Why Einstein would not have got into St Stephen's College today

Everything these days is a matter of perception. Cut-offs are no exception. The perception is that something horrendous has happened in respect of cut-offs in St Stephen's. It has not.

Consider the bare facts...

Yes, cut-offs have risen in St Stephen's this year. Here is a prefunctory comparison with the 2014 levels.

In Economics, the increase is marginal as compared to 2014. There is only a .5 per cent increase vis-a-vis the commerce stream. All other norms remain the same.

The English cut-off, I know, is in the news, though the extent of its increase is exaggerated. There is a 0.5 per cent increase for the Science stream, one per cent increase for the Commerce stream and no increase for Humanities.

In History, there is a one per cent increase for all three streams. Philosophy has registered the highest increase. There is a 1.25 per cent increase in the Science stream and 1. 75 per cent in the Humanities stream, whereas the bar has come down by 0.25 per cent for the Commerce stream. The shifts in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry are marginal.

It is obvious that while the bar has nearly kissed the ceiling, the extent of increase is both marginal and inevitable, under the circumstances.

St Stephen's is a comparatively small institution. The best from around the country aspire to study in the college. As years go by, this craze seems only to increase. So, our cut-offs may not necessarily be typical.

How I wish cut-offs did not have to be a phenomenon of cruelty! I can empathise with the pain that young candidates, who may have worked hard for years keeping St Stephen's in mind, feel at being rejected even at the threshold. I have had several parents plead with me saying, "You don't have to admit my son/daughter. At least give a chance to take the interview."

What makes the cut-offs excruciatingly painful for me is the sure fact that marks are not necessarily indicative of a student's aptitude for the various courses we offer. It is not unlikely that several students in the 90-95 per cent range could have better prospects for higher education as compared to those who are in the 95- 99 per cent range. Some of the latter could have been book worms or merely clever at "cracking exams." It is absolutely certain an Albert Einstein or a Max Plank would not make the grade today for college admissions, if they were to try. They were luckier to have lived in more humane times. May their souls rest in peace.

Cut-offs are, in the final analysis, not the principal issue. The issue is that we are indifferent to the plight of our children. We lack the political will to provide for their empowerment. It is not resources that we lack. It is a greater sense of justice and a little less of hypocrisy. One wonders what is happening to the thousands of crores of rupees collected over the years as education cess. Enough would have accumulated to establish at least a thousand colleges. Why not get at least a few started?