In Defense of RG
"Don't blame me if you score less marks. It's all relative grading. If you want a better grade, kill your neighbor"
This statement takes us back to the sources, implications and the connotations of the now infamous "relative grading" system. At premier educational institutions such as IITs, NITs, IIMs etc., where the input student pool consists of the so called brightest minds of the country, a professor or an evaluator can't set questions that are seen to be run-of-the-mill, straight out of the text book. In order to sufficiently challenge students, it is important that the questions test students on a conceptual level and hence the level of difficulty keeps increasing - through cases, situational analyses etc. One implicit outcome of such a paper pattern is that the highest scores of students is not expected to go beyond 70% of the total score. In such a case, when such students compete against (perhaps for jobs, or for higher education opportunities) students from absolute grading institutions where scores might as well touch 90%+, it is imperative to "normalize" (for lack of a better word) the concept-based test scores so as to compete against students from other institutions or across batches. Given such a scenario where your gain is someone else's loss, this is clearly an example of a zero-sum game. With excess emphasis laid on scores during placements, it becomes even more imperative that one creates a level of information asymmetry not very unlike the one that Rancho creates in 3 idiots with the Chamatkari joke.
But on a macro level, doesn't the whole world revolve around information asymmetry? The entire market for futures, forwards and options works on this concept where you try to outguess your co-dealmaker and in the process make some money. This creates a lot of scope for arbitrage, especially if you have some unique information, or that which your co-dealmaker takes some time to comprehend. Most of strategic competition revolves around creating and sustaining competitive advantage, creating inimitable leverage which might sometimes be covert. Such arbitrage opportunities are also actively sought in product markets where firms try to globalize their value chains by taking advantage of cheaper component procurement (e.g. shifting manufacturing bases to China) or of cheaper intellectual capital (e.g. the rise of the Indian skilled services industry.) More on this has been talked about in Ghemawat's HBR article - Managing Differences (May need a login.)
A different view of the world, though, was provided by Brandenburger and Nalebuff in their strategy classic, Co-opetition, where they talk about the necessity to identify complementors - an outside party who can possibly increase the value proposition of your offering to your customers, hence increasing either total market demand or customers' willingness to pay. The cliched statement that is now common is "expand the pie first, think of dividing it later" and perhaps the most common example used to explain this in business schools is the classic Wintel simulation where opposing teams take turns to play either Windows (Microsoft) or Intel and try to maximize (cumulative?) profits. It remains to be seen how this concept can be better applied to our education system and hence improve the overall learning experience for all stakeholders.
Perhaps the origins of RG-giri were sown by the famous poet H. W. Longfellow:
The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight,
but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night.
Edit 1: As an afterthought, using cases and situational analyses are a part of expanding the pie. We now just need to find a way of dividing it.
- Prof. Yeti.
This statement takes us back to the sources, implications and the connotations of the now infamous "relative grading" system. At premier educational institutions such as IITs, NITs, IIMs etc., where the input student pool consists of the so called brightest minds of the country, a professor or an evaluator can't set questions that are seen to be run-of-the-mill, straight out of the text book. In order to sufficiently challenge students, it is important that the questions test students on a conceptual level and hence the level of difficulty keeps increasing - through cases, situational analyses etc. One implicit outcome of such a paper pattern is that the highest scores of students is not expected to go beyond 70% of the total score. In such a case, when such students compete against (perhaps for jobs, or for higher education opportunities) students from absolute grading institutions where scores might as well touch 90%+, it is imperative to "normalize" (for lack of a better word) the concept-based test scores so as to compete against students from other institutions or across batches. Given such a scenario where your gain is someone else's loss, this is clearly an example of a zero-sum game. With excess emphasis laid on scores during placements, it becomes even more imperative that one creates a level of information asymmetry not very unlike the one that Rancho creates in 3 idiots with the Chamatkari joke.
But on a macro level, doesn't the whole world revolve around information asymmetry? The entire market for futures, forwards and options works on this concept where you try to outguess your co-dealmaker and in the process make some money. This creates a lot of scope for arbitrage, especially if you have some unique information, or that which your co-dealmaker takes some time to comprehend. Most of strategic competition revolves around creating and sustaining competitive advantage, creating inimitable leverage which might sometimes be covert. Such arbitrage opportunities are also actively sought in product markets where firms try to globalize their value chains by taking advantage of cheaper component procurement (e.g. shifting manufacturing bases to China) or of cheaper intellectual capital (e.g. the rise of the Indian skilled services industry.) More on this has been talked about in Ghemawat's HBR article - Managing Differences (May need a login.)
A different view of the world, though, was provided by Brandenburger and Nalebuff in their strategy classic, Co-opetition, where they talk about the necessity to identify complementors - an outside party who can possibly increase the value proposition of your offering to your customers, hence increasing either total market demand or customers' willingness to pay. The cliched statement that is now common is "expand the pie first, think of dividing it later" and perhaps the most common example used to explain this in business schools is the classic Wintel simulation where opposing teams take turns to play either Windows (Microsoft) or Intel and try to maximize (cumulative?) profits. It remains to be seen how this concept can be better applied to our education system and hence improve the overall learning experience for all stakeholders.
Perhaps the origins of RG-giri were sown by the famous poet H. W. Longfellow:
The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight,
but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night.
Edit 1: As an afterthought, using cases and situational analyses are a part of expanding the pie. We now just need to find a way of dividing it.
Comments