vinod1975  

Profile Views:
937 views
Friends:
0 friends
Last Update:
10 years ago
Signup Date:
Feb. 25, 2014

  • Information

    Personal Information

    Name:

    Working Information

    Designation:
    Department:
    Sub Department:
    City/Station:
    Division:
    Zone/Unit:

    Transfer Information

    Division:
    Zone/Unit:

  • Comments (4)
    other functions >
    12:44 PM on May. 26, 2015
    Default
    Sent the data at your gmail id.Notice the unusually large <a href="http://waegejjldt.com">blckos&l
    t;/a> of students getting exactly the same score in a school ... 69, 90 etc. Something looks very unnatural about that. Makes you wonder, if each paper was corrected by multiple examiners from the board, what would be the standard devation / consistency and accuracy in the scores each one of them would give the candidate. How does this standard deviation compare with the range of marks which a candidate would require to score in the boards ? Perhaps, you should have some kind of reasonable cut off at the top 30 percentile of the board marks and leave it at that. something else which might interest you ...eprints.iisc.ernet.in/25027/1/6.pdfCheck out figure 4. This basically questions the notion that a student with percentile X in one board == student with percentile X in another board.That just seems intuitively wrong. It is known that nowadays, some of the schools with better students often try to switch to one of the national/international boards.On the other hand, if raw percentages were taken, the state board students would be at unfair disadvantage.To calibrate the percentiles between boards, my understanding is that some third party common calibration is needed to make some kind of mapping between Percentile(X) in boardA == what percentile in boardB.Our country, right from the highest to lowest level is run by ad hoc gut feelings and emotion. Perhaps this JEE issue is indicative of a much larger issue at hand - that we need to be driven less by ego and emotion and more by logic and data ( which is readily available to us ).
    6:13 PM on May. 25, 2015
    Default
    If there is a hypothetical board whose stenudts manage to get into IIT but consistently perform poorly, why should we not have a filter which bars those stenudts. But, of course, it will have to be done in a way which is politically palatable. We will have to study more as to why those stenudts are performing poorly. Can we convert that lack of preparation into a general eligibility, or make changes to the entrance test that it checks for those topics more thoroughly, instead of saying that stenudts of a particular board are not eligible.For example, suppose we find that most stenudts of a particular boardare not performing well. We look into it and find that this board has decided that a student need not study any language in 11th and 12th classes. And we realize that the language skills (as opposed to English skills) of these stenudts is rather poor. Instead of barring this board, we could say that only those stenudts are eligible for IITs who have studies P, C, M, and one language in 11th and 12th classes. Or we could change the question paper pattern to have long passages on science and then ask questions based on those passages even in PCM test.And to give an example as to why such a possibility is not absurd, IIT Kanpur already has such a policy for PG admission. We do not admit stenudts who have not done any practical work. (So, distance education based degrees, if they do not have any project and lab work, we don't consider them, where as most other universities and even IITs will consider them eligible.)By the way, there is a difference between the data and analysis that I am presenting versus what one could do with data of five years hence. I am giving data of 2006 and not of 2012, to justify decision of 2006. Ideally, this should have been data of 2001 to 2005 from multiple IITs, but still it is not as bad as using data of 2012 to justify an action of 2006.Tracking multiple attempts is difficult, but more importantly, if, for a moment, you believe in this study, it is independent of the number of attempts, and only depend on the year of attempt, and it is showing (in a limited way) that stenudts giving JEE 2 years after 12th should be discouraged compared to stenudts giving JEE 1 year after 12th.I, actually suggested to JEE at that time, that instead of barring someone completely, they could give some penalty marks to the student with each year passing. But, it was felt too difficult to explain politically.(In fact, I am a big fan of encouraging and discouraging certain types of stenudts through use of enhanced and reduced credits. I have, in my earlier articles before I started blogging, had suggested that we can give extra credits to people doing 12th class from village schools, to girl stenudts, to stenudts whose parents are not educated, and so on, perhaps even for other things like Olympiads. But too controversial.)I am glad that you refer to the current debate and the current proposals that have gone through IIT Council, and NIT Council, etc. One of the arguments of the other camp has been that pretty much anything any body proposes, it is shot down as not supported by strong scientific study, and that there is not much study one can do in these matters, and hence their experience is all that should count. And our argument has been that yes, ideal statistical analysis cannot be done, because it involves comparing stenudts with non-stenudts. But still we need to collect some data, we need to do some analysis, and we must interpret the results by first understanding the limitations of our study. We are constantly pointing to studies in this space, our own data, and our own limited analysis.While this blog was a very tiny study, but in general, if one were to keep rejecting any study that is less than perfect, one is essentially supporting the argument that any change should be done with "experience" and not with "data and analysis." http://svtoityqhgm.com [url=http://xzzpfvcavkw.com]xzzpfvcavkw[/url] [link=http://jqbphrpx.com]jqbphrpx[/link]
    6:06 PM on May. 24, 2015
    Default
    We have enough <a href="http://hkkpln.com">reosan</a
    > to believe that people in the JAB and IIT-Administration are conservative, fools . At the risk of repeating myself on this blog - Apart from the issue of vacant seats, has IIT ever thought about the distribution of the seats? Does it make sense to have even half as many undergrad seats in Civil/Chemical/Mechanical/Metallurgical/Textils..[
    and all these unwanted courses], as compared to CS/EE. Professors in all those departments are simply wasting their own time as well as that of their undergrad students knowing fully well that their students have come to IIT for its tag more than technical education. The tag can fetch them some nice marketing or banking job or a good MBA program, so there's no <a href="http://hkkpln.com">reosan</a
    > to worry. This attitude leads to visible disinterest in a lot of students, which leads to frustration, which in turn leads to bad attitude amongst "these JEE-qualified guys" which self-righteous academics like Nanopolitan and a good number of IIT professors, love to crib about.This which begins before the student even sees his department - if you don't believe this, check for yourself, the current counselling blogs and everything from Mechanical...Textiles is placed under a common umbrella of non-circuit branches, good to prepare for [banking/consulting/mba].After all these years of JEE counselling and known trends, I wonder what the IQ of IIT Administration is, that they haven't even identified this as a problem ( forget about fixing it). As long as IIT continues with this ancient ratio of approximately equal seats in all courses, it should not waste time aspiring to be "world-class", when the major chunk of its graduates embark on a parallel agenda from day-zero.One of the <a href="http://hkkpln.com">reosan</a
    > why IIT has probably not solved this issue, is probably to avoid offending non-[CS/EE] professors. IITs can introduce as many Minors and Open Electives as they like but till students doesn't really have much choice in opting for their Major, this problem will continue. CS and Electronics have the least infrastructure requirements in any case, so these courses should be easy to expand on demand. It might not entirely be practical to offer Majors of a student's choice ( almost everyone will opt for CS/EE in that case), but at least have some kind of a General Engineering course ( where a student can mix and match a distribution of Design, Engineering and Applied Sciences courses from maybe 2-3 different departments ). This will avoid situations where students are stuck with Majors they really hate and at the same time, other courses will be taught to undergrads in the institute.And this will also solve the problem of extensive coaching. By the way, the current competition isn't for just getting into IIT it is for getting CS/EE at IITs. This puts the pressure for a good rank which in turn leads to the requirement for extensive coaching ( with all its dumbing-down effects ) . Also, on the whole, not more than 30% of the courses should be fixed or pre-decided. The rest should be electives. So, with my solution, both students and professors will be happier. What more does IIT want - Promising programmers and circuit designers studying Metallurgy ? ( No offence to all those core branches, I am just stating people's existing priorities as they are. )
    2:44 AM on May. 24, 2015
    Default
    Third Flower My wife and that i happen to be now dtegiheld that Albert could carry out his scientific tests as a consequence of the strategies he had as a result of your web content. It can be on occasion perplexing to simply always be gifting away steps which some