Individual and the Institute

How is it that at times you find guys from “not so good campuses” performing better than guys from the “supposedly better campuses”?

This is a question which I have pondered on for quite some time.

A possible answer:

· “Quality of the student” is what matters. “Quality of the campus” is just an indicator. This gets manifested in different forms:

o Better campus just means that in a higher ranked campus you have a higher probability of meeting a candidate who meets your requirements.

o Better campus just means that if we were not to have any number constraints, we might end up making offers to a large proportion of students in the “best campus” . This would not be the case in a so called “average or not so good campus”. But it also does not mean that in “average or not so good campuses” you would not find someone who meets your standard.

o Better campus just means that average batch quality in a higher ranked campus in the country would be more than the average batch quality in a much lower ranked campus.

So it is possible that a hire from a “lower ranked” campus does better than a hire from a “higher ranked” campus as long as a company has used the same “bar” for hiring across campuses. The probability is lower, but it is certainly there.

Is there a possible flaw in the argument I have used above?

What is the process a student uses to select colleges? If a representative student were to get an offer from the best campus in the country and the 10^th best campus in the country, which one would s/he choose? It is obvious, s/he would choose the best campus. So is it not correct to conclude that all students in a higher ranked campus would be better than all students in a lower ranked campus?

Let me make this a bit more stark. “Is it not correct to conclude that the lowest ranked student in a higher ranked campus would still be significantly better than the highest ranked student in a lower ranked campus?”

What would be your answer? What does gut feeling tell you? My gut (not that I have much of it J) tells me that this is not what I have observed in my experience.

What can be the reasons? Why is it that quality of students (as measured by performance on the job) doesn’t necessarily co-relate with quality of campus? A few possible explanations are:

· Correctness/ Comprehensiveness of Filtering Criterion: The filtering criterions in the entrance examinations for educational institutes may not necessarily reflect what is required for effective performance in the industry. The entrance examinations for these institutions do test Learnability (in RC, DI, Numerical and Logical ability, English – when presented with a new situation -------- is the individual able to crack it?) and willingness to make contributions (there is a lot of focus on extra – curricular in the selection process) but do they check whether an individual is able to “work effectively through others” and whether “s/he is open to change”? Yes, Group work and learning teams are mandated in educational institutions but so is relative grading. The incentives to have a Zero Sum game in this case are high. But any ways the point here is that both of these aspects (Effective Relationships and Openness to Change) are not something selection to educational institutions depend on (the assumption being that these aspects are not trainable in the short run – abilities and hence hire, & not train, for them).

· It might be about the self efficacy (the individual’s own evaluation of his/her competence) of the individual. A mediocre guy from a “higher ranked campus” might have a lower self efficacy at the end of 2 years of relative grading than a higher ranked guy from a “lower ranked campus”. Self efficacy is something which can be impacted in the short run and two years of conditioning can impact it for quite some time.

· It might also be about the willingness to contribute. (“The best decisions are the best implemented decisions” J)

o Fence sitter v/s Inside the system feeling: Do you feel a part of the system? Or are you in the search for short term benefits so that you can move on to greener pastures? This might impact the quality of the contribution.

o The world owes it to me v/s I am out here to prove a point – What mindset do you come in with? Do you feel that you are special and hence the world owes it to you? Or Do you feel that you are out there to prove a point – that you are as good, if not better, than the rest? Hence energy and commitment levels would vary.

One or many of these factors may be at play when you find that “performance on the job” doesn’t correspond to “so called pedigree of the institute” an individual comes from.

-

Sourav