Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 7

Starting paragraphs
Hi Deepak, just removed a line after Arindam Chaudhuri's name. I'm sure you'll understand why if you see the last saved version. Also, with respect to the BT ranking, a small clarification. The First Favourite category has IIPM standing as joint 7th and not 11th or 10th. I changed that also. Do feel free to change it back if you think it's confusing. Regards & Thanks, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 12:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I added a "Rankings don't matter" link as advertised in the IIPM web site as well. That change to Arindam Chaudhuri was by some other user, which you've reverted (thank you). Deepakshenoy 10:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "rankings don't matter" link seems perfect... Take care (btw, Italy won :-) Mrinal 203.76.140.130 12:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You bet...I was all for France until Zizou did the stupidest thing in the world. Anyhow, such is life and world cups. Deepakshenoy 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At least Zidane won the Golden Boot award (or something like that), which is given for overall play. I guess that gives him a lot of additional respect, especially given the head butting episode. Not that I want to misuse this discussion space, but came across a hilarious sms joke on that episode. It goes like this--->>> The mystery is solved. What did Materazzi tell Zidane just before the incident? "Bhai, hum sub log yeh Chlormint kyon khaten hain?" :-) Frankly, I laughed a lot when I read this sms. Anyway, advance apologies for utilising this space. I'll come back to some requests. I was wondering whether in the ranking paragraph, I can put more details of the Business Barons ranking (as in the parameterwise breakup; like what you've given in Business Today). Further, also wanted to request you whether we can put Outlook's ranking that was given to IIPM one year before... Thanks and take care, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ranking in Business Today, July 2006
I have just read a scan of the BT ranking at http://www.iipm.edu/iipm-b-school-ranking.html. Note here that IIPM Delhi and Mumbai gets a 2006 BEI score of 0.66 and 0.71, which are rank #27 and #26 respectively, comparing figures for 2006. If I'm right, that should be the ranking then? I will get myself a copy of the magazine today to confirm. Deepakshenoy 11:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (Hi Deepak, the figures you see are just BEI scores and are only indicative of the Brand Equity Index value of the brand. For example, FMS or Bimtech would have different ranks if one were to go just by BEI. But the ranking is done overall on weighted averages. You could perhaps see the page in BT which shows how the ranks were given. Regards and thanks, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 12:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) Or perhaps Business Today simply made a big copy mistake:-):-):-): The yellow colour perhaps refers to year 2005, and the red colour to year 2006...and not what is printed (vice versa). But still, I'll call up BT's office in Jhandewalan. Mrinal 61.16.233.194 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the magazine with me. On page 87 are the "Top 10" in which IIPM does not figure. IIPM does not figure in the top 10 colleges marked by recruiters, or my MBA wannabes, by Functional Heads, or by Young Executives. IIPM Delhi ranks #5 (jointly) with FMS by MBA student ranking (page 92). The B-School Fact sheet (page 140) has no mention of IIPM. Page 164 has a respondent sheet (which I talked about earlier) which as you said, looks like a typo but we have to get a confirmation. If it's a typo, then IIPM Delhi is #11 and IIPM-Mumbai is ranked #16 out of 30. On page 165, 3% of recruiters make a case for IIPM Delhi, and 2% of people say IIPM Delhi was their "first favourite". IIPM does not appear in any other "top 10" ranking and there is no mention in the "How the Schools Perform" table (page 170). I have changed the text to reflect these facts. Deepakshenoy 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly edited... Take care & Good night, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Revert
This is a request. Kindly do not revert to past versions without leaving a comment or opening a discussion. We repeat, it's a request that you should leave comments that summarise the changes made and make them open for peer review (like had been done with respect to including the Business Today ranking). We're forced to revert back to the version which contains IIPM's latest BT ranking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.16.233.194 (talk • contribs).


 * Please don't make major changes without discussing on this page first, or quote the right sources. Please sign your comments as well! You have added a lot of marketing kind of information which I have removed. I've merged relevant areas of your text. I object to:
 * You added ranking text to the introduction, duplicated later. I removed the intro bits. (Thanks for that. As the 2006 ranking is the first time BT has ranked IIPM in top ten, I feel it is a major news to be given to the readers in the intro itself.)
 * The Courses and Degrees changes have been merged. I have noted UGCs objections as well, and the fact is that the institutes degrees are not recognised in India as per the only accrediting authorities. If it falls out of the purview of these authorities, then the degree should be called something else, not an MBA/BBA. (UGC's statement that IIPM cannot offer degrees is correct. The IIPM programme is not a degree programme, but an honours diploma programme in national economic planning & entrepreneurship. IMI by itself offers its MBA & BBA degrees to students who complete this diploma. The course taught at IIPM is not the IMI MBA (or BBA) degree program. It's the diploma programme. No degrees are offered by IIPM. I have included that information clearly. Hope its ok... Further, the HT information about the Ministry of Belgium - can you kindly verify it? I've found no web source confirming the same. Till that time, it's not correct to put across non-verifiable information. But if you have the web link, kindly put the info up immediately. Even in faculty information, I've changed the details as one can visit any IIPM (or talk to any student) to find out that almost 90% of courses are taught by non-alumni professors. In global outreach, I've included a few more universities' names.)
 * Publications: I have removed some of the unverifiable information and sales pitch kinda talk, but added the names and targets of the other publications. (You've repeated two paragraphs. I've deleted one of them as the info was repetitive)
 * Infrastructure and Rankings: You've put EVERYTHING into one massive paragraph, which I reverted. Please don't change the formatting to make it unreadable. (Accepted)
 * Rankings: I've added the July 2006 ranking provisionally, and I will confirm on reading BT. (Thanks)
 * Controversy section: The changes are not acceptable to me. The "arguments, counterarguments" and "way back in 2004" etc. make it a very non-wikipedia style edit. I would rather stick with the facts, and the facts are enshrined in the summary of the controversy as it lies. Please provide reasons for your edits or appropriate verifiable sources. (I accept your point. I have added the word "claim" to C-Fore's statement as they have not provided (till date) any name of any student, faculty, or parent of IIPM whom they claimed complained. IIPM has not continued to use C-Fore's ranking till date. So I have changed the other statement too. In case you wish, you could write that IIPM continued to use the ranking after C-Fore published its statement; and that IIPM removed it later on.)
 * You need to provide sources for any statements made by IIPM, unless it's agreeable to all. Given the nature of our discussion in the past, I would expect that anything pro- or against- IIPM needs to be verifiable. (I accept that. For any statement from IIPM, I can perhaps check out their site (or maybe talk to their corp comm dept again). But do kindly tell me which statements are not verified. Their corp comm does confirm that one statement (where IIPM claims C-Fore did gross manipulations) can be sent to your email address from the institute's offices if you so require. I'll be grateful if you could give your email address. Regards...Thanks...) 61.16.233.194 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Deepakshenoy 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the following:
 * Intro text: I've removed all but appropriate intro text (removed the controversy bits as well)
 * Thanks... Actually, this is the best thing you could have done. Really, thanks...
 * Courses and degrees: I've readded the HT link because it was proposed by someone here. Remember, that and the business times links are exactly the same to me for verifiability. I've also changed the text to be more of wikipedia style: To work more with fact. For instance we shouldn't write that the institute claims the degrees are by IMI; just write that they are. The degrees are not recognised in India, and that should be plain and simply put.
 * Your re-adding the HT link is perfectly ok. I called HT's office in Delhi though. They're sending the actual newspaper by tomorrow. I'll be able to confirm whether the details written are actually true (most probably it is true...). With respect to your comment on writing IMI MBA, I have just added IMI MBA in the particular para. Also, the statement that the MBA BBA degrees are not recognised in India, I have changed to "The IMI MBA BBA degrees are not recognised by UGC, AICTE in India." Do kindly check if this wording is ok. If it's ok, wonderful, otherwise, do revert back. Thanks...
 * Faculty: Have removed some marketingish words but retained the text.
 * Thanks again (especially for the part about visiting faculty and alumni)
 * Ranking: IIPM's email to CFore has little meaning in this regard, unless IIPM publishes it on the web. (Even I could write an email!)
 * I'm sorry I didn't get the meaning of your statement. I don't know whether IIPM wrote to CFore. I know IIPM wrote to Outlook though. It would be nice if you could clarify the above statement. Thanks.
 * Ranking: After reading the scan of the BT article, it is apparent that something is wrong. I will post another area on this.
 * I've provided the clarification for the confusion in your above post. Do kindly read it...
 * IIPM continues to use Outlook-CFore rankings: Check out http://www.iipm.edu/iipm-prospectus.pdf, page 15, ranking section.
 * You are right. I guess I was looking just at the ads...
 * Outlook-CFore is the survey authority, and if they write that they have received complaints, that is enough to be verifiable.
 * Accepted... for later discussion :-)
 * Controversy: I reorged the sentences and now it looks correct (and something was repeated which I fixed)
 * Thanks again boss
 * Sources: for all claims by IIPM etc. I would need sources that are otherwise verifiable. I would rather get these verified before we put them on the page than after, given the past. You can mail me at deepakshenoy at gmail.
 * Will do that. Do give me an idea about what all you would need. I'll get all of them mailed in one go from the IIPM corp comm office to your email address. That way you'll be able to verify the same appropriately.
 * Deepakshenoy 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mrinal 203.76.140.130 12:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrinal,
 * Thanks for the discussion. Let me know about the HT link, I'm trying to get info from Mumbai as well. About IIPM writing to Outlook: Just like outlook printed a retraction on both its website and print magazine, IIPM should print something about their writing to Outlook (either on their web site or on a newspaper or something). This then becomes verifiable record, and can be quoted. Sources: right now since I've edited stuff and you're happy with my edits, we'll leave it at that. Finally, don't thank me - thank IIPM, because hopefully they have learnt something from the exercise. There is still a lot to be done but at least there's a start.Deepakshenoy 13:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections to Business Today July 16th issue, 2006 ranking of IIPM
The 7th ranking across India is actually 8th, and includes not only recruiters' responses, but also current MBAs, MBA wannabes, Functional Heads, Working Executives... Ed Team/// —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.16.233.194 (talk • contribs).

Business Today July 16th issue, 2006 ranking of IIPM
I feel it's very pertinent to now update this page with the latest B-school ranking by India's largest and most credible business magazine, Business Today (research by A.C. Nielsen, ORG Marg). BT has ranked IIPM New Delhi no. 5 across India (as per MBA students), No. 7 across India (as per recruiters), No. 11 (overall). IIPM Mumbai has been ranked 16. I don't have a log-in, but would appreciate the peer review and authentication of this information that I have put up. Regards... Mrinal Sinha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.16.233.194 (talk • contribs).


 * Kindly sign your comments in Wikipedia fashion. Deepakshenoy 07:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Courses being offered
After many days of peer review, I request again that somebody should put up the actual link in Hindustan Times Business Page that mentions that the Belgium Education Ministry says that IMI Degrees do not fall under the same gamut of recognition as other university degrees in Belgium, Europe. Though Hindustan Times had been mentioned, unfortunately, till the time the actual link is put up, which directly relates to the web site of Hindustan Times, it'll be tough for the information to be put up beyond a reasonable amount of time for peer review. Request again that somebody with access to online HT could link up the news and restore the past version. Thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.140.130 (talk • contribs).


 * HT Web site requires subscription. Someone had mentioned the exact page number etc. which I'll take as honest, similar to the way I'm treating the BT rankings (since I can't read them online). Deepakshenoy 07:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Global Outreach Program
<<<>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.233.196 (talk • contribs)

I have issues with something mentioned in the GOP section -

IIPM organizes lectures by over 30 professors from the worlds top 15 b-schools such as Harvard, Columbia, Wharton, Stanford etc for its students.

IIPM has also arranged exclusive seminars for their students by Leadership expert and author of 'The 7 Habits of Highly effective people' Stephen Covey.....

It is misleading to term these lectures and seminars as "exclusive for students". IIPM conducts these seminars are events for whoever wants to attend them after paying an entry fees, which IIPM terms as "investment". Since anyone who can pay the fees can attend the lectures, they are hardly "exclusive for their students". In fact IIPM advertises these seminars in all leading newspapers.

Proposed edit - Deleting the words I have made bold, and removing any insinuation that the foreign professors are flown in exclusively for IIPM students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponytailsnipper (talk • contribs)


 * It's been many days since I have posted it on the talk page. I see no objections. I am making the proposed edits, Dipali. Ponytailsnipper 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note about making the article internationally accessible, b-school isn't a term that is understood everywhere, and should be replaced with business school, including the wiki link. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 15:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the term b-school used anywhere on the wiki. Just on the talk page. Ponytailsnipper 03:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Please do not remove or edit someone else's text. Add your own, if necessary. Part of the earlier paragraph was removed in an edit by User:59.144.184.3, I have reverted back. Deepakshenoy 07:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Publications
Have re-added some information about the publications - we need some details, surely. If the details are too sketchy, feel free to add more detail. It turns out that all the earlier (four) journals are now consolidated into one magazine, 4Ps. I have added the link.

Further note that "Business and Economy" is not published by IIPM, but by Planman media. There seem to be links with IIPM but nothing is clear about who owns who. I have therefore removed the magazine's mention. Deepakshenoy 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Students' Union
Have added a section about Students' feedback. The IIPM Students union has started a website which details the students' perspective about all the relevant issues. Makrandjoshi 03:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the IIPM Student's union is a valid or official union - there are no links to office bearers on the site, and no names of any of the students involved. Any student union is recognised as such by the institute, and this body must not be faceless. At this point there is no evidence that this site is owned or run by students of IIPM, therefore I have reverted all such links. Deepakshenoy 11:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Deepak, considering the nature of the controversy it would be naive to expect students to identify themselves. I understand your concerns but the website just needs to be read in detail to understand that it is genuine. I know the people running the site, but I know my word won't be enough. This is a bit of a Catch-22 isn't it? Makrandjoshi 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Makrand, I understand your point of view but we have to play fair. How can I or the rest of the world know this is genuine? And if it's genuine, why not enlist the names of ex-students who can vouch for the data, with their names? Surely, ex-students aren't bound by IIPM? I'm removing the link until we get verifiable evidence - nothing in the web site, is truly verifiable; it seems to be a anonymous web site. Deepakshenoy 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

'''LISTEN MR. NOBODY... LET US TELL YOU THAT WE ARE EXISTING STUDENTS OF IIPM FINAL YEAR AND ALL THAT IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. OUR COURSE IS STILL ONGOING AND HENCE WE CANNOT REVEAL OURSELVES.AS FAR AS OUT IDENTITY IS CONCERNED DO GO AHEAD AND WRITE AN EMAIL ON OUR OFFICIAL ID. WE HAVE ALREADY APPROACHED THE PM OFFICE, THE PRESIDENT OFFICE, AICTE, UGC, NGOS AND OTHER MINISTRIES FOR JUSTICE. WE ARE SIMPLY WAITING FOR THE APPROPRIATE TIME. '''WE HOPE THAT WE HAVE MADE OURSELVES VERY CLEAR..... AND PLEASE STOP SUPPORTING THE FRAUD INSTITUTE. VERY SOON WE WILL POST MORE RELEVANT MATTER ON THE WEBSITE. KEEP WATCHING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iipmstudentsunion (talk • contribs).


 * Sorry, unless the link is verifiable it can't be placed on the page. When you finish your final year you can post information about names and such, or get some ex-students with verifiable information to support your views. Till then the site is anonymous and could be vendetta, for all we know. Deepakshenoy 06:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand and others... This is for sure that Deepak works for IIPM and Planman consulting, cause he is the one who is reluctant in removing the reality links on IIPM and moreover if you think that you are a big researcher...then please understand that you do not know IIPM more than us- the students who are actually a part of it now....OK. You may remove our link as the site allows easy edit but remember that the other search engines of google, yahoo, search etc. list us promptly. You are the one who is indeed trying to hide reality facts of IIPM from genuine students. No problem.... Do your best and we will do ours. Enough of IIPM playing with the lives of students.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iipmstudentsunion (talk • contribs).


 * You've got to understand what the deal is with Wikipedia. Focus of verifiability. Your web site has no indication of any names or persons: how do we know this isn't funded by a different school just to discredit IIPM? I'm not very fond of IIPM - I find their ad copies repulsive, the text of their "article" unpalatably bad and the institute facilities "hopeless". But that's my opinion, and I shall keep it out of the main page. And you must do so too. I wholly welcome your initiative, but unless you have names and verifiability it won't fly on this site. Deepakshenoy 10:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IMI Belgium
The main degrees offered are those in planning and entrepreurship, which IIPM clarifies are non-professional and non-technical courses. The degrees awarded by IMI Europe are extra. Thus these should not be mentioned in the intro, but in a separate para. Hindustan Times, Mumbai Editiion May 21st 2006, Page 17 (business page) had a story about higher education in which the reporter has written that he got a mail from the Education ministry of Belgium (where IMI is located) saying that the institute or its degrees are not reognised in Belgium, and in Europe. I am mentioning this in the separate section Makrandjoshi 10:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't access the link, but I have retained the text while reorganizing the article, hope that is ok. I have placed on record the date and time of the article, and put it in as static text instead of a link. Deepakshenoy 06:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

About Publications
It was looking like an advertorial, listing descriptions of the magazine and several names as "contributors". The articles are all syndicated, and any magazine can buy them. The para here gave the impression that Chomsky, Rumsfeld etc write "for" IIPM's magazines which is not correct. Going into too much detail about the magazines and passing value judgements like "leading magazine" and "competing with BW, BT" etc is marketingspeak and not at all encyclopaedic. I have made the edits I felt necessary. Deepak, do give them a once-over. Makrandjoshi 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. Have added small descriptions to the magazine names to show what they are for, but otherwise the text is fine. I like it actually - more fact than conjured words! Deepakshenoy 11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag?
Can the person who put the NPOV tag please mention specific areas where there seems to be a problem with NPOV? Please go through the talk archives too, and if there's still an NPOV there let's fix it. If there is no reply in a week I will remove the NPOV tag. Deepakshenoy 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)