St. Stephen's as a deemed University

An idea has recently been floated by the St. Stephen's administration that the college strive for a 'deemed university' status by the period 2025-2050. This article is meant to question what value will this tag add to the college, and whether it is of primary import.

a 'deemed university' tag allows a college to set its own syllabus and admission procedures, its own fee structure and some of them are also allowed to give out degrees. Given that St. Stephen's already has a distinct admission procedure from the rest of Delhi University, and that its fees are also significantly higher than most other DU colleges; this move is meant primarily to enable the college to set its own syllabus.

How important is a different syllabus to an institution? India faces a perennial problem that the syllabus is very rote-learning oriented, and hence does not promote innovation. Again, this probably stems from our attempts to impart 'quality education' to all. If, for once, we acknowledge the impossibility of the task, we can impart 'good quality education' to a few (which will also run into millions, by the way), and provide 'life skills' to the rest. We must free not only St. Stephen's college, but other reputed institutions from the shackles of this attempt at mass quality education.

The only thing I am skeptical about is the undue attention that this proposal has received. It is true that this 'deemed university' recognition will give the college a lot of flexibility to do its own thing. However, there are still many ways we can strive to achieve that aim. For once, the societies in college can, for once, attempt to extend knowledge frontiers rather than just function for the sake of function. Of course, that deserves an entire entry by itself.

Trip to the North East

This post has been some time in the coming now. I got my datacard along on this trip to the North East with an intention to make daily post. Of course, like several other teenage intentions, this too failed. However, the least I can do is to post the details on my last day here, before I get carried away in the tsunami called the DU Jan tests.

First, let me get over the itinery quickly. We came to Guwahati on 29th December and the next day left for Shillong. On 31st, we visited Cherrapunji. On 1st, we left for Tezpur, visited Kaziranga on the 2nd and tomorrow, i.e. the 3rd, we return to our respective 'homes' - mom and dad to Kolkata, bhai to Mumbai and me to Delhi.

So, now to the more subjective components of this post. This trip was surprisingly devoid of hills and mountains, as one would expect from the North East. Of course, that primarily owes to the fact that we did not visit any hilly place, but confined ourselves to the valley and plateaus. So, the only uphill drive was from Guwahati to Shillong. Guwahati is like a typical small Indian city. It doesn't have many charms of its own, except for the Brahmaputra flowing through it.

Shillong was the best part of the trip, especially the drive from Shillong to Cherrapunji. Of course, I always knew that Shillong was on a plateau, but I'd never been on a plateau myself, and hence didn't know what to expect once I reach there. Shillong is so surprisingly spacious for a city at its altitude. It resembles (I suppose) the Scottish countryside, and is hence referred to as the 'scotland of the east'. I wish there were such a place closer to Delhi, because it would be an excellent escape from the city.

Cherrapunji is lacklustre, except for the ride. There is an 'eco park', which is nothing but a park on the edge of the plateau, and a cave. But the drive from Shillong more than makes up for it. I could constantly imagine myself driving on those roads on a lazy sunday afternoon. Oh, those roads! Meghalaya's roads were amazing even when going uphill, and were for most parts broader than roads in Kolkata.

Kaziranga was beautiful, and a good experience, except for that the biodiversity seemed to be extremely restricted. Of course, hoping to see a tiger in the wild is like living in fool's paradise, but what we got was one rhinoceros after the other. Even the wild elephants were shy! Hence, Kaziranga cannot, and should not, be the only destination for any traveller, or else you'll be disappointed.

Throughout this trip, something that was missing was the 'authentic' food. Towards the end we got a taste of it en route from Shillong to Tezpur. My brother tried pigeon curry, but I being as squeamish as I am, did not try to experiment. Assamese food hence seems to be rather bland by the standards of the Punjabi and Bengali food that I'm used to.

This is a rather lacklustre travel diary, I suppose. But I also suppose that the mark of a true traveller in life is to not have enough time to turn back and ponder.

Till then !

Subhashish

(in Tezpur)

Dealing with the past

So, Swati told me today that it had been quite some time since I've posted on my blog. Truly, it has been over a month now since my last post. She also added that my last few posts were not worthwhile. 'The one on economics was boring, and the other one was depressing'. This somehow beautifully related to what I thought I should write about - how much should one's past actions and emotions affect the present?

Where I started thinking about this was while reading this book my dearest papa David Clarance gifted to my on my birthday, Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Life. It said 'you are a product of your past, but not its prisoner'. I loved this quote because it amalgamated with the stream of thoughts that I was having around that time. I felt an excessive burden of my past - the sense of emptiness, the shallowness of achievement, the depth of friendships, the burden of expectations - weigh down upon my thoughts. So, where was this line where I could stop being a 'prisoner' and be merely a 'product' of my past?

The answer, of course, is subjective from person to person, situation to situation. However, how this 'lakshman rekha' can be found is with a sense of detachment. Detachment from thoughts, detachment from emotions and generally, detachment from any kind of stimulus that solicits a response. When I am able to detach myself from emotions and look at thoughts, especially those about my past, without making judgments, then my assessment is going to be unbiased. That is probably when I am going to cease being a 'prisoner' of my past.

This is probably the idea behind vipassana, one of the most ancient meditation techniques in this world. It talks about feeling your emotions and thoughts without being judgmental. I urge my (few) readers to check up on vipassana meditation on youtube when you're not feeling too well - of course, hoping, that such a situation does not arise in your life.

But getting back to the question, what should my relation with my past be? My past should ideally be an instrument to make my present better - which means I should be able to take lessons from my past. However, in order to take correct lessons from my past, I must view it without prejudice. This will be achieved only with a sense of detachment. Hence, my relation with my past will be fruitful only when I am able to detach.

The Flawed and Tormented Genius

At the onset, I must specify that the ideas of the flawed and the tormented genius can, and often are, exclusive and distinct ideas, except for our fascination for them. The genius who gets his success as a return for his hard work is barely appreciated. However, the genius who is able to perform well despite putting in lesser effort is the one whom society looks up to. What makes the flawed genius so appealing to our sensibilities?

Firstly, there is a sense of enigma around the flawed genius - how does he/she do it? Second, there is the appeal of something forbidden, and the flawed genius often does things that are forbidden by society. Thirdly, we want to be like the flawed genius because people appreciate the flawed genius, and hence in this sense it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Is it fair to those who've worked their way to the top that at the top they feel like an empty clap, because all applause rings for the flawed genius? Well, not really. The problem essentially is that there are the pretenders - those who're not really the flawed and tormented genius, but pretend to be so because of the adulation it brings. How does one differentiate between the real one and the pretenders? There is almost certainly no way - some people are good actors, and some are able to program themselves to behave like this flawed genius. Hence, to the world outside these people seem like the flawed genius.

I think the flawed genius thrives in a pool of mediocrity. For those who've tasted success, and for whom the lure of success is not great, the appeal of the flawed genius is non-existent. It is only for those who're a part of the masses, and for whom success holds a lot of value, that the flawed genius is an appealing concept.

Applied Economics - the story of the Phillip's Curve

The accusation most often leveled against economics as a subject is that it is ex-post in nature, i.e. it explains things after they occur, and hence are of no practical and applied consequence to the world around us. For example, they say that while economists have in hindsight explained what caused the recession of 2008, they failed to prevent it. Hence, what is the point of economics as a subject?

This is something that many economists and economics students too agree to. However, while reading my second year macroeconomics textbook, I came across the Philip's curve. The Philip's curve, in its original form, was an empirical relationship between inflation and unemployment, which concluded that if a Government wants to reduce unemployment (which results in higher growth), then it has to live with a certain bit of inflation.

The 'discovery' of the Phillip's curve, first in the U.K by Phillips and then in the US by Solou, was used extensively by macroeconomists and eventually policy makers in the 1960s. This trade-off that was observed by the Phillip's curve was exploited by policy-makers to ensure that the 1960s were a period of unprecedented growth in the developed world (coupled with the apparent success of Keynesian economics, this was the golden period of Keynesian economics). Hence, to those who say that economics is an ex-post science, an entire decade of growth was sustained on the basis of what economists observed. Rather, not only observed empirically, but argued theoretically.

However, in the 1970s, the theory behind the Phillip's curve began to falter (basically, that people began to expect inflation). However, this break-down was also predicted by a group of economists led by the monetarist Milton Friedman. Hence, even here economics was an ex-ante science, rather than an ex-post science.

Hence, for all those who say that economics is a useless science with no practical applications, it is a fitting rejoinder that one entire decade of high growth (of the sort unseen in modern history) was because a bunch of economists thought of a trade-off and showed it empirically. Truly, the power of economics.

Lessons from Economic History : Cutting Expenditure

Early 1990s: India, faced with a much-publicised balance of payment (BOP) crisis, had to turn to the IMF for help. The Washington-consensus, at that time, was to trim fiscal deficit (in layman terms, the Government's expenditure minus the Government's revenue) and go in for more balanced budgets. Thus, India was obligated to trim it's fiscal deficit.

Now, Government expenditure has two components - capital expenditure and current expenditure. I'm forgetting the exact difference between the two, but it goes somewhat like this - current expenditure includes things like salaries, subsidies etc. (which provide no long-term benefit) whereas capital expenditure would be on things like infrastructure projects etc (which provide benefit over a longer time span).

What India did at that time to reduce fiscal deficit was to cut capital expenditure. Almost two decades later, we see the results. The constraint to India's growth story today is the infrastructure shortfall, something that might not have happened had there been no reduction in capital expenditure.

Reducing this lesson to an individual level, a college student too is faced with two kinds of expenditure - current expenditure (movies, food etc), and capital expenditure (clothing, books, stationery etc). Unfortunately, what often tends to happen is that faced with a budget constraint, the average student tends to cut down both expenditures in an almost equivalent proportion. However, as the story above shows, capital expenditure should not be cut down that easily.

Again, that is contingent on certain conditions. Primary among them (and again drawing from India's economic history) is the utilisation of capital. Often, to utilise capital expenditure (eg books) effectively, you need to have a consistent current expenditure (eg. food). Hence, there is a certain 'optimal balance' between capital and current expenditure, and I suppose it will take everybody not less than three years to find that out.

Impatience - virtue or bane?

As I get along life dealing with the lethargy of societies and the administration in college, I keep thinking about what my brother used to say when I was really young - 'you're very impatient'. Along the way, I often termed this impatience as passion, but I now suppose that it was that, impatience, that expressed itself in impassioned forms.

Impatience is a great recipe for success. What that ensures is that things in life are moving faster, that you do not procrastinate over things. To an extent, it also helps you distinguish between what you really like to do (which you'll do more impatiently) and something that you don't (which you'll keep on hold to do the former). Applying the concept of future and present value that we learnt in our Grewalian microeconomics class today, it will (I suppose) ensure that in the present you do more pleasurable stuff, and hence ensures that you're generally a happier person [I'll try, once again, to work out a mathematical model for this, but that shall wait because writing this blog is now more pleasurable to me].

However, is that necessarily true? Is impatience really going to lead to more happiness? What is the cost to impatience? Dejection; and this dejection primarily emanates from delays in your external environment, and hence is exogenous to the proposed model that I set up above.

This post actually proved to be shorter than I had expected it to be, primarily because I seem to have arrived at a conclusion faster than I thought. The conclusion being this, that impatience leads to a better state of living as long as we are able to control the externalities. Hence, in things such as cleaning your room, exercising, playing video games, reading novels etc., where there are not too many externalities involved, impatience is a great virtue. However, in the cases where you are dealing with rather insurmountable externalities such as the bureaucracy, college societies (in some cases) and the college administration, then impatience can be a recipe for depression.