What's new: May 2016

Thanks very much for inviting me to speak today. First, congratulations
to all of you who are receiving degrees today. Congratulations also to
your teachers, family, and friends who have invested in you and
supported you.
Convocation speeches are meant to give you one last set of issues to
ponder on before you are let loose on the world. I will actually talk
about two issues – an economic point deriving from my training as an
economist, and a point about private universities deriving from my work
at one for over 20 years. I embark on this talk comforted by the
knowledge that the bar for convocation speeches is low. If you even
remember a word I say a few years from now, I will have surpassed the
average convocation speaker – most people don't remember who spoke at
their convocation, let alone what they said.
First, the economic point: In a very interesting recent book, Harvard
philosopher Michael Sandel points to the range of things money can buy
in modern society. He seems to want to make us angry at the growing
dominance of the market.1 Professor Sandel worries not just about the
corrupting nature of some exchanges as they are monetized but also
questions their effectiveness; For instance, do kids really develop a
love of reading if they are bribed to read books? He is also concerned
about unequal access to money, which makes trades using money inherently
unequal. More generally, Sandel fears that the expansion of anonymous
monetary exchange breaks down social cohesion, and argues for reducing
money's role in society.
While Sandel's concerns are not entirely new, his examples are worth
reflecting on. For instance, some companies pay the unemployed to stand
in line for free public tickets to Congressional hearings in the United
States. They then sell the tickets to lobbyists and corporate lawyers
who have a business interest in the hearing but are too busy to stand in
line. Clearly, public hearings are an important element of participatory
democracy. All citizens should have equal access. So selling access
seems a perversion of democratic principles.
The fundamental problem, though, is scarcity. We cannot accommodate
everyone in the room who might have interest in a particularly important
hearing. So we have to "sell" entry. We can either allow people to use
their time to bid for seats – the one who stands the longest wins the
seat -- or we can auction seats for money. The former seems fairer,
because all citizens seemingly start with equal endowments of time -- we
all start with 24 hours in a day. But is a single mother with a high
pressure job and three young children as equally endowed with spare time
as a student on summer vacation? And is society better off if she, the
chief legal counsel in a large corporation, spends much of her time
standing in line for hearings?
Whether it is better to sell entry tickets for time or for money thus
depends on what we hope to achieve. If we want to increase society's
productive efficiency, people's willingness to pay with money is a
reasonable indicator of how much they will gain if they have access to
the hearing. Auctioning seats for money makes sense – the lawyer
contributes more to society by preparing briefs than standing in line.
On the other hand, if it is important that young impressionable citizens
see how their democracy works, if it is important that we build social
solidarity by making corporate executives stand in line with jobless
teenagers, perhaps we should force people to bid with their time by
standing in line, and make entry tickets non-transferable. And if we
think that both objectives should play some role, perhaps we should turn
a blind eye to some operators hiring those with spare time to stay in
line in lieu of busy lawyers, so long as they do not corner all the
seats.
What about the sale of human organs, another example Sandel worries
about? Something seems wrong when a lung or a kidney is sold for money.
However, we celebrate the kindness of a stranger who donates a kidney to
a young child. So, clearly, it is not the transfer of the organ that
outrages us -- we do not think the donor is misinformed about the value
of their kidney or is being fooled into parting with it. Nor, I think,
do we have concerns about the scruples of the person selling the organ –
after all, they are parting irreversibly with something that is very
dear to them for a price that few of us would agree to.
I think part of our discomfort has to do with the circumstances in which
the transaction takes place. What kind of society do we live in if
people have to sell their organs to survive? But while a ban on organ
sales may make us feel better, does it really make society better off?
Possibly, if it makes society work harder to make sure people are never
driven to the circumstances that would make them contemplate a sale.
Possibly not, if it allows society to turn its back on the underlying
problem, either moving the trade underground, or forcing people in dire
circumstances to resort to worse remedies.
But I also think part of our unease has to do with what we perceive as
an unequal exchange. The seller is giving up part of her body in an
irreversible transaction. The buyer is giving up only money – perhaps
earned on a lucky stock trade or through an overpaid job. If that money
was earned by selling a portion of a lung, or by painful savings
accumulated after years of backbreaking work, we might consider the
exchange more equal. But the central virtue of money is precisely its
anonymity. We need know nothing about the rupee we get to be able to use
it. But because money's anonymity obscures its provenance, it may be
socially less acceptable as a medium of payment for some objects.
Professor Sandel makes us think. But he seems to move too quickly to
prescribe banning monetary transactions, when his real concern is
perhaps with the unfair distribution of money. What he also seems to
ignore are the virtues of anonymity. In a free market, all it takes to
buy what you want is money. You do not need a pedigree, a great family
history, the right table manners, or the right fashionable clothing or
looks. It is because money has no odour, because it is the great
equalizer, that so many people across history have been able to acquire
resources and invested them to make the world we live in. Indeed, making
it easy for Dalits to start businesses may do more for their social
status because money empowers than many other forms of affirmative
action. Rather than prohibiting the use of money and wealth, let us
think about increasing society's tolerance for its use.
What can you take away from all this? First, that it helps to question
everything, including my interpretation of Sandel, for only with
questioning comes clarity. Second, if you believe my interpretation,
there is a strong link between society's support for free markets and
the fairness with which wealth and opportunity is distributed among the
population. Unfortunately, even while inequality between countries is
diminishing today, inequality within countries is increasing. Today,
even well-run market economies seem to be favouring those who already
have plenty. In part, this is because skills and capabilities have
become much more important in well-paid jobs, and those born in good
circumstances have a much better chance at acquiring these. The
winner-take-all nature of many occupations, where a few of the most
capable entrepreneurs and the best workers take most of the income
(think apps, architecture or acting, for example) accentuates the value
of early childhood preparation; and hence the benefit of being born to
the right parents in the right community. Income inequality is on the
rise, with some having colossal incomes and others worrying about the
next meal.
What can we all do to restore faith in markets? We have to work to
provide effective access to schooling and healthcare for all, a
non-discriminating job market with many jobs, equal opportunities for
further advancement regardless of gender, race or background. All this
will increase the perceived legitimacy of wealth and society's
willingness to broaden the areas where it is spent. Thoughtful
philanthropy, as reflected in the founding of this school, can further
help enhance society's acceptance of great wealth. Finally, as you
embark on careers that are likely to be very successful, you should earn
by creating perceptible value and, equally, spend to create value. Not
only will your work be more enjoyable, but you will strengthen the
economic freedoms we sometimes take for granted.
Let me turn briefly to my point about private education. Private
education across the world is expensive, especially in high-quality
research universities, and getting more expensive all the time. That is
because the critical resource, good professors, is in short supply. Two
solutions are proposed. One is technology. Why not have the best
professors beam lectures at thousands of students over the net? The
problem is that while such classes seem theoretically attractive,
completion rates are abysmal. We do not finish such courses perhaps for
the same reason we do not simply take a course syllabus and read the
recommended books in the library – there are too many distractions in
life for us to complete without other forms of compulsion. Online
courses still need to figure out, not just how to get student
commitment, but also how to provide the learning support that a
university community and environment offers.
A second solution is to dispense with research and to have teachers who
do not do research. After all, such teachers do not need Ph.Ds, and
there should be many more available. Yet it does appear that students
prefer degrees from research universities in the United States to those
from teaching colleges, even for their undergraduate degrees where
students do little research. Let me conjecture why. It is not that
research professors know more about the basic material that has to be
taught – their research is often specialized in a narrow area. Neither
does research necessarily make you a good teacher – understanding the
material at a deeper level may sometimes make it more difficult to
explain. I do think, however, that good research requires curiosity.
Almost all researchers remain curious through their lives, and
constantly update their teaching material to reflect developments in the
field. I would conjecture, though I have no proof, this is why teaching
at research universities is, on average, preferred to teaching at
teaching colleges – you are taught more up-to-date challenging material
in the former.
The bottom line is that education at high quality research universities
will remain expensive for a while, certainly till we learn to combine
technology and people better. Given the need to broaden access to all
the deserving, we have to make degrees affordable. One part of the
solution is student loans, but we have to be careful that student loans
are repaid in full by those who have the means, while they are forgiven
in part for those who fall on bad times, or those who take low paying
public service jobs. We also should make sure that unscrupulous schools
do not prey on uninformed students, leaving them with high debt and
useless degrees. A second part of the solution is philanthropy, not just
by the founders, but by the successful students from a university.
Giving back to the university is a way of subsidizing the costs of
future generations acknowledging the subsidies you received from the
founders when you got your degree. I hope we develop a strong culture of
alumni giving in India.
You have been very patient in listening to me. Let me conclude. India is
changing, in many ways for the better. You will be able to help shape
our country, the world, and your place in it. By all means set yourself
ambitious goals. But remember that, as both ancient Indian philosophers
and modern day behavioural psychologists say, the achievement of narrow
personal goals -- greater wealth, rapid promotion, or increasing renown
– rarely brings you anything other than brief pleasure. I don't claim to
know the secret of happiness, but this seems obvious – if you like the
journey, if you get pleasure from the work you do, it matters far less
when, or indeed whether, you reach your destination.
You have far more control over the journey you choose. And often the
most enjoyable journeys are those where your goals are broader and where
you take others with you, especially others who could not make it
without your help. In doing so, you will make this world a better, and
more stable, place.
Thank you! I wish you good luck in your future endeavours and hope they
are crowned with success.

btw, this Speech was by Raghuram Rajan, RBI governor 2016

--
http://www.fastmail.com - mmm... Fastmail...

Former IRPS officer G. Marimuthu has launched his third book Great
Speeches of Great Men that saved Humanity (Manuda Amaidhikku
Vazhivagutha Perarigyarin Peruraigal). The book is a translation of
famous speeches delivered by well-known personalities.

"The book is aimed at instilling values in students and I have chosen
speeches that have changed the destiny of the world," says 63-year-old
Marimuthu, who worked on the translation for close to a year.

A total of 41 speeches of international leaders and heads of nations,
from the 1600s, find a place in the book.

The book begins with Michelle Obama's speech and ends with that of
Barrack Obama, as an appreciation of their oratorical skills. Queen
Elizabeth's statesmanship and Pope John Paul's approach to religion are
some of the messages the author has conveyed.

Seven women speakers are also celebrated in the book. Gandhi's 'The
Great Trial' speech and Kevin Rudd's apology to 'aborigines' in
Australia are the other highlights.

The author has previously written two books – Silappathigarathil
Sirappana Vazhviyal Sinthanaigal and Arivupasikku Arumaiyana
Sinthanaigal. With an educational background in history and law,
Marimuttu's aim to become a professor and educate the younger generation
was unfulfilled. To fulfil this dream and to channelise his love for
literature, he started writing.

"I am inspired by the speeches of Thamizharuvi Maniyan, Suki Sivam and
Sudha Seshayyan," says the resident of Arumbakkam, who plans to recite
these speeches in government colleges and at training programmes.

The book is priced at Rs.169. "Proceeds from sales will be utilised to
help students from poor and rural communities," he says. For further
details, call 9444628276.

--
http://www.fastmail.com - Does exactly what it says on the tin

What's new

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Money and Education

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Speeches translated to Tamizh

Monday, May 9, 2016

Reality check : how to be happy :--)

Thursday, May 5, 2016

news items

LINKS

Blog Archive