless ideal raped at the altar of politics, is in my opinion, not such a virtuous entity.
The relevance of pure merit in the current context rests on two basic pillars: least worst system and comparable opportunity.
Least worst system:
Merit in the form being referred to, as in entrance examinations such as the Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the IIMs, is not the ideal way to judge the potential or suitability of a candidate for a place in an educational institute, in fact, it is far from ideal. It is designed to indicate only a small fraction of the traits possessed by the candidate, not nearly enough to gauge his/her potential to be a good manager.
Is it justifiable to say that a person securing a 98 percentile is necessarily better suited for a program in an institute of learning than a person securing a 96, or for that matter an 86 percentile? Not with any degree of certainty.
Yet it is globally accepted, and more so in India, that given the huge scale, the skewed ratio of aspirants to seats, the resources on disposal, the ambiguous nature of quantifying otherwise unquantifiable qualities, standardization of assessment, etc. this is the preffered process for selection.
I do not seek to rant against our selection system but my attempt is to point out that the results we take to be the gospel truth as to the suitability or the potential of an individual is really only an indicator, at best, limited by very practical constraints.
The point in the context of this essay being that we mustn’t necessarily assume an individual with a lower entrance percentile will necessarily make a worse doctor or manager as is a common insinuation doing the rounds and has recently come to be the butt of many an SMS joke.
Opportunity:
But then the other issue crops up as to why should a person with a lower score get a leg up over a higher scoring aspirant?
Therein comes the other lacuna in the pure merit system
When one compares two people for a seat in an institute of learning, from an institute’s point of view it would be simpler to measure them with the same yardstick and pick a winner. But one must necessarily look at the situation from the point of view of all the affected parties.
I will resort to the much cliched comparison with sport. In boxing we do not have one single competition to decide the champion of the world. No one can even think of pitting a super heavy weight against a feather weight in a competitive bout. Neither do we race 500cc bikes against 250cc ones in a race.
It would be against all principles of fairness and moreover it would prove to be an exercise in futility.
Similarly, compare two individuals – one who hails from an affluent family of well educated pedigree, who has lived all his life in the city, got educated in the best private schools, joined a coaching class for the entrance exam. Essentially, one who was provided all the required tools of success at his disposal.
Contrast this to an individual who is the offspring of daily wage earners, studied in a govt. school in a village where the quality of education was pathetic, over which he is required to work to support his family.
Can u honestly and fairly compare these two individuals with the same yardstick?
I might be accused at this juncture of being overly dramatic with my comparison, but the point I am attempting to put across is that to compare every individual with the same yardstick is bound to result in a highly skewed selection, that is one favoring the more fortunate. And the fact that 35% of the population (upper castes) occupies 85% of the open seats in institutes of higher learning is testament to this.
So what is the alternative, get into the history and background of every candidate and see who’s the most deserving? No.
The logical solution would be to broadly group them in a manner which is an indicator of their opportunity quotient and then select the “best” of each group.
Which is nothing but reservations!
Now as to how this opportunity quotient is arrived at and on what basis is another issue all together, several methods of which have been put forward in the recent past. But the fact that such demarcations are a necessity in institutes is beyond doubt. Especially those setup by the Government of India, which we often tend to forget has a commitment to social justice and the long term development of the entire spectrum of society. Also, the fact that reservations achieve what they have been set up to do, to some degree at least is aptly demonstrated in Tamil Nadu that has seen cut-offs in the reserved list steadily closing the gap with the open category year after year.
Yes, there might be a dilution in the brand equity of an institute, as many a concerned anti-reservationists has cried hoarse about, but frankly that is of lesser concern to the government, and in my opinion rightly so.
The most vociferous argument put forward by the anti-reservationists is that reservation is not the solution and that the need of the hour is to upgrade primary, secondary and higher education across all sections of society throughout the length and breadth of this country.
On this point I am in complete agreement with them, in fact no one can argue that this is not the best possible way forward to level the playing field thus making pure merit relevant.
But what happens till then? Should we just deprive the less fortunate until the country gets its act together with respect to education, which by even the most optimistic estimates is two decades away.
Reservation doesn’t seek to be a permanent solution to a very real and very complex problem. It is at best a stop gap measure until the conditions are ripe for it to have outlived its relevance thus rendering itself redundant. It attempts to give a ray of hope to a people who have historically always been looked down upon and treated like second grade citizens in their own country. It is a small crack in the door of opportunity that has the potential to galvanize an entire section of the populace to realistically aspire to a brighter future for themselves as well as for the generations to come.
posted by kg at 10:25 AM
3 comments
