About a Particular Letter

This has already been mentioned elsewhere, and the link is becoming increasingly popular, but I might as well mention it again - The Letter Sent to Prospective Students. (link deleted, no longer valid. Also, edited the post slightly, as this issue is no longer up for discussion)

It claims to be a "Letter" which was "sent". Who was it "sent" to? "Prospective students" it exclaims proudly. The reaction to this letter (or rather the lack of it) has surprised me quite a bit. Most parts of the letter seemed all right. However, when I got to the end, I was shocked. I ended up reading the survey a dozen times over, and every time, I cringed. Then I thought about this little survey being sent to thousands of students across the country, with the institute's name emblazoned across the front page in bold type. And I cringed a whole lot more. Having spent four years here, I suppose I understand the basic message the "Evaluate Yourself" section is trying to convey - "Prepare to work hard. Oh and PS : We expect some minimum amount of focus, so don't expect to PHAWDY every night."

But was that rubbish Evaluation Form the best way they could think of to put forth their point? In cases like this, where you want to "send a message across", it is completely understandable to use methods other than plain preaching. Preaching is boring and doesn't usually yield the expected results, especially on the audience this piece was aimed at. As a format, this "Evaluate Yourself" section seems quite promising. Whoever came up with the idea should be commended on it. The execution though, is truly appalling. The first question is bang on, and is one of the best ways to start of a questionnaire of this sort - "What type of work do you want to do?" (check EDIT, some changes)

The second question is all right, although the option "Whiling away my time" does irk me. Putting such an option there was silly, on two major counts. For one - it's hardly a career option is it? Unless you have already made your millions by the time you hit 17 (and I dont know too many people who have). For another - everyone, once in a while, enjoys whiling away time. I do. You do. Whoever came up with this questionnaire does. Putting such an option there was a bad decision. The question as such, was appropriate and totally necessary. The options though, required some work.

As far as the third question goes, I suppose I understand the intent. They are looking to see what a person's priorities are. Perfectly fine. However, the options are flawed. If creativity was really your forte, aren't you better of in a profession which is more conducive to it? From whatever little I know of research, the ability to analyze and think clearly is far more important than creativity. It is very, very rare for someone to come up with a completely new solution anyway, so "creativity" isn't really that important. Researchers, like people in any other profession, are hungry for appreciation from their peers. Take a look at the "Student Achievements" section. We have won this, we were finalists in that, we came third in that, blah. And "appreciation" comes in at third priority. The least favorable priority according to the survey is "money". That is somewhat hypocritical. Our official stance on placements seems to be - "Unlike other institutes, we DON'T judge ourselves by our placements. So there! Of course, not that our placements are rubbish, no, no. In fact, our placements are quite good. See - 100% placed!! And look at the remuneration!! Look!!"

The fourth question raises some minor and completely irrelevant questions in my mind - Is there really any such thing as "easy work"? Work by definition takes some effort in doing. Work, more so after college than when studying, is usually dull and dreary and quite a rubbish thing to do, and if we all had our way, there wouldn't be any. But we have to all earn out cheeseburgers, don't we? Besides, are there actually people who DON'T want to have "fun"? What a very odd question to ask, this fourth one.

The fifth question is the one I have the most problems with. Hard as it is, let us for now ignore certain facts - "Living with flashy cloths" makes no sense whatsoever, nobody is deluded enough to expect their SERVANTS to do their homework/classwork and "going out to dinner everyday and wearing flashy cloths" is hardly a measure of luxury. It might point to a very, very mild state of decadence and a total lack of fashion sense, sure, but its not luxurious (As proof I present - exhibits A, B and C. Fine, I might be taking the word too literally, but my point still holds ;) ). As much as I intensely dislike flashy clothes, is it ethical of any educational institute to tell (obviously) talented and (at least somewhat) hardworking people to not join it because they have a weakness for gayly (in more ways than one) coloured pink jackets and shiny green cowboy trousers? If such people join, at least the student life will improve, as their dreadfully flashy clothes will prove to be a great source of constant entertainment to the rest of the students.

All right, enough with the mildly tasteless pseudo-jokes. A final point - that line on the page, which goes something like "... your aspirations probably do not match ours, you should look for another institution" - considering that this letter is being sent to students whom we WANT joining us, isn't it a bit tasteless too?

EDIT : Have to say, after reading the first comment, Q1 now seems less innocuous. At the UG level, they are actively discouraging taking up "management" as a career for prospective students. Pro-Research is one thing, but the anti-Manager bias is quite another. This letter is guilty of the latter.

EDIT 2 : There is no EDIT 2