a) "...additional 14 candidates from open competition category [were] admitted to MBBS as per a Supreme Court's order for implementing 50 per cent reservation".

>a) "...additional 14 candidates from open competition category [were] admitted to MBBS as >per a Supreme Court's order for implementing 50 per cent reservation".

is 19% of 1224, 14 seats?

anand, again you are putting your own spin on AA in usa. give me a direct quote which clearly says what you claim.

also as noted before such is only for minorities. would the usa even think on the same lines for the majority?

Nandakumar Chandran,

You claim that I have given my own "spin" to the article http://www.hindu.com/2004/08/23/stories/2004082308900400.htm.

Your claim is false. I had already quoted verbatim from the article. Let me repeat this:-

a) "...additional 14 candidates from open competition category [were] admitted to MBBS as per a Supreme Court's order for implementing 50 per cent reservation".

Thus, the article is thus EXPLICIT that the SC order for "50% reservation" WAS implemented -- by admitting 14 additional candidates from the open category.

(And what is the SC order on 50% reservation? It is that 50% of seats must be allotted as per merit list, irrespective of reservations. Given that the total number of seats available was 1224, 50% of this is 612. It is obvious that the SC order could be implemented only by ensuring that 612 seats were assigned purely based on merit list, irrespective of reservations)

The article goes on to elaborate, "These [additional 14 who were later admitted to comply with Court Order] are candidates who would have got MBBS seats in case the 50 per cent reservation was implemented, but did not because of 69 per cent reservation".

Where is the doubt? How do YOU interpret this article? On what basis?

What is my "argument regarding AA in the usa"?

It is that in the US, "under-representation" is the necessary and sufficient condition to uphold the legality of AA in courts. There is no requirement to establish "historical discrimination"!

To substantiate my argument, let me again refer to the court proceedings as at para 311-12 of Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1975):-

In Justice Powell’s view, neither the state’s asserted interest in remedying “societal
discrimination,” nor of providing “role models” for minority students was sufficiently
“compelling” to warrant the use of a “suspect” racial classification in the admission
process.

But the attainment of a “diverse student body” was, for Justice Powell, “clearly a permissible goal for an institution of higher education” since diversity of minority viewpoints furthered “academic freedom,” a “special concern of the First Amendment.”

Justice Lewis Powell's decision upheld diversity in higher education as a "compelling interest" and held that race could only be one of the factors in university admissions.

Source: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs22256.pdf

Anand

anand, with regards the article pls do not give your own spin on it. if you want to show that 50% of the total seats came by merit then show it from excerpts in the article. paste the calculations from the article here to support your claim. else it becomes tiresome for me to repeatedly try to disprove your "facts" to you.

likewise with your argument regarding AA in the usa. paste it from the relavent article.

nobody is convinced by your individual spin on all these.

>And that other States will do well to adopt the successful Tamil Nadu model.

yeah right. demonize a tiny minority. and use that as a reason to get all the other upper castes on a generic label like BC or MBC. and ensure that those who really need a helping hand are kept out! very nice!!!

Nandakumar Chandran,

I am NOT relying on calculations at all! Thus, what you need to dispute are my FACTS and not my maths! Here are the facts:-

According to the article at http://www.hindu.com/2004/08/23/stories/2004082308900400.htm:-

a) Total number of seats in 2004 for  the 12 government Medical Colleges of TN was 1224.

b) The first list of 1224 candidates (selected for admissions) was prepared to accommodate the quota of 69% reserved for certain eligible categories.

c) It was found that 598 selected candidates in the first list as above  were from the top scorers who got ranks from 1 to 612. This also showed that 14 general category candidates did not admission (as per the first list), despite having ranks better than 612, due to reserved candidates with worse ranks having taken these.

d) To comply with the SC ruling that 50% of all available seats should be filled PURELY on merit, 14 additional seats were created in the second list (approx. 1 per college) -- thus admitting all the 14 general category categories who were left out of the first list, despite have secured ranks better that 612.

e) Thus, in 2004, all meritorious candidates (irrespective of community) who scored ranks from 1 to 612 were assured of seats in the 12 government Medical Colleges of TN.

There is no maths or calculations in above. These are FACTS. Please dispute any aspect of the FACTS as stated above, if you can....

You went on to state, "in the usa such AA is given only because these historically discriminated groups constitute a minority."

WRONG! In the US, "historic discrimination" does NOT need to be established to make a group eligible for AA benefits, but current under-representation is required to be proved in court! Nor is is sufficient to be a "minority" to become eligible -- Asians are not eligible for AA benefits in colleges despite being a minority -- because they are NOT under-represented in proportion to their numbers!

The FACT is that in the US, "under-representation" is the necessary and sufficient condition to uphold the legality of AA in courts.

Dispute the above fact, if you can.

I agree that you need not "repeat" what you have already said. Each of these has been refuted by me several times. I have summarised certain things on top, declaring these to be facts. If these are not facts (according to you), say so. And then substantiate your own stand, if you can.

It does not help to express OPINIONS such as "it would pretty much amount to economical suicide for them which they would not be stupid to do".

That is your speculation on what may happen, not a fact. It would help if you can clearly say what are the facts (according to you), as distinct from repeating your personal opinions on what dire consequences would follow if a policy you don't personally like is implemented!

Anand

>What is clear is that going by 69% reservations, candidates with ranks from 1 to 598 were >first  admitted -- which was 14 less than 612 (50% of the 1224 seats available). In order to >comply to the SC order, all these 14 candidates from the "open competition category" were >additionally admitted to MBBS, thus ensuring that all candidates with ranks from 1 to 612 got >admissions!

anand, i suggest you first take some basic math classes before discussing such statistics. it is getting very tiresome discussing these figures with you and your repeated misinterpretations and miscalculations. i do not have the patience anymore to explain to you why your calculations are wrong.

>I am happy that you have chosen to concede (without contest) my contention that according to >US law, past or present discrimination need not be "established" for bringing a group under >AA. On the other hand, if any identifiable group is not currently under-represented in the US, 
>this group CANNOT become eligible for AA -- even if the group faced discrimination in the >past.

in the usa such AA is given only because these historically discriminated groups constitute a minority. if it their numbers were higher, they would not grant them such AA as it would pretty much amount to economical suicide for them which they would not be stupid to do - as is happening with india.

anyway if you want the last word in this discussion you are welcome to it. i for one am pretty much tired with your repeated and tireless spins on this issue. i'm coming to believe what somebody once told me : a communist can never be convinced of something he doesn't *believe* in.

it is a pity that your kind abounds in india. guess it is the national karma.

anniyan anniyan,

Referring to "Nithari murder or 12 year kid conducting C-section", you said, "we can atleast think that it is a case of bad apple and not systemic problem and look for measures to avoid such instances."

I agree. Except that I will add that THIS is an issue of ethical depravity that has NOTHING to do with "strict quality control" such as can be achieved through reliance on rank obtained in entrance exams, or in the general academic performance of a candidate! This are NOT indicators of moral probity!!

Perhaps phychological screening (such as a psychometric test) may be of help....

What has this issue got to do with reservations?

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

In Tamil Nadu, all the candidates with top merit (irrespective of community) would get admission for 50% of all seats available. This is ASSURED under the present policy of reservations.

Despite this, If in the 12 government medical colleges of Tamil Nadu, only 2.3% of FCs (slightly less than expected for a group who form 6% of the population) could get admission, this would only indicate a corresponding lack of aspiration (or interest to get into these colleges) among FC candidates with higher merit, rather than that FC candidates lack merit! What is obvious is that in this particular case, the end result would not have been far too different, even if there was no reservations.

Indeed, if this is the trend in Tamil Nadu (for all college admissions), it would suggest that the time is fast approaching when reservations will cease to be relevant. This shows that reservations were hugely successful to achieve the targeted social diversity within the campuses in Tamil Nadu. And that other States will do well to adopt the successful Tamil Nadu model.

You asked, "show me where it says that of the 1224 seats the top 612 got admitted."

According to the article at http://www.hindu.com/2004/08/23/stories/2004082308900400.htm, "additional 14 candidates from open competition category [were] admitted to MBBS as per a Supreme Court's order for implementing 50 per cent reservation". Right?

This article then states:- "These are candidates who would have got MBBS seats in case the 50 per cent reservation was implemented, but did not because of 69 per cent reservation".

What is clear is that going by 69% reservations, candidates with ranks from 1 to 598 were first  admitted -- which was 14 less than 612 (50% of the 1224 seats available). In order to comply to the SC order, all these 14 candidates from the "open competition category" were additionally admitted to MBBS, thus ensuring that all candidates with ranks from 1 to 612 got admissions!

I am happy that you have chosen to concede (without contest) my contention that according to US law, past or present discrimination need not be "established" for bringing a group under AA. On the other hand, if any identifiable group is not currently under-represented in the US, this group CANNOT become eligible for AA -- even if the group faced discrimination in the past.
 
I need to stress the above, because I am indeed "peddling the my argument" for reservations in India based on the same principle of Affirmative Action as has been adopted in the US!

Anand

Your example is IRRELEVENT in the context of reservations! So what if "[e]ven with good marks you can't believe doctors.". What is your point?

My point is that even with strict quality control (such as entrance exams) at the entry level you can't 100% guarantee whether the doctors who come out of Medical Colleges are going to do what they are supposed to do. There is a correlation between training (and also on what basis this selection process is done) and end result. You lower the bar and the end product will also be like wise.

I can put it like this, I guess. 'Kazhuthakku undo Karpura vasana' meaning 'How can a donkey know about Camphor'. If you dole out somebody with something which they don't deserve this will be the consequence (like Nithari murder or 12 year kid conducting C-section etc).

In spite of reservation if this is happening, we can atleast think that it is a case of bad apple and not systemic problem and look for measures to avoid such instances. Got it?

I am sure that if you try a bit harder you will realize how the TN government manages to conform to the court directive that 50% of all available seats must go to those top in the merit list (irrespective of community and reservations).

I MUST be right, or else the government would have been hauled up for contempt of court, by now! What is your explanation on how the TN government manages to remain on the right side of law?


I don't want to go over and over again with this elementary math problem. 119's 50% would be 59.5 Please drill this in your thick head.

Anandakrishnan, Anna University chaiman who tried to implement 50% was attacked and so was K M Vijayan for this. After that govt included reservation in 9th schedule which cannot be challenged in court until recently. Don't think that all others are also fools like you. May be you should take 'Chavana prashyam' or go to near by auyurvedic physician to check on your gray matter.

>only 28 students from the `non-reserved' or Forward Caste (FC) have got into government >medical colleges, representing about 2.3 per cent. 

if it is not FC, then it is BC/MBC/SC/ST etc. so if FCs got 2.3% then the "backwards" got 97.7%.

so i'm not sure what you are talking about when you say : Moreover, the reserved categories in Tamil Nadu (94% of the population) had managed to avail only 77.9 % of all available seats in the 12 colleges 


>The point is that in Tamil Nadu, 50% of the seats are ASSURED for candidates with top merit >who get ranks from 1 to 612 (when total seats is 1224) -- as stipulated by the SC. 

when 69% is reserved how can the above be true? 

show me where it says that of the 1224 seats the top 612 got admitted. what is your source for this?

>Don't you think the onus is on you to show that this is the case, as per the US law?

why should i? i'm not the one peddling the my argument based on a law in the usa.