Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Template:PremierCollegesofIndia

Disputed
The list about premier colleges of India is disputed. It should be deleted.--Rrjanbiah 13:42, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Why delete it?? Instead, let's standardize it -- Kesava 03:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * All schools which figure in top ten b-school and tech school ratings of India Today have been included. IIITs which have have been never rated high on India Today and other popular ratings have been removed. - Kesava 04:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Even though I do not question IISc as a premier institution, let me ask if it is included in the India Today ratings. -- Sundar 12:42, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. India Today ranks only graduate colleges, while IISc is a Post graduate University. And no body in India, ranks Post Graduate colleges - Kesava 14:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Even though, iiit-b is too young to be compared on par with IISc, I wish to say that it is a Post graduate school and hence was not ranked by India Today. I do not push the case to include it in this list, though. Sundar 12:18, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

- Removed University of Hyderabad, as it is probably not premier as it does not appear even in India Today's rankings !! -- Kesava 03:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * University of hyderabad offers only post-graduate studies, thats probably why it dosent figure in the India Today rankings. Moreover, they dont offer any technical courses. They offer pure sciences (Math, phy, chem, Comp sci, stat ...etc). Well if you have mentioned non-technical institutes such as TIFR, then I guess UoH can be included as well.

User:Akella

What exactly is the scope of this list? The title says Colleges but the heading says Technical Institutions. And IISc is not primarily either a college or a technical institution. If we include IISc we should also include TIFR and IMSc (Matscience). I feel we should make this into a table of "premier academic institutions of India" and include such things as IIMs, Pusa Inst., etc. Arvindn 04:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Please move the page IIM to Indian Institutes of Management - Kesava 06:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page was listed on VfD. The debate was inconclusive. It appears to be a content issue, not a deletion issue. Debate follows: --User:Pcb21


 * Now, everything is messed up. Few articles uses Template:FiveStarCollegesofIndia and few still uses Template:PremierCollegesofIndia. This can be avoided if people closely watch the debate.


 * POV... unclear basis --Hemanshu 18:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * POV. Ranking colleges and stamping premier are somehow prone to other countries. In India, Education *still* a _service_ than business. Some colleges and their alumni are promoting the business value of the education through some media. The ranking by many news papers and media are highly padded (and corrupted) and no way it reflects the truth. It is a strong POV. Moreover the ranking reflects the elite mindset--which is less than 1% of total population. --Rrjanbiah 04:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Services too can be categorized as premium and non-premium. If the adjective "premier" is the problem, let's change it "Best" or something else. (Now, one cannot argue that all the colleges in India are of the same standard and there are no better ones among equals.) Number of startups from a college, number of companies visting the college during placements, number of research initiatives at a college, ratio of students making into good universities abroad, number of times of occurence in Google news, Google's page rank of the college's website are a few parameters other than media coverage determining the quality of a college. Alumni might be playing an important role in improving the performance of all these parameters, but alumni haven't sprouted from nowhere. Ranking reflects elitist mindset ? More clarifications on that please. - Kesava 05:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Services too can be categorized - Ok. Tell me what is your measure or "scale"? Don't quote me some magazines as you know the value of corruption in media.
 * The point is not "my" and "your" measures, buddy. The average salaries paid is probably a good measure ? Why does Murali Manohar Joshi talk about IITs and IIMs and not about XYZ college of Mumbai ? Why do best professors/students generally go to teach in IITs and not in ABC college of Calcutta ? (I am afraid u'll say that there are no "best" students and professors!!) - Kesava 08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If you think salary is an important factor, I suggest you to read the biographies of many scientists like Newton. (Don't tell me that the above colleges make scientists. They may indeed make exhibitionists, but that is off-topic). --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Two things to talk about: 1. Newton was from Oxford, the so called one of the tow best Universities of Britain. 2. 'Making scientists' is not the only end of university education. (although IISc and IITs produce lot of scientists & Anna University housed guys like Abdul Kalam). IITs and ilk have created lot of startups across the globe.
 * "premier"->"Best" - Funny. Mean "best" is "show-off" or "corrupted/padded advertising/survey"?
 * premier (adjective)best or most important is what Cambridge English Dictionary defines.
 * You're the one who suggested changing to that word. Anyway, my English is poor--so no comments on that. Perhaps "Much advertised/exhibited/promoted institutions" will fit better?? --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You are too apologetic about your language. Be more concerned about the content. There are whole bunch of worker ants to take care about wording. - Kesava 14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Number of placements as measure - Sorry so blind and naive. Do you know, how placements are done? 1. Alumni pushing their old/present students inside (eg. Microsoft, IBM, Google, Yahoo!, and any other companies esp. the one which asks referrals) 2. The college board calls for the HR team--for which they even spend lakhs (aka corruption)
 * So companies come to IITs to recruit only because of the alumni. and NOT becuase of the quality of education they deliver ?? - Kesava 08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * "Quality"?? Quality of the *education* means *educating* the most stupid (as stupid as me) person on the earth without *discriminating* him on his social/financial/physical grounds. --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * So IITs should teach for free ?? At Graduate/Post Graduate level, only Soviet Union did that !! - Kesava 14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Number of research as measure - You may not be aware that how caste is playing major role in research activities.
 * Caste politics in IITs ? What bullshit ? - Kesava 08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I could see that you're trying to hide the truth. --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What truth ? What am I hiding ? Get User:Ambarish, User:Arvindn or any other IITian and ask them to approve our your caste politics story. I'll start believeing. - Kesava 14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sending guys to abroad universities as measure - They may be sending. But, is it the measure for "premier" or "best"? or is it the values that such institutions provide?
 * If Stanford is world's best and Stanford mostly accepts guys from IITs, How else are IITs to be interpreted other than best ? - Kesava 08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * By any means, are you kidding? It may be true that Stanford is ready to educate these guys. But, is it the "measure" for "premier"? And is it the "values" that these institutions provide? Think for a while and you'll get the answer. Irrationalism is blind. --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I was trying to use transitive property. - Kesava 14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Google as measure - Funny. My simple site has somehow equal rank as of the popular websites like rediff.com and ndtv.com; does it mean my site is _really_ popular (or "premier") as rediff or ndtv?
 * Wikipedia equates its growing popularity with increasing page rank. - Kesava 08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Funny. No comments. --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You could check with Statistics - Kesava 14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Alumni improving performace - Out of reality. Alumni can't "improve"--they can only "push" and pad the survey aka advertising
 * Ranking==elite mindset - As I said earlier, ranking is somehow prone to other countries like America where Education is much of business. The recent trend suggests that even in such countries people prefer public schools In India, Education is not that much corrupted or commercialized; there might be some exceptions like IIM, but it is no way reflects the whole society.
 * The increasing number of applications IIT-JEE recieve only show that they are the best and people want to get into best. IITs for that matter have acceptance rates stricter than Harvard and Stanford. (XYZ college of Coimbatore or Aligarh do not recieve so many applications). Government of India itslef believes that IITs are best and hence wants to extend the IIT model to RECs by making them NITs. I am totally upset over the fact that I am fighting to establish a well-known fact that IITs and its ilk are the best in India. - Kesava 08:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If product X is selling more, it doesn't mean that it is the best; it may mean that it is much exhibitted. Equating the numbers is like claiming the adult materials are the best 'coz they are selling more.
 * Well, I'm much afraid of the fact that you're trying to advertise the above colleges in Wiki and trying to promote ignorancy to the international audience. EOD. --Rrjanbiah 10:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And in anyway, quoting some padded surveys or corrupted media's source is strong POV. It shouldn't be put up inside a MediaWiki box (or advertised in Wiki). --Rrjanbiah 07:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess you have some mental hurdles to cross, because you dont accept numbers, ratings and facts. - Kesava 14:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. POV in dispute is fine, just list as such. Burgundavia 06:21, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. POV in dispute is fine, just list as such. Rajasekaran Deepak 18:08, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it is, it sounds very cliquey. Let's instead improve List_of_universities_in_India, by adding rankings or ordering by rankings. The term "premier" is ill-defined. By the way, the India-Today rankings are fundamentally flawed in methodology. I opine that although they can be cited in an article (such as List_of_universities_in_India), they don't have the kind of standing to merit an article solely based on their rankings. Ambarish|Talk 02:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * But, I guess there are around 15-20 colleges that really stand apart in the whole List of universities in India. The sole purpose of this mediawiki item is to make a navigational model which helps audience to traverse across those 15-20 ones. So i urge to keep this. The reasons have to be better than the ones cited by user:rrjanbiah. - Kesava 05:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mentioned any of User:Rrjanbiah's reasons, simply because I don't agree with too many of them. You guess there are around 15 to 20 colleges that stand out? See, there's my problem. Where do you draw the line? Let me elucidate. I have two complaints. First, it's one thing to order colleges by a specific rank, while mentioning all the colleges. It's a very different thing to categorise an arbitrary percentage of institutions as "premier" according to the same ranking - do you stop at 1% or 10%, or 50%? My real fear is that folks keep adding to this list until it becomes another List of universities in India. My second complaint is about the ranking per se - I don't know of any other ranking than the India Today one, and IMHO, the India Today one is flawed beyond redemption. I dislike both the means (the methodology used) and the end result (the rankings themselves). I'm still agreeable to using this ranking to order the list of institutions - after all, any ranking is a POV, and no ranking is free of detractors. What I don't like is an article (in either the article namespace or the MediaWiki namespace) *based* on the rankings. I'm agreeable to such a list if the ranking were official - for instance, there's this National Accreditation and Assessment Council; I'm OK with Template:FiveStarCollegesofIndia based on those. Such an article, for instance, would solve both the issues I've raised above - the ranking is official, and there's a concrete definition. Hope that clears things up. Ambarish|Talk 06:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * FiveStarCollegesofIndia seems to be great idea. Will work towards that - Kesava 09:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Does that mean you'll be changing your mind about deleting this article? If so, you could change your vote above. Ambarish | Talk 19:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey Ambarish, but the number of colleges in the 5 star category seem to be to big for a mediawiki. Some other filtering needs to be applied, for the mediawiki to work. - Kesava 04:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The size of this box also goes against the proposed policy at Wikipedia talk:Article series boxes policy (proposed). Ambarish | Talk 21:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. But please check Template:FiveStarCollegesofIndia - Kesava 07:07, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

This was listed on WP:TFD, the decision was to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)