Sachin=GOD Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Damn no put downs and condescending words yet by the maibaap towards Raghav ... is that light I see or a speeding train ? :hmmm: :nervous: just bump the Goddy vs Bradman thread and you will know :--D
akshayxyz Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Damn no put downs and condescending words yet by the maibaap towards Raghav ... is that light I see or a speeding train ? :hmmm: :nervous: This time he chose to kill multiple birds with one arrow - Aptitude(JEE 100) ~ Aptitude(JEE 10000).. within some margin of error which only he knows.... top 100 99 ko pata nahi kaise baksh diya.
desi.boy Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Outsider is correct, I got 3500 rank in jee, there wud almost be an equal chance of jee rank 100-3500 having better aptitude than me comparing with ranks 3500-10000. n Thats how one wud like it to be in a nation of 1.2 billion. Naranmurthy , instead of mentioning the iits , should have just said tht coaching system is bad (not necessarily for everyone) for highest quality\achievements that a student may potentially attain later on in life, to which I agree with.
akshayxyz Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Outsider is correct' date='[b'] I got 3500 rank in jee, there wud almost be an equal chance of jee rank 100-3500 having better aptitude than me comparing with ranks 3500-10000. n Thats how one wud like it to be in a nation of 1.2 billion. Naranmurthy , instead of mentioning the iits , should have just said tht coaching system is bad (not necessarily for everyone) for highest qualityachievements that a student may potentially attain later on in life, to which I agree with. Congratulations. and welcome to ICF. So, what is the logic behind selective set of 100-10000? why not 200-20000? or 50-5000? or 79- 6984? While, I agree that quantitative aptitude is not everything required to be 'successful' in life. In fact there are other factors which have far more impact on overall success - e.g. discipline/perseverance/hard work/platform-you-start-with/people-you-work-with. But, on an average - there is a gradual decrease in aptitude, however small, as you go down the JEE ladder. There is a reason why top JEE rankers get top ranks in other engineering exams too - barring few exceptions. And a top JEE ranker is more likely to score top rank in CAT or any other similar aptitude test - that primarily tests quantitative skills. There wont be huge variance of aptitude within small windows.. lets say 1-30 rank.. or 20-50 rank... or 80-200 rank., but a noticeable difference between, lets say, a 200 and 5000 ranker. As Raghav already mentioned, if someone has spent 4 years at top 5 IITs, one would have witnessed the difference in common courses. e.g. its not common to see a 1500-2000 ranker outperforming even a 400 ranker in mathematics-based courses on consistent basis - given that both are equally hard working....and on the other side - there have been examples of better ranker out-performing (or equaling) lower ranker, even after studying lesser # of hours. And, yes I agree that there is always a possibility (but is not upto chance!!!, JEE is not lottery) that one could have gotten better rank (few 100s/10s) than he got and vice versa - but a leap of 1000s has to be very rare. And JEE rank is not absolute/only reflector of raw quantitative aptitude - because some applicants may be able to rank higher due to better exposure/preparation-resources, while some people with better aptitude may not have rank as high as they could - due to lack of exposure. And it is not the only opportunity one gets to apply the aptitude.
The Outsider Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 So, what is the logic behind selective set of 100-10000? why not 200-20000? or 50-5000? or 79- 6984? You could have asked me that directly - it was a figure of speech. You can tweak the numbers around a bit. The underlying point is made very clearly in post #101.
Yoda-esque Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Akshayxyz-You are reading too much into specifics with what Outsider said. He probably just referred to normal distribution when defining the aptitude of entrants.
The Outsider Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 And, yes I agree that there is always a possibility (but is not upto chance!!!, JEE is not lottery) that one could have gotten better rank (few 100s/10s) than he got and vice versa - but a leap of 1000s has to be very rare. How do you explain the fact that a lot of students who got low ranks in JEE, retake it next year and score considerably higher? Did they suddenly grow horns of aptitude and intelligence?
The Outsider Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Akshayxyz-You are reading too much into specifics with what Outsider said. He probably just referred to normal distribution when defining the aptitude of entrants. Thank you for attempting to clarify the point of discussion.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 When it comes to ranking I think it is dangerous to use the magnitude of rank in order to understand the relative aptitude / intelligence of an individual. Look, when I was in my 12th in Maharashtra in 94, there were possibly 100 students scoring between 290 and 300 in Physics, Chemistry and Math. There were maybe 1000 students between 280 and 300. And 2000 students above 270. Now if you are going to tell me that a guy who scores 271 is significantly lower than a guy who scores 291 then I'd pity you. Although the distance between them in ranks maybe greater than 1000 the real difference in intelligence (as measured by the board exams) is hardly anything. Marks, ranks ain't a great way of telling difference especially when the distance between two consecutive ranks is in the order of decimals. Desi.Boy is on the mark I think. The more individuals participate in these exams the more close the competition will be. Edit - And most importantly, these marks mean bullsh!t when it comes to the real deal in life. A person's intelligence, creativity, ability to solve problems cannot be measured by the marks he scores in a board exam at the age of 16-17. If you get into IIT you have applied your mind well at a very young age. However, it does not mean the kids who did not get into IIT at your age are duds. Neither does it mean that you are a Sachin Tendulkar. What matters is how you perform in real life. I think all of us working people know this fact of life and can swear by it.
Raghav_12 Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 What is my point? It is that the limiting factor in the decline of quality of students graduating from an IIT is not the quality of students being taken in, but the educational standards, infrastructure, alumni networks etc. of the newer IITs. To prove it, I have shown that places which induct a higher number of students but provide a more solid institutional system of education are more likely to produce successful graduates than places which induct smaller classes and have a higher level of competition, but provide inferior education. The problem with your logic is, that you are comparing rank 100 of one setup with rank 10000 of other setup, without taking into account how these setups actually differ - here IIT setup w r t setup of MIT/Princeton. It is very much possible that one setups 100 rank is not as good as other setups 10000 rank - something which you are suggesting. My whole point was that if you increase the number of seats at IIT's without increasing infrastructure/facilities than quality is bound to go down. My second point is that any setup -however good that is- would always produce better quality if it takes top 100 student instead of taking top 10,000 students. But do we want quality to be that scarce, that is different point altogether.
Raghav_12 Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/world/asia/squeezed-out-in-india-students-turn-to-united-states.html?_r=1&ref=asia An article from today's New York Times. Now unless you tell me that the average Cornell graduate is likely to be inferior to the average Delhi University graduate, I think the point is quite clear. I am not surprised by this article. All of my friends/acquaintances who went to US B-Schools, other than the ones who went to top 3 B-Schools- were the people who couldn't get through to IIM's in multiple attempts. And I am talking about ppl who went to really top B-Schools like Stern, Ross, Anderson, Cornell and INSEAD (France). But it doesn't mean that quality of MBA's coming out of these B-School's is worse than quality of IIM's. However it does mean that quality of these B-School's would have been even better, if they had got IIM selected students instead of IIM's rejected. I hope my point is clear.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 The problem with your logic is, that you are comparing rank 100 of one setup with rank 10000 of other setup, without taking into account how these setups actually differ - here IIT setup w r t setup of MIT/Princeton. It is very much possible that one setups 100 rank is not as good as other setups 10000 rank - something which you are suggesting. My whole point was that if you increase the number of seats at IIT's without increasing infrastructure/facilities than quality is bound to go down. My second point is that any setup -however good that is- would always produce better quality if it takes top 100 student instead of taking top 10,000 students. But do we want quality to be that scarce, that is different point altogether.Raghav, if you increase number of IITs without improving infrastructure but maintaining it at the same level, how will it deteriorate the quality of IITs? Your statement assumes that, not improving infrastructure = deteriorating infrastructure which is not true. The infrastructure, etc can remain of the same quality
akshayxyz Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 You could have asked me that directly - it was a figure of speech. You can tweak the numbers around a bit. The underlying point is made very clearly in post #101. Akshayxyz-You are reading too much into specifics with what Outsider said. He probably just referred to normal distribution when defining the aptitude of entrants. As I already acknowledged - succeeding in life/academics takes more than just raw aptitude. In fact raw aptitude is not limiting factor at all. Also, JEE rank is not pure reflection of raw aptitude. But, if one does some normalization - e.g. based on number of attempts/ background/resources/exposure/motivation - there will be a trend which can be repeated in other exams that can test raw aptitude in isolation. And the difference will be noticeable even in a sample size of 10,000. From what I have observed - more often than not - in common courses (mathematics based), some people consistently outperform relatively low rankers, that too with relative ease (in terms of effort). The difference may be small but is noticeable in more cases than one. And yes, with sufficient hard work - some low rankers are able to get at-par/better CGPA than better rankers. But then, again CGPA is not function of just raw aptitude. So yes, I am fully with the idea that in normal distribution top 5-10,000 will lie pretty close - in a sample size of 2-300,000. But, still there will be a noticeable difference - within those 5-10,000 - if one designs a test case to sort them out. In terms of normal distribution - if you want to magnify that right side of the curve - one can still notice differences. How do you explain the fact that a lot of students who got low ranks in JEE' date=' retake it next year and score considerably higher? Did they suddenly grow horns of aptitude and intelligence?[/quote'] I have seen examples of both kind - no change in rank at all, and a good leap in rank.. and in some cases worse too. Because, as I said - JEE rank is not reflection of just raw-aptitude. Here, let me introduce another variable - number of attempts (there are few more variables, but this one of the important ones) If you create separate lists based on # of attempts - the ranks will be relatively closer reflection of raw aptitude within that list. Let me give you example - from what I observed in my batch - most people who got, lets say, 100-200 rank in their second attempts, were consistently outperformed by equally hard-working/sincere students who secured similar ranks in first attempt. And similar trend was noticeable across all departments. I have seen many other examples - e.g. someone who was in EE (first attempt JEE) cracked IAS written with relative ease and then CAT later on, whereas some others from Civil (~JEE 1.5-2K) had to work relatively harder to get similar percentile, in fact most times lower. There are more examples like BTech vs MTech.... So - the thing is - in broader perspective of life, the difference is aptitude is not much and definitely not limiting factor for success.. but from what I have observed in 4 years and beyond, within that small sample size (of batch size just 350ish!, or even class size of 50ish), more times than not, the difference in raw aptitude was noticeable.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 I am not surprised by this article. All of my friends/acquaintances who went to US B-Schools, other than the ones who went to top 3 B-Schools- were the people who couldn't get through to IIM's in multiple attempts. And I am talking about ppl who went to really top B-Schools like Stern, Ross, Anderson, Cornell and INSEAD (France). But it doesn't mean that quality of MBA's coming out of these B-School's is worse than quality of IIM's. However it does mean that quality of these B-School's would have been even better, if they had got IIM selected students instead of IIM's rejected. I hope my point is clear.Raghav, I have a fundamental question to test a fundamental assumption - Why is it assumed that the quality of an Engineer/Mgmt Fresher is automatically higher if the kid passes out of IIM or IIT? I agree 4 (amd 2) years prior to passing out of their courses these kids were better off than the rest of the kids in a particular JEE/CAT exam. However, their quality can only be known in the real world, innit? So why assume their "quality" is greater or lesser than any other Engineer or Mgmt graduate. Fair enough that they get a better pay when they enter the real world. But we must wait for at least 2-3 years to compare them with the other Engineers and Mgmt pass outs of their batch, right? And when you do so, honestly tell me, in your experience, how many IITians and IImers have you found to be significantly better than other Engg, Mgmt graduates?
akshayxyz Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 I am not surprised by this article. All of my friends/acquaintances who went to US B-Schools' date=' o[b']ther than the ones who went to top 3 B-Schools- were the people who couldn't get through to IIM's in multiple attempts. And I am talking about ppl who went to really top B-Schools like Stern, Ross, Anderson, Cornell and INSEAD (France). But it doesn't mean that quality of MBA's coming out of these B-School's is worse than quality of IIM's. However it does mean that quality of these B-School's would have been even better, if they had got IIM selected students instead of IIM's rejected. I hope my point is clear. Even I can quote examples, where the person could not get even IIMK/L in multiple attempts and went on to do MBA from Stanford! Or many people who despite being hard working would not get good grades at IIT (esp in Maths based courses) and yet end up MBA from Harvard/Insead/Wharton! One reason is because, the raw-quantitative-aptitude people who could have beaten them on that scale are already settled in streams that value raw aptitude more than other skills...or by choice. And also as I already acknowledged, MBA/MS/PhD, or in fact anything in life is more than just about raw-aptitude.
Raghav_12 Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Raghav, I have a fundamental question to test a fundamental assumption - Why is it assumed that the quality of an Engineer/Mgmt Fresher is automatically higher if the kid passes out of IIM or IIT? I agree 4 (amd 2) years prior to passing out of their courses these kids were better off than the rest of the kids in a particular JEE/CAT exam. However, their quality can only be known in the real world, innit? So why assume their "quality" is greater or lesser than any other Engineer or Mgmt graduate. Fair enough that they get a better pay when they enter the real world. But we must wait for at least 2-3 years to compare them with the other Engineers and Mgmt pass outs of their batch, right? And when you do so, honestly tell me, in your experience, how many IITians and IImers have you found to be significantly better than other Engg, Mgmt graduates? I am not telling as a rule IITians or IIMites are better than rest of Engg./Management graduates. I have seen many not-IIT, not-IIM guys doing much better than many other IITian/IIMites. But at an average, an IITian is likely to do better than non-IIT engineer (at least until the time we had only 6 IIT's). Though I agree with your point that success in an entrance test can not determine lifelong success. Similarly failure in one test can not rule you out from anything.
Vijay.Sharma Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 I am not telling as a rule IITians or IIMites are better than rest of Engg./Management graduates. I have seen many not-IIT' date=' not-IIM guys doing much better than many other IITian/IIMites. [b']But at an average, an IITian is likely to do better than non-IIT engineer (at least until the time we had only 6 IIT's). Though I agree with your point that success in an entrance test can not determine lifelong success. Similarly failure in one test can not rule you out from anything.Is that "doing better" based on the criteria which reads something like 'landing a job immediately out of college' or is it something else? If it is the above then probably you have stated a fact. However, if the definition of "do better" involves real life doing better (i.e. having a successful career since 3 years after passing out) then I can stick my neck out and say confidently that an IITian or IIMer has is not significantly likely to "do better" than any other Engineer / Mgmt grad
punjabi_khota Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Is that "doing better" based on the criteria which reads something like 'landing a job immediately out of college' or is it something else? If it is the above then probably you have stated a fact. However, if the definition of "do better" involves real life doing better (i.e. having a successful career since 3 years after passing out) then I can stick my neck out and say confidently that an IITian or IIMer has is not significantly likely to "do better" than any other Engineer / Mgmt grad Have you looked at the comparative success of IIT alumni Vs those of other engineering schools in India over last 30 years ? Or do you think it is all hype ?
akshayxyz Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Is that "doing better" based on the criteria which reads something like 'landing a job immediately out of college' or is it something else? If it is the above then probably you have stated a fact. However, if the definition of "do better" involves real life doing better (i.e. having a successful career since 3 years after passing out) then I can stick my neck out and say confidently that an IITian or IIMer has is not significantly likely to "do better" than any other Engineer / Mgmt grad It depends upon the skills required to succeed in a particular job. If you hire an IITian for a graphics designer job - then you are making a mistake - most likely. If you are preferring a NIT/REC CS guy over a IIT CS (or even mechanical engg, who has proven passion for programming)... or any job that requires quantitative-skills/logical-reasoning...then you are making a mistake - most likely. In other words, given sufficient time and motivation, an IITian will perform better than a non-IItian, in a job/assignment that emphasizes on quantitative skills. I am not talking about boundary cases e.g. 5K JEE ranker vs top performer in BITS., or jobs that requires vertical domain knowledge (even there a quality IITian will catch up in longer term). As for success in general life - if you are good people manager/leader/businessman - you can always hire 100s of IITians and be considered more successful than most.
akshayxyz Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Everyone has different mix of 'basic' skills. On a given parameter/skill some people are 'naturally' better than others - is a fact and in no way it means that abc is inferior/superior than xyz - as a whole. And success is about maximizing the execution part in areas aligned with your strengths - which is easier said than done and most of the times beyond the control of an individual.
Recommended Posts