Global Warming seems to be THE buzz phrase of late. It has grown in its importance to such a level that perhaps the elections in Australia and the US will be won or lost based on the buzz phrase - or so it is made out to be.
I am no expert on the matter and to be frank I havent done much research into the topic either, but from common sense and what I read in bits, Global Warming is definitely a concern, if not for us, for the generations that follow us. I have myself experienced climatic changes that scientists have attributed to Global Warming. While it is good that the issue is being raked up, awareness being created and something being done about it - are those things that are being done, the right things to do? Are they having the right effect?
The initiatives that I have seen include, recycling programs for non-biodegradable but recyclable waste, rebates and sops to organisations commiting to limited emissions of Green House gases, rebates to customers for choosing green power to power their homes etc. Employers and organisations are doing their bits to contribute to the effort by reducing the use to paper, reducing business travel , minimising the use of electricity etc. Airlines are contributing a portion of the ticket money or frequent flyer points towards Reforestation plans in order to offset the Green house gases as a result of that travel.
These initiatives are fantastic and are trying to address the issue at hand head-on. But is there a fallout of all or some of these initiatives that results in things that negate the effort? I think in some cases, Yes! A recent survey revealed that people like to use the extra savings that they earn from electricity providers and the like to buy new Plasma Tvs or LCD TVs. Now thats not just negating the effect but compounding the problem. It is a proven fact now that Plasma TVs use up more power and hence result in higher green house gases than normal CRT TVs. So what is the point in signing up for the Green power project, saving some money on that and buying a Plasma TV?
The above is just one example of such initiatives back firing, and there are bound to be such instances, but what I think is that the World should join hands to try and come up with better and more viable initiatives that will help reduce the Green house effect and the Global Warming. Imposing and enforcing vehicle emission standards is one great foolproof initiative. Sops to people who use Green means is one way of providing benefit, but a more effective means would be to tax those who are not prepared to use Green means.
Feel free to comment in with your ideas.
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Indias education system
I have always held this opinion that the IITs and IIMs in India are doing nothing special and nothing different to the other institutes around the world. The fact that they produce top professionals is because they only allow the cream to be part of their courses. They are not doing very little to actually transform ordinary individuals into thorough professionals.
I read an article written by Michael Backman on The Age this morning, HERE, and totally agree with his views. In this article Michael writes about how Indias higher education system is just not sufficient to support the growth that the economy is now seeing. Also, the education system is focussed in areas that do not add value to the existing knowledge base.
This brings me to the point of the process of filteration at educational institutes. On one end of the spectrum we have IITs, IIMs and the like, that filter at the entry level and at the other end we have the CA Institute that filters at the exit level. Both these models suffer from limitations and have their own advantages. Looking at each of these systems :
Entry level Filteration
Advantages :
1. Sets a benchmark for aptitude required to take up a course and lets the individual know straight away if they are upto it.
2. Optimal use of training and infrastructure resources as only a selected number of people are trained.
3. Guarantees minimum level of competence among pass-outs.
4. Ensures a competitive peer group with the difference between the best and the worst not being much.
Disadvantages :
1. Entry criteria often has no correlation to the course being taken, thereby denying some individuals to take up the course.
2. Too much reliance on a 3 hour exam, which may not be the best 3 hours for an individual.
3. The entrance exam becomes more important than the course itself.
4. Limited opportunity for people to get access to the best training and infrastructure, which might just be teh reason why most people are not as good as they could have been.
Exit level Filteration
Advantages :
1. Equal opportunity provided for anyone interested in taking up a line of study. If they are good enough, they will get through.
2. Emphasis is on learning whats in the course, and not on something that is merely a gateway to the course.
3. Guarantees minimum level of competence among pass-outs.
4. Provides the same platform and infrastructure for everyone to make the best use of.
Disadvantages :
1. Huge strain on resources as a huge number of aspirants have to be catered for.
2. Peer group is a mix of people at various levels of competence, thereby diluting competition.
3. Individuals realise late that they may not be cut out for a particular line of study.
Preference
All said and done, I have a preference for the Exit level filteration for the following reasons.
1. Equal opportunity.
2. Equal level of infrastructure and training provided for all.
3. Onus on deciding line of study and responsibility of the same lies with an individual.
4. Non-reliance on a 3 hour entrance exam.
Myself in this regard,
I hate entrance exams and know they are not my forte. I might find it difficult to clear CAT, but I am sure that I have all it takes to go through the curriculum and the grind at any IIM and compete with others who might have come in thru the CAT structure. This is because the entrance exam is not always a test of skills required in the course that follows, it is just a process of elimination.
The system
Sadly, it focusses on where one has studied from and not necessarily what one has studied and what one knows. brings be to an earlier post on this blog titled Skills vs Qualification, HERE.
Ur take??
I read an article written by Michael Backman on The Age this morning, HERE, and totally agree with his views. In this article Michael writes about how Indias higher education system is just not sufficient to support the growth that the economy is now seeing. Also, the education system is focussed in areas that do not add value to the existing knowledge base.
This brings me to the point of the process of filteration at educational institutes. On one end of the spectrum we have IITs, IIMs and the like, that filter at the entry level and at the other end we have the CA Institute that filters at the exit level. Both these models suffer from limitations and have their own advantages. Looking at each of these systems :
Entry level Filteration
Advantages :
1. Sets a benchmark for aptitude required to take up a course and lets the individual know straight away if they are upto it.
2. Optimal use of training and infrastructure resources as only a selected number of people are trained.
3. Guarantees minimum level of competence among pass-outs.
4. Ensures a competitive peer group with the difference between the best and the worst not being much.
Disadvantages :
1. Entry criteria often has no correlation to the course being taken, thereby denying some individuals to take up the course.
2. Too much reliance on a 3 hour exam, which may not be the best 3 hours for an individual.
3. The entrance exam becomes more important than the course itself.
4. Limited opportunity for people to get access to the best training and infrastructure, which might just be teh reason why most people are not as good as they could have been.
Exit level Filteration
Advantages :
1. Equal opportunity provided for anyone interested in taking up a line of study. If they are good enough, they will get through.
2. Emphasis is on learning whats in the course, and not on something that is merely a gateway to the course.
3. Guarantees minimum level of competence among pass-outs.
4. Provides the same platform and infrastructure for everyone to make the best use of.
Disadvantages :
1. Huge strain on resources as a huge number of aspirants have to be catered for.
2. Peer group is a mix of people at various levels of competence, thereby diluting competition.
3. Individuals realise late that they may not be cut out for a particular line of study.
Preference
All said and done, I have a preference for the Exit level filteration for the following reasons.
1. Equal opportunity.
2. Equal level of infrastructure and training provided for all.
3. Onus on deciding line of study and responsibility of the same lies with an individual.
4. Non-reliance on a 3 hour entrance exam.
Myself in this regard,
I hate entrance exams and know they are not my forte. I might find it difficult to clear CAT, but I am sure that I have all it takes to go through the curriculum and the grind at any IIM and compete with others who might have come in thru the CAT structure. This is because the entrance exam is not always a test of skills required in the course that follows, it is just a process of elimination.
The system
Sadly, it focusses on where one has studied from and not necessarily what one has studied and what one knows. brings be to an earlier post on this blog titled Skills vs Qualification, HERE.
Ur take??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
