Of exams

So this is what happens when I cut back, way back, on reading blogs regularly: I miss out on a compelling recent back and forth. Brought to my notice by someone who, as I was departing after lunch, said: Check out the debate on women and the IITs on Abi's blog.

So I did. Not in full measure, though it also took me to another blog that I read far too infrequently, Vivek's.

Some thoughts (some anecdotal, so sue me), generated by these two men, for both of whom I have a lot of respect.

Way back when (1976) I did the IIT-JEE. Thought I could get through without coaching, so I took none. I thought wrong. Or at least, I didn't get in. As the years have passed, I've come to believe more and more that I really failed because I didn't take the exam seriously. (I later failed another exam for the same reason). But a coaching class would have forced me to take it seriously.

Way back when (1981) I did the GRE. Thought I could get through without coaching, so I took none. I got excellent scores. I think it is possible to do well in GRE-like exams without coaching; sometimes I wonder if the GRE and the JEE measure different things. It's also true that I took the GRE more seriously than I did the JEE.

The engineering college I attended, BITS Pilani, admitted people based on school-leaving marks. It had a 1:20 sex ratio among students when I was there. (In case you need to ask, that's f:m). I believe part of that ratio was explained by the limited hostel space for girls.

Over the years, BITS admitted an ever-increasing number of girls, still on school-leaving marks. When I visited the campus in early 2004, the sex ratio was more like 2:3. (Still f:m). I believe part of that increase is explained by hugely expanded hostel space for girls.

In 2004, BITS introduced their new online admissions test, BITSAT. The immediate fallout was a drastic drop in the number of girls admitted. I believe the ratio among 2004 entrants was something like 1:10, uncomfortably like in my time.

This drop is of serious concern to BITS authorities, who I believe are examining (among other things) if the test itself has or encourages gender bias.

On a more recent visit to the campus, I discussed this drop with various women, including fellow students from my time and current students who had taken the test. Their general feeling was that various societal pressures make it difficult for women to take and do well in such a test: including the difficulty of going to coaching classes, the feeling that engineering is not for women, etc: i.e., many points that came out in this debate anyway.

I don't believe a test by itself can have a gender bias. I do believe there are inherent societal biases that can get reflected and emphasized by the whole testing process -- including coaching classes. Therefore I think the real battle is to tackle those biases. It is, like a lot of things, the harder and more long term battle.

I think there's nothing wrong with an educational institution testing candidates for admission, via an exam that's every bit as difficult as the institution wants to make it. After all such an institution ideally wants to attract the best possible students.

If that institution is a desirable one, there will be coaching classes set up to prepare you for the test. (As there are for the BITSAT). Simple supply and demand.

In an ideal world, I'd like to see no coaching classes. Such an ideal world would also, among other things, treat school and university teaching as a first-choice profession, and have a seat for you in whatever discipline you choose to pursue. We are not in that ideal world, and since that's so, we will have coaching classes.

It's a myth that students were "better" in the good old days. It's a myth some of us from those old days like to delude ourselves with; besides, I'm not convinced that the old days were as good as we like to pretend, anyway. Students of today are just as sharp as in my time.

But what's not a myth is that some professors at some of our institutions are concerned about the kind of students they get. I've heard from these profs that the students remain very bright, motivated and capable. But they are also focused entirely on their particular subjects, with nearly no interest in outside subjects. Not everyone need see this as a worry; but these profs do. I do.


Finally, two points about the debate itself:

I don't know why so many feel it's necessary that such debates have "winners" and "losers". To me, both Abi and Vivek brought thought-provoking material to the table. Surely the goal should not be to pronounce that one of them "won", or got "bashed" (neither of which I can see, even if I thought it mattered which I don't), but instead to search for a corrective to whatever it is that puts far less girls than boys in our engineering institutions. That is, if we believe that this situation needs correction.

I don't believe it helps debate among sincere, responsible adults -- which both Vivek and Abi are -- when you say something like: "This is beyond silly." Abi, I know you regret that.