POV. Ranking colleges and stamping premier are somehow prone to other countries. In India, Education *still* a _service_ than business. Some colleges and their alumni are promoting the business value of the education through some media. The ranking by many news papers and media are highly padded (and corrupted) and no way it reflects the truth. It is a strong POV. Moreover the ranking reflects the elite mindset--which is less than 1% of total population. --Rrjanbiah04:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Services too can be categorized as premium and non-premium. If the adjective "premier" is the problem, let's change it "Best" or something else. (Now, one cannot argue that all the colleges in India are of the same standard and there are no better ones among equals.) Number of startups from a college, number of companies visting the college during placements, number of research initiatives at a college, ratio of students making into good universities abroad, number of times of occurence in Google news, Google's page rank of the college's website are a few parameters other than media coverage determining the quality of a college. Alumni might be playing an important role in improving the performance of all these parameters, but alumni haven't sprouted from nowhere. Ranking reflects elitist mindset ? More clarifications on that please. - Kesava05:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Services too can be categorized - Ok. Tell me what is your measure or "scale"? Don't quote me some magazines as you know the value of corruption in media.
The point is not "my" and "your" measures, buddy. The average salaries paid is probably a good measure ? Why does Murali Manohar Joshi talk about IITs and IIMs and not about XYZ college of Mumbai ? Why do best professors/students generally go to teach in IITs and not in ABC college of Calcutta ? (I am afraid u'll say that there are no "best" students and professors!!) - Kesava08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If you think salary is an important factor, I suggest you to read the biographies of many scientists like Newton. (Don't tell me that the above colleges make scientists. They may indeed make exhibitionists, but that is off-topic). --Rrjanbiah10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Two things to talk about: 1. Newton was from Oxford, the so called one of the tow best Universities of Britain. 2. 'Making scientists' is not the only end of university education. (although IISc and IITs produce lot of scientists & Anna University housed guys like Abdul Kalam). IITs and ilk have created lot of startups across the globe.
"premier"->"Best" - Funny. Mean "best" is "show-off" or "corrupted/padded advertising/survey"?
premier (adjective)best or most important is what Cambridge English Dictionary defines.
You're the one who suggested changing to that word. Anyway, my English is poor--so no comments on that. Perhaps "Much advertised/exhibited/promoted institutions" will fit better?? --Rrjanbiah10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You are too apologetic about your language. Be more concerned about the content. There are whole bunch of worker ants to take care about wording. - Kesava14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Number of placements as measure - Sorry so blind and naive. Do you know, how placements are done? 1. Alumni pushing their old/present students inside (eg. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Yahoo!, and any other companies esp. the one which asks referrals) 2. The college board calls for the HR team--for which they even spend lakhs (aka corruption)
So companies come to IITs to recruit only because of the alumni. and NOT becuase of the quality of education they deliver ?? - Kesava08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
"Quality"?? Quality of the *education* means *educating* the most stupid (as stupid as me) person on the earth without *discriminating* him on his social/financial/physical grounds. --Rrjanbiah10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sending guys to abroad universities as measure - They may be sending. But, is it the measure for "premier" or "best"? or is it the values that such institutions provide?
If Stanford is world's best and Stanford mostly accepts guys from IITs, How else are IITs to be interpreted other than best ? - Kesava08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
By any means, are you kidding? It may be true that Stanford is ready to educate these guys. But, is it the "measure" for "premier"? And is it the "values" that these institutions provide? Think for a while and you'll get the answer. Irrationalism is blind. --Rrjanbiah10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Google as measure - Funny. My simple site has somehow equal rank as of the popular websites like rediff.com and ndtv.com; does it mean my site is _really_ popular (or "premier") as rediff or ndtv?
Alumni improving performace - Out of reality. Alumni can't "improve"--they can only "push" and pad the survey aka advertising
Ranking==elite mindset - As I said earlier, ranking is somehow prone to other countries like America where Education is much of business. The recent trend suggests that even in such countries people prefer public schools [1] In India, Education is not that much corrupted or commercialized; there might be some exceptions like IIM, but it is no way reflects the whole society.
The increasing number of applications IIT-JEE recieve only show that they are the best and people want to get into best. IITs for that matter have acceptance rates stricter than Harvard and Stanford. (XYZ college of Coimbatore or Aligarh do not recieve so many applications). Government of India itslef believes that IITs are best and hence wants to extend the IIT model to RECs by making them NITs. I am totally upset over the fact that I am fighting to establish a well-known fact that IITs and its ilk are the best in India. - Kesava08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If product X is selling more, it doesn't mean that it is the best; it may mean that it is much exhibitted. Equating the numbers is like claiming the adult materials are the best 'coz they are selling more.
Well, I'm much afraid of the fact that you're trying to advertise the above colleges in Wiki and trying to promote ignorancy to the international audience. EOD. --Rrjanbiah10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
And in anyway, quoting some padded surveys or corrupted media's source is strong POV. It shouldn't be put up inside a MediaWiki box (or advertised in Wiki). --Rrjanbiah07:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. POV in dispute is fine, just list as such. Burgundavia 06:21, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. POV in dispute is fine, just list as such. Rajasekaran Deepak 18:08, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
Delete. As it is, it sounds very cliquey. Let's instead improve List_of_universities_in_India, by adding rankings or ordering by rankings. The term "premier" is ill-defined. By the way, the India-Today rankings are fundamentally flawed in methodology. I opine that although they can be cited in an article (such as List_of_universities_in_India), they don't have the kind of standing to merit an article solely based on their rankings. Ambarish|Talk02:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
But, I guess there are around 15-20 colleges that really stand apart in the whole List of universities in India. The sole purpose of this mediawiki item is to make a navigational model which helps audience to traverse across those 15-20 ones. So i urge to keep this. The reasons have to be better than the ones cited by user:rrjanbiah. - Kesava05:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I mentioned any of User:Rrjanbiah's reasons, simply because I don't agree with too many of them. You guess there are around 15 to 20 colleges that stand out? See, there's my problem. Where do you draw the line? Let me elucidate. I have two complaints. First, it's one thing to order colleges by a specific rank, while mentioning all the colleges. It's a very different thing to categorise an arbitrary percentage of institutions as "premier" according to the same ranking - do you stop at 1% or 10%, or 50%? My real fear is that folks keep adding to this list until it becomes another List of universities in India. My second complaint is about the ranking per se - I don't know of any other ranking than the India Today one, and IMHO, the India Today one is flawed beyond redemption. I dislike both the means (the methodology used) and the end result (the rankings themselves). I'm still agreeable to using this ranking to order the list of institutions - after all, any ranking is a POV, and no ranking is free of detractors. What I don't like is an article (in either the article namespace or the MediaWiki namespace) *based* on the rankings. I'm agreeable to such a list if the ranking were official - for instance, there's this National Accreditation and Assessment Council; I'm OK with Template:FiveStarCollegesofIndia based on those. Such an article, for instance, would solve both the issues I've raised above - the ranking is official, and there's a concrete definition. Hope that clears things up. Ambarish|Talk06:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does that mean you'll be changing your mind about deleting this article? If so, you could change your vote above. Ambarish | Talk19:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ambarish, but the number of colleges in the 5 star category seem to be to big for a mediawiki. Some other filtering needs to be applied, for the mediawiki to work. - Kesava04:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
