Printing second-rate MBA degrees

A degree mill is a school that grinds out people into graduates with pieces of paper. The focus is on how many pieces of paper they issue. The process is not as important as the end goal. An MBA mill is any college, university or institute that has the earning and issuing of MBA degrees as its core value; and there are not hundreds but thousands of them spread all over the country.

Some of these mills are scams posing as legitimate schools, taking money in exchange for a worthless degree. Some of them are actual colleges or universities that offer degrees, but with no accreditation and no real academic experience. Still others are colleges or universities, more interested in money than in quality education, which is essentially selling degrees.

Many MBA degree mills depend on universities that issue degrees for a price, but without academic rigour or evidence of actual student learning. There are also degree mills that make things quite hard for students. They add rules and academic hoops. They might have challenging tests. They require papers and projects. They might even offer good and valuable learning experiences. Yet, in the end, they or the students they serve see them mainly as steps toward getting that coveted piece of paper called the MBA degree, at the end.

Scan advertisements, off-line and online, and you will read grand promises of earning your degree which gets you jobs through campus placements. There is a drive to get jobs, thereby removing time for education, reflection and deeper learning. Unfortunately, even the top-rated MBA schools do not talk about what they teach or what the students could expect to learn. They are all promising high paying jobs and a cushy life as the end. There are ads that place a prominent image of a student in an academic robe, crossing the stage with the degree in hand, since that is the goal in a degree mill.

The paper, on which the degree is printed, is not without value. Companies value it when hiring. Certain pieces of paper from colleges are required to even apply to some jobs. The paper adds some level of prestige. It serves as a signal of achievement and progress in a person’s life. Recipients and their families often beam with pride. This paper however is quite fraudulent. The degrees are being granted by State Technical Universities but the deliverance of so called education is by private parties whose purpose is sustainability of student enrolments and profits. Purely of illustrative purposes, one example for the discerning is Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow - most MBA degrees have an essential requirement of a project report based on summer internship (like a dissertation) to be submitted, evaluated along with a viva-voce exam.

The exam is conducted by a nominee examiner of the Technical University along with internal staff of the delivery college. The nominee examiner is a faculty member from another college which is also the affiliate of the same University. No one can estimate but informed-guesses from worthy and well meaning faculty members have pointed out that nearly the entire project reports are plagiarised from old ones, downloaded from websites like slide-share and scribd. There are paid services online for writing dissertations. The owners of the delivery college bring undue pressure upon examiners to ignore such blatant academic fraud. No one wants to rock the boat of corruption since each stakeholder has a mean self-interest in the process and has a personal axe to grind as a participant. This malpractice is spread right from the colleges in Agra and Greater Noida in the west of its jurisdiction to Varanasi and Gorakhpur in extreme east. Similar voices murmuring identical wrong doings are heard from other technical universities in the country.

In the flurry of higher education innovation today, with its growing praise of massive enrolments, we would be wise to not lose sight of the dangers associated with becoming a degree printing mill. Such mills are devaluing the essence of great higher education by churning out certified to have been educated but incompetent to be employed graduates. Additionally, the more colleges see themselves as mainly selling verification and degrees, the more that they set themselves up for disruption. Things might go well for them in the short- to mid-term, but that will change.

__________________________________
Feel free to share the post with your friends and networks!!
You are invited to follow the author’s blog in HINDI -

• https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Pension to Parliamentarians is the New Privy Purse

START OF PENSION TO PARLIAMENTARIANS

The Supreme Court on April 16, 2018, dismissed a PIL challenging the perks, including pension and travel allowances, given to former Parliamentarians. The Centre had on March 7 told the apex court that the entitlement of former Members of Parliament (MPs) to get pension and other benefits was “justified” as their dignity has to be maintained even after they complete their tenure as parliamentarians.

An NGO ‘Lok Prahari’ had approached the apex court in March 2017, pleading that pension and other perks being given to MPs even after demitting office were contrary to Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution. The plea had also said that Parliament has no power to provide for pensionary benefits to lawmakers without making any law.

Article 106 of our Constitution gives Parliament the authority to decide the salaries and allowances of MPs. In 1954, when Parliament specified the salaries and allowances of MPs, the law did not have a provision for pension benefits for ex-MPs. More than 22 years later, the law was amended in 1976 to provide a pension of Rs 300 to ex-MPs. Under the law, an ex-MP who had served for more than 5 years was entitled to an additional pension of Rs 50 per month for each extra year served, but the total pension was capped at Rs 500 per month. Also, pension benefits were made available only to MPs who had served for at least 5 years.

While MPs’ monthly pension was revised over the years, the eligibility criterion of serving for a minimum 5 years remained in place until 2003, when the law was amended to remove this condition. It was estimated that by then, this provision had denied pension to approximately 764 Lok Sabha MPs and more than 200 Rajya Sabha MPs.

The other significant amendment to the law came in 2006. Until then, a deceased ex-MP’s spouse or dependents were entitled to receive only family pension for a limited time. The 2006 amendment gave them the security of family pension to the tune of half of the ex-MP’s entitled pension for life.

From May 2009 (beginning of the 15th Lok Sabha), ex-MPs have received a pension of Rs 20,000 per month. MPs who have served for more than 5 years receive an additional Rs 1,500 per month for every year they have been in Parliament in excess of 5 years. Ex-MPs can travel free in AC First Class of any train when travelling alone, and in AC Second Class with a companion, both for free. On the demise of an ex-MP, their spouse or dependent receives a family pension which is half of the pension to which the ex-MP was entitled. Ex-MPs are also entitled to receive medical treatment under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). Lastly, they can borrow books from the Parliament library by paying a security deposit of Rs 500.

SHUT DOWN OF PRIVY PURSES TO ERSTWHILE RULERS

When the British Crown partitioned British India and granted independence to the new Dominions of India and Pakistan, more than a third of the sub-continent was still covered by princely states, with rulers whose position and status within the Indian Empire had varied. In 1947, princely states numbering over 550 covered 48% of area of pre-Independent India and constituted 28% of its population. Most joined India.

The Instruments of Accession needed the states to only cede defence, communications and foreign relations to India. Democratic institutions were introduced in these states and it was only in 1949 that they were fully merged with India to form new states. Although in 1947 the royal families had been allowed to retain large sums of money as their Privy Purse, in 1949 with the states and its revenues being entirely taken over by the Government of India, it was the Indian Government that provided the rulers and their families with Privy Purses. The Privy Purses were determined by several factors. For the 565 princely states, Privy Purses ranged from 5000 Rupees per annum to amounts in millions. For certain other states, while certain amounts were guaranteed for the time being, it was liable to be reduced soon after. The Government of India also generally reduced the allowances with every succession in the family.

As defined from 1949 under Article 291 of the Indian Constitution, a privy purse would be a fixed, tax-free sum guaranteed to the former princely rulers and their successors. The sum was intended to cover all expenses of the former ruling families, including those incurred for religious and other ceremonies, and would be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.

The motion to abolish Privy Purses in India, and the official recognition of the titles, was originally brought before the Parliament in 1969 and passed in the Lok Sabha, but failed in the Rajya Sabha. The Bill was again passed in the Lok Sabha on September 2, 1970 but was defeated once again in the Rajya Sabha on September 5, 1970. It was again proposed in 1971, and was successfully passed as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1971. Then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi argued the case for abolition based on equal rights for all citizens and the need to reduce the government's revenue deficit.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD THROUGH LEGISLATIVE IMPRUDENCE

The current debate around the pension entitlements of MPs raises a few significant questions. First, and more fundamental issue is whether the benefits that are provided to MPs are 

1. adequate for them to perform their duties and, 
2. attractive enough for interested and committed individuals to join politics. 

This puts the debate out into a far wider field, and opens up many related deeper issues that concern the current nature and understanding of politics itself. Issues like nature of Membership of Parliament being a full time job, office of profits, parallel professional engagements in Law or accounting, legislating on matters on which the MPs are themselves facing the law, and such millions of questions come up.  Politics as a hobby, profession, vocation, career or a part-time indulgence, and essential requirements for each one of such pursuits come up.

Secondly, there was no provision for Pension in the original Act, “the Salary and Allowances of Members of Parliament Act, 1954.” The objective of the Act was modified in 1976 to include “.. To provide for the Salary, Allowances and Pension...” while the title of the Act was changed to “the Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954” in 2004. The law governing the emoluments of MPs provides for a Joint Committee of Parliament to recommend changes in their salary and allowances. This Committee had recommended in 2005-06 that the government should consider a permanent independent mechanism for recommending changes in the salaries and other benefits of MPs. This recommendation has been accepted by the government but there is no consensus so far on setting up of the Commission. The fundamental issue - should MPs as the highest legislators decide their own salaries, allowances and pensions by passing a law in Parliament remains unaddressed. Does this not create a conflict of interest?

The abolition of the privy purses was a constitutional betrayal and must rank as one of the most shameful episodes of our constitutional history. A parliament which takes away the contracted payment of Privy-Purse for maintenance of their dignity to the erstwhile 500 odd rulers of the various pre-independence states which constitutes India, chooses to pay pensions to the new monarchs called parliamentarians for maintenance of their dignity is hypocrisy at its best and injustice at its worst.

__________________________________
Feel free to share the post with your friends and networks!!
You are invited to follow the author’s blog in HINDI -

• https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Fettering Social Media

A government would try to achieve total control over our life through its might and muscle is the traditional notion of totalitarianism. Today, we may not have such despotism but we do essentially have totalitarian forces in the world in the form of these large tech companies. But guess what? They didn't use any might and muscle on us. We voluntarily opted for this arrangement. And we live in a world today in which these tech giants have a level of control and an ability to manipulate us that Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini could only have dreamed of. The more rope we give them, the sooner they can hang us all.

The internet, especially social media, has become one of the primary places for people to exchange viewpoints and ideas. Social media is where a considerable part of the current national conversation takes place.

Favouring one kind of political speech over another by the current media giants certainly skews the national political conversation in a lopsided way that conflicts with basic principles of democratic freedom of speech and what presumably should be the obligations of virtual monopolies.

If the big social media companies such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, choose what to publish and what not to publish, they should be subject to the same licensing and requirements as customary media organizations like press and TV.

The apparent leftist bias, however, not only shows itself in the suppression of conservative speech on websites of social media giants. Censorship and selective presentation of speech by such big tech companies has led to some unfortunate and unsavoury political and social consequences.

Produced by investigative journalist Peter Schweizer and directed by M.A. Taylor, a new documentary, "The Creepy Line," is revealing the way in which the major technology companies Google and Facebook manipulate consumers through the collection of users' data. Shedding light on current controversies surrounding privacy and political bias, the film argues that even the most intelligent people among us are serving as unwitting pawns in a power grab, enabled by mathematical algorithms, without our being aware of it.

Censuring of Social Media by various national Governments has already begun. Even the European Union is seized of the subject. It is quite likely that some form of regulation of Social Media will follow.

__________________________________
Feel free to share the post with your friends and networks!!
You are invited to follow the author’s blog in HINDI -

• https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Network TV loves Congress

Having been a keen media watcher, I noticed that 400 odd Indian TV news channels are thriving on opinion based programming presented in the form of debates rather than news. These debates have an anchor who intervenes and interjects to moderate not the conduct of the debaters but the content of the debate and guide the discussion in the direction of the choice of the channel or leave the debate inconclusive when not being successful in doing so; yet never permitting the debate to conclude in a direction which is contrary to the editorial slant of the channel.

A topic of no importance but high emotional sensationalism is taken up for debate. The participants on the debate usually have one spokesperson from the ruling NDA being opposed by two or more spokespersons from the constituents of UPA. Sometimes a sponsored-journalist or a devotee-lawyer or a communist-professor is also roped in to hide the true colours of a partisan set up.

Issues and subjects which are established and facing legal prosecution related to UPA, like the National Herald case, MMS directing banks to fund Kingfisher, NDTV-Chidambaram deals, Citizenship confusion of Rahul Gandhi, MMS not acting on the warnings of RRR on Neerav Modi, or the lies told by Congress President are never ever debated or mentioned but hours of precious viewers’ time is expanded on proliferating a suspicion in Rafale deal, Naseeruddin Shah feeling scared of ghosts that no one else had seen, ‘jumalebaaji’ or the marital status of the Prime Minister.

This turnabout where UPA gets excessive airtime to promote their suspicion of corruption in Rafale but no time is given to NDA to discuss suspicion of corruption by Vadra or Sonia or Chidambaram is striking. What Rahul says in parliament or outside, despite it being conjectures, is played up but the concrete rebuttals based on hard evidences offered by Jaitley or Sitharaman are down played. The irrelevant and naive questions posed by Rahul are amplified but the relevant and serious posers to him are buried alive. Aarushi’s or Jessica’s murder is debated but not Sunanda’s. Procurement of coffins for the Siachen casualties were discussed and debated endlessly but no one debates Augusta-Westland helicopters despite the final adjudication in an Italian court. It’s particularly striking because, in this case, this mismatch is partisan rather than ideological.

It reminds me of nothing so much as the systematic partisan imbalance in prime time TV appearances. Typically, when Congress and its allies are in power, a heavy guest lists to reflect what newsmakers are thinking is fielded but when the same party is under attack for corruption as during 2010-14, the guests lists from the UPA become lighter. But when BJP and its allies are in power, UPA-heavy guest lists are fielded to provide a counterpoint to officeholders.

I’m not entirely sure how to account for this imbalance in the actual coverage decisions. One popular theory is that Congress and its allies have successfully “worked the referees” and led the press to become paranoid about exhibiting rightist bias to the extent that they bend over backward and display bias in the opposite direction.

I think a more parsimonious explanation might be that the key decision-makers in network television (wealthy anchors, executives, shareholders, etc.) benefit in concrete material ways from Congress winning elections, and their conduct reflects that reality more than the private ideological convictions of rank-and-file workers. This explanation gains currency when the unlucky non-beneficiaries of the UPA era are seen getting lucky in the NDA era and are unable to hide their slow but certain leaning towards the BJP.

Independent Media as a pillar of democracy is not found anywhere in the world and continues to remain a great utopian concept. In independent India, media was never independent. Ironically, media was much more independent in the slave-India. The phrase “sold-media” is here to stay in Indian politics.

__________________________________
Feel free to share the post with your friends and networks!!
You are invited to follow the author’s blog in HINDI -

• https://www.facebook.com/vichaaronkeeduniyamein 

--------------------------------------------------------------------