changing tracks

I think I am going to change tracks now, and upload selected photographs / sketches / paintings in this blog from now on.

Today's snapshots (taken at the university stables).

Lawyers for ...

ANIMALS !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8550028.stm

Dino eaters

A snake that would eat baby dinos ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8545450.stm

Harsha on Ted Talk

Harsha Bhogle on TedTalk

Postdoc positions - the hunt begins

I have been a bad mad grad for all of 3.5 years now, and I should probably graduate sometimes in the second half of 2010. Which means, it is time to spare a thought for post-PhD options. As of now, I am almost totally clueless about postdoc hunting, but I will (have to!) learn. Hopefully, I will blog my experiences as a post in this series - http://easygoinggambler.blogspot.com/search/label/grad%20studies

Postdocs apart, I am also going to start looking seriously at the ad-hoc Assistant Professor (on contract) in the various IITs and NITs. 2010 will be an interesting year indeed!

Higher education scenario in India: going from bad to worse

Havent blogged in ages. Turns out, this will be the 100th post on this blog. And sadly, its about the rather sordid turns higher education might take in India, if Kapil Sibal has his way.

First off, here's a summary of demands by IIT faculty association and replies by MHRD: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090923/jsp/nation/story_11531088.jsp

1. Regarding recruitment of "fresh PhD" (imo, the worst step by MHRD)

In Mr Sibal's favor, it has to be said that given limited funds and global downturn, to an extent its understandable that government doesnt want to pay a higher salary. But that isnt even the main issue. Folks were willing to return with the 5th PC salaries (which I think would have been roughly equivalent to what the Asst Prof on contract will get). The issue is, the government is tying up the hands of IITs when it comes to recruitment, i.e. a strict requirement of 3 years post-PhD experience for hiring a Asst Prof on a permanent position.

Let's talk of the students who are doing their PhD in India

a) Number of engineering PhDs / year in India is about 1200, which is a fraction of, say, China, US, UK, Japan, etc.

b) With advent of global research centers in India, many of these PhDs will be attracted there, simply due to a significantly higher pay and, ironically, because those positions are more permanent than the ad-hoc positions in the academia.

c) Those that dont more or less will look to opt for a post-doc abroad, especially because the Asst Prof on contract position doesnt offer any job security whatsoever. Given the lack of job security, poor pay, (presumably) larger teaching load, (again, presumably) lack of start-up grants, why would any one in their senses opt for this position as opposed to taking up a post-doc position abroad that offers much more in professional growth/financial rewards (esp if they are looking to return a few years later due to the $-Rs or euro-Rs conversion)

How many top minds does that leave the IITs with, in the hiring process? Hardly any. Once the IITs do get them (assuming there's some left), what's left for NITs and other universities? Clearly, the Indian higher education system is not enough to act as a feeder system (at least for next decade or so) for the faculty requirements.

Which means ... we have to rely to foreign PhDs (Indians doing PhDs abroad). IITs used to offer a good package - secure job, opportunity to work with brightest minds in the country, freedom to set up your own little research group and work accordingly. Given that now this secure position has been made insecure, and quite possibly stripped of a large degree of freedom (and opportunity) to pursue research during the most formative years, who in their right minds would want to take it up.

Sibal talks of American universities having tenure track position. The ad-hoc position was earlier described as lecturer cum post-doc. No change has been made apart from the name. So, quite clearly this is NOT a tenure track position as in abroad (where the teaching load is kept low, and tenure track professors are provided a decent start-up package to give them a chance to earn a tenure).

Given the conditions, I forsee a very bleak future for recruiting good enough people in this post in the engineering departments. And make no mistake, this is a Frankenstein of MHRD's creation.

The situation would have been easily avoided if they had persisted with the old rule where 3 years experience was desirable, but not mandatory (enough leeway to get in top quality candidates even if they arent hugely experienced). By the way, w/o going into names, in 90s, when IITs strictly wanted 3 yrs experience, I know of certain bright young PhDs who were turned down by IITs were offered tenure track position in MIT and some of the other top univs in States. whose loss? you figure.

2) At least 10% of the faculty should be ad-hoc faculty.

A rule as stupid as any. Not even worth debating. All it will do is to ensure that 10% of the positions stay vacantdue to lack of good enough candidates, or ensure entry of 5-10% crap in the department.

3) Requirement of first class in the basic degree

No comments. Most top PhDs / post-doc have a first class in their basic degree. But some organizations like IIM (Indian Institute of Metals) as rule hardly ever award first class in the AIIM exams which are equivalent to BTech. So, some folks will face the axe for no fault o theirs. Again, I would prefer a case by case consideration, especially if these folks have done outstandingly well during their PG/PhD/post-doc stint. But in any case, this is not going to affect a large number of applicants

4) Only those who have taught for 4 yrs at IITs at Assoc Prof level van become a prof etc

MHRD has changed this rule, for the better.

5) 40% cap on promotion to higher pay bands

Again, as useless a rule as it gets. What if 70% of the department's professorial faculty have done well? Who are the 40% who will get promoted, and who are the 30% that will be gutted? A much better way would have been to abolish the higher pay band itself, and let faculty keep a small %age of the research funds as a bonus salary component - practice quite prevalent in US. Kapil Sibal keeps pointing to US for a number of cases (eg: tenure track system etc). Wonder why he is looking the other way in this regard?

All in all, I had thought post Arjun Singh, there's no way MHRD could have f****d the higher education system more. Yet, Kapil Sibal and his gang is here to disprove me. One should expect the unexpected I guess.

The secular Indian

On a satiric note: http://friendsofbjp.org/2009/05/10/the-secular-class/

On a genuine note: Congratulations to Congress for winning the elections. Let's hope for a stable government and a fruitful 5 years for India.

Jay's poetry

Jay tells us what it means to be a man over here.

A very sedate start

This is it. This is 2009 the new year, and it got off to a very sedate start for me. A simple cold and fever, a fall on the ice with a bruised knee and sprained ankle and just a couple of minor car accidents. That's all I achieved in the first 10 days, mostly due to my own studpidity WITHOUT the help of any additives like alcohol or tobacco whatsoever! Cant wait for the year to keep rolling on ;)

The spirit of the game

In case you are an Indian, and have just returned from Mars, let me tell you, India won the test series against Australia. For the first time since 1988-89, the world champs lost a test series by a margin of 2 matches. Even when Steve Waugh's team were stumbling at the last frontier, the margin was never more than a match. It is an intriguing time, when Aussies battle hard to maintain their lofty standards. Unfortunately, this rather interesting situation is getting clouded with the so called violation of the spirit of cricket by the Indian team.

Did Dhoni and co really violate spirit of cricket? Let's examine it.

Fact(repeatedly stressed by Australian media - Chapell, or Roebuck or Malcolm Conn): 

(a) MS Dhoni packed the offside with 8 fielders 

(b) At the same time, he asked his bowlers to bowl wide of the off-stump, which amounted to ultra-defensive negative cricket.

Charge: Dhoni violated the spirit of cricket.

Facts (the ones being ignored in laying the charge)

1. Nowhere do the rules bar a captain from doing this (to be fair, Ian Chapell seeks to remedy this by changing the rules)

2. Australian team, upon arriving in India, immediately made it clear that the best way to get the strong Indian middle order out, was to play on their patience, set defensive fields and restrict run-scoring. What's more, they implemented it through out the series in all four test matches.

3. Australian strategy was unsuccessful, as Indian batsmen improvised and scored runs.

4. Mitchell Johnson, in particular, kept bowling a foot outside the off-stump, hoping the batsmen would get frustrated, reach out and throw away their wickets. Not just in one match, but all four matches.

Inferences: If MS Dhoni did violate the so called spirit of cricket, then Australians were equally guilty, if not more; what they did for four matches, India did for a single innings in a single match, albeit, much more clinically. Considering that when they chose to play defensive cricket right from the outset, by trying to merely restrict run-scoring by Indian batsmen, they termed it as "strategy", and when Dhoni did the same, they labelled it as "against the spirit of the game", it seems Aussies belabor a nice fancy spirit that lives only in the baggy green souls :)