Indian Reservation - A easiest way to get education

Lower Castes (Sudras): 42-44 percent (˜ 475 million)

Dalits (“SC”s): 16-18 percent (˜ 190 million)

Upper Castes: 12-14 percent (˜ 145 million)

Muslims: 12-13 percent (˜ 140 million)

Adivasis (“ST”s):7-8 percent (˜ 80 million)

Christians: 2 percent (˜ 22 million)

Sikhs: 2 percent (˜ 22 million)

Others (Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, Jews, etc.): 2 percent (˜ 22 million)

Allocating quotas and reserving seats for economically backward classes (and for other historically discriminated and disadvantaged groups) in higher educational institutions is economically inefficient, morally wrong, strategically flawed, and tactically ineffective. The policy does not help the underclass and ends up victimizing both the underclass and the so-called privileged class. The policy epitomizes what is called a “lose-lose” solution, while foregoing a “win-win” situation.

Now on to the specifics of why quotas in higher education for disadvantaged groups is bad policy. First, the economic efficiency argument. All economic policies create gainers and losers. If the gainers gain more than the losers lose, then it is theoretically possible for the gainers to compensate the losers for their loss so that after the compensation, the losers are not any worse off than before and the gainers are better off than before. Such a policy effects what is a called a “Pareto improvement” and is therefore an economically efficient policy. Conversely, if the losers lose more than the gainers gain, then the policy is economically inefficient and there is an overall welfare loss.

Quotas, if they have any effect on the system, effectively replace qualified candidates with otherwise unqualified candidates. Unqualified candidates who enter the system are by definition unable to benefit from the opportunity to the extent that a qualified candidate would have done. The quota candidates are unable to compete within the system. Aside from the welfare loss in terms of wastage of real resources, the quota students suffer psychologically as they fall behind their colleagues who are better prepared for the academic rigors. They are looked down upon by those who “earned” their place in the school. This reinforces the perception—within both groups—that the group which enjoys the quota is intrinsically inferior. This is perhaps the most pernicious of all the unfortunate effects of a quota system in higher education.

This brings us to the point why quotas in higher education for disadvantaged groups is morally repugnant policy. It penalizes certain people based on their group membership. Discrimination based on caste, creed, origin, color, etc, is morally wrong. So is reverse discrimination. The right thing to do is to remove discrimination, not impose it from up on high. If, for instance, a person from a certain caste is not being allowed to enroll because of his caste, then the right policy is to remove that barrier. If students from economically backward classes were being denied admission despite being qualified, then the policy response should be to remove such discriminatory practices. Since it is not the case that qualified candidates of economically backward groups are being discriminated against, imposing quotas for them is not the solution.

So then, what is the solution?

one should understand the problem. Here are two facets of the problem:

1. Seats are limited. If they were unlimited, you would not need a quota for anyone. They are limited because the government does not allow free entry into the higher education business.
2. Students from certain groups are unable to gain entry into the supply constrained system, and once inside they are ill prepared to compete within the system. If they were qualified, they would not need quota protection in the first place, and would be able to compete once there.

Both aspects of the problem need to be addressed by any proposed solution. The quota system addresses neither. The real solution has two main thrusts. First, get the government out of the business of controlling the supply of higher education. The second thrust is has to do with sequencing. It is undeniable that certain segments of the population are ill prepared to compete for seats in higher education. They are not intrinsically inferior in any sense; they are not naturally stupid. The fact is that they have not had the opportunity to prepare themselves for higher education. The solution therefore is that they have to be provided help in preparing for higher education, which basically means that they have to be given assistance at levels that precede higher education. They are handicapped at the level of higher education because they are handicapped at the earlier stages of education. If their handicap in the school level were addressed, you would not have to make special provisions for them in the post-school levels.

they were lucky enough to have had the opportunity of going to good schools because their parents were rich enough to afford them. While commending them on their hard work (to the extent they had to work hard), it is important to keep in mind that they were privileged in having the opportunity which are not available to those who come from the backward classes. Much of the outcome rests on the luck of the draw which dictates which socio-economic class one is born into, and that fact should induce some degree of humility in those who protest that their merit is not being recognized as a result of the quota system. The solution then is to help them with providing them opportunities in the lower levels first. Equality of opportunity at the lower levels (primary, secondary, and high school levels) is a necessary and sufficient condition for the disadvantaged segments to have a shot at competing with the others.

Quotas, as I claimed earlier, are economically inefficient. Assume that the full cost of, say, a 4-year IIT education is $50,000 (or about Rs 22 lakhs). Further assume that a quota student ends up benefiting less than the full cost, say, $10,000, while a non-quota student gets at least $50,000 of benefits. The net loss is then at least $40,000. Instead of wasting $40,000 on one backward class student at the IIT, if the money were spent school education, 20 students could have been educated (with an average spend of $2,000) and out of which perhaps one would have been sufficiently bright enough to gain admission in the IIT on merit and subsequently compete within the system as well.

To summarize: the fact that IITs and IIMs don’t have sufficient representation from some economically and socially disadvantaged groups is a symptom of a deeper problem. Therefore merely increasing the numbers from these groups by fiat will do no good, and indeed may end up harming the groups. I will outline the solution of the underlying problem in a subsequentpost.

Our government try to decrease the level of engineer and doctor ,that's why they like to give a chance to them who r not able to be an engineer or doctor.It's only the way to improve their Vote Bank and political issue nothing else .........