Comments on: IT Industry to Blame

By: Notsure

Notsure — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:02:02 +0000

How do you make the prediction over 60% of outsourced work can be done in TierIII city?
How do you categorize that. Even the 5 year planners wouldnt dare make that projection any more
Infrastructure sucks allover india.
Bangalore looks shabby but other parts are shabbier.
The dereliction has other fundamentally deeper causes.

By: Sundar

Sundar — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:24:14 +0000

Here is another comment from AM Naik (CMD of L&T about B’lore, IT industry hiring Civil and Mechanical Engineers and more specifically Infosys and their contribution to India. While he has a point, he is also to be blamed for the situation.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1133228

Bangalore started sinking much before. People were complaining in late 80s itself about lack of infrastructure. Politicians were more than happy to benefit from the boom due to IT without spending even reasonably to cope-up with growth.

Chennai and Pune are next in line to go the Bangalore way in terms of stiffling physical infrastructure.

Over 60% of outsourced IT works could be done in Tier III cities and towns as long as governments can assure decent infrastructure (and charge commercial rates).

By: Notsure

Notsure — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:28:31 +0000

Atanu,
Use Gray Matter not Black & White.
My rant on this topic was regarding the Monikers of US educational organization being kept as is for no other reason but historical and no pressure to change( There was an exception Beaver College)
This conversation is essentially an ongoing one accross multiple blogposts, It started with the one on Supply demand and curoption in education, the one where many commenters here argued their viewpoint that setting a university in india is easy.
Here is the Story that was floating allover the mailing lists a few years ago that I alluded to in my second post.
http://www.indiastar.com/wallia-st1.html
And the point still is In US(particularly in siliconvalley) it still is called a JR university to make a pun.
The jr university could careless about it.
There are many such stories about educational institutions.
Another one is Carnegie Mellons Computer Engineering program which was not accredited for a while. And that did not make it any less attractive place for any one to study, or research at during that time.

By: Atanu Dey

Atanu Dey — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:57:32 +0000

Notsure, do read the comment that you wrote where you claimed that the junior university called Stanford is still called a junior university. That is what gives one the impression that you think that the junior refers to the university and not the name of the person.

It’s all there in black and white.

By: Notsure

Notsure — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:01:19 +0000

Well I Dont know what gave you the impression I didnt know that ?
And I know of the Indiastar originating sikh Joke as well.

By: Atanu Dey

Atanu Dey — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:47:49 +0000

Notsure, the "Jr" in the "Leland Stanford Jr University" refers to the person (son of Leland Stanford).

"With wife Jane, Stanford founded Leland Stanford Junior University as a memorial for their only child, Leland Stanford, Jr., who died as a teenager of typhoid in Florence, Italy while on a trip to Europe. Approximately US$20 million (US$400 million in 2005 dollars) initially went into the university, which held its opening exercises October 1, 1891."

From the wikipedia.

By: Notsure

Notsure — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:41:30 +0000

I beleive FDI had nothing to do with it but UGC and who can call themselves a university in india.

Contrast that with US where Stanford still has the Jr University in its name and RPI still calls itself a polytechnic.
The smart researcher still knows that they are excellent places to do research and smart sutdents also know that they are good places to learn and they dont need external ChachaJis deciding which organization is a university which is a polytechnic and which is a JR university.

By: ashish

ashish — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:52:03 +0000

I have been told (by my prof) that GA Tech (and 30 similar univs) want to set up campuses in India. they were denied to invest (FDI) in education. the plan to invest in India exists on paper, and you can track it on GATech website.

the usual suspects: the left, and the left-outs (Arjun Singhs and CNR Rao’s)…

will pass on more links (with one editorial piece by an MP) on this…

cheers,
ashish

By: Notsure

Notsure — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:52:24 +0000

Ashish your GAtech story is very interesting.
Can you point to more details about that?

By: ashish

ashish — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:11:53 +0000

Hi,
CNR Rao is a crook politician (not a prof), just like Arjun Singh. he does not want education system to innovate and change. he is in charge, has all the clout, why should he loose all that just because millions may get better education from Georgia Tech? no sir, GA Tech is a bad news for IISc (and CNR’s own professorship), and must be bad for Indians.

here is my own pet story. during our PhD days, CNR was the director. he was ‘gherao’ed, and asked for a raise in scholarship (from 1500 to 3000 monthly). it was 1994 tech-boom time. he refused and said that students would spend all the money in booze, and they should spend time instead in labs. well, within 6 months his own lab lost 3-4 students. he could not get as many PhD students, and many labs around had shortages. within 2 years CNR’s committee recommended a scholarship of 7000 monthly for beginners and 10000 for senior students.

just speaks about his ability to guage the reality on ground and take a reasonable stand.

his opinion piece is only useful in wiping my kitten poop.

— ashish