Who does an MBA benefit to- other than the university offering it, of course?

It’s almost impossible to ignore attractive advertisements of MBA courses offered by different universities on TV and other media, job advertisements needing people with MBA degrees to occupy positions related to management and leadership. It provokes people to think if a degree like MBA would make people more entrepreneurial, better managers or worthy leaders. Are organizations recruiting and/or promoting such people more successful?

The concept of business management and business school is a relatively new development. The first business school was founded in Paris, France in 1819 while the first university in the world was established, arguably, in India, Nalanda university, around 427 AD (but subsequently destroyed around 1200 AD), while the University of Bologna, Italy was established in 1088 and continuing ever since. The first business school in the USA is Harvard Business School, established in 1908. It was also the first business school to offer MBA degree. Previously neither MBA nor other management degree or third party certificates (e.g. PMP, Six Sigma Lean etc.) was so important or financially remunerative in corporate America. 

Current widely prevalent culture of MBA and business management in terms of manufacturing and corporate management arrived in the USA during 1970s, instigated by the Japanese companies. It would not be wrong to say that the concept of operational management and constant pursuit of excellence came from Japan or successful Japanese companies like Toyota and National-Panasonic (Matsushita Electric Corp.). Massive success of Japanese companies in western markets provoked or forced American/western companies to initiate or learn Japanese management style. Previously it was assumed that success of such Japanese companies is basically cultural. It started changing around 1974 when Matsushita purchased an ailing American TV manufacturing unit near Chicago from Motorola, retained almost all its previous staff while making the same unit massively successful.

Many big and famous Japanese companies like Toyota maintain its own training programs and institutes to train its employees, mainly the executives, and grooming future leaders.  Few American companies like GE also had similar training centers. But there is a very fundamental difference. The motive of such Japanese training institutes are not making money by offering that training or degree or certificates to anyone who can pay, in stark contrast to its American counterparts. Such Japanese training institutes within a company are highly guarded venture. Admission of others, even for short visit, are not much encouraged, if not prohibited.

It might be surprising to many that top ranking Japanese Universities, former Imperial universities, formed prior to World War-I, later became seven best universities did/do not offer any course in management. Only one of such universities, University of Tokyo, started offering management courses as late as 2008. Few other Japanese universities, mostly private, do have business schools and offer MBA degree. But study of business  or management is not so visible or even important in corporate Japan that practically dominates many sectors of global economy since World War II.

It seems that social mobility and consolidation of wealth is worsening almost globally. America is among the worst affected, at least among developed countries. It perfectly correlates with eroding scientific and technological edge and competitiveness of American industries. USA ranks sixteenth in terms of "quality of research" in 2012, down from its second raking in 1995. Fast declining competitiveness of advanced industries in the USA is almost a routine issue discussed in media and policy makers alike.

Nowadays we hear a lot about developing leadership and innovation. We probably would hear more about those seemingly un-trainable attributes as social mobility and wealth consolidation deteriorate. Organizations have to manage with fewer talents and leaders while the demand for such people is expected to increase due to growing markets in many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Moreover, we are now hearing an increasing noise about talent shortage in almost every sector. Some industries seem to be in more difficult position than others. And it’s not restricted to just USA. Many Human Resource (HR) professionals do not agree with talent shortage ‘propaganda’. They believe that there is no shortage of qualified manpower. What the companies are complaining is about the price they like to pay for talented employees. Such tendency, even by the companies making good profit, will create more bottlenecks to recruit and retain employees with leadership and innovation capabilities. People investing good amount of money in getting or buying MBA degrees need to recover that expanses, irrespective of its value. Reluctance of companies to pay more is bound to put pressure on both the recruiter and the candidate. That burden will also be passed to other non-MBA employees or job seekers as well.

Many, if not most, of the MBA candidates are already employed. Company's current higher management (again, mostly, MBA alumni) attach a great value to that degree. Many, if not most, pursue the degree to get promoted in the company they are already working for or to get a new job elsewhere. It would be interesting to analyze the job performance, not salary though, before and after such people get MBA, to know if MBA actually add value to an employee and, most importantly, to the company. If the answer is affirmative, then the next obvious question would be- at what price- for the company. If an organization gets $100 benefit but needs to pay extra $1000 per month, then it does not make much sense. Unfortunately, sufficient data of such confidential nature from neutral source is not so easy to come by.

But available data do indicate that most top performing American companies starting from older generation of successful companies, which are no less important even today, like Ford, Boeing, General Electric, General Motors, Pfizer, Monsanto and many more; to today’s successful tech giants like Microsoft, Google, Apple, even Spacex, were established by leaders and entrepreneurs without an MBA. The long list of such companies also indicate that profile of such companies fit almost all types of industries. MBA does not seem to help much to ambitious entrepreneurs- earlier or now.  It’s becoming clearer that companies created by technocrats and/or scientists generally are more sustainable, productive and successful in creating wealth in the long run.

It does not take much to understand that whatever way you divide $1000 among some people; it still remains $1000. More you manage for yourself (and certain people), less others would get.  The pie would increase only if the total value increases. Here I should mention that sharing of profit arising from improved technological or managerial practice, in fact, declined in the US in last few decades, unlike past corporate history of Henry Ford era. He doubled average workers’ wage, shortening the workday from nine hours to eight, along with few more job benefits. And he did all those without any compulsion from law or labor union. He revolutionized not only global automobile industry but also helped building legendary American middle class and America as a super power.  

It’s now a well-accepted fact that talented students do not favor science and technology as a career, almost everywhere, even in developing countries. Creative art and humanities are doing even worse. As a society, we seem to be more obsessed with wealth management than wealth creation. Our economy and businesses are now overwhelmingly dominated by one aspect- finance. About 60 percent of the graduates from top three Ivy League universities (Harvard, Yale and Princeton) opt for careers in finance and management and not in science and technology. Talented students from prestigious universities still flock to Wall Street. This craze for wealth management among talented students in almost every developed country is also destroying able human resource needed for wealth creation, and cater to other faculties of human mind and creativity. Fortunately, the trend seems to be reversing. Since last couple of years, a growing number of ivy league business school graduates are joining Silicon Valley tech sector, leaving the glamour of Wall Street. But, it's too early to conclude if it's more permanent in nature or if it's again, due to lure of more money and/or power, and not for the joy of creativity and helping the society through science and technology. 

It has been proved many times that neither leadership nor the ability to innovate can be taught or learned much in formal education. A decently accepted model postulates that only 10 percent comes from formal education while 70 percent comes from on-the-job experience to develop leadership. Actual leaders and geniuses rely more on heuristic. But that capability can come only if one has mastered the boolean, i.e. sense of logic supported by data or fact. Once one master the art of boolean, then only s/he can practice heuristics successfully and go beyond direct experimental proof or evidence based hypothesis or conclusion. There are many examples of such heuristics geniuses in human history, starting from Fermat’s last theorem to Einstein’s famous formula E=MC². In all such cases, experimental proof came much later, if at all. Nonetheless, great sense of logic (boolean) and/or scientific or technical ability alone is not and must not be the main parameter for a great leader. To me, management seems to be a common sense approach based on sense of heuristics and, more importantly, personal integrity and innate ambition where social, personal values and ethics play a huge role.

Behavioral economists suggest that predictable or rationally irrational decisions are far more common among top executives than we might think. The last global financial meltdown around 2008 is an example, may be little extreme,  for neglecting such human ‘misbehavior’. And it’s very much possible that many such top executives who were part of the global financial meltdown were motivated more by the social upbringing, personal values and ethics, or lack of it, that I mentioned earlier.

Many people would agree that the most challenging management job would be to become the President or Prime Minister of a democratic country. But no country has any requirement for its top executive to have any such degree like MBA. Neither people with long corporate career with prestigious management degrees and/or experience are proven to be a better national manager or leader. 

Short URL: http://goo.gl/xvv6X5 

India should reform the way top bureaucrats are recruited and function

For quite sometime I was thinking that it's high time to consider reforming Indian civil service, viz. IAS (Indian  Administrative Service), IPS (Indian Police Service), IFS (Indian Foreign Service) type 'elite' services. Such public service was introduced by the British rulers, mainly for tax collection purposes. That's why these people are still called collector. India should reform its top bureaucracy and the way it's recruited and function. 

If any ministry or department or agency need any officer, they can directly advertise, mention what qualifications/experience etc. they need and select the most suitable candidate. It's how civil servants and bureaucrats are recruited in USA, Canada, UK and most, if not all, other developed democracies. The British themselves never had the same system, which they introduced in its colonies like India. 

That's one of the main reasons for rampant corruption and lack of governance in India since long. Indian civil servants are utter misuse and wastage of few genuine talents who join through one of the most competitive exams in the world with less than 0.3% success rate via UPSC (Union Public Service Commission). It has been proved time and time again that, "Indian bureaucracy is the worst in Asia" and also among the least effective in the whole world.

Such, basically, clerical job whose main purpose is to implement whatever is told (read, ordered) to them by their political masters. Previously it was the British rulers and now (mostly) the criminal and/or corrupt Indian politicians. Subservience to politicians and feudal governance hardly attract any candidate with awareness who has natural leadership, dignity and personal integrity. It's not so surprising that mostly students from relatively lawless states and areas, where they experience and expect huge extra-constitutional power of such public servants, their ability to get huge bribe (and dowry), are attracted to such jobs. 

Rare few who join the service with a passion to serve the  country with basic sense of justice and ethics, are either 'tamed' or leave the service sooner. Few continue with high level of frustration and just wait for retirement. 

Such recruitment of top bureaucrats from outside the lower grade employees are also a major reason for low efficiency and rampant corruption in Indian civil service. It's more dangerous for law enforcement and security agencies.  In most, if not all, developed western democracies, higher officials in any law enforcement agency (and many other civil service agencies) are only promoted from lowest positions- unlike that in India. No IPS type recruitment to fill vacancies in top positions in police or other security and investigative agencies in UK or USA. That's a big reason for its neutrality and efficiency.

A feudal society which is so obsessed with socio-economic hierarchy that include power without much accountability, and show off of (mostly) ill gotten wealth is bound to have such infatuation. Even abroad, many, if not most, people from Indian subcontinent are insanely obsessed with "too busy" culture and other socio-economic hierarchy irrespective of their ability and professional satisfaction in 'prestigious' positions like manager, group leader, C suite executive, professor etc. The typical “Sirji” (or its 'hindu equivalent'- Guruji, Sri Sri) culture, the tendency to show-off relationship with influential people, teenage obsession of  showing pictures with famous people are so visible among many adults. It’s just another symptom of the same disease, if I may say so.

I think it's high time to reform Indian civil service and introduce some civility into it.


Shorty URL- http://goo.gl/UYPF73

Why our grandchildren are less likely to be part of any Bengali or Indian association abroad- unlike many of our non-Indian colleagues and neighbors?

Sometime ago I got emails from few local Bengali associations that  it need articles for its magazines for upcoming Durga Puja, the greatest event celebrated by almost any cultural organization that has any relation to Bengal or Bengalis- in India and abroad. We all seem to love such events that promote our culture. It includes Bengali’s favorite, mostly sterile adda (that reminds me of Utpal Dutta in Satyajit Ray's 'Aguntak') and food. It provides us the opportunity to skip boring cooking at home for a day or two. This seemingly religious festival is also a great respite even for the atheists.

I visited and lived in few different countries. Witnessed such programs almost everywhere, without much difference- both its unity and diversity (read, division). Initially, it was rather surprising to notice that hardly any Bengali teenagers and young adults attend such Bengali festivals, become part of such Bengali/Indian associations. Young children join such programs till they are under parental control who have no option but to accompany the parents. I do not see almost any second and subsequent generation of Indian/Bengali origin adults there. The picture was and still is not much different for Indian organizations representing different state/region/language/religion from India. Even professional organizations representing India  are no different.

Let's change the gear and get some data before coming back to the topic. About 69% of Indian Americans age 25 and over have four-year college degrees, which dwarfs the rates of 51% and 30% achieved by East Asians and whites, respectively. In 2007, the median income of households headed by an Indian American was approximately $83,000, compared with $61,000 for East Asians and $55,000 for whites (1). But these impressive achievements do not reflect social contribution of Indians. It fail to promote positive side of Indian culture (not the moral bankruptcy, lack of any sense of justice, feudal mentality, social hierarchy and pathetic work ethics) that benefit Indian interest, not just for few ‘elites’ or  specific political agenda, in India and abroad. We can ignore politically correct, motivational speeches by political and corporate leaders of America.

Many parents feel an overwhelming urge to teach their children the value of ‘our’ culture- mostly in the name of religion and tradition- like Durga Puja. But the question arises, what and how much does such effort achieve? Why so many second generation Indians still face severe identity crisis of being ‘Bengali’ or ‘Indian’ origin, despite the fact that Indians are the most or second most prosperous racial group in western world, including both USA and UK (2)? How does that economic prosperity benefit our future generations- both in India and in the host country? 

The answers for most such questions are far from satisfactory. Unlike British or German or Irish or Afro-American groups, I have not seen many third or 5^th generation of Indian origin people with foreign citizenship organizing or proudly celebrating Indian festivals outside India- be it traditional, cultural or religious one. Second and subsequent generations of Bengalis (and, Indians) rather learn and perform ballet or salsa than Bharat Natyam or Kathakali; proudly play piano or violin than tabla or dhol or santur, if not coerced by over-indulging parents.

Are those musical instruments or classical dance styles from India less artistic or ‘cultured’ that our own kids feel less or no attraction to? Or is that peer-pressure from non-Indian friends in a foreign society? Do these children, and more importantly their parents, understand that if they cannot respect their own heritage there is less chance that they can respect other culture?

It’s not that hard to differentiate crude appeasement and opportunistic attitude from genuine appreciation. Generally, a free and productive society and its leaders do not like cronies even if s/he possesses great technical skill or money. They may need, even prefer, these backboneless cronies to perform certain jobs for the company but do not like to give much social acceptance and recognition, not much ready to consider them as their own. Unfortunately, few rare exceptions from India are also considered the same way, with the same default standard, at least initially. Social profiling is a very innate and seemingly effective skill that we learn from our childhood, not only from the parents and society. It's also a potent policy tool, widely used by many corporate and government agencies, mainly immigration and security agencies.

Even the most docile, good-for-nothing fellow (other than being among the most obedient employees) who had no problem to take dowry and marry a highly docile, typical Indian bride from India, hardly attend and get associated with such Indian associations. To cut the long story short- such evidences indicate how we, collectively, fail to offer the advantage to ourselves and, most importantly, to our children and grandchildren the benefit of being part of one of the most glorious heritage and being among the most prosperous racial groups in western world where they get the opportunity and freedom to experience and embrace different other options and ways of life.

We also need to keep in mind that quality of American higher education, research and technological edge, where most Indians are associated with, are steadily declining since last few decades. As per latest data, the overall global ranking of USA slipped to 16^th in 2012 as compared to 2^nd in 1995,  when systemic data collection started, so far quality of higher education and research is concerned. It nicely correlate with America's declining economic prosperity and global socio-political dominance. It may or may not be related to demographic change where traditional minorities are becoming majority and percentage of white Caucasian population is declining.

Generally speaking, any immigrant population tends to be more successful. Indian and Bengali population outside India or Bengal (Bangladesh included), respectively, are no different. But that competitive advantage seems to be leveled off by third generation. That is true for any immigrant Bangladeshi or Bengali family settled in either Chittaranjan Park in Delhi or Chicago or Madison in the USA. Financial prosperity of current generation cannot be any indicator of success for subsequent generations, although (unfortunately) parental income does play a major role in future success of children in the USA too, as latest data indicate. But that is an indication of a bigger social problem that USA must address even to maintain its current lower standard of living, economic prosperity and, most importantly, social harmony.

Alienation of subsequent generation of Indians from actual Indian culture or having a wrong impression and/or interpretation about it also give rise to another long term issue when they get involved in India specific projects undertaken by (foreign) governments or private organizations- by virtue of their Indian origin. People who hardly know India and its people can never serve justice to any project intended to benefit Indian society and the host country/company that genuinely likes to achieve positive impact. It’s equally true for those first generation Indians whose knowledge about India hardly goes beyond metro cities and privileged societies there. Watching 'Pather Panchali' or rote memorization of Rabindra Nath Tagore is of no use there.

We fail, first, to realize and then to acknowledge that such Indian/Bengali organizations represent ‘our’ culture to our children. We ourselves and then these organizations are the role models to them. Most of us still promote the same moral bankruptcy, feudal mentality that include sycophancy, racial intolerance (India being the worst among 70 odd countries surveyed), and hierarchical society that we experienced and/or tolerated in India. 

Even a felon (criminal) prosecuted and convicted for 'domestic violence', who used beat his wife on a regular basis, was occupying 'board of trustee' position in a Bengali cultural and few other Indian associations, including a religious one, in a city in the USA, where I once lived. Almost everyone in the association and, most importantly, the management knew about it. Few meekly opposed that criminal, that too mostly in private conversations, while many so-called 'highly educated' people like professors, doctors, engineers, 'scientists' actively supported and/or helped him to remain in high positions in such Indian/Bengali/Hindu  associations. Abusive behavior, domestic violence against women and children (including girl child killing) seems to be more socially accepted. Such incidences are not so rare among 'educated' and financially prosperous NRIs and Indian origin people abroad as many might think.  Personal interaction with many from Indian subcontinent in the US and Europe made that perception stronger. 

There is less chance that any second (and subsequent) generation of Indian origin person would feel proud being part of any such association when they compare that culture and ways of running such organizations with other similar ones from European origin people or representing different community. We tend to promote those kids and people who have influence (monetary or otherwise) than real talents. Bigger the city and organization, worse the problem. ‘Indian’ organizations in Columbus (OH), Chicago or Washington or Zurich have far worse problem than smaller places like Madison (WI). And it’s not a scaling up issue. The tendency to brew discontent and break up increases, 1) when it has more affluent, influential members with feudal mentality (who think that giving hefty donations entitles him/her to control the organization, micromanage its agenda to promote self, spouses and children depriving many better deserving candidates- both at organization level, culturally and professionally) and, 2) a steady flow of young first generation immigrants who want to get social acceptance and recognition in a foreign country. No wonder, most big cities in the US have more than one such Indian organizations representing same or similar objectives and/or community. 

How wrongly we portray Bengal/India in the eyes of our own children and grandchildren. Surely it has its consequences affecting us, as well as India and the host countries. Promoting actual Indian or Bengali culture after filtering out the issues for which we all are now in a foreign country and not in our own, would help our own children to prosper here in the host country, become more socially productive and successful part of the world (that includes both India and the USA)- than naively refuting or hiding their own origin, suffering from identity crisis and foolishly rejecting one of the oldest and best civilizations and culture the world has ever witnessed. 

I hope our children or grandchildren would not be forced to become immigrant and migrate to other greener pastures in case America’s prosperity declines due to our (collective) ignorance or inability– just like our forefathers in India. It would be a great day to witness Indian or Bengali events/festivals spontaneously participated by 4^th generation Indians/Bengalis living here in the USA, as we see for communities like Irish, German and many others. I would feel much happier if I can spontaneously share Bengali literature, culture and traditions without any false pretension or shame with my grandchildren and his/her non-Indian/Bengali spouse. Local Bengali organizations can play a much better, not necessarily bigger, role to help proud Indians/Bengalis like me achieving that- may be with their non-Bengali spouses.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/oOjzes

Modified version of this blog were published in Durga Puja magazine, organized by Bengali Association of Madison (BAM). 

The Arab Spring and Nation Building

Many people and policy makers from western countries were so happy witnessing the rise of democracy in few Arab countries just a couple of years ago. It all started with Tunisia on 18th December 2010. Then spread to countries like Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. Many other countries in the region were affected witnessing major protests against its governments. People in some of the Arab countries threw the dictators and installed democratically elected governments. Many of the dictators were propped up by western powers, mainly USA. They were replaced by conservative, if not fundamentalist, organizations like Muslim Brotherhood. Yet the current American president Obama welcomed the uprising. Described it as 'moment of opportunity' on May 2011. For the first time in many years, probably ever, people in these countries elected its own governments. Many people in some poorly governed democracies like India started dreaming for such Arab spring style uprising. So far so good.

Now comes the challenging part. Current political situation in Tunisia, the most western   influenced poster child of Arab spring, is 'poisonous' dominated by Islamic extremists led by the salafists. Situation in other countries are equally challenging and similar in nature, not identical though. Recently we are hearing more about Egypt, its recent coup that uprooted democratically elected Morsi government. It seems to be heading towards more trouble. Many western governments have no clue whether to support or oppose it. Previously the american president took no time to come out openly to support the revolution against Mubarak regime, despite the fact that Mubarak government was one of the strongest supporters of US foreign policy in the region. But now Obama is keeping mum, probably confused. American administration probably will continue its financial assistance even after the ‘coup’. Many influential American politicians like John McCain are equally confused whether america should do the ‘right thing’ by suspending aids.

Arab spring reminded us, once again, that revolution is only the first act of a big drama. Subsequent acts are more challenging and require long term sustained preparation. We can get a clue if we analyze more successful transition towards peace, prosperity and democracy in many east european countries. Alternative elite group of people were active in those countries during communism and soviet dominance. Many political leaders, bureaucrats and other professionals started working towards civil society during communist rule. Former Czechoslovakian president, author and poet Vaclav Havel started his work organizing people around 1970s. This trend is not limited to Czech republic but a consistent pattern in other east european countries as well. Such socio-political elites presented a qualified and, most importantly, acceptable alternative. People with shared vision of nation building and professional ability filled the vacuum after collapse of communist rule. It was not the same for Soviet Union and some of its breakaway republics. Reformists and oppositions were either too fragmented or repressed and harassed. Former wolves just changed its skin to become social democrat and came to power. They continued almost same policies of previous regime. No wonder Russia is now branded as a 'mafia state', as per Wikileaks revelation of US diplomatic cables.

It’s not economic or political system but human resource that makes the difference. It seems to be the main challenge with Arab spring too. Most Arab countries never had any such alternative elite group of leaders. Professionals working for past regimes were either killed or totally rejected. Political process and leaders who could lead were simply not there or disenfranchised. Now it have to start from the scratch. It will take a long time if get the right direction and the direction has to come from within.

We see the same trend in both Asia and Africa that were affected by european colonialism and apartheid. Countries that drove away almost all from past regimes suffer more. Almost every former european colony suffered when all white people fled rather than assimilated with native population. Zimbabwe is an extreme while India is a more moderate example compared to former european colonies in Latin America and post-apartheid South Africa. Assimilating socio-political elites, irrespective of past affiliation or racial identity, with shared value and decent sense of professional ethics seems to be a better route. It takes time and sustained effort preparing ground for a beautiful spring that people would enjoy and be proud of. It's tough but surely not impossible.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/r5nFdm

Equality, morality and quality among kids and beyond

Few days ago I was flipping the  January 2013 issue of Smithsonian magazine. There I got this exciting article- Are babies born good? New research offers surprising answers to the age-old question of where morality comes from. Yes, babies are born with basic morality and ability to differentiate between 'right' and 'wrong'.

It reminded me of a discussion on whether to be strict to our kids to make them more quality conscious or follow the current tradition of encouraging our kids for whatever they do. Now majority parents in countries like the US encourage their kids even for a very sloppy job and say awesome. Does that “awesome culture” increase the chance of future success by boosting confidence or encourage kids to continue sloppy work that need to be criticized to encourage him/her to do better or help him/her to try something else? Of course, I do not buy the extreme of “tiger mother” concept prescribed by Prof Amy Chua in her controversial book “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”. In fact, Prof Chua’s portrayal of typical Chinese mother is becoming less common among Chinese mothers these days. More compelling evidence of why Prof Chua may not be right comes from the fact that countries like India and China where such 'tiger mom' culture is perceived to be more prevalent, do not do well to promote leadership, original thinking and minimize high level of corruption in public lives. Both the countries rank at the very bottom so far creativity and innovation are concerned. The more intriguing question for me is- what should be the right proportion of criticism and encouragement.

I do acknowledge the power of praise and encouragement to make our kids more confident. But we often forget that our praise need to be sincere and with reason. We just cannot keep on saying 'awesome', 'great' in a casual fashion without showing much interest or have time to evaluate what the kid has done. If a kid is intelligent enough to understand 'right' and 'wrong' from a very early age, s/he probably understands what a genuine praise is and what is just a habit. Nonetheless they are confused to evaluate their work and take the easy way of congratulating themselves for even a sloppy job.

Now coming to a trickier issue. Does confidence really breeds success? Evidently mere high confidence does not breed success. But our effort to make our kids more confident resulted in "narcissism epidemic", at least in USA. Few recent studies concluded that narcissistic attitude among US students are increasing since 1979. Many factors are blamed for that trend, including "parenting styles, celebrity culture, social media and access to easy credit, which allows people to appear more successful than they are". It has been concluded that "there is very little evidence that raising self-esteem leads to tangible, positive outcomes."

Few probable consequences are- increasing dominance of mediocrity in almost every field of life, consolidation of wealth and power in fewer hands with decreasing social mobility. Published data show that rate of innovation and invention is slowing. Nobel Prize winning US economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, "The US has one of the worst opportunity rates of any of the advanced economies. A child's life chances are more dependent on the income of his or her parents than most other industrial economies".

Now success depends more on networking, ability to agree with majority than raw talent and ability to solve problems. One can gauge this trend more clearly in social networking sites like Facebook. Number of ‘like’ depend more on who is posting it, rather than its relevance or quality. It can also be argued that many people who have less knowledge and/or critical thinking tend to give 'expert' opinions. Such opinions are readily available to others by virtue of media and internet. Higher acceptance or 'agreeability' can give rise to a sense of confidence and seemingly more influence among peers with  long term consequences in democratic societies. The same media, internet and social networking sites also make common people aware that some of our leaders, famous public figures, top executives are no genius. Sycophancy, nepotism, stealing ideas, telling lies are not taboos anymore but a ‘desired’ character for increasing number of people to become successful. People who succeeded via that route are less likely to accept constructive criticism or failure. That puts extra pressure among colleagues, junior staff and students. The trend is expanding due to increasing reach of news-hungry media and internet. More we know about our ‘leaders’ more we tend to think that s/he is just one of us, nothing special. If others consider that person a genius, then I’m no less a genius! Recently I watched a news report on famous american president, John F Kennedy (JFK). It included some of his affairs, mainly with a former white house intern Mimi Alford. Few people who were previously fond of JFK started 'severely disliking' him after they came to know JFK more intimately. Such reversal of fortune, erosion of public faith will continue to rise as internet and other media coverage increases its reach and investigative ability. 

It’s yet to be proved if increasing reach of internet and other media add or counter-balance its power to promote mediocrity in the name of talent in this era of reality shows. But we can be reasonably assured that increased scrutiny would help to promote transparency. Evidences now indicate that social media is making us more honest. Now many well groomed people, ambitious enough to succeed and occupy influential positions would try avoiding such media scrutiny and taking extra precaution to leave less digital footprint.

Some of our great leaders like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln did not have formal education. But lately most US presidents are coming from privileged background with Ivy League university degrees while past US presidents were from all over the country and from different colleges and universities. Of course, I’m not talking about Obama. I consider him as a rare exception in this regard. The trend deteriorated further after Ronald Reagan, who practically transformed US education mainly higher education, to another for-profit industry. It does not seem to be a mere coincidence that all the US presidents are from Yale or Harvard since 1980s. One can observe the same trend for many influential positions in US, including supreme court judges. All nine current supreme court judges in US are from either Harvard or Yale, except one (justice Alito). 

It's not so surprising that quality of education, which is considered the silver bullet for social mobility and fulfilling the so-called ‘American dream’, is deteriorating. Education is becoming more of manufacturing workers and consumers than to groom a complete human being with the ability to understand the difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to act accordingly. Now money and influence plays a more important role in deciding college admission (1, 2). Such students enjoy even more competitive edge in admission in very selective and costly Ivy League universities where many of our current leaders in both corporate and government sector  now comes from. The famous book, "The Price of Admission" by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Daniel Golden shows, "how America’s ruling class buys its way into elite colleges and universities – and who gets left outside the gates".

Einstein once said, “everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid”. It’s not that hard to understand the consequences of encouraging a fish to think that it is equally talented to climb a tree. The situation gets worse if climbing tree is far more financially rewarding than swimming. In that situation, many parents will try to coerce their fish-kids to climb. The culture of imposed equality may not be that great to infuse a sense of quality and mentor talent. Deliberate or not, it seems to help kids from privileged background who are destined to be 'successful' irrespective of their ability and talent at the cost of the society and the nation in the long run. I'm not sure though if infatuation to wealth management and not wealth creation by talented or ambitious students since last few decades is related to it.

We seem to destroy the in-born morality that I told earlier. More people feel less ashamed  to accept awards/scholarships/credit that they don't deserve. The tendency probably continues when such kids grow up and occupy influential positions, be it in academic-research, corporate management or public policy. It probably makes a run-of-the-mill decent worker but not a natural leader who is able to earn respect and lead effectively.

Now we live in an increasingly smaller global village with more aggressive news media, increasing reach of internet and social networking sites. People feel comfortable with mediocrity. Many people don't like to take the pain to find out what they are good at, what they love to do (particularly if that is not financially rewarding) but prefer to impose themselves on a subject that they are not so good at. Best prepared candidates are not always the best or most talented ones to succeed. Gradually talent is replaced by mediocrity. More kids are groomed with that objective. They are less encouraged to excel what they are good at if that does not fit the objective. We see its consequence more clearly during selection of top bureaucrats in India through, arguably, the most competitive selection processes in the world with less than 0.3% success rate. Yet  ‘Indian bureaucracy the worst in Asia’.

We can see its influence not only in schools, universities and screening for a specific career but also in many other forums and cultural programs. Many, if not majority, cultural organizations promote children and adults who have proper connections or influence. Such parents feel elated simply by seeing themselves, their spouses and children on the stage. Many times we witness reduction of performance time even for expensive artists from abroad to accommodate such whims of influential members. They seem to be totally ignorant on the larger implications of such act of nepotism. Many organizers of such programs proudly assert that cultivating equality, mass participation is the goal; not promoting talent or leadership. The sense of justice, professional ethics are severely damaged for the kids too. Talented kids are not only demoralized but also start accepting corruption and nepotism as part of life, as the main (sometimes, only) criteria to be recognized and enjoy what they are good at. They too will try to take advantage of the same in areas where they are not so good at. 

In a sense, imposition of equality helps maintaining the status-quo. It encourages people who believe in dynasties, give effort to establish their children towards same success and power. We need to keep in mind that kids from privileged families sometimes are under more pressure to succeed. Regular evaluation, defeat in the hands of more talented student help such kids to accept defeat,  remain humble and empathetic. It help promoting talent, grooming worthy leaders. 

No, I am not suggesting that kids from privileged families cannot be good or genius. Yes, they have equal probability to excel. We need to encourage students who are good- irrespective of his/her background. I believe that every child has talent. We must acknowledge specific talent and not lower the bar to make almost everyone feel like a genius. Students who cannot see the bigger picture start believing that if many mediocre people become so successful then why not they. In the long run, the rot will become clearer in form of deterioration of governance, declining ability to innovate and invent, erosion of product quality (both goods and creative art) resulting deterioration of industrial competitiveness, and overall quality of life. It's impact will be on whole society, including our children. Many of us often forget that we and our own children, who may not be that excellent in a specific area, would have a far more productive and happier life if s/he is under a competent professional and governed by an able leader- academic, corporate or political. 

Coming from a developing country, l personally feel little worried witnessing the same trend in a developed country like the USA.

Shorter URL: http://goo.gl/uEF6M

** Modified version of the blog is published in one of the most influential science and technology policy forums in USA, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) at Arizona State University and Washington DC. 

Equality and quality in children and beyond: towards a more productive science and better society

India needs to be cautious while following the American model of higher education and research

It's almost unanimously accepted that quality of Indian education and research is steadily declining since last few decades despite of huge increase in funding and number of schools, colleges, universities and institutes. It's also well recognized that we need drastic reform. Whenever we talk about reform in Indian science, we generally end up talking about the American model as the gold standard. Many do not consider analys­ing the US system and its limitations in more detail. Others think that we should first reach the current state of American research and only then talk about further modification, probably following the same US model.

There is no doubt that developing countries like India can learn and more to gain from the American model of higher education and research, e.g. transparency in funding and recruitment. But we also need to be aware of probable pitfalls so that we do not repeat the same mistakes and end up wasting our scarce resources and lose few more generations of scientists.

Since early 18th century when France led the world, till today, history and sociopolitical events indicate that emergence of science super powers generally follow economic uprising. Not the other way round. Scientists must not take undue advantage of a nation’s appetite for heroes. It becomes more important in this era of economic crisis where almost all national governments are hard pressed to fund research projects. Here, I mainly discuss the issue in the context of the US, which we generally try to follow in India.

Lately, the whole assembly line to manufacture "scientist" is becoming dysfunctional as evident by slowing down of innovation and invention. Even the mighty pharmaceutical R&D sector is now suffering from acute shortage of new drugs. Few policy makers in the US already started asking serious questions about the relevance of once highly productive post World War II ‘input–output model’, where monetary input was assumed to be directly proportional to knowledge output, to judge the efficacy of today’s public funded research. Many argue that scientific output should be judged in terms of its capacity to achieve the desired social outcome.

We generally forget that immediately after the World War II, the US had no serious scientific and economic competitor. The US higher education and research enterprise was, and still is, much larger than that of any other country. The most successful and dominant player for American research was the Department of Defense (DoD). With (i) end of cold war and the declining role of DoD in translating public funded R&D into tangible social outcome; (ii) rise of many serious challengers (mainly the emerging economics in East Asia and South America); (iii) newly emerging issues (e.g. public health care, global warming and energy crisis) that require greater scientific understanding, needed a different approach to quantify and prioritize national scientific need. These issues arose mainly during 1980s and put the traditional ‘input–output’ model under serious threat. India never has the luxury of being an economic superpower to invest heavily to build a massive infrastructure on science education and research, naively thinking that quantity will ensure quality. Here I should mention that India already has the second largest higher education system in the world, only after the USA! 

Some people already started demanding that the universities should be restricted to teaching, without wasting public money in the name of research. Now US universities are more interested to select those candidates as faculties who have developed suitable network and mastered the art to attract grants, than to identify and select candidates with original thinking ability who can innovate and/or invent to generate revenue for the university. Present model completely absolves the universities from the responsibility of spending tax-payers’ money. In its most optimistic and fair terms, keeping aside the regular allegations of nepotism and corruption in recruitment and funding, Indian research institutes and universities are no different.

The lack of strategic thinking, focus and coordination between government, other funding agencies and universities, and by unrealistic expectations of what money could buy are becoming more evident these days. Some of the problems, including that of the ‘publish or perish’ model started long ago during the 1970s, as indicated in the book, Hera­clitean Fire: Sketches from a Life before Nature, by the famous biochemist Erwin Chargaff. Later, it became more of a global problem as initial success of the American ‘input–output’ and ‘publish or perish’ model was adopted by many countries, including India, albeit half-heartedly.

The problem worsened as the most important parameter to quantify productivity and efficacy of our publication based academic research started losing its credibility. The ‘monopolistic’ business of the academic publication industry has become one of the fastest growing lucrative businesses without much self-regulation and government oversight. Today almost anything can be published in journals claiming to be peer-reviewed. It has significantly contributed towards deterioration of the peer-review process, rising incidents of scientific misconducts and higher acceptance of such misconducts among researchers. China is a good example in this regard with increasing incidences of plagiarism and other forms of scientific misconduct. Chinese journals find a whopping 31% of submissions are plagiarized.

It has serious consequences not only on over all scientific environment but also on careers of individual researcher – as recruitment, funding, promotion and fame, which can be defined as ‘institutional power to influence future direction in any specific area’, depends largely on that single parameter. Credibility of data, its interpretation and conclusion seem to depend more on individual researcher. Any researcher adhering to the higher standard of professional ethics and scientific understanding is now under severe threat.

Lack of accountability partly explains low financial remuneration for non-tenured researchers and students, poor working condition, poor mentoring that contributes to low attraction and lower retention of talented students in the US. It reduce support towards science not only among talented students, but also among policy makers and general public for this vital sector, which was, still is and will remain crucial for industrial competitiveness and higher quality of living in western countries. Any country ambitious enough to have a knowledge based economy, as some Indian policy-makers like to achieve, needs to acknowledge that increasing dominance of mediocrity is a serious threat today than ever before.

Companies are running out of new blockbuster drugs, other novel products and technology that can generate high profit to pay its shareholders and executives as the quality and integrity of scientists are steadily going down and mediocrity flourishes. It's one of the major reasons why companies are increasingly taking illegal routes by undertaking deceptive marketing and illegal promotion of drugs not approved by US federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or similar regulatory authorities in other countries. Its impact is also becoming more common in research publications, scientific seminars and conferences. Almost all, if not all, major drug and medical device companies now seem to be involved in systemic and massive fraud (Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, BASF). They are increasingly bribing doctors even in developed countries like USA. Now more than 90% of doctors in US receive favors from drug companies who paid more than $2 billion to different health professionals. Keep in mind that it's only the disclosed value, that many believe to be the tip of a massive iceberg.  It's now reported that at least one big pharma company invented the drug first and then the disease that it claim to cure. 

We need to understand that past achievements will sustain competitive edge for a shorter period of time in this age of higher mobility of manpower and increasing reach of communication technology. It demands   faster development of novel, innovative products and technology. Many times the policy makers and scientists either could not understand or conveniently ignored the bigger picture, as there are not many subject matter experts willing to play the role of a devil’s advocate.  Scientists with vested professional and financial interest generally evaluate scientific projects and invariably recommend specific projects that benefit them personally.

It seems that exaggerated data fueled the hype for Jatropha based biofuel programs in countries like India and ended up wasting huge public money. Another recent casualty of over-selling or culture of hype became clearer when many high profile players in the pharmaceutical industry dropped their plans and altogether pulled out from much hyped technique, RNA interference, popularly known as RNAi.

Deteriorating scientific climate and rising incidences of misconduct in both public and private funded universities and R&D units, even in developed countries like USA, have far reaching consequences for the organization, the country and, most importantly, science itself. Developing countries like India with fewer resources need to learn from both the successes and mistakes of more successful countries like USA. Ignoring their mistakes will be no less fatal. India needs to prepare itself to adopt the changing world where, probably, there will be no science superpower to follow.

Short URL: http://goo.gl/CNEvX