First job , first day of your career ……First half of your training batch (sorted on names) gets Java development and the second half (the half to which you belong ) gets allotted TESTING stream..
To many of you the whole existence ceases .You curse your luck, why is your roll number in the second half. A feeling of disgrace to your talent overpowers you.
HR of the company is approached and bombarded with questions if you can get your stream changed from testing to coding. Long calls are made by you to seniors and friends seeking advice what is to be done next .Some of you feel so disappointed that you quit the present job and look for other opportunities. And a few take it as a compromise, as a job which someone or the other has to do.
But is testing actually inferior to the development?
It is a widely accepted myth that testing is a less rewarding career than development. Both coding and testing are integral and indispensable part of the software production cycle. Coders are like interpreters .They translate the logical requirement into a technical piece of code. Many times it is not required for them to know the entire business domain for which they are coding. On the other hand, the job of a tester may not be very challenging on the technical front; however, it requires great business sense and application knowledge. A good tester needs to understand the entire business functionality to spot any shortcomings in the code.
Taking a very simple example, a coder writes a piece of code to read an input name from the user and match if the entry is present in the database. He may write a code meeting the requirements, but the code may give unexpected results, where the user enters the name in small case instead of uppercase .Such kind of checks are also ensured while the testing of the code.
Testers also get an added advantage when it comes to exposure to the business domain knowledge over the coders. To grow higher up the ladder requires more and more of the domain understanding and less of the technical coding proficiencies. All the directors, vice-presidents of a company are domain experts. Good domain knowledge can be capitalized much more in a B school interview than a technical certification. Besides, testing offers a lot more automation opportunities to save time on any repeated activity. It in many cases offers much better work life balance.
Testing is not a test of patience or a compromise. It is equally, and many a times, much more challenging. CISCO testers are revered in the market for their domain knowledge in networking. Even in companies like ADOBE and Microsoft, testers constitute a big chunk of the total work force and are equally treated.
There are some profiles which are offered to non-engineers and which only involve testing cases and creating excel sheets, but then there is the same number of copy and paste tasks even in the so-called development work. But then creating a test case( however monotonous it may be) is better than copying a piece of code and running it. Isn’t it?
So, if you are in the testing profile, don’t curse yourself and instead learn the most of the business and domain knowledge which will help you immensely in your career, and the next time you hear from somebody getting a testing profile, say congrats to him and ask him to read this article
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Aricent or CDOT ?
Last year I ended up with two job offers in the first phase of campus placement in college.With the placement season virtually over I have to deciede which one to join.
On one hand is private sector job as software engineer in Aricent and on the other hand is research engineer position inCDOT(a public sector Telecom and networking RnD firm).Package is comparable with in hand of 25K per month in aricent(3.5 lac per annum CTC) and 37K per month in CDOT(4.65 lac per annum CTC before sixth pay commission) and both offer job near home (in NCR).
I am inclined to join CDOT but it is still undecieded.you can help me out.
MS(research) IITD CSE part time
The MS (Research) programme is a special research-oriented Masters programme offered to students who are interested in exploring in-depth research problems in any area of computer science. The emphasis is on conducting original research and writing a thesis of publishable quality. Interested students who have demonstrated excellence in their academic performance and research potential may convert to the Ph. D. programme. There are currently a handful of students in this programme.
Applicants to this programme are expected to have excellent backgrounds in computer science. Since the programme is a research programme, the candidates are typically expected to be superior in training and academic performance to students admitted to the M. Tech. programme. The main differences with the M. Tech. programme are:
(1) The MS (R) programme has 40 credits of research to 20 credits of course work versus a 20-40 breakup in the M. Tech programme.
(2) There are no fixed core courses. Instead each individual student is advised on courses to take based on their research interests and background.
(3) Full-time students are expected to identify their thesis advisor by the end of their first semester, and begin research in the second semester.
Students are provided laboratory and infrastructure facilities similar to that of Ph.D. scholars. We endeavour to provide financial support at Master's level stipends to all GATE-qualified full-time students. Full-time students not resident in Delhi are given priority in allotment of hostel accommodation.
While the MS(Research) programme is currently small in numbers, faculty tend to consider it more prestigious than the M. Tech. programme. Candidates are encouraged to consider conversion to Ph.D.
Curriculum and Requirements of the MS (Research) Programme in Computer Science and Engineering
Duration. The duration of the MS(R) programme is 4 semesters for full-time students and 6 semesters for part-time students.
The maximum extensions can be to 6 semesters for full-time students and 8 semesters for part-time students, under special circumstances.
Credit Requirements.
Total credits: 60
Course credits: 20
Thesis credits: 40
CGPA Requirements. Minimum CGPA requirement for award of degree: 7.0
Minimum CGPA in course work for continuation of registration: 7.0
Regulations for registration.
First semester: Full time students to register for 15-20 course credits only; part-time students to register for 6-12 course credits.
Later semesters: Students to register for remaining course and thesis credits. Part-time students required to complete all course credits in the first 4 semesters.
There are no core course requirements (other than the thesis)
All Post-Graduate level courses of the CSE Department are available to the student for course credits. Courses offered by other departments may be taken for credit on the advice and approval of the programme coordinator / thesis supervisor.
Student will register for courses on the advice and approval of the MS(R) programme coordinator (first semester) and the thesis supervisor (subsequent semesters).
Conversion from full-time to part-time on approval by Dean PGSR on recommendation of the DRC, on completion of course credit requirements.
Supervision
Supervision
Maximum 2 thesis supervisors. DRC to assign thesis supervisor within 2 months of registration in Semester 1.
DRC will constitute a 4-member SRC
SRC will monitor thesis work, based on written reports and presentations made every semester and will recommend number of thesis credits considered as cleared at the end of the semester.
X grade will be awarded for continuing thesis research.
Evaluation and Examiners
Submission of synopsis one month before submission of thesis. Pre-synopsis seminar to DRC.
Dean PGSR to appoint external examiner on receipt of title and synopsis of thesis, from a panel of 4 experts recommended by supervisor and approved by DRC. Cannot be from sponsoring organization in case of sponsored candidates.
Examination board = thesis supervisor(s) and external expert examiner.
Thesis Grading
Thesis Defence Committee = External expert examiner (from India and outside IIT Delhi), supervisor(s) and SRC.
Assistantships On par with M Tech students.
Conversion to PhD On application by the student, and on recommendation by the DRC. A minimum CGPA of 8.5 after first 2 semesters is required. Student must satisfy other requirements for admission into PhD programme. The date of conversion is the date of registration in the PhD programme.
FAQ
How is the part-time M. Tech. / MS (Res) programme different from the full-time programme?
The part-time programmes constitute an opportunity given to working professionals in the NCR area to pursue an advanced degree at IIT Delhi.
Academically, the part-time programmes are identical to the full-time programmes.
The normal duration of the Master's programmes is 6 semesters instead of 4, to complete the 60 credits of work.
A part-time student can take no more than 12 credits a semester.
There is only a small difference in the admission requirements (e.g., GATE is not mandatory, the academic performance requirements may be slightly different) and the admission test process may involve additional tests.
The only other "concession" for the part-time student is that we will hold classes for core courses in the morning slots [C: 8-9 and D: 9-10 on Tue, Wed and Fri; and A: 8-9:30 and B: 9:30-11:00 on Mon, Thu]. Students should select elective courses on the basis of convenience and interest.
Am I eligible to apply for the part time M.Tech/ MS (Res) programme?
Yes, if you have the academic qualifications in terms of degree and academic performance as specified by the department (not just the minimal requirements specified by the institute). In addition, you need:
At least one year's experience (by the start of the academic term, i.e July end or January 1) in an organization where your work is computer science related.
You must be resident and working within 50 km of IIT Delhi.
You should get a NOC from your employers at the time of joining in the format prescribed by IIT, and they must have consented in writing to your appearing for the interview.
Do I need GATE for the part-time programmes?
No, GATE is required only for full-time students getting assistantship from the Institute.
What is the selection procedure?
Based on your application, you will be called for a test and interview. The written test is technical and objective, and will test your familiarity with basic computer science subjects --- programming, data structures, discrete mathematics and logic, programming languages and compilation, theory, algorithms design and analysis, operating systems and other systems software, networks, architecture, etc.
What is the duration of the course?
Normally 4 semesters for a full-time student and 6 semesters for a part-time student
What is the fee structure?
The same.
Are there any classes conducted? Will these be on Saturdays and Sundays only?
Yes, of course, classes are conducted. These are conducted at the usual times on weekdays. You need to attend these classes, and be present. Part-time programmes are not remote programmes. The only other "concession" for the part-time student is that we will hold classes for core courses in the morning slots [C: 8-9 and D: 9-10 on Tue, Wed and Fri; and A: 8-9:30 and B: 9:30-11:00 on Mon, Thu]. Students should select elective courses on the basis of convenience and interest.
Is there a Minor/Major Project in the part-time course?
Yes. Approx a third of the M Tech credits are project credits; Two-thirds of the MS (Res) credits are project credits.
You can do your project at your work place or at home, but should archive and be able to demonstrate and document your work on the Department's machines.
If I shift my job within the NCR to e.g., Gurgaon/Noida will I still be eligible?
Yes, if you are in the 50km range. Please note that if you change jobs during the programme, you should get a fresh NOIC from your new employer. Please note you need tobe employed to avail yourself of the part-time programme.
As a part-time student, can I get hostel accommodation?
No, you are not eligible for hostel accommodation
As a part-time student, can I get any form of assistantship?
No, you are not eligible for an assistantship from Institute sources.
Eligibility:
The candidate must have a 4-year B.Tech./B.E. degree or a MSc./MCA degree in a computer-science related area (preferably in computer science itself, or else with extensive experience in computing) with an excellent academic record.
There are two different ways in which you can register for the MS (R) programme. in CSE at IITD.
Full-Time : The candidate resides on the IIT campus for the entire duration of the programme. The student should have an excellent valid GATE score in CS/IT.
Part-Time : The candidate should be working in an industry or organisation involved in computer science research/teaching and located within 50 kms of IIT. The organization should certify that it has No Objection to the candidate pursuing this degree.
Admission Procedure:
Download the application form from the IIT Delhi web-site or collect a paper application form from IIT Delhi, PGS&R Section. Fill the form and attach a draft for Rs 300 made payable to the "Registrar, IIT Delhi" at New Delhi.
Also attach a curriculum vitae listing your academic record, Industrial/Research Experience, Research Publications (also include a copy of your best publication), academic honors and awards etc.
Send the application to the "Deputy Registrar, Post Graduate Section. IIT, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016". The application can be sent at any time of the year. However, interviews for admission are conducted twice a year, and admissions are synchronized with the semesters (late July - early December and early January - mid May).
After looking at your application we will decide whether to invite you for an interview. You would be informed of the decision by email. The interview will test your research potential in terms of familiarity with basic concepts in Computer Science and your ability to analyze and formulate a solution to a problem.
Applicants to this programme are expected to have excellent backgrounds in computer science. Since the programme is a research programme, the candidates are typically expected to be superior in training and academic performance to students admitted to the M. Tech. programme. The main differences with the M. Tech. programme are:
(1) The MS (R) programme has 40 credits of research to 20 credits of course work versus a 20-40 breakup in the M. Tech programme.
(2) There are no fixed core courses. Instead each individual student is advised on courses to take based on their research interests and background.
(3) Full-time students are expected to identify their thesis advisor by the end of their first semester, and begin research in the second semester.
Students are provided laboratory and infrastructure facilities similar to that of Ph.D. scholars. We endeavour to provide financial support at Master's level stipends to all GATE-qualified full-time students. Full-time students not resident in Delhi are given priority in allotment of hostel accommodation.
While the MS(Research) programme is currently small in numbers, faculty tend to consider it more prestigious than the M. Tech. programme. Candidates are encouraged to consider conversion to Ph.D.
Curriculum and Requirements of the MS (Research) Programme in Computer Science and Engineering
Duration. The duration of the MS(R) programme is 4 semesters for full-time students and 6 semesters for part-time students.
The maximum extensions can be to 6 semesters for full-time students and 8 semesters for part-time students, under special circumstances.
Credit Requirements.
Total credits: 60
Course credits: 20
Thesis credits: 40
CGPA Requirements. Minimum CGPA requirement for award of degree: 7.0
Minimum CGPA in course work for continuation of registration: 7.0
Regulations for registration.
First semester: Full time students to register for 15-20 course credits only; part-time students to register for 6-12 course credits.
Later semesters: Students to register for remaining course and thesis credits. Part-time students required to complete all course credits in the first 4 semesters.
There are no core course requirements (other than the thesis)
All Post-Graduate level courses of the CSE Department are available to the student for course credits. Courses offered by other departments may be taken for credit on the advice and approval of the programme coordinator / thesis supervisor.
Student will register for courses on the advice and approval of the MS(R) programme coordinator (first semester) and the thesis supervisor (subsequent semesters).
Conversion from full-time to part-time on approval by Dean PGSR on recommendation of the DRC, on completion of course credit requirements.
Supervision
Supervision
Maximum 2 thesis supervisors. DRC to assign thesis supervisor within 2 months of registration in Semester 1.
DRC will constitute a 4-member SRC
SRC will monitor thesis work, based on written reports and presentations made every semester and will recommend number of thesis credits considered as cleared at the end of the semester.
X grade will be awarded for continuing thesis research.
Evaluation and Examiners
Submission of synopsis one month before submission of thesis. Pre-synopsis seminar to DRC.
Dean PGSR to appoint external examiner on receipt of title and synopsis of thesis, from a panel of 4 experts recommended by supervisor and approved by DRC. Cannot be from sponsoring organization in case of sponsored candidates.
Examination board = thesis supervisor(s) and external expert examiner.
Thesis Grading
Thesis Defence Committee = External expert examiner (from India and outside IIT Delhi), supervisor(s) and SRC.
Assistantships On par with M Tech students.
Conversion to PhD On application by the student, and on recommendation by the DRC. A minimum CGPA of 8.5 after first 2 semesters is required. Student must satisfy other requirements for admission into PhD programme. The date of conversion is the date of registration in the PhD programme.
FAQ
How is the part-time M. Tech. / MS (Res) programme different from the full-time programme?
The part-time programmes constitute an opportunity given to working professionals in the NCR area to pursue an advanced degree at IIT Delhi.
Academically, the part-time programmes are identical to the full-time programmes.
The normal duration of the Master's programmes is 6 semesters instead of 4, to complete the 60 credits of work.
A part-time student can take no more than 12 credits a semester.
There is only a small difference in the admission requirements (e.g., GATE is not mandatory, the academic performance requirements may be slightly different) and the admission test process may involve additional tests.
The only other "concession" for the part-time student is that we will hold classes for core courses in the morning slots [C: 8-9 and D: 9-10 on Tue, Wed and Fri; and A: 8-9:30 and B: 9:30-11:00 on Mon, Thu]. Students should select elective courses on the basis of convenience and interest.
Am I eligible to apply for the part time M.Tech/ MS (Res) programme?
Yes, if you have the academic qualifications in terms of degree and academic performance as specified by the department (not just the minimal requirements specified by the institute). In addition, you need:
At least one year's experience (by the start of the academic term, i.e July end or January 1) in an organization where your work is computer science related.
You must be resident and working within 50 km of IIT Delhi.
You should get a NOC from your employers at the time of joining in the format prescribed by IIT, and they must have consented in writing to your appearing for the interview.
Do I need GATE for the part-time programmes?
No, GATE is required only for full-time students getting assistantship from the Institute.
What is the selection procedure?
Based on your application, you will be called for a test and interview. The written test is technical and objective, and will test your familiarity with basic computer science subjects --- programming, data structures, discrete mathematics and logic, programming languages and compilation, theory, algorithms design and analysis, operating systems and other systems software, networks, architecture, etc.
What is the duration of the course?
Normally 4 semesters for a full-time student and 6 semesters for a part-time student
What is the fee structure?
The same.
Are there any classes conducted? Will these be on Saturdays and Sundays only?
Yes, of course, classes are conducted. These are conducted at the usual times on weekdays. You need to attend these classes, and be present. Part-time programmes are not remote programmes. The only other "concession" for the part-time student is that we will hold classes for core courses in the morning slots [C: 8-9 and D: 9-10 on Tue, Wed and Fri; and A: 8-9:30 and B: 9:30-11:00 on Mon, Thu]. Students should select elective courses on the basis of convenience and interest.
Is there a Minor/Major Project in the part-time course?
Yes. Approx a third of the M Tech credits are project credits; Two-thirds of the MS (Res) credits are project credits.
You can do your project at your work place or at home, but should archive and be able to demonstrate and document your work on the Department's machines.
If I shift my job within the NCR to e.g., Gurgaon/Noida will I still be eligible?
Yes, if you are in the 50km range. Please note that if you change jobs during the programme, you should get a fresh NOIC from your new employer. Please note you need tobe employed to avail yourself of the part-time programme.
As a part-time student, can I get hostel accommodation?
No, you are not eligible for hostel accommodation
As a part-time student, can I get any form of assistantship?
No, you are not eligible for an assistantship from Institute sources.
Eligibility:
The candidate must have a 4-year B.Tech./B.E. degree or a MSc./MCA degree in a computer-science related area (preferably in computer science itself, or else with extensive experience in computing) with an excellent academic record.
There are two different ways in which you can register for the MS (R) programme. in CSE at IITD.
Full-Time : The candidate resides on the IIT campus for the entire duration of the programme. The student should have an excellent valid GATE score in CS/IT.
Part-Time : The candidate should be working in an industry or organisation involved in computer science research/teaching and located within 50 kms of IIT. The organization should certify that it has No Objection to the candidate pursuing this degree.
Admission Procedure:
Download the application form from the IIT Delhi web-site or collect a paper application form from IIT Delhi, PGS&R Section. Fill the form and attach a draft for Rs 300 made payable to the "Registrar, IIT Delhi" at New Delhi.
Also attach a curriculum vitae listing your academic record, Industrial/Research Experience, Research Publications (also include a copy of your best publication), academic honors and awards etc.
Send the application to the "Deputy Registrar, Post Graduate Section. IIT, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016". The application can be sent at any time of the year. However, interviews for admission are conducted twice a year, and admissions are synchronized with the semesters (late July - early December and early January - mid May).
After looking at your application we will decide whether to invite you for an interview. You would be informed of the decision by email. The interview will test your research potential in terms of familiarity with basic concepts in Computer Science and your ability to analyze and formulate a solution to a problem.
Recommended CS/IT Programs Outside IIT System
Here I am listing a very small set of colleges about which I have some personal knowledge either through a visit, or by checking out their website extensively, and based on my limited knowledge I can recommend these departments for good-quality undergraduate education in CS/IT areas. I am also trying to give some reasons in brief as to why I think these departments are good. If I have not listed a college/department here, it is almost certainly because I don't know about it enough, and not because I consider that college not good enough. So please don't feel bad if your college or alma mater is not listed here.
Other minimum requirements for listing here:
I only list colleges which are autonomous in academic processes (that is, they are either university themselves or have been declared deemed to be university by UGC).
I only list colleges which have an under-graduate program in Computer Science.
In addition, they must be running a proper PG program whose admission requirements include an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or related area. (for example, MS/ME/MTech or PhD program.)
The list is as follows. (You can jump to the description of each department by clicking on the name.)
IIIT, Hyderabad
NIT, Calicut
DA-IICT, Gandhinagar
LNMIIT, Jaipur
BITS, Pilani
College of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai
Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh
NIT, Hamirpur
While I will by and large refrain from ranking colleges, I have to admit that I consider IIIT, Hyderabad as the best alternative to IITs (from amongst the colleges I know or I have been told of). This Institute is already competing with IITs on attracting faculty, and I am sure very soon they will start competing on attracting students also. (I believe that they are already getting students who are as good as those in IITs. I believe that a rank in AIEEE is equivalent to a rank in JEE. After all, how many good students will give JEE but not give AIEEE. But on any given day, someone could do well or not so well depending on health, luck, and other such factor. So there are many who for some reason get a better AIEEE rank than a JEE rank, and such persons, who as I said above are equally good, just a tad unlucky, chose to join IIIT Hyderabad.) I have visited IIIT Hyderabad umpteen number of times, and I come back more impressed every time I go there.
In September 2006, I had a chance to visit NIT Calicut, and I must say that I was very impressed. As you can see from the short list of colleges on this page, I do not get impressed easily. And let me tell you why. The first thing I noticed was that pretty much every faculty member in the department had a degree from either an IIT or IISc. Thry do hire people who have a BTech degree, but then ask them to do graduate education from outside. In most colleges, they run graduate programs (MTech or PhD) primarily to ensure that their own faculty members can get part-time graduate degrees. But this in-breeding is dangerous for the quality of a department. The maintenance of the campus is another thing that struck me as something great. In many campuses I see buildings in black or green colour because of what they will like to claim is heavy rain. But NITC, all the buildings looked good from the outside, and I was told that they put a coat of paint frequently to ensure that the buildings do not look ugly. The infrastructure is very good, and is one of the few colleges who have actually used up the grants given to them under the TEQUIP program. The faculty is very cohesive. They have resisted the temptation of starting a program on IT. (Why shouldn't CSE and IT departments be merged in all NITs? There is hardly any difference in the programs, and these differences can be handled by offering electives.)
Another Institute, which is sure to make an impact in future is DA-IICT at Gandhinagar. I recently went through their website, and was very impressed with the number of faculty members with PhD degrees from various IITs and mid-level US universities. And let me admit, being a faculty member myself, I think that an Institute which has so many of PhDs in their faculty, has to be on the right track. Of course, having "Dhirubhai Ambani" in the name of the Institute will ensure that the ADA (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani) group would never let it down, and become a second-rate institution. Further, in their curriculum, there is a unique mix of Information Technology (CS) and Communication Technology, and depending on one's interest, one can go into the depth in either direction. In most colleges, you decide at the time of admission whether you want to do a BTech in CS or a BTech in ECE. That dilemna is not there, if you join DA-IICT. And they seem to truly believe that under-graduate education is about broadening the horizons, and not become an expert. So not only do they have humanities courses in their curriculum, and they claim all the standard things about extra-curricular activities, and facilities, but they have a six-week stay in a rural setting as part of curriculum. (By the way, this is the only college on this list, where I have not personally visited. What I am writing here is based on reading their website, and interacting with a few faculty members when they have visited IIT Kanpur.)
L N Mittal Institute of Information Technology is the third of the IT-focused institutes which has a potential to compete with the IIT system. (The other two being IIIT, Hyderabad, and DA-IICT, Gandhinagar.) The institute has excellent infrastructure, beautiful architecture, and some of the best teachers in the country, who have retired from IIT system in recent times. Lack of sufficient number of young faculty members is a small cause for concern, which I am sure the Institute will work on. The curriculum is modern, and has only 40 courses. (Elsewhere, I have argued that a BTech curriculum should not have more than 160 credits or so, which is equivalent to regular 40 courses.) And of course, Jaipur is arguably the second best city to live in North India, after Chandigarh.
Recently added: I have recently been offered to join LNMIIT as its next Director, and I have accepted the offer. I will be shifting to Jaipur soon. I am really excited about the opportunity, as the first Director has laid a wonderful foundation, and now the Institute is in the take off stage, where it can dream of competing with the very best in the country. Feel free to contact me for more details.
LNMIIT is a unique experiment of education in the joint sector. It is not a private college, nor is it a government college. It is a joint venture between the Rajasthan Government and Laxmi Mittal Foundation.
I also admire BITS, Pilani for a lot of innovation that they have been doing in the engineering education. Whether it is the one semester training (Practice School) in the industry, or their online entrance exam, they always seem to be a step ahead of others in the new ways of doing education. They have an excellent dual-degree program, more flexible than any IIT can boast of. They are accredited by NAAC. They also have a very significant presence in distance education sector. While IIMs will keep talking about opening campuses abroad, BITS has gone ahead with a campus in Dubai. They also have a campus in Goa, and are working on a campus in Hyderabad. (The Goa campus is a beauty.) They have the best admission process, which takes some amount of language abilities into account. Of course, one concern that I have is whether BITS is spreading itself too thin by growing so fast. Also, their focus on research seems less than other top class institutes in the country.
Another excellent place that I visited in 2006 is College of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai. The CS department has a fairly large faculty, and lots of them have a PhD degree. There is an active research program, and one can find several publications from that department in literature. It is an active and vibrant department. Also, they have a very interesting part-time under-graduate program. Whenever I visit a department, I am looking out for something unique, an idea which is worth emulating, and I don't know of any other place which has such a part-time under-graduate program. The curriculum is based on a credit-based system, which is a big positive.
A college which was always considered good, but has improved significantly in the last couple of years is Punjab Engineering College or better known as PEC. In 2004, PEC gained Deemed University status, and since then has undergone a complete transition in its academic processes. Its then Director, Prof. Vijay Gupta (from IIT Kanpur) is a visionary, and has fantastic leadership qualities. To me, his presence in PEC was enough to place them in this list of mine (though the college has to now show that it can continue the good work even after he has left). Of course, the college was not an unknown quantity earlier also. Around 2001, news reports had suggested that PEC will be one of the colleges selected for an upgrade to the status of an IIT. Politics play a big role in these decisions, and another committee chose another set of colleges for a possible upgrade. The college requires each student to have its own laptop (bulk discounts, loans, scholarships available for poor). This is something which is very significant, and I doubt whether any other government college of engineering has this as a requirement. It is a gutsy decision, and I admire PEC for that. They have a good curriculum that allows students sufficient breadth as well as depth without overloading them. The infrastrcuture is good too. And, of course, the city of Chandigarh is one of the best cities in the country to live in.
If one were to look four years from now and say which college has the best chances of breaking into top 10, I have no doubt in my mind that that college has to be NIT Hamirpur. Besides being the most beautiful campus that I have visited (and I have visited more than 100 colleges in the country), the improvements are everywhere to see. You talk to anyone and they have a story to tell, a story of change, a change for the positive. The infrastructure improvement (computers, Internet bandwidth, buildings, and everything else) are taking place at a very fast place. It is no longer a sleepy NIT, with no link to the outside world. Now they welcome visitors from other NITs, IITs, and everywhere else. And once you go there, you are bound to fall in love with the campus. The curriculum has seen major changes (for the good). There is focus on hiring more faculty. They are starting new MTech programs. They are starting to build relationships with their alumni. Everything that a college can and should do is being done at NIT Hamirpur, and I am sure they will be in the top few soon. So if you are looking for a college which has less brand equity now (and hence easier to get into) but is likely to have a good name when you graduate, my bet will be on NIT Hamirpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, you can send me email at: dheeraj[AT]iitk.ac.in.
Other minimum requirements for listing here:
I only list colleges which are autonomous in academic processes (that is, they are either university themselves or have been declared deemed to be university by UGC).
I only list colleges which have an under-graduate program in Computer Science.
In addition, they must be running a proper PG program whose admission requirements include an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or related area. (for example, MS/ME/MTech or PhD program.)
The list is as follows. (You can jump to the description of each department by clicking on the name.)
IIIT, Hyderabad
NIT, Calicut
DA-IICT, Gandhinagar
LNMIIT, Jaipur
BITS, Pilani
College of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai
Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh
NIT, Hamirpur
While I will by and large refrain from ranking colleges, I have to admit that I consider IIIT, Hyderabad as the best alternative to IITs (from amongst the colleges I know or I have been told of). This Institute is already competing with IITs on attracting faculty, and I am sure very soon they will start competing on attracting students also. (I believe that they are already getting students who are as good as those in IITs. I believe that a rank in AIEEE is equivalent to a rank in JEE. After all, how many good students will give JEE but not give AIEEE. But on any given day, someone could do well or not so well depending on health, luck, and other such factor. So there are many who for some reason get a better AIEEE rank than a JEE rank, and such persons, who as I said above are equally good, just a tad unlucky, chose to join IIIT Hyderabad.) I have visited IIIT Hyderabad umpteen number of times, and I come back more impressed every time I go there.
In September 2006, I had a chance to visit NIT Calicut, and I must say that I was very impressed. As you can see from the short list of colleges on this page, I do not get impressed easily. And let me tell you why. The first thing I noticed was that pretty much every faculty member in the department had a degree from either an IIT or IISc. Thry do hire people who have a BTech degree, but then ask them to do graduate education from outside. In most colleges, they run graduate programs (MTech or PhD) primarily to ensure that their own faculty members can get part-time graduate degrees. But this in-breeding is dangerous for the quality of a department. The maintenance of the campus is another thing that struck me as something great. In many campuses I see buildings in black or green colour because of what they will like to claim is heavy rain. But NITC, all the buildings looked good from the outside, and I was told that they put a coat of paint frequently to ensure that the buildings do not look ugly. The infrastructure is very good, and is one of the few colleges who have actually used up the grants given to them under the TEQUIP program. The faculty is very cohesive. They have resisted the temptation of starting a program on IT. (Why shouldn't CSE and IT departments be merged in all NITs? There is hardly any difference in the programs, and these differences can be handled by offering electives.)
Another Institute, which is sure to make an impact in future is DA-IICT at Gandhinagar. I recently went through their website, and was very impressed with the number of faculty members with PhD degrees from various IITs and mid-level US universities. And let me admit, being a faculty member myself, I think that an Institute which has so many of PhDs in their faculty, has to be on the right track. Of course, having "Dhirubhai Ambani" in the name of the Institute will ensure that the ADA (Anil Dhirubhai Ambani) group would never let it down, and become a second-rate institution. Further, in their curriculum, there is a unique mix of Information Technology (CS) and Communication Technology, and depending on one's interest, one can go into the depth in either direction. In most colleges, you decide at the time of admission whether you want to do a BTech in CS or a BTech in ECE. That dilemna is not there, if you join DA-IICT. And they seem to truly believe that under-graduate education is about broadening the horizons, and not become an expert. So not only do they have humanities courses in their curriculum, and they claim all the standard things about extra-curricular activities, and facilities, but they have a six-week stay in a rural setting as part of curriculum. (By the way, this is the only college on this list, where I have not personally visited. What I am writing here is based on reading their website, and interacting with a few faculty members when they have visited IIT Kanpur.)
L N Mittal Institute of Information Technology is the third of the IT-focused institutes which has a potential to compete with the IIT system. (The other two being IIIT, Hyderabad, and DA-IICT, Gandhinagar.) The institute has excellent infrastructure, beautiful architecture, and some of the best teachers in the country, who have retired from IIT system in recent times. Lack of sufficient number of young faculty members is a small cause for concern, which I am sure the Institute will work on. The curriculum is modern, and has only 40 courses. (Elsewhere, I have argued that a BTech curriculum should not have more than 160 credits or so, which is equivalent to regular 40 courses.) And of course, Jaipur is arguably the second best city to live in North India, after Chandigarh.
Recently added: I have recently been offered to join LNMIIT as its next Director, and I have accepted the offer. I will be shifting to Jaipur soon. I am really excited about the opportunity, as the first Director has laid a wonderful foundation, and now the Institute is in the take off stage, where it can dream of competing with the very best in the country. Feel free to contact me for more details.
LNMIIT is a unique experiment of education in the joint sector. It is not a private college, nor is it a government college. It is a joint venture between the Rajasthan Government and Laxmi Mittal Foundation.
I also admire BITS, Pilani for a lot of innovation that they have been doing in the engineering education. Whether it is the one semester training (Practice School) in the industry, or their online entrance exam, they always seem to be a step ahead of others in the new ways of doing education. They have an excellent dual-degree program, more flexible than any IIT can boast of. They are accredited by NAAC. They also have a very significant presence in distance education sector. While IIMs will keep talking about opening campuses abroad, BITS has gone ahead with a campus in Dubai. They also have a campus in Goa, and are working on a campus in Hyderabad. (The Goa campus is a beauty.) They have the best admission process, which takes some amount of language abilities into account. Of course, one concern that I have is whether BITS is spreading itself too thin by growing so fast. Also, their focus on research seems less than other top class institutes in the country.
Another excellent place that I visited in 2006 is College of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai. The CS department has a fairly large faculty, and lots of them have a PhD degree. There is an active research program, and one can find several publications from that department in literature. It is an active and vibrant department. Also, they have a very interesting part-time under-graduate program. Whenever I visit a department, I am looking out for something unique, an idea which is worth emulating, and I don't know of any other place which has such a part-time under-graduate program. The curriculum is based on a credit-based system, which is a big positive.
A college which was always considered good, but has improved significantly in the last couple of years is Punjab Engineering College or better known as PEC. In 2004, PEC gained Deemed University status, and since then has undergone a complete transition in its academic processes. Its then Director, Prof. Vijay Gupta (from IIT Kanpur) is a visionary, and has fantastic leadership qualities. To me, his presence in PEC was enough to place them in this list of mine (though the college has to now show that it can continue the good work even after he has left). Of course, the college was not an unknown quantity earlier also. Around 2001, news reports had suggested that PEC will be one of the colleges selected for an upgrade to the status of an IIT. Politics play a big role in these decisions, and another committee chose another set of colleges for a possible upgrade. The college requires each student to have its own laptop (bulk discounts, loans, scholarships available for poor). This is something which is very significant, and I doubt whether any other government college of engineering has this as a requirement. It is a gutsy decision, and I admire PEC for that. They have a good curriculum that allows students sufficient breadth as well as depth without overloading them. The infrastrcuture is good too. And, of course, the city of Chandigarh is one of the best cities in the country to live in.
If one were to look four years from now and say which college has the best chances of breaking into top 10, I have no doubt in my mind that that college has to be NIT Hamirpur. Besides being the most beautiful campus that I have visited (and I have visited more than 100 colleges in the country), the improvements are everywhere to see. You talk to anyone and they have a story to tell, a story of change, a change for the positive. The infrastructure improvement (computers, Internet bandwidth, buildings, and everything else) are taking place at a very fast place. It is no longer a sleepy NIT, with no link to the outside world. Now they welcome visitors from other NITs, IITs, and everywhere else. And once you go there, you are bound to fall in love with the campus. The curriculum has seen major changes (for the good). There is focus on hiring more faculty. They are starting new MTech programs. They are starting to build relationships with their alumni. Everything that a college can and should do is being done at NIT Hamirpur, and I am sure they will be in the top few soon. So if you are looking for a college which has less brand equity now (and hence easier to get into) but is likely to have a good name when you graduate, my bet will be on NIT Hamirpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, you can send me email at: dheeraj[AT]iitk.ac.in.
Comments about MCA Programs
In a couple of my articles I have expressed my reservation about the MCA program. These are the only comments which have attracted some criticim to me so far. And some of that criticism has been rather harsh. Hence I thought I will explain my comments regarding MCA program here.
First of all, let me clarify one thing. I think there is something wrong with most of the MCA programs today. It does not mean that MCA programs were always bad. Of course, people don't like to be told that the program that they did 10 years ago is no longer doing as well, and they still will be unhappy about my comments (and certainly I am endearing myself to people who are doing MCA today), but hopefully the explanation here will reduce the feeling of hurt that these people have after reading my articles.
MCA was a historical necessity till the late 90s. Our IT industry was growing very fast, and our education industry wasn't moving that fast. It wasn't easy to start lots of engineering colleges, and have huge admissions in each of them, as a typical BTech program requires a lot of different labs, a lot of different disciplines to be taught, etc. You don't just need a PC lab, but you also need labs in Physics and Chemistry. You also need a workshop. You need labs in electronics, and so on. And, of course, you need faculty members in all sorts of disciplines - sciences, humanities, and other engineering disciplines to do some core teaching.
Long ago, AICTE recognized (with the help of NASSCOM) that a huge shortage of manpower existed in IT area, and it wasn't going to go away unless some innovative pro-active steps were taken. And the best minds of the country got together and came up with the idea that perhaps we can teach students just the IT skills. India has a huge university system, produces a very large number of graduates in 3-year degree programs, and at that time, the employment opportunities for these graduates were limited.
So on one hand you have a huge number of bright graduates with limited options, and on the other hand, you have a huge shortage of skilled manpower in IT. Could we do something that could kill two birds with one stone. MCA was that stone. You provide IT training to these people, and you solve employability problem on one hand, and fuel the growth of IT industry on the other hand. And this could be done quickly, because you needed only computing hardware and software in terms of labs, and you only needed IT faculty (which though difficult to find, but at least you didn't need to find non-IT faculty).
And throughout 90s, MCA programs were very successful, and helped a great deal in bridging the gap between demand and supply of IT manpower.
But things have changed since then. The number of seats in BTech programs just keep increasing every year to the extent that today we produce more BTechs in CS/IT/EC than what our IT industry can absorb. (We still have a shortage but that is due to quality and not quantity.) So, if you look at the top 1-2 lakh students from 12th class, more and more students are able to join professional courses like engineering, than what was the case in the 90s. Also, several other sectors of economy are booming and good jobs are available in lots of different spheres, which means that a lot of good graduates from the university system are getting excellent jobs, and are not as inclined towards doing another three years in IT. Further, while the number of MCA programs as well as BTech programs have mushroomed, the availability of quality faculty to teach all these programs hasn't increased in the same ratio. So the quality of faculty on an average has gone down. (Of course, this has gone down for both BTech and MCA.)
As a result of these changes, the input to MCA program has dried up in terms of quality. There still are many students who would prefer a Bachelor of Science from a good 3-year degree college, and then think about moving to IT by doing an MCA, but the numbers have reduced substantially over these years, and the quality has deteriorated a lot.
So far we have talked about from the input side. Now, let us talk about the output side, or the employability.
Everyone who criticises my comments on MCA loves to point out that in their favorite MCA program, the placement is 100 percent, that they themselves and their classfellows have got jobs in MNCs, in research labs, and what not. Sure that has happened. As I said above, MCA was an important program in the past, and some of the departments/institutes will continue to attract good students and good companies for some more time to come.
But my question is whether there are jobs in industry which can only be done by MCAs and not by BTechs. And second, in the institutes which offer a BTech (or BE) program in Computer Science, as well as offer an MCA program, who gets the higher average salary - MCA or BTech (CS). Also, across the country, how many MCA programs can boast of 90+ percent employment, versus how many BTech programs in CS can boast of 90+ percent employment.
And notice that ideally one would expect MCA programs to be doing far better than BTech programs. After all MCA programs really have a 6-year college, while BTech program is a 4-year college. Also, the number of courses in MCA and BTech in the same college are either equal, or the number of courses in MCA is more. So MCA graduates should be more mature, and should be more knowledgeable, and therefore, demand getter jobs, and higher salaries. If that is not happening, it points to some structural weakness in the MCA programs.
Let me do some star-gazing now. Right now, industry is still in fast growth phase, the quality of technical education is still quite poor in lots of colleges, and the industry wouldn't mind hiring any smart person. In fact, they hire a lot of non-IT persons as well (like those who do BTech in Civil or Mechanical, etc.). But all this is fast changing. What is the likely scenario for future. Someone who is going to join an MCA program in 2008, and graduate in 2011, what will be the likely placement situation. In my opinion, the placement situation will stabilize in IT industry within the next 4 years, and as industry becomes a bit more choosy about whom to hire, some BTech programs will suffer, but a lot more MCA programs will suffer as a result.
So in terms of employment potential, MCA is already on a decline. The average salaries are already lower than BTechs. The employment ratios are already lower than BTechs. And my prediction is that in future, while situation will become worse for both BTech and MCA, relatively speaking, MCA programs will decline faster.
And now, let us talk about the perspective of a college. Why does a college teach a particular course. To me, it seems that the decision should ideally be based on the demand of the society for the graduates of that course. Of course, there is a demand from society in lots of different fields. Out of those areas, a college has to identify its strengths. In what fields can it attract the best students and the best teachers and funding and so on. What should a college do so that it can become more famous, achieve excellence, and so on.
So, a college has a choice of offering lots of different programs. In particular, it has a choice between MCA and BTech (CS). If MCA program was able to satisfy a niche demand that BTech does not adequately serve, then of course, MCA should be there. Or if MCA attracted (for whatever reason) better students to the college, then MCA should be there (and we should perhaps talk about winding up BTech program). If a lot of potential faculty members were deeply interested in teaching in an MCA program (and not in BTech program), then we should keep MCA program. (And depending on the situation, seriously consider getting rid of the BTech program.)
But what is reality. As I have already said above, the MCA employment is no better than BTech, even though they do two years extra, and in most cases, a few extra IT courses as well. There is no niche segment in the industry which MCA appears to be serving.
Also, if you look at the comparable numbers for comparing the input into MCA and BTech at these institutions (like 12th class marks for students of both the courses), you will find that the average input is better in BTechs.
Further, I have been on a few selection committees for hiring faculty in some colleges. If different departments offer MCA and BTech programs, and you ask a faculty candidate - do you want to join the department which offers BTech program, or do you want to join the department which offers an MCA program, invariably the answer is that they want to teach BTech students.
So, if the average input is better for BTechs, and the average salaries are higher after just 4 years, and faculty wants to teach BTech students, why should any college offer an MCA program today. Please note that I am not at all suggesting that MCA programs were always bad to begin with. Not at all. Let me repeat what I said above. They served a historical need in India's IT industry, and did attract excellent students from the university system at that time. But today, there does not seem to be a rationale for continuing that program.
Most colleges continue with that program because either it is money spinner (in the private sector primarily) or because of inertia and not knowing what else the faculty can be used for (in the government sector). Many times there are political pressure to continue with IT related courses. At other times, alumni feel bad if one closes a program, and in deference to their wishes, you continue for one more year, and then one more year. In fact, I have talked to Directors/Principals/Heads of many colleges/departments who offer MCA programs, and I have never heard even one person say that they offer MCA program because it enhances their reputation, because it fits into their scheme of things to achieve excellence, or that they genuinely feel that MCA does meet some niche needs of the society that other similar programs can not meet.
Now, in India, we hardly ever close any program. It is not just in NITs and state engineering colleges, it is even true for IITs, who claim to be excellent. And any suggestion that a particular program may have outlived its importance raises the hackles, particularly of those who are or were closely associated with that program. Any criticism of the current state of the program is taken immediately to mean that everyone associated with that program not just in present but also in past is of poor quality, and that obviously hurts.
But my intention is only to point out that the current situation of most MCA programs is not too good, and the future is likely to be worse. A good past is no indicator of the good future.
So, if you want to join MCA, please be careful. You should do substantial research about quality of faculty, other students, infrastructure, and so on, before embarking upon it. Statistics does not mean anything when it comes to an individual, but it still is a good tool to know what should one be careful about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, you can send me email at: dheeraj[AT]iitk.ac.in.
First of all, let me clarify one thing. I think there is something wrong with most of the MCA programs today. It does not mean that MCA programs were always bad. Of course, people don't like to be told that the program that they did 10 years ago is no longer doing as well, and they still will be unhappy about my comments (and certainly I am endearing myself to people who are doing MCA today), but hopefully the explanation here will reduce the feeling of hurt that these people have after reading my articles.
MCA was a historical necessity till the late 90s. Our IT industry was growing very fast, and our education industry wasn't moving that fast. It wasn't easy to start lots of engineering colleges, and have huge admissions in each of them, as a typical BTech program requires a lot of different labs, a lot of different disciplines to be taught, etc. You don't just need a PC lab, but you also need labs in Physics and Chemistry. You also need a workshop. You need labs in electronics, and so on. And, of course, you need faculty members in all sorts of disciplines - sciences, humanities, and other engineering disciplines to do some core teaching.
Long ago, AICTE recognized (with the help of NASSCOM) that a huge shortage of manpower existed in IT area, and it wasn't going to go away unless some innovative pro-active steps were taken. And the best minds of the country got together and came up with the idea that perhaps we can teach students just the IT skills. India has a huge university system, produces a very large number of graduates in 3-year degree programs, and at that time, the employment opportunities for these graduates were limited.
So on one hand you have a huge number of bright graduates with limited options, and on the other hand, you have a huge shortage of skilled manpower in IT. Could we do something that could kill two birds with one stone. MCA was that stone. You provide IT training to these people, and you solve employability problem on one hand, and fuel the growth of IT industry on the other hand. And this could be done quickly, because you needed only computing hardware and software in terms of labs, and you only needed IT faculty (which though difficult to find, but at least you didn't need to find non-IT faculty).
And throughout 90s, MCA programs were very successful, and helped a great deal in bridging the gap between demand and supply of IT manpower.
But things have changed since then. The number of seats in BTech programs just keep increasing every year to the extent that today we produce more BTechs in CS/IT/EC than what our IT industry can absorb. (We still have a shortage but that is due to quality and not quantity.) So, if you look at the top 1-2 lakh students from 12th class, more and more students are able to join professional courses like engineering, than what was the case in the 90s. Also, several other sectors of economy are booming and good jobs are available in lots of different spheres, which means that a lot of good graduates from the university system are getting excellent jobs, and are not as inclined towards doing another three years in IT. Further, while the number of MCA programs as well as BTech programs have mushroomed, the availability of quality faculty to teach all these programs hasn't increased in the same ratio. So the quality of faculty on an average has gone down. (Of course, this has gone down for both BTech and MCA.)
As a result of these changes, the input to MCA program has dried up in terms of quality. There still are many students who would prefer a Bachelor of Science from a good 3-year degree college, and then think about moving to IT by doing an MCA, but the numbers have reduced substantially over these years, and the quality has deteriorated a lot.
So far we have talked about from the input side. Now, let us talk about the output side, or the employability.
Everyone who criticises my comments on MCA loves to point out that in their favorite MCA program, the placement is 100 percent, that they themselves and their classfellows have got jobs in MNCs, in research labs, and what not. Sure that has happened. As I said above, MCA was an important program in the past, and some of the departments/institutes will continue to attract good students and good companies for some more time to come.
But my question is whether there are jobs in industry which can only be done by MCAs and not by BTechs. And second, in the institutes which offer a BTech (or BE) program in Computer Science, as well as offer an MCA program, who gets the higher average salary - MCA or BTech (CS). Also, across the country, how many MCA programs can boast of 90+ percent employment, versus how many BTech programs in CS can boast of 90+ percent employment.
And notice that ideally one would expect MCA programs to be doing far better than BTech programs. After all MCA programs really have a 6-year college, while BTech program is a 4-year college. Also, the number of courses in MCA and BTech in the same college are either equal, or the number of courses in MCA is more. So MCA graduates should be more mature, and should be more knowledgeable, and therefore, demand getter jobs, and higher salaries. If that is not happening, it points to some structural weakness in the MCA programs.
Let me do some star-gazing now. Right now, industry is still in fast growth phase, the quality of technical education is still quite poor in lots of colleges, and the industry wouldn't mind hiring any smart person. In fact, they hire a lot of non-IT persons as well (like those who do BTech in Civil or Mechanical, etc.). But all this is fast changing. What is the likely scenario for future. Someone who is going to join an MCA program in 2008, and graduate in 2011, what will be the likely placement situation. In my opinion, the placement situation will stabilize in IT industry within the next 4 years, and as industry becomes a bit more choosy about whom to hire, some BTech programs will suffer, but a lot more MCA programs will suffer as a result.
So in terms of employment potential, MCA is already on a decline. The average salaries are already lower than BTechs. The employment ratios are already lower than BTechs. And my prediction is that in future, while situation will become worse for both BTech and MCA, relatively speaking, MCA programs will decline faster.
And now, let us talk about the perspective of a college. Why does a college teach a particular course. To me, it seems that the decision should ideally be based on the demand of the society for the graduates of that course. Of course, there is a demand from society in lots of different fields. Out of those areas, a college has to identify its strengths. In what fields can it attract the best students and the best teachers and funding and so on. What should a college do so that it can become more famous, achieve excellence, and so on.
So, a college has a choice of offering lots of different programs. In particular, it has a choice between MCA and BTech (CS). If MCA program was able to satisfy a niche demand that BTech does not adequately serve, then of course, MCA should be there. Or if MCA attracted (for whatever reason) better students to the college, then MCA should be there (and we should perhaps talk about winding up BTech program). If a lot of potential faculty members were deeply interested in teaching in an MCA program (and not in BTech program), then we should keep MCA program. (And depending on the situation, seriously consider getting rid of the BTech program.)
But what is reality. As I have already said above, the MCA employment is no better than BTech, even though they do two years extra, and in most cases, a few extra IT courses as well. There is no niche segment in the industry which MCA appears to be serving.
Also, if you look at the comparable numbers for comparing the input into MCA and BTech at these institutions (like 12th class marks for students of both the courses), you will find that the average input is better in BTechs.
Further, I have been on a few selection committees for hiring faculty in some colleges. If different departments offer MCA and BTech programs, and you ask a faculty candidate - do you want to join the department which offers BTech program, or do you want to join the department which offers an MCA program, invariably the answer is that they want to teach BTech students.
So, if the average input is better for BTechs, and the average salaries are higher after just 4 years, and faculty wants to teach BTech students, why should any college offer an MCA program today. Please note that I am not at all suggesting that MCA programs were always bad to begin with. Not at all. Let me repeat what I said above. They served a historical need in India's IT industry, and did attract excellent students from the university system at that time. But today, there does not seem to be a rationale for continuing that program.
Most colleges continue with that program because either it is money spinner (in the private sector primarily) or because of inertia and not knowing what else the faculty can be used for (in the government sector). Many times there are political pressure to continue with IT related courses. At other times, alumni feel bad if one closes a program, and in deference to their wishes, you continue for one more year, and then one more year. In fact, I have talked to Directors/Principals/Heads of many colleges/departments who offer MCA programs, and I have never heard even one person say that they offer MCA program because it enhances their reputation, because it fits into their scheme of things to achieve excellence, or that they genuinely feel that MCA does meet some niche needs of the society that other similar programs can not meet.
Now, in India, we hardly ever close any program. It is not just in NITs and state engineering colleges, it is even true for IITs, who claim to be excellent. And any suggestion that a particular program may have outlived its importance raises the hackles, particularly of those who are or were closely associated with that program. Any criticism of the current state of the program is taken immediately to mean that everyone associated with that program not just in present but also in past is of poor quality, and that obviously hurts.
But my intention is only to point out that the current situation of most MCA programs is not too good, and the future is likely to be worse. A good past is no indicator of the good future.
So, if you want to join MCA, please be careful. You should do substantial research about quality of faculty, other students, infrastructure, and so on, before embarking upon it. Statistics does not mean anything when it comes to an individual, but it still is a good tool to know what should one be careful about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, you can send me email at: dheeraj[AT]iitk.ac.in.
How to Chose An Engineering College Other than IITs
Since my page on JEE Counselling was published, I have received a lot of requests on my views on engineering colleges other than IITs.
However, I cannot claim to have known a lot of colleges. I travel a lot, and must have visited more than 100 colleges all across country during my career so far, talked to thousands of students, and I can claim to have some understanding of the higher technical education in the country. However, all these visits and browsing the website cannot really tell you everything about any particular college. So I am going to do two things here.
One, I have prepared a small list of colleges, who have made a significant positive impression on me. This may be due to my visits to that college, or my interactions with faculty or students there, or sometimes just visiting the website of that college. So, if a particular college is not listed, it is most likely because I don't know enough about them, and not because I don't consider them as a good college. Also, please note that I do not claim to know anything about programs other than Computer Science. When I visit a college, it is usually only the CS (or related) department. And, if I visit their website, it is usually the CS department website. So, when I recommend a college, I am really recommending it for CS and related areas only.
Two, I am writing below how one should go about ranking them oneself. If I had infinite time, I would have followed this approach myself to rank these colleges. In my opinion, the ranking should depend on the factors that I list below. You should check whether the department has a website or not. If the department does not have a website, or does not provide all the information on the website, then don't rank it very high. The assumption here is that in today's age, if a department in CS/IT area does not provide information for potential students, then it can only be because they don't have any meaningful information to provide.
If you go through the following details, you are bound to find it a very time consuming process. (You will be right, and that is exactly the reason I am giving the process, and not doing the exercise myself.) But choosing a college will have a huge impact on your future, and you should be willing to spend a lot of time in doing this exercise. Of course, you always have an option of looking at the last year's closing ranks in all the exams like AIEEE and use that as the basis of making your choices. But then you didn't need to read even this much.
Before I talk about what are the important criteria for selecting college, let me add that the eventual goal is to do well in career, and be happy in life. Success in career depends on a lot of factor: your passion and interest in the area you are working in, your preparedness (this is where education comes in), your ability to keep learning lifelong (this is why good faculty is absolutely important - to not just teach you some technical stuff, but tell you how to learn yourself), your network of friends (this is where brand name of college will help), and a huge amount of luck.
In today's society, almost all students and parents take the value of the first paycheck as the only measure of success. So, if you visit the forums where students discuss which college to join, the most important questions are: how is the placement, how many companie came, what was the highest salary offered, and so on. People don't want to know whether students of that college are going for higher studies, to just give an example.
Even if money is important to you, shouldn't the career earnings be more important that the first paycheck. And that, as I said above, will depend a whole lot more on quality of education than the first paycheck. And the quality of education is primarily driven by quality of faculty. So, if there is only one thing that you want to check in a website, it is the quality of faculty.
When I look at the lists prepared by students of the order in which they will seek admission, I am sometimes shocked. I visit the website of the two colleges, and at the outset it is absolutely clear as to where the faculty is far superior in every respect, and one still goes for the other place because the closing rank last year was better, or because someone said that a company offered a huge amount of salary to one student.
Another bias that I notice on these forums is that government colleges are better than private colleges. I can understand (and myself advocate to an extent) joining an IIT even if the faculty size is very small, compared to a non-IIT with good faculty, because the brand value is just too high, and that does help in one's career, but I notice that the closing ranks in some of the NITs, IIITs, etc., are very good, even though few private places (like BITS, IIITH, DA-IICT, and LNMIIT - the last one isn't exactly private but a partnership between Rajasthan Government and Mr. Laxmi Mittal) may have superior faculty. Some NITs are excellent, no doubt. But many of them really suffer badly from lack of faculty.
Enough ramblings. Now the parameters:
The most important component that goes into making a good institution is a good faculty. So when you visit the website of a department, look for the following information:
Number of full-time faculty members. Please make sure that you read the details, and find out who is a full-time faculty member, and who is a part-time or adjunct faculty member.
Their qualificiations. How many are PhDs. Where did they do their PhDs. Similarly, how many faculty members are having MTech qualification. Where did they do their MTech.
If a significant portion of faculty received their highest degree (whether PhD, MTech, or BTech) from the same college, then that should raise some alarms. On the other hand, faculty members having a lower degree from the same college, implies that they value the place enough that they returned back to the same place after getting a higher degree from elsewhere.
If the highest qualification for any faculty member is MCA, then be alarmed. Top places will only higher PhDs. Good places may have some MTechs. But if colleges are hiring BTechs and MCAs for teaching courses, it means that they are not able to attract enough good faculty, and that should be a cause for concern.
What are faculty doing. Are they teaching three courses a semester or two. Are they doing at least some bit of research publications.
Look at the Curriculum of the college. If the college is a deemed university, only then it has the flexibility of deciding its own curriculum. Otherwise, it has to follow what the university prescribes. Some of the things to look for in the curriculum are:
How many courses do they teach. Unlike the conventional wisdom in India, I believe that the college that teaches you less is a better college. It means that they do less spoon feeding, and give you more space to grow and learn. If you look at international examples, MIT and other top universities have as low as 32 courses as the requirement for undergraduate degree. The next level universities in US require upto 36 courses for the undergraduate program. In India, IITs and the other top departments usually have 40-42 courses in the undergraduate curriculum. Some of the deemed universities require around 45 courses, and many of the universities require even 60 courses in the undergraduate curriculum. There are surely exceptions to this general trend, but by and large colleges will try to teach you more, if they know that they are doing a poor job of teaching, and hope that if they try teaching you lots, then perhaps in some courses they will be able to teach you something.
How many electives are there in the curriculum, giving flexibility to the students to learn what they are interested in. Many colleges may have slots for electives, but they treat that slot as their choice to offer a course. So they won't offer three courses, and ask students to chose one. But instead they will offer one course of their own choice (basically for whatever course they can find a faculty). Also, in most colleges, the curriculum will only contain professional electives, but no open electives.
Do they have enough number of humanities and social science courses (at least 10 percent courses).
How is the Infrastructure at the college. Now, this is something that most colleges will score equally well. In CS/IT areas, what you really need is a bunch of PCs with some standard softwares, something that increasingly students are anyway affording on their own. But still there are pieces of infrastructure that the college has to provide. Also, how good is their support staff to manage that infrastructure. Here is what you can check.
What is their Internet bandwidth. (Consider the per capita bandwidth.)
Do they have their own domain name for the website.
Do they list some email addresses for faculty, and others on the website. If yes, are these addresses from free service provides (yahoo, gmail, rediffmail, etc.), or are these of the domain name of the college. If everyone seems to be using yahoo and gamil accounts, then it means that they do not provide a good email service internally.
Do they have BOTH a Windows lab and a Linux lab. Ideally CS departments should be preparing you for both Windows and Linux platforms.
Another parameter in determining a good college is to look at what happens to their students after they graduate. After all, you want to study there because you feel that the education will result in a good career for you. But Do not over-emphasize this parameter. So look for the information on the following:
What all companies did they attract for campus placement. Do they attract any multinationals. Do they attract only those IT companies who have local offices, or companies with no presence in the local town also come to the college.
What percentage of their students got hired by these companies.
What is the average and median salaries. (Maximum salaries are attractive but very deceptive. Beware of colleges which only talk about the highest salaries.)
How many people are going for higher studies, whether in India or abroad, whether for doing MS/MTech or for doing MBA.
Do these students care about the college after they graduate. In particular, does college have an associated Alumni Association. Is there any interaction (not necessarily donations, may be just visits) between alumni and the college.
Research output of a department is another factor to look at. One might argue that research is not that important for undergraduate education. Firstly, I do not agree with that statement. Doing research keeps a teacher uptodate on the area, and makes his/her understanding of the subject better. This can only help the quality of teaching. But more importantly, research flourishes when there is an institutional support for it. If faculty members are doing research, then it shows that the college management is serious about the quality of education. Research can be measured by the following parameters.
Publication by faculty members. Higher preference should be given to peer-reviewed journals and conferences of high quality and reputation. Then one should also look at local conferences. At least someone is putting some effort in the right direction.
Sponsored research projects by various funding agencies like Department of Science and Technology (DST), AICTE, Dept of Information Technology, etc.
Any industry interaction in terms of research projects or consultancy.
Do they invite several researchers to give seminars.
Do they organize workshops and conferences.
Does college management have any scheme to reward good research.
What do others say about this college.
Have they been ranked by any major survey like India Today, Data Quest, etc. Note that most of these surveys are only about perceptions and not realities. And it is not that easy to get all the comparable information any way. So take the ranking information with a HUGE pinch of salt.
Has the college gone through any formal accreditation by AICTE (NBA) or NAAC, etc. If yes, what is the result.
Is it a deemed university.
I wouldn't be swayed by the number of MoUs or exchange programs that a college may have with so-called foreign universities.
A few miscellaneous things. They are gross generalizations, hence be careful in applying them to specific instances.
A fully residential or at least mostly residential college has a much better environment than a college which has mostly day scholars.
I don't recommend anyone to do an MCA degree. If you are interested in knowing why I say so, please read my views on MCA programs.
On a couple of occasions above, I have referred to the status of Deemed University. In my opinion, it is very important to be declared as deemed to be university. When you get this status, you can decide your own academic processes, including curriculum, exams, grading, and even admissions, etc. Invariably, colleges with this kind of autonomy have much better quality of education than others.
If you feel that the information provided on the college website is incomplete, or you think that there might be exaggerations, you should send emails to some faculty members and students. Hopefully, the website would have email addresses of faculty, and at least some students (like those who organize events, etc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, you can send me email at: dheeraj[AT]iitk.ac.in.
However, I cannot claim to have known a lot of colleges. I travel a lot, and must have visited more than 100 colleges all across country during my career so far, talked to thousands of students, and I can claim to have some understanding of the higher technical education in the country. However, all these visits and browsing the website cannot really tell you everything about any particular college. So I am going to do two things here.
One, I have prepared a small list of colleges, who have made a significant positive impression on me. This may be due to my visits to that college, or my interactions with faculty or students there, or sometimes just visiting the website of that college. So, if a particular college is not listed, it is most likely because I don't know enough about them, and not because I don't consider them as a good college. Also, please note that I do not claim to know anything about programs other than Computer Science. When I visit a college, it is usually only the CS (or related) department. And, if I visit their website, it is usually the CS department website. So, when I recommend a college, I am really recommending it for CS and related areas only.
Two, I am writing below how one should go about ranking them oneself. If I had infinite time, I would have followed this approach myself to rank these colleges. In my opinion, the ranking should depend on the factors that I list below. You should check whether the department has a website or not. If the department does not have a website, or does not provide all the information on the website, then don't rank it very high. The assumption here is that in today's age, if a department in CS/IT area does not provide information for potential students, then it can only be because they don't have any meaningful information to provide.
If you go through the following details, you are bound to find it a very time consuming process. (You will be right, and that is exactly the reason I am giving the process, and not doing the exercise myself.) But choosing a college will have a huge impact on your future, and you should be willing to spend a lot of time in doing this exercise. Of course, you always have an option of looking at the last year's closing ranks in all the exams like AIEEE and use that as the basis of making your choices. But then you didn't need to read even this much.
Before I talk about what are the important criteria for selecting college, let me add that the eventual goal is to do well in career, and be happy in life. Success in career depends on a lot of factor: your passion and interest in the area you are working in, your preparedness (this is where education comes in), your ability to keep learning lifelong (this is why good faculty is absolutely important - to not just teach you some technical stuff, but tell you how to learn yourself), your network of friends (this is where brand name of college will help), and a huge amount of luck.
In today's society, almost all students and parents take the value of the first paycheck as the only measure of success. So, if you visit the forums where students discuss which college to join, the most important questions are: how is the placement, how many companie came, what was the highest salary offered, and so on. People don't want to know whether students of that college are going for higher studies, to just give an example.
Even if money is important to you, shouldn't the career earnings be more important that the first paycheck. And that, as I said above, will depend a whole lot more on quality of education than the first paycheck. And the quality of education is primarily driven by quality of faculty. So, if there is only one thing that you want to check in a website, it is the quality of faculty.
When I look at the lists prepared by students of the order in which they will seek admission, I am sometimes shocked. I visit the website of the two colleges, and at the outset it is absolutely clear as to where the faculty is far superior in every respect, and one still goes for the other place because the closing rank last year was better, or because someone said that a company offered a huge amount of salary to one student.
Another bias that I notice on these forums is that government colleges are better than private colleges. I can understand (and myself advocate to an extent) joining an IIT even if the faculty size is very small, compared to a non-IIT with good faculty, because the brand value is just too high, and that does help in one's career, but I notice that the closing ranks in some of the NITs, IIITs, etc., are very good, even though few private places (like BITS, IIITH, DA-IICT, and LNMIIT - the last one isn't exactly private but a partnership between Rajasthan Government and Mr. Laxmi Mittal) may have superior faculty. Some NITs are excellent, no doubt. But many of them really suffer badly from lack of faculty.
Enough ramblings. Now the parameters:
The most important component that goes into making a good institution is a good faculty. So when you visit the website of a department, look for the following information:
Number of full-time faculty members. Please make sure that you read the details, and find out who is a full-time faculty member, and who is a part-time or adjunct faculty member.
Their qualificiations. How many are PhDs. Where did they do their PhDs. Similarly, how many faculty members are having MTech qualification. Where did they do their MTech.
If a significant portion of faculty received their highest degree (whether PhD, MTech, or BTech) from the same college, then that should raise some alarms. On the other hand, faculty members having a lower degree from the same college, implies that they value the place enough that they returned back to the same place after getting a higher degree from elsewhere.
If the highest qualification for any faculty member is MCA, then be alarmed. Top places will only higher PhDs. Good places may have some MTechs. But if colleges are hiring BTechs and MCAs for teaching courses, it means that they are not able to attract enough good faculty, and that should be a cause for concern.
What are faculty doing. Are they teaching three courses a semester or two. Are they doing at least some bit of research publications.
Look at the Curriculum of the college. If the college is a deemed university, only then it has the flexibility of deciding its own curriculum. Otherwise, it has to follow what the university prescribes. Some of the things to look for in the curriculum are:
How many courses do they teach. Unlike the conventional wisdom in India, I believe that the college that teaches you less is a better college. It means that they do less spoon feeding, and give you more space to grow and learn. If you look at international examples, MIT and other top universities have as low as 32 courses as the requirement for undergraduate degree. The next level universities in US require upto 36 courses for the undergraduate program. In India, IITs and the other top departments usually have 40-42 courses in the undergraduate curriculum. Some of the deemed universities require around 45 courses, and many of the universities require even 60 courses in the undergraduate curriculum. There are surely exceptions to this general trend, but by and large colleges will try to teach you more, if they know that they are doing a poor job of teaching, and hope that if they try teaching you lots, then perhaps in some courses they will be able to teach you something.
How many electives are there in the curriculum, giving flexibility to the students to learn what they are interested in. Many colleges may have slots for electives, but they treat that slot as their choice to offer a course. So they won't offer three courses, and ask students to chose one. But instead they will offer one course of their own choice (basically for whatever course they can find a faculty). Also, in most colleges, the curriculum will only contain professional electives, but no open electives.
Do they have enough number of humanities and social science courses (at least 10 percent courses).
How is the Infrastructure at the college. Now, this is something that most colleges will score equally well. In CS/IT areas, what you really need is a bunch of PCs with some standard softwares, something that increasingly students are anyway affording on their own. But still there are pieces of infrastructure that the college has to provide. Also, how good is their support staff to manage that infrastructure. Here is what you can check.
What is their Internet bandwidth. (Consider the per capita bandwidth.)
Do they have their own domain name for the website.
Do they list some email addresses for faculty, and others on the website. If yes, are these addresses from free service provides (yahoo, gmail, rediffmail, etc.), or are these of the domain name of the college. If everyone seems to be using yahoo and gamil accounts, then it means that they do not provide a good email service internally.
Do they have BOTH a Windows lab and a Linux lab. Ideally CS departments should be preparing you for both Windows and Linux platforms.
Another parameter in determining a good college is to look at what happens to their students after they graduate. After all, you want to study there because you feel that the education will result in a good career for you. But Do not over-emphasize this parameter. So look for the information on the following:
What all companies did they attract for campus placement. Do they attract any multinationals. Do they attract only those IT companies who have local offices, or companies with no presence in the local town also come to the college.
What percentage of their students got hired by these companies.
What is the average and median salaries. (Maximum salaries are attractive but very deceptive. Beware of colleges which only talk about the highest salaries.)
How many people are going for higher studies, whether in India or abroad, whether for doing MS/MTech or for doing MBA.
Do these students care about the college after they graduate. In particular, does college have an associated Alumni Association. Is there any interaction (not necessarily donations, may be just visits) between alumni and the college.
Research output of a department is another factor to look at. One might argue that research is not that important for undergraduate education. Firstly, I do not agree with that statement. Doing research keeps a teacher uptodate on the area, and makes his/her understanding of the subject better. This can only help the quality of teaching. But more importantly, research flourishes when there is an institutional support for it. If faculty members are doing research, then it shows that the college management is serious about the quality of education. Research can be measured by the following parameters.
Publication by faculty members. Higher preference should be given to peer-reviewed journals and conferences of high quality and reputation. Then one should also look at local conferences. At least someone is putting some effort in the right direction.
Sponsored research projects by various funding agencies like Department of Science and Technology (DST), AICTE, Dept of Information Technology, etc.
Any industry interaction in terms of research projects or consultancy.
Do they invite several researchers to give seminars.
Do they organize workshops and conferences.
Does college management have any scheme to reward good research.
What do others say about this college.
Have they been ranked by any major survey like India Today, Data Quest, etc. Note that most of these surveys are only about perceptions and not realities. And it is not that easy to get all the comparable information any way. So take the ranking information with a HUGE pinch of salt.
Has the college gone through any formal accreditation by AICTE (NBA) or NAAC, etc. If yes, what is the result.
Is it a deemed university.
I wouldn't be swayed by the number of MoUs or exchange programs that a college may have with so-called foreign universities.
A few miscellaneous things. They are gross generalizations, hence be careful in applying them to specific instances.
A fully residential or at least mostly residential college has a much better environment than a college which has mostly day scholars.
I don't recommend anyone to do an MCA degree. If you are interested in knowing why I say so, please read my views on MCA programs.
On a couple of occasions above, I have referred to the status of Deemed University. In my opinion, it is very important to be declared as deemed to be university. When you get this status, you can decide your own academic processes, including curriculum, exams, grading, and even admissions, etc. Invariably, colleges with this kind of autonomy have much better quality of education than others.
If you feel that the information provided on the college website is incomplete, or you think that there might be exaggerations, you should send emails to some faculty members and students. Hopefully, the website would have email addresses of faculty, and at least some students (like those who organize events, etc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, you can send me email at: dheeraj[AT]iitk.ac.in.
Choosing "other" colleges
a) IITs rule in India especially in the engineering and technology sectors. The IITs in the metros have much better facilities in terms of infrastructure, travel and accessibility. Hence academic and industrial contacts are biased towards well connected cities. If one looks at the choice of management schools, IITB and IITD rules over every other IIT. Between them IITB is the clear topper.
An unheard of fact is that IITB has the largest number of successful alumni amongst any institute in India. This includes all Indian higher education institutions.
Kanpur and Kharagpur suffer in terms of location. Roorkee the new kid has been unjustly pushed to the bottom by students even though its brand as the University of Roorkee used to stand against the IIT bandwagon at one point. It should have been better ranked than IITM if it was able to capitalise its brand equity. But one reason for its fall from grace is because the successful alumni from IITR has been minuscule to say the least
b) Even though BITS as such has a better brand image than any of the NITs separately, the NIT bandwagon has also come into the picture. Similar to how the IITs build their brand, any achievement of any NIT becomes a achievement for all. Within a few years, it will have a great brand. Already colleges like Caltech choose NIT students over top IIT students for their programs. Caltech is amongst the places where IIT had a big stranglehold so far
Source: http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=29458057&tid=2522177851197886275&start=1
c) One major reason for BITS to take a fall was its flawed selection policy during 1998 to 2004. For 6 years, the BITS brand took a big big beating. Till 1998, the best students used to join BITS Pilani and Roorkee University after the IITs. It was clearly as good as say IIT Guwahati once. From 1998 the 12th marks of Tamil Nadu and Andhra became much easier because of attempts to pander to the public. A huge chunk of students reputed to be 90% at one stage, came from AP and TN. Most of them were ordinary students, who were not like the original quality output of BITS. For some reason, BITS choose the ignore the overpowering statistic for a long time. Finally only when the alumni could no longer watch the huge slump in brand perception, they lambasted the administration and forced BITS to amend their admission procedures. By then the damage was done. A generation of students got the BITS brand without being worthy of it. Even recruiters and admission officers sensed the fall and their offers dramatically dried up.
Source:
"And the admissions process seems to have broken down in the past couple of years with disproportionate students from a few states being represented in the student body. Regardless of the facts, the perception that the process is unfair has the potential to seriously harm the BITS brand".
Most importantly students esp the CBSE students during that period got the feeling that BITS does not recognize true merit. This is the worst that can happen to a college. IIT's have for long taken pride in the fact that no backdoor entry is possible not even for Ministers or IIT directors. Infact it is said that for a long long time, no wards of IIT directors have cleared the IITJEE.
Now BITS has among the most transparent and sensible admission procedures which are infact much more sensible than even the IIT JEE. Butt reversing the original damage takes a long time.Source
By the time they get back to ground zero in say another 1 year ( the time it takes for the 2004 entrants to move away), they will realize that they have reached the 1998 position and they have fallen back back by a decade almost. Others have gone forward at the time BITS slept.
BITS Goa and BITS hyderabad are a good attempt to provide quality education and widen the BITS brand so that BITS -IIT fight becomes a 3 versus 7 affair.and not a 1 versus 7 affair as it was earlier. Even though BITS has ensured that it will never be flanked, it will take a decade at least for the other campuses to get established.Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Adding another entry on BITS:]
STRENGTHS:
1) Discussed under Choosing other colleges.
2) It has an excellent alumni base as big as that of any other individual IIT except that of IIT Bombay. Networking is also supposed to be much better than that of the newer IITs.
BITSians in academia, research
BITS entreprenuers
BITSians in business
BITS being a private college has established a good reputation in industry over time. One reason why this has happened would be the fact that almost one third of its successful alumni have a MBA from the US. This is higher than any of the IITs and also an indicator of the relative affluence of the people entering BITS Pilani. It also appears that almost all MBA grads who had finished their degree decades ago are in powerful positions today. This is true not only for BITS but even for colleges like College of Engineering Guindy , Delhi University, Bombay University or even the MS University Baroda ( which surprisingly has a power packed alumni network).
Trivia: Sabeer Bhatia left BITS after 2 years to join Caltech for his UG. He is not an graduate of BITS unlike what BITS wants the world to believe.
M Damodaran, Head SEBI reportedly dropped out of IITM to join a B.Sc course. And no one claims he is an IIT alumnus.
3) Nowadays its students have started getting scholarships to top colleges like Stanford etc - a steady return to the 90's era. But again its got a lot of catching up to do with respect to the IIT's.
4) BITS has come up with an unique model of GRE type testing which removes stress and allows a better performance in exams. A model which the IITs must learn from.
5) BITS has implemented a uniform 80% cutoff irrespective of state. An admirable action which follows the MIT model that only class toppers need to apply for their programs. But this may also alienate the rural students who may feel at a disadvantage.
WEAKNESSES:
1) The first impression BITS Pilani makes is that it tries too hard to prove that it is better than the IIT's. Right from the students to the faculty, they have a perennial inferiority complex, which is their greatest bane.
This is also reflected in their attempts to prove not that they are good but that IITs are crap. A good example is this link: http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=1499249&tid=2511366499402034699&start=1. The vitriolic and rabid anti IIT comments by many BITS students dont show them in a good light.
Constant comparison with the IITs every minute totally saps them. Unlike say ITBHU, DCE or the NITs they show an extreme inability to come to grips with reality. A BITSian seems to be defined by the anti IIT spirit.
2) BITS Pilani is also infamous for the "attitude" of some of their students who display a perennial snobbery at all other colleges especially the IIT's. ( The part about IIT is unique amongst all other Indian colleges). This was the trend a long time ago but hopefully things should have changed.
3) BITS forums claim that many IIT JEE selected students do join BITS. Normally no one who gets a bachelors degree through IITJEE ( ie in the top 2500 ranks) ever leaves it for any course in BITS Pilani. Still some students ( say around 4 or 5) with ranks around 2000- 2500 and getting a seat in IIT may take up BITS Pilani if they get CS or EE.
For that matter atleast 70 students in the top 2500 ranks and around 140 students below 3000 AIR in IITJEE take up ITBHU. But ITBHU never claims that they are better than the IIT's but only that they are equal to them. There has never been an anti IIT spirit. Infact they feel that they are as good as the neighbouring IITK and there is nothing left for them to prove.
BITS Pilani still offers admission to board toppers. It has never been established whether board toppers are really brilliant or have mastered the art of mugging and exploiting the loopholes of the umpteen state boards. The very fact that almost all board toppers come a cropper in competitive exams like the IIT (and which would obviously have been their first preference) questions the very notion of merit as defined by BITS since time immemorial.
4) BITS Pilani has an alliance with MIT which exists only in name. There has never been any report on what the alliance has ever achieved. Not an inkling of research or publications have been publicized. It appears that MIT had some role in setting up BITS Pilani and that too through the Ford Foundation. Extending that tenuous link till the present date is a clear overstretch. Overzealous students claiming that some internet cables extend to MIT and offering it as proof of an academic alliance mocks the very definition of a tie up.
5) The lesser said about the highly flawed college rankings, the better. But its a necessary evil no doubt. Once in the India Today rankings BITS climbed to 3rd place once and within 2 years, was out of the top 10. The court issue started after BITS did not figure in the rankings. Since then BITS Pilani and India Today have been at loggerheads with each quoting a reason blaming the other.
6) There was a mass resignation of faculty a few years ago. But that problem seems to have been solved now.
7) Official PR releases talk for themselves.
"There is an age old saying that Sun, Moon and Truth are the three things that cannot be hidden for too long and its time to know the truth about BITS Pilani."
And remember this is an official PR release by their Dean.
8) The BITS obsession with rankings:
BITS Pilani Rajasthan towering above the rest in India Today
The title itself is misleading claiming the BITS is the best in India. So much conscious of their public image. Compare this selective representation with IIPM. Quoting selective surveys and that too partial rankings seem to be the order of the day. Source
9) BITS Pilani being in Rajasthan suffers extreme fluctuations in weather. It is said that sometimes the temperature varies from the 40 degrees C in the daytime to almost zero in the night. Also Pilani is an altogether remote place, with almost desert like climate. The nearest cities are Jaipur and Delhi about 220 km away. Shortage of water during summer is also not a rare occurence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d) ITBHU is a case of always the bridesmaid but never the bride. A fantastic institute which rivalled Roorkee in every respect, it has taken in students through the IITJEE since 1971. The IIT culture is ensured by the proximity to IIT Kanpur. All the commissions set up to look into upgradations to IIT have consistently rated ITBHU on top of all other colleges. This means that the Government has recognised the fact that ITBHU is the best outside the IIT system. But its drawbacks are that its a stand alone institute and thus comes a cropper against the IITs and NITs. One hopes that soon it becomes an IIT, a future it strongly deserves. The quality of student intake and its long period of existence, ( it existed as 3 colleges under BHU before 1971) remain its biggest strengths. Its ECE, Metallurgy, Ceramic and Mining programs are among the first such programs in India and are supposed to be the best in India as per GOI - Government of India technical education reports.
The latest update is that ITBHU would become an IIT. Source. If and when this happens ITBHU should be as good as IIT Roorkee if not better.
e) The DCE - NSIT combo in Delhi has a deadly power punch. Inspite of differences in names, it presents a unified outlook to the world. The standard of students and faculty in both are almost the same. MIT has been giving admits regularly to these duo. Thats the ultimate stamp of quality. And the location factor is clearly in their favour. DCE ranks better because it has a longer history.
f) Arguably UICT formerly UDCT rocks in chemical engineering. Anil Ambani said that he left IITB for UDCT. Whether a hyperbole or not, that shows how famous this institute was. And at one time, at around the 1990's, people used to say dont apply to MIT unless you are a topper from IIT/ BITS or UDCT. Anyhow UDCT has become very good in many fields like polymers and material science other than their original core competency. But not sure about the job prospects - of course not talking of the ubiquitous IT jobs
g) COE Guindy along with Roorkee are supposed to be the oldest engineering colleges in India. Just opposite to IITM campus, Tamilians still treat it on par with BITS Pilani. But issue is lack of diversity other than the Tamils and also rumors of back door entry for politicians. The sons of popular ministers seem to have got direct admission under a quota especially created for them. There is a exam for entry of other state candidates, but hardly anyone knows about it. Maybe thats what they wanted
h) Jadavpur University is another regional centre of excellence. But again issue is lack of diversity and entry through regional exam.
i) IIIT 's started with much vigor rivaling the IITs in splendor in the initial year 1998 but fallen since then. But CS and EE branches still have a good reputation. Also they are among the few colleges to have a joint Ph.D program with top US colleges like Carnegie Mellon University. Also they have some excellent faculty doing good research. I don't use world class because thats a very misused term in India nowadays!!
IIIT gets the best of students through the AIEEE exam which numerically is far tougher to the IITJEE. It attracts very good students. Even though its young, national wide admission procedures are top class.
j)For some reason PEC got itself seared in the Indian consciousness and American consciousness after Kalpana Chawla. It has been having a good run since then.
k) COEP has enjoyed a good reputation over the years. But issue seems to be lack of diversity and regional entrance exams.
Group 2:
The other NITs:
As said earlier, the NITs united under a common umbrella have a very bright chance of elbowing out all other colleges including the BITS group by sheer number soon in the future. All the ingredients for success are there.
VJTI Bombay:
As good as COEP, it has some illustrious alumni and good brand image.
Group 3:
Vellore Institute of Technology:
Supposed to be the "hottest" rising college in the horizon. Around 70000 students wrote their entrance exams throughout India, bigger than even BITSAT at 52000. In the 1990's it was like any other ordinary college. Not sure whats really driving them now. Not much idea about this.
BIT Mesra:
Not allied with BITS ( like BITS Pilani Goa ) and different. Its administration is different from BITS Pilani, its more famous relation. Anyway seems much better than the BITS Pilani campuses at Goa, Dubai etc. Developed a good reputation over decades.
PSG Coimbatore:
Just below COE Guindy, but has the same strengths and weaknesses. One extra weakness is that its in the more remote Coimbatore.
HBTI Kanpur:
This is another chemical Engineering stud college like UDCT, but not as well known.
RVCE Bangalore
RVCE started like SVCE Chennai , but in Bangalore it still rules. And unlike SVCE, its brand cachet has been steadily going up year after year. Has been churning quality students for a long time and slowly becoming a powerhouse.
Others:
SVCE Chennai
SVCE used to be an good college, especially during 1998 - 2004, strangely the same time BITS had the skewed selection policy. All CBSE IIT aspirants from Tamil Nadu - who could have walked eyes closed into BITS if only they opted for the Matric board ended up here. Of course they were also the ones who could not convert IITJEE. But even a place like Stanford which as a rule takes only IIT grads only for their CS Ph.D programs made exceptions twice for SVCE students ( this was before the year 2002). That spoke volumes about their quality earlier. Lately it has fallen upon very bad times with the AIEEE exams and BITSAT exams robbing them of good students. Steadily plummeting day after day and losing out quality students. Even SSN Engineering college with extensive scholarships has leftSVCE trailing. SSN is now the numero uno choice for students in Chennai.
Misc - Unranked:
ISI Kolkata/ Bangalore
A very niche college for people interested in pure Maths or Statistics. Has a very good reputation abroad - especially for people interested in doctoral studies.
CMI Chennai
Of late there has been a lot of hype about this place. Again a place for Maths freaks. QUite a number of people with high ranks in the IITJEE have been joining this place. But this seems too new an institution. Either choosing Maths and Computing courses in IIT's or choosing ISI seem a better option for now.
IIIT Allahabad
Has been a very upcoming college in recent years even coming up in the top 10 of a few surveys. Need to deliver the same consistent results for a longer period of time to really push itself into the top. After all pedigree counts big time whether one likes it or not.
If you consider the quality and qualification of faculty and infrastructure then the best bet is as follows:
1) IIT Kanpur,
2) IIT Bombay,
3) IIT Kharagpur,
4) IIT Delhi,
5) IIT Madras
6) BITS Pilani
7) IIT Roorkee
8) IT-BHU
9) IIT Gauhati
10) IIIT Hyderabad
11) NIT Calicut
12) NIT Suratkal
13) NIT Warangal
14) Delhi College of Engineering
15) Anna University
16) DAC-IT
17) NIT Trichy
The quality of NIT Trichy and NIT Warangal has gone down for the past few years. At the sametime NIT Calicut and NIT Surathkal has made tremendous progress. NIT Calicut has outstanding faculty. Most of them are Ph.Ds from IITs.
An unheard of fact is that IITB has the largest number of successful alumni amongst any institute in India. This includes all Indian higher education institutions.
Kanpur and Kharagpur suffer in terms of location. Roorkee the new kid has been unjustly pushed to the bottom by students even though its brand as the University of Roorkee used to stand against the IIT bandwagon at one point. It should have been better ranked than IITM if it was able to capitalise its brand equity. But one reason for its fall from grace is because the successful alumni from IITR has been minuscule to say the least
b) Even though BITS as such has a better brand image than any of the NITs separately, the NIT bandwagon has also come into the picture. Similar to how the IITs build their brand, any achievement of any NIT becomes a achievement for all. Within a few years, it will have a great brand. Already colleges like Caltech choose NIT students over top IIT students for their programs. Caltech is amongst the places where IIT had a big stranglehold so far
Source: http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=29458057&tid=2522177851197886275&start=1
c) One major reason for BITS to take a fall was its flawed selection policy during 1998 to 2004. For 6 years, the BITS brand took a big big beating. Till 1998, the best students used to join BITS Pilani and Roorkee University after the IITs. It was clearly as good as say IIT Guwahati once. From 1998 the 12th marks of Tamil Nadu and Andhra became much easier because of attempts to pander to the public. A huge chunk of students reputed to be 90% at one stage, came from AP and TN. Most of them were ordinary students, who were not like the original quality output of BITS. For some reason, BITS choose the ignore the overpowering statistic for a long time. Finally only when the alumni could no longer watch the huge slump in brand perception, they lambasted the administration and forced BITS to amend their admission procedures. By then the damage was done. A generation of students got the BITS brand without being worthy of it. Even recruiters and admission officers sensed the fall and their offers dramatically dried up.
Source:
"And the admissions process seems to have broken down in the past couple of years with disproportionate students from a few states being represented in the student body. Regardless of the facts, the perception that the process is unfair has the potential to seriously harm the BITS brand".
Most importantly students esp the CBSE students during that period got the feeling that BITS does not recognize true merit. This is the worst that can happen to a college. IIT's have for long taken pride in the fact that no backdoor entry is possible not even for Ministers or IIT directors. Infact it is said that for a long long time, no wards of IIT directors have cleared the IITJEE.
Now BITS has among the most transparent and sensible admission procedures which are infact much more sensible than even the IIT JEE. Butt reversing the original damage takes a long time.Source
By the time they get back to ground zero in say another 1 year ( the time it takes for the 2004 entrants to move away), they will realize that they have reached the 1998 position and they have fallen back back by a decade almost. Others have gone forward at the time BITS slept.
BITS Goa and BITS hyderabad are a good attempt to provide quality education and widen the BITS brand so that BITS -IIT fight becomes a 3 versus 7 affair.and not a 1 versus 7 affair as it was earlier. Even though BITS has ensured that it will never be flanked, it will take a decade at least for the other campuses to get established.Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Adding another entry on BITS:]
STRENGTHS:
1) Discussed under Choosing other colleges.
2) It has an excellent alumni base as big as that of any other individual IIT except that of IIT Bombay. Networking is also supposed to be much better than that of the newer IITs.
BITSians in academia, research
BITS entreprenuers
BITSians in business
BITS being a private college has established a good reputation in industry over time. One reason why this has happened would be the fact that almost one third of its successful alumni have a MBA from the US. This is higher than any of the IITs and also an indicator of the relative affluence of the people entering BITS Pilani. It also appears that almost all MBA grads who had finished their degree decades ago are in powerful positions today. This is true not only for BITS but even for colleges like College of Engineering Guindy , Delhi University, Bombay University or even the MS University Baroda ( which surprisingly has a power packed alumni network).
Trivia: Sabeer Bhatia left BITS after 2 years to join Caltech for his UG. He is not an graduate of BITS unlike what BITS wants the world to believe.
M Damodaran, Head SEBI reportedly dropped out of IITM to join a B.Sc course. And no one claims he is an IIT alumnus.
3) Nowadays its students have started getting scholarships to top colleges like Stanford etc - a steady return to the 90's era. But again its got a lot of catching up to do with respect to the IIT's.
4) BITS has come up with an unique model of GRE type testing which removes stress and allows a better performance in exams. A model which the IITs must learn from.
5) BITS has implemented a uniform 80% cutoff irrespective of state. An admirable action which follows the MIT model that only class toppers need to apply for their programs. But this may also alienate the rural students who may feel at a disadvantage.
WEAKNESSES:
1) The first impression BITS Pilani makes is that it tries too hard to prove that it is better than the IIT's. Right from the students to the faculty, they have a perennial inferiority complex, which is their greatest bane.
This is also reflected in their attempts to prove not that they are good but that IITs are crap. A good example is this link: http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=1499249&tid=2511366499402034699&start=1. The vitriolic and rabid anti IIT comments by many BITS students dont show them in a good light.
Constant comparison with the IITs every minute totally saps them. Unlike say ITBHU, DCE or the NITs they show an extreme inability to come to grips with reality. A BITSian seems to be defined by the anti IIT spirit.
2) BITS Pilani is also infamous for the "attitude" of some of their students who display a perennial snobbery at all other colleges especially the IIT's. ( The part about IIT is unique amongst all other Indian colleges). This was the trend a long time ago but hopefully things should have changed.
3) BITS forums claim that many IIT JEE selected students do join BITS. Normally no one who gets a bachelors degree through IITJEE ( ie in the top 2500 ranks) ever leaves it for any course in BITS Pilani. Still some students ( say around 4 or 5) with ranks around 2000- 2500 and getting a seat in IIT may take up BITS Pilani if they get CS or EE.
For that matter atleast 70 students in the top 2500 ranks and around 140 students below 3000 AIR in IITJEE take up ITBHU. But ITBHU never claims that they are better than the IIT's but only that they are equal to them. There has never been an anti IIT spirit. Infact they feel that they are as good as the neighbouring IITK and there is nothing left for them to prove.
BITS Pilani still offers admission to board toppers. It has never been established whether board toppers are really brilliant or have mastered the art of mugging and exploiting the loopholes of the umpteen state boards. The very fact that almost all board toppers come a cropper in competitive exams like the IIT (and which would obviously have been their first preference) questions the very notion of merit as defined by BITS since time immemorial.
4) BITS Pilani has an alliance with MIT which exists only in name. There has never been any report on what the alliance has ever achieved. Not an inkling of research or publications have been publicized. It appears that MIT had some role in setting up BITS Pilani and that too through the Ford Foundation. Extending that tenuous link till the present date is a clear overstretch. Overzealous students claiming that some internet cables extend to MIT and offering it as proof of an academic alliance mocks the very definition of a tie up.
5) The lesser said about the highly flawed college rankings, the better. But its a necessary evil no doubt. Once in the India Today rankings BITS climbed to 3rd place once and within 2 years, was out of the top 10. The court issue started after BITS did not figure in the rankings. Since then BITS Pilani and India Today have been at loggerheads with each quoting a reason blaming the other.
6) There was a mass resignation of faculty a few years ago. But that problem seems to have been solved now.
7) Official PR releases talk for themselves.
"There is an age old saying that Sun, Moon and Truth are the three things that cannot be hidden for too long and its time to know the truth about BITS Pilani."
And remember this is an official PR release by their Dean.
8) The BITS obsession with rankings:
BITS Pilani Rajasthan towering above the rest in India Today
The title itself is misleading claiming the BITS is the best in India. So much conscious of their public image. Compare this selective representation with IIPM. Quoting selective surveys and that too partial rankings seem to be the order of the day. Source
9) BITS Pilani being in Rajasthan suffers extreme fluctuations in weather. It is said that sometimes the temperature varies from the 40 degrees C in the daytime to almost zero in the night. Also Pilani is an altogether remote place, with almost desert like climate. The nearest cities are Jaipur and Delhi about 220 km away. Shortage of water during summer is also not a rare occurence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d) ITBHU is a case of always the bridesmaid but never the bride. A fantastic institute which rivalled Roorkee in every respect, it has taken in students through the IITJEE since 1971. The IIT culture is ensured by the proximity to IIT Kanpur. All the commissions set up to look into upgradations to IIT have consistently rated ITBHU on top of all other colleges. This means that the Government has recognised the fact that ITBHU is the best outside the IIT system. But its drawbacks are that its a stand alone institute and thus comes a cropper against the IITs and NITs. One hopes that soon it becomes an IIT, a future it strongly deserves. The quality of student intake and its long period of existence, ( it existed as 3 colleges under BHU before 1971) remain its biggest strengths. Its ECE, Metallurgy, Ceramic and Mining programs are among the first such programs in India and are supposed to be the best in India as per GOI - Government of India technical education reports.
The latest update is that ITBHU would become an IIT. Source. If and when this happens ITBHU should be as good as IIT Roorkee if not better.
e) The DCE - NSIT combo in Delhi has a deadly power punch. Inspite of differences in names, it presents a unified outlook to the world. The standard of students and faculty in both are almost the same. MIT has been giving admits regularly to these duo. Thats the ultimate stamp of quality. And the location factor is clearly in their favour. DCE ranks better because it has a longer history.
f) Arguably UICT formerly UDCT rocks in chemical engineering. Anil Ambani said that he left IITB for UDCT. Whether a hyperbole or not, that shows how famous this institute was. And at one time, at around the 1990's, people used to say dont apply to MIT unless you are a topper from IIT/ BITS or UDCT. Anyhow UDCT has become very good in many fields like polymers and material science other than their original core competency. But not sure about the job prospects - of course not talking of the ubiquitous IT jobs
g) COE Guindy along with Roorkee are supposed to be the oldest engineering colleges in India. Just opposite to IITM campus, Tamilians still treat it on par with BITS Pilani. But issue is lack of diversity other than the Tamils and also rumors of back door entry for politicians. The sons of popular ministers seem to have got direct admission under a quota especially created for them. There is a exam for entry of other state candidates, but hardly anyone knows about it. Maybe thats what they wanted
h) Jadavpur University is another regional centre of excellence. But again issue is lack of diversity and entry through regional exam.
i) IIIT 's started with much vigor rivaling the IITs in splendor in the initial year 1998 but fallen since then. But CS and EE branches still have a good reputation. Also they are among the few colleges to have a joint Ph.D program with top US colleges like Carnegie Mellon University. Also they have some excellent faculty doing good research. I don't use world class because thats a very misused term in India nowadays!!
IIIT gets the best of students through the AIEEE exam which numerically is far tougher to the IITJEE. It attracts very good students. Even though its young, national wide admission procedures are top class.
j)For some reason PEC got itself seared in the Indian consciousness and American consciousness after Kalpana Chawla. It has been having a good run since then.
k) COEP has enjoyed a good reputation over the years. But issue seems to be lack of diversity and regional entrance exams.
Group 2:
The other NITs:
As said earlier, the NITs united under a common umbrella have a very bright chance of elbowing out all other colleges including the BITS group by sheer number soon in the future. All the ingredients for success are there.
VJTI Bombay:
As good as COEP, it has some illustrious alumni and good brand image.
Group 3:
Vellore Institute of Technology:
Supposed to be the "hottest" rising college in the horizon. Around 70000 students wrote their entrance exams throughout India, bigger than even BITSAT at 52000. In the 1990's it was like any other ordinary college. Not sure whats really driving them now. Not much idea about this.
BIT Mesra:
Not allied with BITS ( like BITS Pilani Goa ) and different. Its administration is different from BITS Pilani, its more famous relation. Anyway seems much better than the BITS Pilani campuses at Goa, Dubai etc. Developed a good reputation over decades.
PSG Coimbatore:
Just below COE Guindy, but has the same strengths and weaknesses. One extra weakness is that its in the more remote Coimbatore.
HBTI Kanpur:
This is another chemical Engineering stud college like UDCT, but not as well known.
RVCE Bangalore
RVCE started like SVCE Chennai , but in Bangalore it still rules. And unlike SVCE, its brand cachet has been steadily going up year after year. Has been churning quality students for a long time and slowly becoming a powerhouse.
Others:
SVCE Chennai
SVCE used to be an good college, especially during 1998 - 2004, strangely the same time BITS had the skewed selection policy. All CBSE IIT aspirants from Tamil Nadu - who could have walked eyes closed into BITS if only they opted for the Matric board ended up here. Of course they were also the ones who could not convert IITJEE. But even a place like Stanford which as a rule takes only IIT grads only for their CS Ph.D programs made exceptions twice for SVCE students ( this was before the year 2002). That spoke volumes about their quality earlier. Lately it has fallen upon very bad times with the AIEEE exams and BITSAT exams robbing them of good students. Steadily plummeting day after day and losing out quality students. Even SSN Engineering college with extensive scholarships has leftSVCE trailing. SSN is now the numero uno choice for students in Chennai.
Misc - Unranked:
ISI Kolkata/ Bangalore
A very niche college for people interested in pure Maths or Statistics. Has a very good reputation abroad - especially for people interested in doctoral studies.
CMI Chennai
Of late there has been a lot of hype about this place. Again a place for Maths freaks. QUite a number of people with high ranks in the IITJEE have been joining this place. But this seems too new an institution. Either choosing Maths and Computing courses in IIT's or choosing ISI seem a better option for now.
IIIT Allahabad
Has been a very upcoming college in recent years even coming up in the top 10 of a few surveys. Need to deliver the same consistent results for a longer period of time to really push itself into the top. After all pedigree counts big time whether one likes it or not.
If you consider the quality and qualification of faculty and infrastructure then the best bet is as follows:
1) IIT Kanpur,
2) IIT Bombay,
3) IIT Kharagpur,
4) IIT Delhi,
5) IIT Madras
6) BITS Pilani
7) IIT Roorkee
8) IT-BHU
9) IIT Gauhati
10) IIIT Hyderabad
11) NIT Calicut
12) NIT Suratkal
13) NIT Warangal
14) Delhi College of Engineering
15) Anna University
16) DAC-IT
17) NIT Trichy
The quality of NIT Trichy and NIT Warangal has gone down for the past few years. At the sametime NIT Calicut and NIT Surathkal has made tremendous progress. NIT Calicut has outstanding faculty. Most of them are Ph.Ds from IITs.
Placement @ ITBHU CSE
Placement Info of 2005-09 CSE ITBHU Batch as of 1 February 2009:
Microsoft
4
DE Shaw
3
Oracle
8
Adobe
3
TCS
1
Aricent
6
Samsung(SISO)
1
Samsung(SISC)
2
CSC
10
C-Dot
4
DRDO
1
IBM-ISL
7
Mentor Graphics
1
Goldman sachs
1
Interra Systems
1
Verizon
4
Neev Technologies 1
Atrenta 1
Citrix 1
Rave Technologies 1
iRunway 1
Total Offers: 62
A brief placement stats of CSE ITBHU 2008 batch :
http://rahman.itbhu.googlepages.com/placementstatistics
http://deepak.cse87.googlepages.com/csebranchitbhu-placementstatus2007
Microsoft
4
DE Shaw
3
Oracle
8
Adobe
3
TCS
1
Aricent
6
Samsung(SISO)
1
Samsung(SISC)
2
CSC
10
C-Dot
4
DRDO
1
IBM-ISL
7
Mentor Graphics
1
Goldman sachs
1
Interra Systems
1
Verizon
4
Neev Technologies 1
Atrenta 1
Citrix 1
Rave Technologies 1
iRunway 1
Total Offers: 62
A brief placement stats of CSE ITBHU 2008 batch :
http://rahman.itbhu.googlepages.com/placementstatistics
http://deepak.cse87.googlepages.com/csebranchitbhu-placementstatus2007
the difference between comp. engg and cmp. sc. and engg.
In renowned computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra words "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." The design and deployment of computers and computer systems is generally considered the province of disciplines other than computer science. So despite its name, a significant amount of computer science does not involve the study of computers themselves. Instead Computer science is considered to have a much closer relationship with mathematics than computers.
Whereas the study of computer hardware is usually considered part of computer engineering, while the study of commercial computer systems and their deployment is often called information technology or information systems.
Computer Engineering encompasses broad areas of both Electronics engineering and computer science. Computer engineers are engineers who have training in the areas of software design and hardware-software integration.
Whereas the study of computer hardware is usually considered part of computer engineering, while the study of commercial computer systems and their deployment is often called information technology or information systems.
Computer Engineering encompasses broad areas of both Electronics engineering and computer science. Computer engineers are engineers who have training in the areas of software design and hardware-software integration.
Product based Company vs Services company
It is a common notion among the freshers and also among some of the people in the industry to consider services company as completely devoid of innovation and thriving solely on labor arbitrage. I was myself guilty of similar thinking for a long time.
However, after the little experience I have in the industry and watching both Services and product development side by side, I have realized that both have their own unique challenges and it is not at all fair to put services companies on a lower pedestal than product companies.
Firstly, there aren't really any true product companies. No company can simply build and sell products without providing services around them. Microsoft - the epitome of software product development - has a very large fraction of its work force providing support and associated services around its products. Apple, IBM, Sun - you name it - all develop products and provide services around them. If anything - many of these companies (notably IBM) have realized that services is a much more profitable business to be in. IBM Global Services is probably world's largest software services company.
Secondly, unlike common perception, services companies constantly innovate to remain competitive. The innovation may be in the form of better processes, better hiring strategies, or in developing complex technical solutions for their clients. It is true that many large software services companies do routine incremental maintenance work for systems that were architected elsewhere. However, that is true for large product companies as well which need to invest majority of their resources in maintaining and updating previous versions of their products. If anything, a services company has better chances of doing interesting work in varied technologies as against a product company which is likely to be tied to a single platform and a single product. For a services company, every client and every project is an opportunity to pick up a new technology. The portfolio and technical breadth of services companies is undeniably greater than those of product companies.
The greatest advantage of working in a services company is that you learn to listen very carefully to what your customers are saying. On the shoulders of its clients, a services company gets an opportunity to look closely at varied business models, ship varied products and learn from mistakes and successes of others.
The product company on the other hand the product based company has its own systems in place and is more of ‘content’ than ‘presentation’.
Let me elaborate a bit. A product company is not necessarily great because it innovates. What makes a (good) product company truly stand out is its ability to place its bets on building something in a way that nobody else has, and then giving it all the company's got. Product companies invest in R&D, they take chances, and in their DNA is the ability to know “what” to build without somebody telling them to. The what is a very key element.
The technical challenges and innovation will be similar but a services company does not own the intellectual property and also does not take the responsibility of the success of the idea. This responsibility makes a product company special because it makes long term revenue for the company. (And explains the swelling packages offered to the employees!)
Which one’s for you. You decide yourself..
Product companies are about innovation, service companies are about understanding, listening to clients and addressing the solution within deadlines. The processing of listening to the market is the common aspect of both. However, the kinds of people required for these roles are fundamentally different. Think consulting firm, and you can imagine the big B school MBAs in client relationship roles. There is a lot more emphasis on soft skills, on formal processes, less emphasis on precision or sustainability, less time for innovation, less thought on the code line and more on getting to a solution that works in time. Product companies require more creative people, but their social skills might not be as good. Again this is an observation and not a rule of thumb.
Narad Vachan:
A product company uses its people to create intellectual property.
A services company rents its people out so others can create intellectual property.
A product company takes a $20/hour Java programmer and uses her skills to create a $20 million product.
A services company takes a $20/hour Java programmer and rents him out for $25/hour.
However, after the little experience I have in the industry and watching both Services and product development side by side, I have realized that both have their own unique challenges and it is not at all fair to put services companies on a lower pedestal than product companies.
Firstly, there aren't really any true product companies. No company can simply build and sell products without providing services around them. Microsoft - the epitome of software product development - has a very large fraction of its work force providing support and associated services around its products. Apple, IBM, Sun - you name it - all develop products and provide services around them. If anything - many of these companies (notably IBM) have realized that services is a much more profitable business to be in. IBM Global Services is probably world's largest software services company.
Secondly, unlike common perception, services companies constantly innovate to remain competitive. The innovation may be in the form of better processes, better hiring strategies, or in developing complex technical solutions for their clients. It is true that many large software services companies do routine incremental maintenance work for systems that were architected elsewhere. However, that is true for large product companies as well which need to invest majority of their resources in maintaining and updating previous versions of their products. If anything, a services company has better chances of doing interesting work in varied technologies as against a product company which is likely to be tied to a single platform and a single product. For a services company, every client and every project is an opportunity to pick up a new technology. The portfolio and technical breadth of services companies is undeniably greater than those of product companies.
The greatest advantage of working in a services company is that you learn to listen very carefully to what your customers are saying. On the shoulders of its clients, a services company gets an opportunity to look closely at varied business models, ship varied products and learn from mistakes and successes of others.
The product company on the other hand the product based company has its own systems in place and is more of ‘content’ than ‘presentation’.
Let me elaborate a bit. A product company is not necessarily great because it innovates. What makes a (good) product company truly stand out is its ability to place its bets on building something in a way that nobody else has, and then giving it all the company's got. Product companies invest in R&D, they take chances, and in their DNA is the ability to know “what” to build without somebody telling them to. The what is a very key element.
The technical challenges and innovation will be similar but a services company does not own the intellectual property and also does not take the responsibility of the success of the idea. This responsibility makes a product company special because it makes long term revenue for the company. (And explains the swelling packages offered to the employees!)
Which one’s for you. You decide yourself..
Product companies are about innovation, service companies are about understanding, listening to clients and addressing the solution within deadlines. The processing of listening to the market is the common aspect of both. However, the kinds of people required for these roles are fundamentally different. Think consulting firm, and you can imagine the big B school MBAs in client relationship roles. There is a lot more emphasis on soft skills, on formal processes, less emphasis on precision or sustainability, less time for innovation, less thought on the code line and more on getting to a solution that works in time. Product companies require more creative people, but their social skills might not be as good. Again this is an observation and not a rule of thumb.
Narad Vachan:
A product company uses its people to create intellectual property.
A services company rents its people out so others can create intellectual property.
A product company takes a $20/hour Java programmer and uses her skills to create a $20 million product.
A services company takes a $20/hour Java programmer and rents him out for $25/hour.
Better appraisals
Come April and appraisals stare you in the face. Some may feel there's no point preparing for that for most of the things are decided already. Is it? Remember, the right attitude and the right preparation can help your appraisal go smoothly.
Many people dread their performance appraisal. But it shouldn't be like that. To bolster your chances for a good review and a potential raise or advancement, solid year-round preparation is critical. But what if you've not done that and still want a good appraisal.:-)
Don't worry. Atleast we can try to figure out something. Come along..
Unfair appraisal last year?
Performance appraisals often are not exactly what we expect or want. Frequently, the emphasis tends to be on what you did not do or what you did wrong, rather than on accomplishments. Somehow, your boss may have a tendency to let the negative dominate.
Your last appraisal is history. However, your next appraisal is still in the future and you can do a lot to influence what your boss has to say then.
Dissecting your last appraisal
Look at the method by which you were rated. List the areas that seem to be important to your boss. Consider your performance over the last year and plan accordingly for the next year:
•What have you done well?
•How could your performance be improved?
•Were there any organisational/ management issues that affected your performance?
•How could these be resolved?
•How well did you contribute to the performance of your team?
•Were your training and development needs met?
•What are your continuing development needs with respect to your job?
•How will they be met?
•What are your long-term career goals?
Prepare for your next appraisal
In order to assess your own performance objectively, try viewing it from your manager's perspective. Be conversant with the company's assessment policies and study the performance appraisal documentation carefully. Go through it step-by-step, anticipating comments and preparing your responses.
Understand your main role. What knowledge, skills and attitude do you need to be successful? Quantify your achievements as far as possible and document how they have contributed to the organisation's success. What has gone less well? What can you do better?
Document your difficulties as and when you encounter them all through the year. This way, come appraisal time, you will be in a position to discuss them authoritatively.
Think about the future.
How would you like your career to progress? What experience, knowledge, skills and attitude do you require to develop to help you achieve your goals? What support do you need from your manager, your colleagues and your company to improve your current job performance? What additional responsibilities would you like to take that will help you develop professionally?
Speak up about your accomplishments
Most performance reviews include a self-appraisal section where you should enumerate your year-long successes. People often have a really hard time talking about themselves in a positive way. Put that aside. This is a business exchange. These are things you've worked hard for, and you want to bring them to the table.
Compile documentary evidence to support your assertions, eg e-mails, letters, press releases, newspaper articles, testimonials, etc. Make a list of all conferences, seminars and training courses you've attended.
Brush up your negotiating skills
Preparation is the key if you're aiming for a raise or a promotion. Read up on negotiating strategies. Ask your boss about your company's promotion policy, so you can gain the knowledge and experience required to advance. Also, ask your boss how he/ she moved up in the company and about the challenges he/ she overcame.
Take the positive and the negative
Even with all your preparation, your performance appraisal is unlikely to be entirely positive. Obviously, whoever is doing your review will look for both strengths and weaknesses. The employee must be prepared for that and say how they plan to improve. Don't react emotionally to the negatives -- remaining businesslike throughout the review is important.
Make specific, measurable, realistic goals
Make a list of things you plan to accomplish prior to the next appraisal period. Put it in writing. Each item on your list should be specific, measurable and realistic.
For example, if you want to improve the number of times you come to work late, you can state it as: "Reduce the number of days I am late for work to no more than two per month." :-) This is both specific and measurable.
To be realistic, the goal should be something you have to stretch for, to attain, but it should not be something you have to kill yourself to accomplish.
By putting your goals in writing, and making them specific, measurable, and realistic, you will be indirectly teaching your boss to appraise you more objectively without even mentioning the fact that his/her last appraisal was subjective and undocumented. Remember, the key is to keep the conversation future-oriented.
Improving your performance appraisal need not be left to chance. You can play an active role. Make appraisals your friend by preparing for them beforehand. Your time starts now. All the Best!
Many people dread their performance appraisal. But it shouldn't be like that. To bolster your chances for a good review and a potential raise or advancement, solid year-round preparation is critical. But what if you've not done that and still want a good appraisal.:-)
Don't worry. Atleast we can try to figure out something. Come along..
Unfair appraisal last year?
Performance appraisals often are not exactly what we expect or want. Frequently, the emphasis tends to be on what you did not do or what you did wrong, rather than on accomplishments. Somehow, your boss may have a tendency to let the negative dominate.
Your last appraisal is history. However, your next appraisal is still in the future and you can do a lot to influence what your boss has to say then.
Dissecting your last appraisal
Look at the method by which you were rated. List the areas that seem to be important to your boss. Consider your performance over the last year and plan accordingly for the next year:
•What have you done well?
•How could your performance be improved?
•Were there any organisational/ management issues that affected your performance?
•How could these be resolved?
•How well did you contribute to the performance of your team?
•Were your training and development needs met?
•What are your continuing development needs with respect to your job?
•How will they be met?
•What are your long-term career goals?
Prepare for your next appraisal
In order to assess your own performance objectively, try viewing it from your manager's perspective. Be conversant with the company's assessment policies and study the performance appraisal documentation carefully. Go through it step-by-step, anticipating comments and preparing your responses.
Understand your main role. What knowledge, skills and attitude do you need to be successful? Quantify your achievements as far as possible and document how they have contributed to the organisation's success. What has gone less well? What can you do better?
Document your difficulties as and when you encounter them all through the year. This way, come appraisal time, you will be in a position to discuss them authoritatively.
Think about the future.
How would you like your career to progress? What experience, knowledge, skills and attitude do you require to develop to help you achieve your goals? What support do you need from your manager, your colleagues and your company to improve your current job performance? What additional responsibilities would you like to take that will help you develop professionally?
Speak up about your accomplishments
Most performance reviews include a self-appraisal section where you should enumerate your year-long successes. People often have a really hard time talking about themselves in a positive way. Put that aside. This is a business exchange. These are things you've worked hard for, and you want to bring them to the table.
Compile documentary evidence to support your assertions, eg e-mails, letters, press releases, newspaper articles, testimonials, etc. Make a list of all conferences, seminars and training courses you've attended.
Brush up your negotiating skills
Preparation is the key if you're aiming for a raise or a promotion. Read up on negotiating strategies. Ask your boss about your company's promotion policy, so you can gain the knowledge and experience required to advance. Also, ask your boss how he/ she moved up in the company and about the challenges he/ she overcame.
Take the positive and the negative
Even with all your preparation, your performance appraisal is unlikely to be entirely positive. Obviously, whoever is doing your review will look for both strengths and weaknesses. The employee must be prepared for that and say how they plan to improve. Don't react emotionally to the negatives -- remaining businesslike throughout the review is important.
Make specific, measurable, realistic goals
Make a list of things you plan to accomplish prior to the next appraisal period. Put it in writing. Each item on your list should be specific, measurable and realistic.
For example, if you want to improve the number of times you come to work late, you can state it as: "Reduce the number of days I am late for work to no more than two per month." :-) This is both specific and measurable.
To be realistic, the goal should be something you have to stretch for, to attain, but it should not be something you have to kill yourself to accomplish.
By putting your goals in writing, and making them specific, measurable, and realistic, you will be indirectly teaching your boss to appraise you more objectively without even mentioning the fact that his/her last appraisal was subjective and undocumented. Remember, the key is to keep the conversation future-oriented.
Improving your performance appraisal need not be left to chance. You can play an active role. Make appraisals your friend by preparing for them beforehand. Your time starts now. All the Best!
TAX and savings
Clueless about salary structure? What’s LTA, HRA? How can I save my tax? I don’t even know how much is my taxable income.
Do you have the same questions? Look no further. ChotaNarad is back doing what it does best- helping the people from campus in settling down in the corporate world. Here it comes for all you finance-ignorant souls. Breezing you through the understanding of salary structure and tax-savings..
Hello Friends. I still remember when I received a mail from the finance deptt of my company asking to submit all the investment declarations and proofs. I was clueless as I didn’t know anything about taxes, investment and reimbursement etc. But I researched a lot and here I am sharing with you guys the basics of tax declaration and savings.
I know it’s a bit tough to plan your Tax Savings so as to save your Income Tax as much as possible especially for people who’ve just jumped in from the colleges.
Here is some insight to solve this riddle.
I will explain the salary structure first, and then with the help of an example will try to make it clearer.
The Basic components of your Gross salary would be (not talking about CTC here as it includes Gratuity and Medical premium and similar things):
1) Basic salary
2) House Rent allowance (HRA)
3) Reimbursements (like Medical, petrol and others depending on the Company)
4) LTA (Leave Travel Allowance)
5) Provident Fund (that your company deducts directly from Salary)
6) Rest is taken as Adhoc (= Gross - sum of previous 5 components)
Basic salary and adhoc are Taxable whereas other components like HRA, LTA & Reimbursements are Non Taxable provided you claim them through proper means (Rent Receipt and Bills) and PF is part of your Investments (max 1 lac).
HRA
Another important thing that people find hard to understand is claiming HRA, because to claim the HRA amount (as mentioned in the Package of the company), you need to show bills for HRA amount + 10% of Basic salary.
for e.g.
HRA mentioned in the Package is 1,00,000 and Basic salary is 1,50,000, then to claim entire 1,00,000 you need to show rent receipts amounting 1,00,000 + 15,000 (10% of Basic) annually. We can divide this by 12 to get Monthly rental.
Lets take an example now, lets say your Gross is Rs 3,00,000 and the structure is as follows:
Basic Salary = 1,50,000 Rs
HRA = 75,000 Rs
Reimbursements = 36,000 Rs
LTA = 24,000 Rs
PF = 9,600 Rs
Adhoc (rest) = 5,400 Rs
____________________
Gross Total = 3,00,000 Rs
Income Tax slab (for the year 2007-08) is like this:
Range TAX
1 - 1,10,000 (for Male & 1,35,000 for Female) = NIL
1,10,000 - 1,50,000 @ 10% = 4,000
1,50,000 - 2,50,000 @ 20% = 20,000
2,51,000 and above @ 30%
Now to make your Income Tax zero, what we need:
1) Claim complete HRA amount i.e. 75,000 taking into consideration the explanation on HRA above.
2) Submit appropriate Bills for Reimbursements like Medical, Telephone & Others based on your Company structure.
3) Same is applicable for LTA (Travel Bills).
3) Provident Fund: Generally company Pays 800 p/m that amounts to 9,600 annually, it becomes part of your 1 Lac Reimbursements.
Till now we have saved 75,00,000 + 36,000 + 24,000 + 1,10,000 (exempted already) = 2,45,000.
So now to make Tax zero, you need to invest the rest i.e. 3,00,000 - 2,45,000 = 55,000 as your Savings. But Actually only 55,000 – 9,600 = 45,400.
Same Basics you can follow if your package is higher
Do you have the same questions? Look no further. ChotaNarad is back doing what it does best- helping the people from campus in settling down in the corporate world. Here it comes for all you finance-ignorant souls. Breezing you through the understanding of salary structure and tax-savings..
Hello Friends. I still remember when I received a mail from the finance deptt of my company asking to submit all the investment declarations and proofs. I was clueless as I didn’t know anything about taxes, investment and reimbursement etc. But I researched a lot and here I am sharing with you guys the basics of tax declaration and savings.
I know it’s a bit tough to plan your Tax Savings so as to save your Income Tax as much as possible especially for people who’ve just jumped in from the colleges.
Here is some insight to solve this riddle.
I will explain the salary structure first, and then with the help of an example will try to make it clearer.
The Basic components of your Gross salary would be (not talking about CTC here as it includes Gratuity and Medical premium and similar things):
1) Basic salary
2) House Rent allowance (HRA)
3) Reimbursements (like Medical, petrol and others depending on the Company)
4) LTA (Leave Travel Allowance)
5) Provident Fund (that your company deducts directly from Salary)
6) Rest is taken as Adhoc (= Gross - sum of previous 5 components)
Basic salary and adhoc are Taxable whereas other components like HRA, LTA & Reimbursements are Non Taxable provided you claim them through proper means (Rent Receipt and Bills) and PF is part of your Investments (max 1 lac).
HRA
Another important thing that people find hard to understand is claiming HRA, because to claim the HRA amount (as mentioned in the Package of the company), you need to show bills for HRA amount + 10% of Basic salary.
for e.g.
HRA mentioned in the Package is 1,00,000 and Basic salary is 1,50,000, then to claim entire 1,00,000 you need to show rent receipts amounting 1,00,000 + 15,000 (10% of Basic) annually. We can divide this by 12 to get Monthly rental.
Lets take an example now, lets say your Gross is Rs 3,00,000 and the structure is as follows:
Basic Salary = 1,50,000 Rs
HRA = 75,000 Rs
Reimbursements = 36,000 Rs
LTA = 24,000 Rs
PF = 9,600 Rs
Adhoc (rest) = 5,400 Rs
____________________
Gross Total = 3,00,000 Rs
Income Tax slab (for the year 2007-08) is like this:
Range TAX
1 - 1,10,000 (for Male & 1,35,000 for Female) = NIL
1,10,000 - 1,50,000 @ 10% = 4,000
1,50,000 - 2,50,000 @ 20% = 20,000
2,51,000 and above @ 30%
Now to make your Income Tax zero, what we need:
1) Claim complete HRA amount i.e. 75,000 taking into consideration the explanation on HRA above.
2) Submit appropriate Bills for Reimbursements like Medical, Telephone & Others based on your Company structure.
3) Same is applicable for LTA (Travel Bills).
3) Provident Fund: Generally company Pays 800 p/m that amounts to 9,600 annually, it becomes part of your 1 Lac Reimbursements.
Till now we have saved 75,00,000 + 36,000 + 24,000 + 1,10,000 (exempted already) = 2,45,000.
So now to make Tax zero, you need to invest the rest i.e. 3,00,000 - 2,45,000 = 55,000 as your Savings. But Actually only 55,000 – 9,600 = 45,400.
Same Basics you can follow if your package is higher
MBA?
Why MBA?...Interesting question.....here are some possible answers :
1) My dad told me to do so (papa ne kaha tha)
2) Had spare 1100 bucks
3) I am not good at tech
4) ROI(return of investment) after MBA is good
5) Everyone seems to be doing mba ....so i also joined the race
6) You ask me why ....and I ask you why not?
Ok. So let me answer each one of you separately.
1. "My dad told me to do so (papa ne kaha tha)"
But then Dad also asks you to marry his friend’s daughter Roopa who’s in Champaner!
2. "Had spare 1100 bucks"
Good one, Even my friend last year felt the same, but then realized that a lot of chocolates (even vodka) can be bought with 1100 bucks.
3 "I am not good at tech"
So what makes you think that not being good at tech, naturally qualifies you to be good at management?
4. "ROI(return of investment) after MBA is good"
The avg salary in best of IIMs is 12 lacs CTC, which isn’t that great coz after 2 yrs in a good company (and a switch), your salary can be 10 lacs (obviously you have to excel in your work for that, but dont expect MBA and
thereafter to be a cakewalk) . And the cool 4-5 lakhs you spent on the studies.
♦ DON'T MISS: IIM-B revelation dissected
ROI in the share market, and in any business is much higher. Actually if ROI is all you care about, start a garbage collection and disposal company. You ll break even in 2 yrs, then add a garbage recycling
unit. You ll be a crorepati in 5 years. I am not joking, I know someone who did the above in 4 years total, I am sure all of you can do it definitely.
5. "everyone seems to be doing mba ....so i also joined the race"
What would you call this - peer pressure, or crab mentality? But before you snicker and laugh at the rest of the world who does this (and you dont), just pause to remember your admission into college.
♦ DON'T MISS: Decoding the myths of GD
Why did you put Computers as your no. 1 choice? Did you actually like the field? How much experience did you have in the field? How many of you chose it, even though you didnt have any real affection towards it? So you want to repeat that all again?
6. "You ask me why ....and i ask u why not"
You ask me why I should I go to hunoolooloo for vacation, and I ask you....... why not? Basically there’s no end to counter questioning.
On a more serious note, see it’s all a question of where you see yourself say 5-10 years from now (although very few of us think that long term). If you are a 'techie' at heart you would probably be quite happy to be working on the tech side of things and you can make a great career that way as well, but if you want any of the following things then an MBA probably makes sense -
(1) A career move to an entirely different domain say finance or consulting.....it could be done the without an MBA as well but then the struggle is a lot harder
(2) A fast forward button for your career.....in the corporate world degree holders from top b-schools are given positions of responsibility and authority very quickly considered to those without an MBA irrespective of any amount of 'managerial' acumen you may show.
(3) Money.....lots of it ...at the end of the day there's no denying the fact that this plays a very important role besides your work...Infact for many it's the sole reason for many who pursue an MBA.....the hard fact is that those who do the actual work get paid far less than those who 'manage'them.
But then consider these hard-hitting facts.
The highest paying job (after an MBA, and maybe after anything else as well) is in the field of Investment Banking. You work 20hrs a day, 7 days a week, sleep during flights, and earn crazy amounts of money. And get burnt out in 6 years max. That’s what a high up guy in Lehmann Brothers told me. The guy said that he has worked for 6 years, hasn’t met his wife for a while even though they live together, and is planning to quit soon. So if it’s money that drives you, remember to be in the top 5 in IIM-A,B,C and also be prepared for the above.
Dudes don’t be duds. Realize that the only thing that matters in life is to achieve something that you actually desire (that sounds sooooooooooo cliché). So try and be honest with yourself. Ask yourself whether you enjoyed solving technical challenges (the linked lists, the trees…. sorry tech folks, I couldn’t remember any other subjects) Ask yourself whether your dreams and hopes about engineering (before you joined it) had anything to do with science (and not about engineers getting good jobs). Most of you might not be technically inclined, and that’s absolutely fine (it reduces competition for many).
Now ask yourself whether the MBA is what you really want. Does finance, economics, accounts, HR excite you? Do you feel positive thinking about them? Or do you have a plan for yourself in which an IIM degree might help.
Next, review your own personality and inclinations. Do you prefer being the workman as long as you have the freedom to choose your tools and your work, or do you love playing supervisor?
If you feel inclined or biased towards any of the above two sides,congratulations. You will do well in life, skip the rest of this article. For the rest, you better start exploring yourself. Life's too short anyways. By the time you realize what you want from it, it might have slipped away.If you want to do an MBA, best of luck, I sincerely wish you to do well. Prepare hard (You know that already… why doesnt anyone ask me to shut up?). Prepare smart (now whats that?) Critically review yourself, and water the roots. Work on improving speaking, reading and writing skills if that’s where you lack. blah blah blah.... I think most good institutes would be doing this so for purposes of brevity, I’ll leave it for them to continue). Also keep in touch, I’ll like to offer you to join me when I start my own company.
If you are technically inclined, read the following very carefully.(You can even try printing out the next paragraph in bold, large font size and stick it all over your walls, but I wont really insist on that)
You might be working in a company in which you may not be getting a chance to enhance (or even use) your talents. DON’T lose heart. It’s only a while before your projects will become better. The initial year can be a very big disappointment, coz that’s when you go through bench rotations, maintenance work etc. But things become dramatically better afterwards. Use your extra time to prepare your technical skills outside of your current work area, and after a year you will be able to leverage that knowledge to join a better company. There are a lot of good companies who do really high-quality work, and a little sustained effort will get you there. One of the most amazing things about the technical field is that it’s a pure meritocracy, atleast in good companies. Many companies (I know for Trilogy atleast) have a technical career ladder as well in which you can reach the very top
and still stay tech. Your job takes on architectural, not managerial roles. You lead the company in its technical innovation endeavours.
What more do u want? (You also earn a lot of money, but I won’t dwell on that, coz money matters much less than impact and power to pure tech lovers. I know some of my friends..). And you can do stuff like SRK in Swades.
To end with, I’ll simply repeat a very cliché statement:
"Just follow your heart"
Whether it’s a tech field or an MBA.
The rat race for money won’t ever end, even when you become Bill Gates.
The only things that will make you feel satisfied and happy are your family, and the sense of achievement that your work gives you.
1) My dad told me to do so (papa ne kaha tha)
2) Had spare 1100 bucks
3) I am not good at tech
4) ROI(return of investment) after MBA is good
5) Everyone seems to be doing mba ....so i also joined the race
6) You ask me why ....and I ask you why not?
Ok. So let me answer each one of you separately.
1. "My dad told me to do so (papa ne kaha tha)"
But then Dad also asks you to marry his friend’s daughter Roopa who’s in Champaner!
2. "Had spare 1100 bucks"
Good one, Even my friend last year felt the same, but then realized that a lot of chocolates (even vodka) can be bought with 1100 bucks.
3 "I am not good at tech"
So what makes you think that not being good at tech, naturally qualifies you to be good at management?
4. "ROI(return of investment) after MBA is good"
The avg salary in best of IIMs is 12 lacs CTC, which isn’t that great coz after 2 yrs in a good company (and a switch), your salary can be 10 lacs (obviously you have to excel in your work for that, but dont expect MBA and
thereafter to be a cakewalk) . And the cool 4-5 lakhs you spent on the studies.
♦ DON'T MISS: IIM-B revelation dissected
ROI in the share market, and in any business is much higher. Actually if ROI is all you care about, start a garbage collection and disposal company. You ll break even in 2 yrs, then add a garbage recycling
unit. You ll be a crorepati in 5 years. I am not joking, I know someone who did the above in 4 years total, I am sure all of you can do it definitely.
5. "everyone seems to be doing mba ....so i also joined the race"
What would you call this - peer pressure, or crab mentality? But before you snicker and laugh at the rest of the world who does this (and you dont), just pause to remember your admission into college.
♦ DON'T MISS: Decoding the myths of GD
Why did you put Computers as your no. 1 choice? Did you actually like the field? How much experience did you have in the field? How many of you chose it, even though you didnt have any real affection towards it? So you want to repeat that all again?
6. "You ask me why ....and i ask u why not"
You ask me why I should I go to hunoolooloo for vacation, and I ask you....... why not? Basically there’s no end to counter questioning.
On a more serious note, see it’s all a question of where you see yourself say 5-10 years from now (although very few of us think that long term). If you are a 'techie' at heart you would probably be quite happy to be working on the tech side of things and you can make a great career that way as well, but if you want any of the following things then an MBA probably makes sense -
(1) A career move to an entirely different domain say finance or consulting.....it could be done the without an MBA as well but then the struggle is a lot harder
(2) A fast forward button for your career.....in the corporate world degree holders from top b-schools are given positions of responsibility and authority very quickly considered to those without an MBA irrespective of any amount of 'managerial' acumen you may show.
(3) Money.....lots of it ...at the end of the day there's no denying the fact that this plays a very important role besides your work...Infact for many it's the sole reason for many who pursue an MBA.....the hard fact is that those who do the actual work get paid far less than those who 'manage'them.
But then consider these hard-hitting facts.
The highest paying job (after an MBA, and maybe after anything else as well) is in the field of Investment Banking. You work 20hrs a day, 7 days a week, sleep during flights, and earn crazy amounts of money. And get burnt out in 6 years max. That’s what a high up guy in Lehmann Brothers told me. The guy said that he has worked for 6 years, hasn’t met his wife for a while even though they live together, and is planning to quit soon. So if it’s money that drives you, remember to be in the top 5 in IIM-A,B,C and also be prepared for the above.
Dudes don’t be duds. Realize that the only thing that matters in life is to achieve something that you actually desire (that sounds sooooooooooo cliché). So try and be honest with yourself. Ask yourself whether you enjoyed solving technical challenges (the linked lists, the trees…. sorry tech folks, I couldn’t remember any other subjects) Ask yourself whether your dreams and hopes about engineering (before you joined it) had anything to do with science (and not about engineers getting good jobs). Most of you might not be technically inclined, and that’s absolutely fine (it reduces competition for many).
Now ask yourself whether the MBA is what you really want. Does finance, economics, accounts, HR excite you? Do you feel positive thinking about them? Or do you have a plan for yourself in which an IIM degree might help.
Next, review your own personality and inclinations. Do you prefer being the workman as long as you have the freedom to choose your tools and your work, or do you love playing supervisor?
If you feel inclined or biased towards any of the above two sides,congratulations. You will do well in life, skip the rest of this article. For the rest, you better start exploring yourself. Life's too short anyways. By the time you realize what you want from it, it might have slipped away.If you want to do an MBA, best of luck, I sincerely wish you to do well. Prepare hard (You know that already… why doesnt anyone ask me to shut up?). Prepare smart (now whats that?) Critically review yourself, and water the roots. Work on improving speaking, reading and writing skills if that’s where you lack. blah blah blah.... I think most good institutes would be doing this so for purposes of brevity, I’ll leave it for them to continue). Also keep in touch, I’ll like to offer you to join me when I start my own company.
If you are technically inclined, read the following very carefully.(You can even try printing out the next paragraph in bold, large font size and stick it all over your walls, but I wont really insist on that)
You might be working in a company in which you may not be getting a chance to enhance (or even use) your talents. DON’T lose heart. It’s only a while before your projects will become better. The initial year can be a very big disappointment, coz that’s when you go through bench rotations, maintenance work etc. But things become dramatically better afterwards. Use your extra time to prepare your technical skills outside of your current work area, and after a year you will be able to leverage that knowledge to join a better company. There are a lot of good companies who do really high-quality work, and a little sustained effort will get you there. One of the most amazing things about the technical field is that it’s a pure meritocracy, atleast in good companies. Many companies (I know for Trilogy atleast) have a technical career ladder as well in which you can reach the very top
and still stay tech. Your job takes on architectural, not managerial roles. You lead the company in its technical innovation endeavours.
What more do u want? (You also earn a lot of money, but I won’t dwell on that, coz money matters much less than impact and power to pure tech lovers. I know some of my friends..). And you can do stuff like SRK in Swades.
To end with, I’ll simply repeat a very cliché statement:
"Just follow your heart"
Whether it’s a tech field or an MBA.
The rat race for money won’t ever end, even when you become Bill Gates.
The only things that will make you feel satisfied and happy are your family, and the sense of achievement that your work gives you.
CDOT – the early days: How to set crazy goals, work hard, get great things done and get fired for it?
This is about the years I spent in CDOT – the best years of my life. This posting is a bit longish. But I tried my best to keep it short — sometimes in vain. Because it is also a key part of the great Indian telecom revolution!
1984-92 is a period during which a new family of complex central office switches got designed, manufactured, and deployed in the Indian telecom network. The network got readied for privatization of telecom sector ahead of all other sectors.
In 1983, as the cliché goes, “half of India was waiting for a telephone and those who had one were waiting for dial tone”. If you wanted a telephone line, you would have to wait for about 5 years to get one. But, by the '90s, Indian telecom was world class. Today, India is an exciting economy. Of course, there are many things that are still getting fixed. Telecom is however one area which has been “fixed”. Indian telecom now is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing in the world — in August 2006, India added 5.9 Million new lines and broke many a growth records exceeding China in telecom growth rate. C-DOT’s role in bringing about this transformation is unique and indisputable.
For those who came in late, C-DOT was a great experiment started by the Government of India in 1984. The first phase of C-DOT’s existence ended in the early 90s with the successful development of a family of central office switches. Nothing like that happened before or after. Starting from scratch, C-DOT successfully built a suite of switching products – from small Rural Automatic Exchanges (RAX) to huge metro switches (MAX), and achieved large deployments across the nation. At one point of time, more than 50% of the Indian telecom network was running on C-DOT switches. Billions of $ worth of C-DOT designed switches got manufactured and deployed. That human capital spread everywhere – into Indian tech. and services companies, MNCs in India, and some like me became entrepreneurs.
But C-DOT’s nightmare began when Rajiv Gandhi lost the 1989 elections. And then the great Indian political game took over. The new minister for telecom came hammer and tongues on C-DOT. He saw in the high profile Sam Pitroda - a Rajiv political appointee and in CDOT - a Rajiv Gandhi pet project and not a national achievement.
Starting a new technology experiment …
Well, let me start from the beginning. Sam Pitroda was a telecom visionary. Son of a Gujarati carpenter; born in Orissa, he ends up in Chicago, builds a new telecom company and becomes history’s first person to build a switching system using microprocessors, files a slew of US patents (the last count exceeded 60) in telecom designs and becomes part of the who-is-who in telecom in the US in late 70s. His company gets acquired by Rockwell International and he makes his millions at a time when the glass ceiling for growth was pretty low for Indians in the US. He gets an urge to do something for India. Flies down to Delhi and asks for a one hour appointment with Mrs Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minster. While he was waiting at the PMO, in the last minute, he is told the meeting was curtailed to 15 minutes. He offers to go back and wait for another three months or whatever time it takes for the promised one hour time slot rather than get just a 15 minutes audience. PMO, a bit surprised at his guts, relents and he meets with Mrs. Gandhi. Sam is a great communicator, he convinces Mrs G to take a bold new step - to get India to design its own family of switching systems, build an Indian telecom product industry and modernize Indian telecom. Rajiv Gandhi, who was listening, likes what he heard. And, there begins a lasting friendship. Sam gets an OK for his project. He asks for a budget of Rs 360 Million (About $ 15 Million then). He gets it. He personally takes a salary of Re 1 year ! He, along with Mr G.B.Meemamsi of TRC and Dr MV Pitke of TIFR puts together a core team of about twelve.
I was part of that core team. Sam was talking of total liberalization of telecom back then (much before Narasimha Rao’s liberalization) and I am sure Rajiv Gandhi was thinking alike. Against stiff opposition, he brings in the ubiquitous STD PCO, a novel concept those days and which helped dramatically improve “Telephone accessibility”.
A family of switches from 128 terminal Rural switch (RAX) to 100,000 terminal metro switch (MAX) got designed and deployed. It took about 2,500 man years of combined effort and it continues to be one of the most complex hi-tech products designed in India. India became one of the few countries that have achieved such a distinction. The product got manufactured by private and state owned enterprises. With an Indian option available in C-DOT switch, MNC prices started coming down. The telephone density improved slowly and steadily thanks to the cheaper C-DOT switches and much later the advent of mobile telephony. And eventually, the next big step is taken – telecom becomes the sector earliest to be liberalized.
And, today in retrospect, among all key infrastructure segments in India - Telecom, Power, Transportation, Roads, Airports, Education and Health, Telecom has been fixed first. It is already world class. Today, Indian Telecom is the fastest growing in the world. Among many things, C-DOT and Sam Pitroda played an important role in the whole scheme of things. C-DOT demonstrated that “we can do it”, set on motion a technology capability building, and gave a boost for an industrial eco system for electronic products. It was sad a manufacturing industry didn’t take off as it could have. More about that later…
In the 80s, the work environment at C-DOT was fabulous. It was most unlike any Govt. funded R&D. It was better than the best private enterprise. Flexible, but extremely result oriented, very democratic, hard working, demanding as well as giving. It was a highly performance oriented culture. And, things were a bit idealistic - almost Utopian. For example, for many early years, the library in C-DOT was never locked and most times unmanned. It was open 24 hours. People were working practically round the clock. Hardly any book was lost. People called each other by first names - something very new then; there was certain air of irreverence to hierarchy; bosses tolerated healthy dissent; and there was respect for doers. And, people worked like mad – almost possessed. A set of very young people (average age 25) with no prior experience were trying to build a complex set of products which had taken Billions of $s and much longer period of time in the west. The PBX and RAX hit the production lines first. RAX was an instant hit. In many quarters that were skeptical to start with, a grudging admiration set in.
But, in the midst of all these exhilaration of achievement, unsuspected, a big shock was waiting. The irrepressible Indian Politics came in the way as always. All the good things that were happening in C-DOT were possible only with a strong political commitment at the top. Telecom was not considered as strategic as Nuclear, Space or Defense technologies. India was a large and growing market. MNC vendors across the world were eager to sell to this market – but at a stiff price. In that process, they were denying India a chance to build its own industry. It is not uncommon that global businesses sometimes use dubious means to gain access to a large market. Fortunately, Rajiv Gandhi provided the kind of commitment and support that was needed for an Indian technology alternative – thanks to Sam Pitroda.
The great Indian political game
When Rajiv Gandhi lost the elections in 1989, the new coalition government headed by V P Singh took charge and the story took a sharp turn.
The first problem was quick in surfacing: as soon as assuming office, Mr Unni Krishnan representing Cong (O), the new minister in charge of Communications, had a brush with Sam Pitroda and announced a 13-member committee to “investigate” into the performance of C-DOT and decide on its future. Majority of the members of the committee were handpicked and were hostile to Sam Pitroda and C-DOT. The mood was unfriendly. This was a “project of Rajiv Gandhi”. So it was not a favorite of the new dispensation – at least the new minister.
The bane of this country is lack of continuity in Governance - whatever one political party does - whether it was right or wrong - is always opposed by the next Govt. Look at the way successive governments undo/criticize what the previous Govt. did. The Public Private Participation program in Bangalore, BALCO, Economic lIberalisation, India – US accord…..it is a long list. Arun Shourie suggests a simple rule of self-denial among political parties would help: ‘‘Do not block another party from doing what your own party does when it is in power.’’ But that is easier said than done.
I had my second shock when Mr K B Lal, my immediate boss, came out of a “grilling” by the Govt.’s now-feared 13 member committee. He was quite upset. I know him very close as a conscientious engineer-manager. He felt humiliated. “They were unreasonable”, he said “they wouldn’t listen. They kept accusing we have done nothing and we have cheated the nation. Some of them simply without basis, kept insisting that our architecture was flawed and will never work as a large switch”. He felt we were being treated like criminals and cheats with no valid reason.
Was CDOT going to collapse? It will be very difficult to retain all the talent C-DOT had nurtured if the Govt. succeeds in what it apparently wanted to do – “fix” CDOT for being a Rajiv Gandhi idea. Many at CDOT were confused. They are being pilloried while doing a great job. With what they had achieved till then, everyone can easily get great jobs anywhere in the world. It will be very difficult to put together such a team again. I was very worried. I was a middle level manager and part of the core team. I had a dedicated team - some of the brightest engineers of their times from IITs, BITS, RECs and many other good engineering schools across the country. We had motivated our teams, driven them hard, and everyone thoroughly enjoyed all the hard work and challenge- because it was for a national cause. Will all that go waste?
I felt the “system” wanted us to “behave”. CDOT was quite inconvenient at least for some powerful quarters. Back in ’84, very few believed we as a nation can do any serious R&D. Import was the only solution. Technology for the industry always came through “technology transfers” from foreign partners. A few multinationals were allegedly very active to kill C-DOT. And the change in Govt. probably gave them a great opportunity to change the rules of the game.
I called up Sam. He and I had struck a good chord from the beginning. I was responsible for Fault Tolerance - called the Maintenance subsystem - and that was considered an important area. Every time he met me on the corridors of C-DOT or in a review meeting, he would just implore me “What you are doing is critical. I am counting on you.” I knew he must have told the same line to so many others too, but I felt so charged up, and I would always assure him, “Don’t worry Sam, we will deliver!” Now, are we going to fail for a non technology reason? He called me to his home in the evening. Mr Meemamsi, the founder director of C-DOT and Mr K.B.Lal were also there. The discussion confirmed that the new Govt. was wanting to nail C-DOT down for “non performance” and let Sam leave in disgrace. It was a witch hunt against CDOT. It was obviously a political problem – not technical. The only way out was for us was to try and convince the political system while we continue to do everything to convince the obviously biased review committee. “Let us change the political opinion in the country!” - Sam said. It was decided, all of us will do it in whatever means available to each of us.
Easier said than done!
In the corridors of power
Sam had a great rapport with many politicians and journalists. Technocrats and the IAS too liked him. But with the changed political scenario, with the impression that he was too close to Rajiv Gandhi, he now had a disadvantage. I have never met face to face any serious politician before in my life. My home town was represented by a congress MP. That is not going to help now. The new Govt. was a coalition between Janata Dal led by VP Singh, the BJP and the Left. Suddenly I realized I knew somebody. There was a bright engineer, the daughter of a well-known BJP MP, in our RTOS team. I spoke to her and in the next 15 minutes I had a meeting fixed with Mr L K Advani, the president of BJP. It was stroke of luck! I was going to meet the president of the biggest political party supporting the Govt.
I landed up in Mr. Advani’s house at the appointed time. It was scheduled to be a 20 minute meeting. But, it took about an Hour. I did most of the talking. Mr. Advani listened patiently. After the first 10 minutes of my explaining what good things we had done as an organization and why we felt we were being hunted down, his first reaction in his measured voice was “your boss Mr Pitroda identified himself too close to Rajiv Gandhi. So, this was bound to happen!” But, I was prepared for this question. “Sir,” I said, “We all expected that the new Govt. will request Mr Pitroda to resign. It is a prerogative of any Govt. to have a team on which it had maximum confidence. But, here instead, an institution which had done a good job was being pilloried apparently to get at him. We are weak as a nation in building world-class products. Companies always went to the west for “technology transfer” at a great cost. Here is a project that has started delivering complex Indian technology. And some bright young engineers are sticking to India in this project instead of rushing out to the US.” I went on and on.... By now, I was very emotional and had tears in my eyes.
Mr Advani was very gentle, kept encouraging me to continue, I was pleading, accusing the political system, arguing for Indian technology to be built…all at the same time. I kept urging him to do something. At the end of it all, he said, “Don’t worry, I understand. We will support C-DOT. We will not let the good work done so far to go waste. I meet the Prime Minister every Thursday, I will advice him to go careful on C-DOT.” He asked me to continue to be in touch with Mr.Jaswant Singh. When I stepped out, I couldn’t believe myself. I had managed to convince the most powerful politician in the country at that time. I came in with so much anger against politicians. Now, this man has “truly listened” to me. My respect for him went up hugely.
By morning, I received a call from Sam. He had been called by the BJP top brass asking him to give them a presentation at the earliest on what is happening at C-DOT and was promised full support. Sam said, “Venkat, whatever you did, just keep doing!” Mr Meemamsi, the Exec Director too was very pleased. Encouraged by all this, I along with a few other colleagues in C-DOT, formed an informal lobbying group. We went on a carpet-bombing mission on the political establishment in Delhi. People we met included, Jaswant Singh, Jaipal Reddy, Devilal, Arjun Singh, Prof. Madhu Dandavate, Mohan Kumaramangalam, Somnath Chatterjee, President Venkatraman’s office, Rajiv Gandhi…the list was long. Rajiv told us “You guys are doing a great job. Think beyond politics, you must continue your mission.” Meeting him in person, I found Rajiv to be a genuine person. I liked the guy. Everyone including Rajiv felt Sam stepping down would undermine C-DOT completely. We also met most members of the 13-member committee. Many of them were handpicked for their hostility to C-DOT and Sam. There were still a few fair people in the committee to whom we could appeal. They gave us rock solid support - especially Dr R P Shenoy and V M Sundaram. The minister in the meanwhile was getting impatient with all these lobbying. He sacked Mr. Meemamsi and Mr. Mahajan - the C-DOT top management. The review committee split into two - one led by Mr Nambiar said C-DOT was a big failure and its products were seriously flawed while the other group said C-DOT was a great success deserving all the support. We tried desperately reaching the PMO for a meeting with Mr. V P Singh. He wouldn’t meet us. But, I somehow felt that even he was convinced about C-DOT but wanted to handle it in his own way because of the pressures of coalition politics.
Thanks to all the lobbying and other opposition, the telecom minister softened his stand on C-DOT. Now he suddenly claimed that C-DOT had a great team of engineers and an excellent potential. “But they were misled” he said. And he started a personal attack on Sam. It was claimed “the exchequer had been looted" It was alluded Sam had been siphoning off funds. It was the most outrageous and ridiculous charge. I was amazed at the depth to which politics could go. Sam was defenseless. He didn’t know how to defend himself against such a crazy charge.
The Fourth Estate steps in
An important political leader from the ruling dispensation advised us that there is an impasse because of the coalition politics. Only the press and public opinion can help us now at this stage. Now there was a debate. Some asked, whose war are we fighting? C-DOT’s or Mr.Pitroda’s? Most of us of felt it doesn’t make a difference. There is no truth in the allegation; And we must call the bluff.
I made a senior Indian Express journalist talk to a top Finance official in the Govt. working right under the minister – the very person who was asked to conduct a detailed audit on C-DOT accounts. The official came out categorically, “I saw some rules being violated by C-DOT to expedite purchases, but I never saw any malafied intention or a paise misused.” Indian Express wrote a story quoting him.
Meeting Arun Shourie at the Indian Express office was the most refreshing thing. The clarity of his thinking was striking. He made a comment at the peak of the C-DOT controversy; “We as a nation are not very successful in building strong institutions. We just want to build heroes and destroy them when not required.” He put one of his senior journalists then, Ms Pushpa Girimaji to work with us on the story. She wrote some brilliant articles on India Express. We went all out with the fourth estate.
Now suddenly my family started getting threatening calls from someone claiming to be from CBI, the secret police of the Govt.of India, accusing me of working against the Govt and warning of dire consequences. Honestly I was a bit rattled. I spoke to Arun Shourie again. He gave me a lot of courage. He did some quick checks and came back and said it is unlikely to be anyone from CBI. And, if anything like that happens to me, he will blast the Govt. He was credited to be a key player in having brought the new Govt. to power. I felt confident and personally realized the true power of the press in a democracy.
We went and met Prof. Indiresan at IIT, Delhi - a respected academician and former dean of IIT, Madras. I have never met a clear headed academician like Prof. Indiresan. He helped organize a symposium of top technocrats from all over the country at IIT Delhi. The experts heard the different views and concluded that C-DOT’s technology was viable and passed a stinging resolution castigating the Govt. asking it to stop harassing technocrats and stop the witch-hunt. They sent out a strong communication to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Now almost every newspaper was criticizing the Govt. The press support was very strong. Thirteen editorials were published in the national press all condemning Govt.’s handling of C-DOT, asking the minister and Govt. to stop the witch hunt.
…We shall overcome – and we did..
And, by the next week, the cabinet was reshuffled. While the Telecom Minister was refusing to give up his communications portfolio, the responsibility changed hand and an affable new minister came in the form of Gyaneshwar Mishra, who immediately declared a truce. All of us were relieved. For six months, we had been lobbying with politicians and press. It seemed to have made a significant impact and brought about the change. But, of course Sam had a lot of good will among journalists, the IAS, young technocrats and some politicians. And Mr Meemamsi had a very clean reputation.
At the end of it, in a poignant moment, in Room 919, Akbar Bhavan, Sam Pitroda broke down and was emotional like a child – the man I admired most, who had shown a lot of courage and refused to give up was letting out his emotions at a moment of relief. He said, “you have no idea what you guys have done”. I said, “Sam you have no idea what you have done to all of us. We are even!” Not long after, he suffered a huge heart attack. But, he would not go to the US for treatment - against the advice of many and got admitted and operated in Delhi for a bypass surgery. A person who could have easily joined the Billion $ league had he continued in the US, a person who came back to contribute to India, a man who worked at a salary of Re 1 a year for nearly a decade for the Indian Govt. and made a huge impact on Indian Telecom, the system presented in return a heart attack. It was very sad indeed. But still he stuck around, insisted that we too stay around long enough to see through the design and manufacture of the switching products and get the job completed.
By the end of '92, I left C-DOT. The large switch had been succesfully installed, tested and manufactured. I was heading the switching software team, the largest division then. It was a very sad moment for me to leave. But, by then, I felt C-DoT had done its job. Its relevance was over. With the just announced liberalization, it was clear that it was out there in the entrepreneurial world where huge opportunities were waiting - where one can contribute more meaningfully. Among all the people we met during the campaign, Prof Madhu Dandavate, the then Finance minister of India brought a new perspective. While we pleaded with him with emotion and anger for C-DOT, he said “Please realize! It is time you stopped expecting the Govt. to do everything. If you care so much for technology in India, go out and build that yourself.” At first, I was very upset when I heard that; but, I soon realized he was very right - time to move on and start building things on your own! The motivation for entrepreneurship became stronger.
In the whole episode, there was great learning. It was a crusade in which a number of people were involved. There was a great sense of power for all those who were part of it. In this country, when things go bad, if you show courage to stand up and be counted, you can fight all the way for a right cause. While it was politics that brought about the problem, I could see a brighter side. Most politicians were ready to listen. None shooed us away. I was not a very politically aligned person. I liked the positive sides of the people I met whether Rajiv Gandhi, Advani or Arun Shourie.... The press listened and supported us to the hilt. If you had a cause, you can fight for it and win and even change a minister in the Govt. of India. Democracy was fully in play. I always remembered one of Sam’s favorite lines: “It is important that you are a good engineer and a great technocrat. But it is far more important that you are a strong human being who will stand up and be counted.”
Sam Pitroda was a sad man after the death of his friend Rajiv Gandhi. He still stayed on, completed the C-DOT switch deployment as his friend had wanted; and then went back to rebuild his fortunes. He headed WorldTel for a while. Then back at Chicago, he went on to found a new company C-Sam, focusing on electronic valet around Mobile phones. He filed 10 new patents and back to where he started - all over gain. He suffered another stroke and had to undergo a second surgery. He is now forced by friends and family to take it easy. As chairman of Knowledge Commission, he continues his contribution to India.
While Sam was the high profile, public face of C-DOT, there was a strong team of high integrity that constituted the core management team of C-DOT. Mr.G.B.Meemamsi and Dr.M.V.Pitke were the leaders of that core team. And, there was a fabulous team of engineers - some of the brightest of their time.
G.B.Meemamsi continued as an advisor to C-DOT for another decade, trying everything he could to bring dynamism to the organization. He refused to accept cushy foreign postings or MNC jobs. He is now retired and lives with his wife in Bangalore and guides young companies.
Dr Pitke, the third member of the founding triumvirate, an eminent scientist from TIFR, is retired and lives in Mumbai and helps young entrepreneurs.
Many other wonderful people who were part of C-DOT then are successful and are everywhere now – all over the world, as senior executives in many technology companies, or as entrepreneurs. This whole group will agree on one thing - the time they spent in the early years of C-DOT was the most exciting and rewarding years of their life!
CDOT: What happened to CDOT? At the end of the controversy in ’89, C-DOT lost most of its technology team. Most left disgusted and joined design services companies; many left for the US to find their fortunes. Sadly that destroyed one of the greatest new core competencies that was built in India in recent times. A few stayed back and completed the last pieces of work that remained, saw the products manufactured fully and then moved on. Very few from the core team continued to work with C-DOT. Core competencies are around people. If you lose the complete team over a short span of time, it is nearly impossible to rebuild to a comparable level unless another super human effort is made.
This is about the years I spent in CDOT – the best years of my life. This posting is a bit longish. But I tried my best to keep it short — sometimes in vain. Because it is also a key part of the great Indian telecom revolution!
1984-92 is a period during which a new family of complex central office switches got designed, manufactured, and deployed in the Indian telecom network. The network got readied for privatization of telecom sector ahead of all other sectors.
In 1983, as the cliché goes, “half of India was waiting for a telephone and those who had one were waiting for dial tone”. If you wanted a telephone line, you would have to wait for about 5 years to get one. But, by the '90s, Indian telecom was world class. Today, India is an exciting economy. Of course, there are many things that are still getting fixed. Telecom is however one area which has been “fixed”. Indian telecom now is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing in the world — in August 2006, India added 5.9 Million new lines and broke many a growth records exceeding China in telecom growth rate. C-DOT’s role in bringing about this transformation is unique and indisputable.
For those who came in late, C-DOT was a great experiment started by the Government of India in 1984. The first phase of C-DOT’s existence ended in the early 90s with the successful development of a family of central office switches. Nothing like that happened before or after. Starting from scratch, C-DOT successfully built a suite of switching products – from small Rural Automatic Exchanges (RAX) to huge metro switches (MAX), and achieved large deployments across the nation. At one point of time, more than 50% of the Indian telecom network was running on C-DOT switches. Billions of $ worth of C-DOT designed switches got manufactured and deployed. That human capital spread everywhere – into Indian tech. and services companies, MNCs in India, and some like me became entrepreneurs.
But C-DOT’s nightmare began when Rajiv Gandhi lost the 1989 elections. And then the great Indian political game took over. The new minister for telecom came hammer and tongues on C-DOT. He saw in the high profile Sam Pitroda - a Rajiv political appointee and in CDOT - a Rajiv Gandhi pet project and not a national achievement.
Starting a new technology experiment …
Well, let me start from the beginning. Sam Pitroda was a telecom visionary. Son of a Gujarati carpenter; born in Orissa, he ends up in Chicago, builds a new telecom company and becomes history’s first person to build a switching system using microprocessors, files a slew of US patents (the last count exceeded 60) in telecom designs and becomes part of the who-is-who in telecom in the US in late 70s. His company gets acquired by Rockwell International and he makes his millions at a time when the glass ceiling for growth was pretty low for Indians in the US. He gets an urge to do something for India. Flies down to Delhi and asks for a one hour appointment with Mrs Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minster. While he was waiting at the PMO, in the last minute, he is told the meeting was curtailed to 15 minutes. He offers to go back and wait for another three months or whatever time it takes for the promised one hour time slot rather than get just a 15 minutes audience. PMO, a bit surprised at his guts, relents and he meets with Mrs. Gandhi. Sam is a great communicator, he convinces Mrs G to take a bold new step - to get India to design its own family of switching systems, build an Indian telecom product industry and modernize Indian telecom. Rajiv Gandhi, who was listening, likes what he heard. And, there begins a lasting friendship. Sam gets an OK for his project. He asks for a budget of Rs 360 Million (About $ 15 Million then). He gets it. He personally takes a salary of Re 1 year ! He, along with Mr G.B.Meemamsi of TRC and Dr MV Pitke of TIFR puts together a core team of about twelve.
I was part of that core team. Sam was talking of total liberalization of telecom back then (much before Narasimha Rao’s liberalization) and I am sure Rajiv Gandhi was thinking alike. Against stiff opposition, he brings in the ubiquitous STD PCO, a novel concept those days and which helped dramatically improve “Telephone accessibility”.
A family of switches from 128 terminal Rural switch (RAX) to 100,000 terminal metro switch (MAX) got designed and deployed. It took about 2,500 man years of combined effort and it continues to be one of the most complex hi-tech products designed in India. India became one of the few countries that have achieved such a distinction. The product got manufactured by private and state owned enterprises. With an Indian option available in C-DOT switch, MNC prices started coming down. The telephone density improved slowly and steadily thanks to the cheaper C-DOT switches and much later the advent of mobile telephony. And eventually, the next big step is taken – telecom becomes the sector earliest to be liberalized.
And, today in retrospect, among all key infrastructure segments in India - Telecom, Power, Transportation, Roads, Airports, Education and Health, Telecom has been fixed first. It is already world class. Today, Indian Telecom is the fastest growing in the world. Among many things, C-DOT and Sam Pitroda played an important role in the whole scheme of things. C-DOT demonstrated that “we can do it”, set on motion a technology capability building, and gave a boost for an industrial eco system for electronic products. It was sad a manufacturing industry didn’t take off as it could have. More about that later…
In the 80s, the work environment at C-DOT was fabulous. It was most unlike any Govt. funded R&D. It was better than the best private enterprise. Flexible, but extremely result oriented, very democratic, hard working, demanding as well as giving. It was a highly performance oriented culture. And, things were a bit idealistic - almost Utopian. For example, for many early years, the library in C-DOT was never locked and most times unmanned. It was open 24 hours. People were working practically round the clock. Hardly any book was lost. People called each other by first names - something very new then; there was certain air of irreverence to hierarchy; bosses tolerated healthy dissent; and there was respect for doers. And, people worked like mad – almost possessed. A set of very young people (average age 25) with no prior experience were trying to build a complex set of products which had taken Billions of $s and much longer period of time in the west. The PBX and RAX hit the production lines first. RAX was an instant hit. In many quarters that were skeptical to start with, a grudging admiration set in.
But, in the midst of all these exhilaration of achievement, unsuspected, a big shock was waiting. The irrepressible Indian Politics came in the way as always. All the good things that were happening in C-DOT were possible only with a strong political commitment at the top. Telecom was not considered as strategic as Nuclear, Space or Defense technologies. India was a large and growing market. MNC vendors across the world were eager to sell to this market – but at a stiff price. In that process, they were denying India a chance to build its own industry. It is not uncommon that global businesses sometimes use dubious means to gain access to a large market. Fortunately, Rajiv Gandhi provided the kind of commitment and support that was needed for an Indian technology alternative – thanks to Sam Pitroda.
The great Indian political game
When Rajiv Gandhi lost the elections in 1989, the new coalition government headed by V P Singh took charge and the story took a sharp turn.
The first problem was quick in surfacing: as soon as assuming office, Mr Unni Krishnan representing Cong (O), the new minister in charge of Communications, had a brush with Sam Pitroda and announced a 13-member committee to “investigate” into the performance of C-DOT and decide on its future. Majority of the members of the committee were handpicked and were hostile to Sam Pitroda and C-DOT. The mood was unfriendly. This was a “project of Rajiv Gandhi”. So it was not a favorite of the new dispensation – at least the new minister.
The bane of this country is lack of continuity in Governance - whatever one political party does - whether it was right or wrong - is always opposed by the next Govt. Look at the way successive governments undo/criticize what the previous Govt. did. The Public Private Participation program in Bangalore, BALCO, Economic lIberalisation, India – US accord…..it is a long list. Arun Shourie suggests a simple rule of self-denial among political parties would help: ‘‘Do not block another party from doing what your own party does when it is in power.’’ But that is easier said than done.
I had my second shock when Mr K B Lal, my immediate boss, came out of a “grilling” by the Govt.’s now-feared 13 member committee. He was quite upset. I know him very close as a conscientious engineer-manager. He felt humiliated. “They were unreasonable”, he said “they wouldn’t listen. They kept accusing we have done nothing and we have cheated the nation. Some of them simply without basis, kept insisting that our architecture was flawed and will never work as a large switch”. He felt we were being treated like criminals and cheats with no valid reason.
Was CDOT going to collapse? It will be very difficult to retain all the talent C-DOT had nurtured if the Govt. succeeds in what it apparently wanted to do – “fix” CDOT for being a Rajiv Gandhi idea. Many at CDOT were confused. They are being pilloried while doing a great job. With what they had achieved till then, everyone can easily get great jobs anywhere in the world. It will be very difficult to put together such a team again. I was very worried. I was a middle level manager and part of the core team. I had a dedicated team - some of the brightest engineers of their times from IITs, BITS, RECs and many other good engineering schools across the country. We had motivated our teams, driven them hard, and everyone thoroughly enjoyed all the hard work and challenge- because it was for a national cause. Will all that go waste?
I felt the “system” wanted us to “behave”. CDOT was quite inconvenient at least for some powerful quarters. Back in ’84, very few believed we as a nation can do any serious R&D. Import was the only solution. Technology for the industry always came through “technology transfers” from foreign partners. A few multinationals were allegedly very active to kill C-DOT. And the change in Govt. probably gave them a great opportunity to change the rules of the game.
I called up Sam. He and I had struck a good chord from the beginning. I was responsible for Fault Tolerance - called the Maintenance subsystem - and that was considered an important area. Every time he met me on the corridors of C-DOT or in a review meeting, he would just implore me “What you are doing is critical. I am counting on you.” I knew he must have told the same line to so many others too, but I felt so charged up, and I would always assure him, “Don’t worry Sam, we will deliver!” Now, are we going to fail for a non technology reason? He called me to his home in the evening. Mr Meemamsi, the founder director of C-DOT and Mr K.B.Lal were also there. The discussion confirmed that the new Govt. was wanting to nail C-DOT down for “non performance” and let Sam leave in disgrace. It was a witch hunt against CDOT. It was obviously a political problem – not technical. The only way out was for us was to try and convince the political system while we continue to do everything to convince the obviously biased review committee. “Let us change the political opinion in the country!” - Sam said. It was decided, all of us will do it in whatever means available to each of us.
Easier said than done!
In the corridors of power
Sam had a great rapport with many politicians and journalists. Technocrats and the IAS too liked him. But with the changed political scenario, with the impression that he was too close to Rajiv Gandhi, he now had a disadvantage. I have never met face to face any serious politician before in my life. My home town was represented by a congress MP. That is not going to help now. The new Govt. was a coalition between Janata Dal led by VP Singh, the BJP and the Left. Suddenly I realized I knew somebody. There was a bright engineer, the daughter of a well-known BJP MP, in our RTOS team. I spoke to her and in the next 15 minutes I had a meeting fixed with Mr L K Advani, the president of BJP. It was stroke of luck! I was going to meet the president of the biggest political party supporting the Govt.
I landed up in Mr. Advani’s house at the appointed time. It was scheduled to be a 20 minute meeting. But, it took about an Hour. I did most of the talking. Mr. Advani listened patiently. After the first 10 minutes of my explaining what good things we had done as an organization and why we felt we were being hunted down, his first reaction in his measured voice was “your boss Mr Pitroda identified himself too close to Rajiv Gandhi. So, this was bound to happen!” But, I was prepared for this question. “Sir,” I said, “We all expected that the new Govt. will request Mr Pitroda to resign. It is a prerogative of any Govt. to have a team on which it had maximum confidence. But, here instead, an institution which had done a good job was being pilloried apparently to get at him. We are weak as a nation in building world-class products. Companies always went to the west for “technology transfer” at a great cost. Here is a project that has started delivering complex Indian technology. And some bright young engineers are sticking to India in this project instead of rushing out to the US.” I went on and on.... By now, I was very emotional and had tears in my eyes.
Mr Advani was very gentle, kept encouraging me to continue, I was pleading, accusing the political system, arguing for Indian technology to be built…all at the same time. I kept urging him to do something. At the end of it all, he said, “Don’t worry, I understand. We will support C-DOT. We will not let the good work done so far to go waste. I meet the Prime Minister every Thursday, I will advice him to go careful on C-DOT.” He asked me to continue to be in touch with Mr.Jaswant Singh. When I stepped out, I couldn’t believe myself. I had managed to convince the most powerful politician in the country at that time. I came in with so much anger against politicians. Now, this man has “truly listened” to me. My respect for him went up hugely.
By morning, I received a call from Sam. He had been called by the BJP top brass asking him to give them a presentation at the earliest on what is happening at C-DOT and was promised full support. Sam said, “Venkat, whatever you did, just keep doing!” Mr Meemamsi, the Exec Director too was very pleased. Encouraged by all this, I along with a few other colleagues in C-DOT, formed an informal lobbying group. We went on a carpet-bombing mission on the political establishment in Delhi. People we met included, Jaswant Singh, Jaipal Reddy, Devilal, Arjun Singh, Prof. Madhu Dandavate, Mohan Kumaramangalam, Somnath Chatterjee, President Venkatraman’s office, Rajiv Gandhi…the list was long. Rajiv told us “You guys are doing a great job. Think beyond politics, you must continue your mission.” Meeting him in person, I found Rajiv to be a genuine person. I liked the guy. Everyone including Rajiv felt Sam stepping down would undermine C-DOT completely. We also met most members of the 13-member committee. Many of them were handpicked for their hostility to C-DOT and Sam. There were still a few fair people in the committee to whom we could appeal. They gave us rock solid support - especially Dr R P Shenoy and V M Sundaram. The minister in the meanwhile was getting impatient with all these lobbying. He sacked Mr. Meemamsi and Mr. Mahajan - the C-DOT top management. The review committee split into two - one led by Mr Nambiar said C-DOT was a big failure and its products were seriously flawed while the other group said C-DOT was a great success deserving all the support. We tried desperately reaching the PMO for a meeting with Mr. V P Singh. He wouldn’t meet us. But, I somehow felt that even he was convinced about C-DOT but wanted to handle it in his own way because of the pressures of coalition politics.
Thanks to all the lobbying and other opposition, the telecom minister softened his stand on C-DOT. Now he suddenly claimed that C-DOT had a great team of engineers and an excellent potential. “But they were misled” he said. And he started a personal attack on Sam. It was claimed “the exchequer had been looted" It was alluded Sam had been siphoning off funds. It was the most outrageous and ridiculous charge. I was amazed at the depth to which politics could go. Sam was defenseless. He didn’t know how to defend himself against such a crazy charge.
The Fourth Estate steps in
An important political leader from the ruling dispensation advised us that there is an impasse because of the coalition politics. Only the press and public opinion can help us now at this stage. Now there was a debate. Some asked, whose war are we fighting? C-DOT’s or Mr.Pitroda’s? Most of us of felt it doesn’t make a difference. There is no truth in the allegation; And we must call the bluff.
I made a senior Indian Express journalist talk to a top Finance official in the Govt. working right under the minister – the very person who was asked to conduct a detailed audit on C-DOT accounts. The official came out categorically, “I saw some rules being violated by C-DOT to expedite purchases, but I never saw any malafied intention or a paise misused.” Indian Express wrote a story quoting him.
Meeting Arun Shourie at the Indian Express office was the most refreshing thing. The clarity of his thinking was striking. He made a comment at the peak of the C-DOT controversy; “We as a nation are not very successful in building strong institutions. We just want to build heroes and destroy them when not required.” He put one of his senior journalists then, Ms Pushpa Girimaji to work with us on the story. She wrote some brilliant articles on India Express. We went all out with the fourth estate.
Now suddenly my family started getting threatening calls from someone claiming to be from CBI, the secret police of the Govt.of India, accusing me of working against the Govt and warning of dire consequences. Honestly I was a bit rattled. I spoke to Arun Shourie again. He gave me a lot of courage. He did some quick checks and came back and said it is unlikely to be anyone from CBI. And, if anything like that happens to me, he will blast the Govt. He was credited to be a key player in having brought the new Govt. to power. I felt confident and personally realized the true power of the press in a democracy.
We went and met Prof. Indiresan at IIT, Delhi - a respected academician and former dean of IIT, Madras. I have never met a clear headed academician like Prof. Indiresan. He helped organize a symposium of top technocrats from all over the country at IIT Delhi. The experts heard the different views and concluded that C-DOT’s technology was viable and passed a stinging resolution castigating the Govt. asking it to stop harassing technocrats and stop the witch-hunt. They sent out a strong communication to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Now almost every newspaper was criticizing the Govt. The press support was very strong. Thirteen editorials were published in the national press all condemning Govt.’s handling of C-DOT, asking the minister and Govt. to stop the witch hunt.
…We shall overcome – and we did..
And, by the next week, the cabinet was reshuffled. While the Telecom Minister was refusing to give up his communications portfolio, the responsibility changed hand and an affable new minister came in the form of Gyaneshwar Mishra, who immediately declared a truce. All of us were relieved. For six months, we had been lobbying with politicians and press. It seemed to have made a significant impact and brought about the change. But, of course Sam had a lot of good will among journalists, the IAS, young technocrats and some politicians. And Mr Meemamsi had a very clean reputation.
At the end of it, in a poignant moment, in Room 919, Akbar Bhavan, Sam Pitroda broke down and was emotional like a child – the man I admired most, who had shown a lot of courage and refused to give up was letting out his emotions at a moment of relief. He said, “you have no idea what you guys have done”. I said, “Sam you have no idea what you have done to all of us. We are even!” Not long after, he suffered a huge heart attack. But, he would not go to the US for treatment - against the advice of many and got admitted and operated in Delhi for a bypass surgery. A person who could have easily joined the Billion $ league had he continued in the US, a person who came back to contribute to India, a man who worked at a salary of Re 1 a year for nearly a decade for the Indian Govt. and made a huge impact on Indian Telecom, the system presented in return a heart attack. It was very sad indeed. But still he stuck around, insisted that we too stay around long enough to see through the design and manufacture of the switching products and get the job completed.
By the end of '92, I left C-DOT. The large switch had been succesfully installed, tested and manufactured. I was heading the switching software team, the largest division then. It was a very sad moment for me to leave. But, by then, I felt C-DoT had done its job. Its relevance was over. With the just announced liberalization, it was clear that it was out there in the entrepreneurial world where huge opportunities were waiting - where one can contribute more meaningfully. Among all the people we met during the campaign, Prof Madhu Dandavate, the then Finance minister of India brought a new perspective. While we pleaded with him with emotion and anger for C-DOT, he said “Please realize! It is time you stopped expecting the Govt. to do everything. If you care so much for technology in India, go out and build that yourself.” At first, I was very upset when I heard that; but, I soon realized he was very right - time to move on and start building things on your own! The motivation for entrepreneurship became stronger.
In the whole episode, there was great learning. It was a crusade in which a number of people were involved. There was a great sense of power for all those who were part of it. In this country, when things go bad, if you show courage to stand up and be counted, you can fight all the way for a right cause. While it was politics that brought about the problem, I could see a brighter side. Most politicians were ready to listen. None shooed us away. I was not a very politically aligned person. I liked the positive sides of the people I met whether Rajiv Gandhi, Advani or Arun Shourie.... The press listened and supported us to the hilt. If you had a cause, you can fight for it and win and even change a minister in the Govt. of India. Democracy was fully in play. I always remembered one of Sam’s favorite lines: “It is important that you are a good engineer and a great technocrat. But it is far more important that you are a strong human being who will stand up and be counted.”
Sam Pitroda was a sad man after the death of his friend Rajiv Gandhi. He still stayed on, completed the C-DOT switch deployment as his friend had wanted; and then went back to rebuild his fortunes. He headed WorldTel for a while. Then back at Chicago, he went on to found a new company C-Sam, focusing on electronic valet around Mobile phones. He filed 10 new patents and back to where he started - all over gain. He suffered another stroke and had to undergo a second surgery. He is now forced by friends and family to take it easy. As chairman of Knowledge Commission, he continues his contribution to India.
While Sam was the high profile, public face of C-DOT, there was a strong team of high integrity that constituted the core management team of C-DOT. Mr.G.B.Meemamsi and Dr.M.V.Pitke were the leaders of that core team. And, there was a fabulous team of engineers - some of the brightest of their time.
G.B.Meemamsi continued as an advisor to C-DOT for another decade, trying everything he could to bring dynamism to the organization. He refused to accept cushy foreign postings or MNC jobs. He is now retired and lives with his wife in Bangalore and guides young companies.
Dr Pitke, the third member of the founding triumvirate, an eminent scientist from TIFR, is retired and lives in Mumbai and helps young entrepreneurs.
Many other wonderful people who were part of C-DOT then are successful and are everywhere now – all over the world, as senior executives in many technology companies, or as entrepreneurs. This whole group will agree on one thing - the time they spent in the early years of C-DOT was the most exciting and rewarding years of their life!
CDOT: What happened to CDOT? At the end of the controversy in ’89, C-DOT lost most of its technology team. Most left disgusted and joined design services companies; many left for the US to find their fortunes. Sadly that destroyed one of the greatest new core competencies that was built in India in recent times. A few stayed back and completed the last pieces of work that remained, saw the products manufactured fully and then moved on. Very few from the core team continued to work with C-DOT. Core competencies are around people. If you lose the complete team over a short span of time, it is nearly impossible to rebuild to a comparable level unless another super human effort is made.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
