No. But let’s not throw out the intent –
balance and diversity – along with the Q-word
What’s this “quota for boys”about?
On May 2, 2012, the St Stephen’s Supreme Council tabled a resolution to reserve 40% of first-year seats for boys, with effect from academic year 2013-14 (the class of 2016). As an admissions policy issue it needs to be subsequently ratified by the Governing Body of the College, where it is unlikely to be passed, given the strong resistance to the proposal from the staff of the College.
Why a “boys quota”? What was the objective?
Diversity and a balance of gender. St Stephen’s has over 65% girls overall, and counting. This is an imbalance, not unlike in the late 1970s when it was largely male-dominated, or pre-1975 when it as boys only. If one accepts that co-education, with diversity and balance, is a good thing, then neither the 1975 situation nor today’s – extreme swings toward either gender – is healthy.
Why is this happening? Are boys not making it on merit?
St Stephen’s draws students from the top one percentile of the population in terms of academic and extracurricular achievement. In this segment, boys have an increasing array of options, especially engineering (eight new IITs such as IIT-R, IIT -H, and other new engineering colleges), and options abroad (a much higher percentage are going out of the country). Many from the newer, top schools in Gurgaon such as Shri Ram and Pathways are automatically headed abroad because they believe it will be difficult for them to get into top Delhi colleges; all the more so for “IB” course adopters. Hence there are fewer boys from this “top percentile” who are taking up St Stephen’s, even if they do apply. Many other boys apply, but they cannot compete with girls in that top percentile of academic and extracurricular achievement. (Along with this factor, it is possible that the value and visibility of the St Stephen’s brand relative to these engineering colleges etc may have declined.)
What’s wrong with letting this happen—allowing “market forces” to rule?
It perpetrates the stereotype of boys doing engineering, girls taking up liberal arts. And pushes the institution toward an imbalance that is at variance with the principles of co-educational institution.
Is a quota the best way to go about correcting this imbalance?
No. A quota is meant for disadvantaged sections. Boys in the top one percentile of the population are not disadvantaged in any way. (Even with disadvantaged sections, quotas in tertiary education are often meaningless without tackling issues in primary and secondary education.)
How do you you then correct this imbalance?
Through “positive action” such as marketing outreach designed to convince the brightest of students—both boys and girls—to apply to colleges such as St Stephen’s. It might sound like heresy to suggest “marketing” for a brand like St Stephen’s, but there IS a requirement to convey to secondary school students and their parents the value of liberal arts or science-stream education, as well as demonstrate alumni success stories, so as to dispel the myth that engineering is the best option for the brightest boys, and only those who don’t make it into engineering would go elsewhere. This is not gender-targeted (though it could be, simply by focusing on a few boys’ schools such as Doon or St Columba’s), but the premise is that if the brightest of school students do apply, the gender balance will begin to correct itself.
Why just gender – why not not ensure more diversity and balance in other areas such as socio-cultural background?
Because in a meritocracy, these cannot be tackled at the tertiary level alone. The traditional way of dealing with this, the quota, is anti-meritocracy. It affects the quality of student intake, and unfairly discriminates against bright, qualified students who do not fit the quota specs. In these area it is less about influencing choice than about about improving their abilities and achievement, which needs to be tackled at the primary and secondary levels. With the gender issue, it is more about the choice being exercised by the brightest of boys not to go for liberal-arts or science undergrad education. It is at least possible to influence that choice through targeted outreach, without the impracticality of changing primary and secondary education.
Is such outreach and marketing practical?
On a large scale, not for an individual institution such as St Stephen’s. But what IS possible is outreach to a few specific premium schools, including boys schools, through successful alumni for counseling and guidance sessions to say class 11 students, to explain the value of liberal-arts/science education, the opportunities, and how to improve one’s chances of admission to St Stephen’s (balance of academics and extracurricular achievement, etc). The objective would be to ensure that the brightest students do seriously consider St Stephen’s, and not just engineering or options abroad.
What is the status of reservations at St Stephen’s?
St Stephen’s College presently has reservations of50% for Christian students and an additional 10% for all other categories – SC/ST etc. This is actually the bigger issue. Clearly, 60% reservation does have an adverse impact on quality and diversity of student intake. For that 60% of the student intake is “exempt” from the high standards of Stephanian meritocracy – the high marks, the interview, the assessment of all-rounded achievement. This is something the College needs to urgently address.
————
Among the many responses on email and on facebook to this “FAQ”, this was an interesting view, by Shashi Tharoor: “I see nothing wrong with an admission policy that says that neither gender will be allowed to fall below, say, 40% of the student intake.” While this still suggests reservation, which I disagree with, this IS a more balanced, diplomatic and perhaps even fairer way of phrasing it.
! Five of the top 10 Twitter trends in India right now are: #IdiotKapilsibal, #KapilSibal, #Censorship, #FreeSpeech and #FreedomOfSpeech.”