Dear Gamarala,

Nothing in my previous posts are to be construed as a defence of affirmative action in education as it exists today in Lanka. It argues for the need of a just system of affirmative action that will give a chance for the intelligent but disadvantaged students from backward areas to obtain an university education.

K M de Silva who at one time was a member of the University Grants Commission (UGC), and its Vice-Chairman has this to say.

Quote
The latest refinement of this came in 1996-97 when the Tamils from the Jaffna peninsula, hitherto the most vocal critics of the system joined in asking for the status of a disadvantaged district for Jaffna itself. This claim was first made before the UGC review committee of 1993: on that occasion it was rejected by the committee. With the change of government they succeeded in securing this advantage. It remains to be seen whether this reversal of the position taken by Jaffna politicians from being the most vigorous advocates of a merit system to the somewhat low-key claimants for the benefits of district quotas will be purely temporary or become permanent. More important, it illustrates the significance of the change that has occurred in the university admissions policy. It had ceased to be affirmative action on an ethnic basis in support of the Sinhalese majority and even politicians from the Jaffna district were comfortable with it as a form of regional, i.e., district, preferences.
Unquote

My reply to your post of December 17, 2011 • 8:22 am has for some reason been mispositioned here, http://groundviews.org/2011/10/12/sri-lankan-tamil-destiny-is-inextricably-grounded-within-sri-lanka-a-response-to-d-b-s-jeyaraj/#comment-39934

You wrote “I am not aware of some of the details set out by “Off the Cuff” …..” November 21, 2011 • 2:23 pm

I stated that I am not aware what details you are referring to as I usually provide references to important subject matter. Please elaborate and I will try to explain. December 14, 2011 • 4:27 pm

You have still not clarified what you have referred to and have not taken advantage of my offer to clarify what seems to be obscure to you.

Hope you will do so soon.

Dear Gamarala,

You wrote “You have provided no statistical basis on which this quota works. Without providing that basis, how can we ensure that the system works to our collective benefit? Should we not seek to understand that exact basis? ”

I tried to explain how statistics could and should be used in designing the Statistical Algorithms. I had no intention or the ability to give you the exact base on how it was done as I am not privy to either the algorithm or the actual data. You could get a better understanding of how statistics are used by referring to a book on statistics. Wiki will also help, try this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score

You wrote “It is not the necessity that is in question, but the mechanism and efficacy. ”

The mechanism and it’s efficacy depends on the Algorithm and data used. Since we are discussing about Higher Education there would not be any dearth of experts in the Statistics field capable of designing and refining a suitable Algorithm.

You wrote “The second problem I have highlighted, as have others, is that this kind of solution is a mere plaster, a temporary solution, over the real problem, that of resource allocation to disadvantaged schools ”

By its nature it is a temporary solution. The ideal is to provide the same high standard of resources to every school. Finances and Human resources put a limit to this in a country like ours. This does not mean that improvements in resource allocation is halted. The improvements will go on and will be accounted for in the Algorithm.

You wrote “Now, resource disadvantages may not be immediately remediable, ”

You are right, they are not. Hence the quota.

You wrote “but in our effort to provide temporary remedies, failing to make sure that we actually get the best students into our prized and limited set of slots, is a failure that would spread mediocrity across our entire system”

This is not necessarily true. If it were, the USA where affirmative action has been practised since Lyndon Johnson would have a Mediocre society. Harvard University and other schools, for example, assess race as a factor among others, including geographical region provided the applicant meets other admissions criteria.

In USA affirmative action is race and gender based in Lanka it is not. In Lanka it is based on the facilities available in districts provided the applicant meets other admissions criteria.

The cream will always enter University.

In Arts streams admissions is a 100% Meritocracy

In Science based streams
40% is based on an all Island Meritocracy. (UGC)
District Meritocracy accounts for 55% (UGC)

Up to 55% of the available places in each course of study will be allocated to the 25 administrative districts in proportion to the total population, that is, on the ratio of the population of the district concerned to the total population of the country. (UGC)

Hence higher the population higher will be the quota.

Other than the 5% places allocated to underprivileged districts (provided minimum standards are met) 95% enter University on merit.

The high population districts of Colombo, Gampaha, Kurunagala and Kandy accounts for 40% of Lanka’s population and hence will take 40% of the Quota allocation. These districts are amongst the educationally advantaged districts and are disadvantaged due to affirmative action. However they have a collective 22% in National terms. Hence the brightest students of these districts will secure places under the National 40% meritocracy. The rest will compete for the available quota of 22% places (national basis) and the brightest amongst them will still enter University. In all other districts the brightest will enter University. Those who will lose out will be the lower end students of the high performing districts. They unfortunately will lose their place in favour of lower performing students in disadvantaged districts.

I think that this could be remedied by having an IQ test in addition to the subject matter tests and weight given to the IQ test instead of district quota but that is only my opinion.

Disadvantaged districts 5% (max) (UGC)

The above 5% of the available places in each course of study will be
allocated to the under-mentioned 16 educationally disadvantaged districts in proportion to the population, that is, on the ratio of the population of each such district to the total population of the 16 districts; Nuwara Eliya, Vavuniya , Polonnaruwa, Hambantota , Trincomalee , Badulla, Jaffna, Batticaloa, Monaragala, Kilinochchi, Ampara, Ratnapura, Mannar, Puttalam, Mullaitivu, Anuradhapura (UGC)

Dear Off the Cuff,

You have provided no statistical basis on which this quota works. Without providing that basis, how can we ensure that the system works to our collective benefit? Should we not seek to understand that exact basis?

RE: “Since both students have the same intelligence, the under performance can be attributed only to the unequal resources.”

There was never any disagreement here, which is why your repeated restatement of this point initially led me to believe you had not understood the argument. Your third repetition yet again reaffirms your belief in the necessity of the scheme. It is not the necessity that is in question, but the mechanism and efficacy.

RE: “The student should not be penalised for the inability of the administration to provide equal resources.”

The second problem I have highlighted, as have others, is that this kind of solution is a mere plaster, a temporary solution, over the real problem, that of resource allocation to disadvantaged schools. Now, resource disadvantages may not be immediately remediable, but in our effort to provide temporary remedies, failing to make sure that we actually get the best students into our prized and limited set of slots, is a failure that would spread mediocrity across our entire system. This is why I argued that it is safer to err on the side of a heavier weighting to merit, than to disadvantage. Note that I’m not arguing that there should be no weighting for disadvantage.

RE: “However you have a valid point about the preponderance of scholarship performers in prestigious National schools. This can be accommodated with an appropriately weighted variable representing the population of such students”

I’m glad you accept this point, but the scholarship issue was merely an example of what is the broader issue. That, just as your argument that bright student can score lower because of resource disadvantages, the opposite can also be true – i.e. that there can be a high concentration of bright students in particular areas. The scholarship student was merely an example of the phenomenon.

That’s why, instead of immediately explained away all differences as being “due to resource differences”, it is necessary to consider these aspects, and work them in. That’s why it’s safer to err on the side of giving greater weight to merit. Our long terms concerns of having the most competent workforce possible, should be balanced against our competing concern of equalizing disadvantage for bringing bright, disadvantaged students to the fore.

No, I have not misunderstood your posts.
I also understand your viewpoint.

However the Quota is not arbitrarily set (at least that is not what it should be). The statistical design should take in all those factors that you have mentioned to account. Hence a properly designed Statistical method will yield a quota that will even out the uneven resource allocation without penalising student intelligence.

You say “What I’m arguing against is the assumption that resource distribution alone is the determinant of variation in performance. What I have attempted to show, through examples such as a higher concentration of scholarship students in, say Royal college, is that marks can vary because of intelligence distribution. In other words, a higher concentration of bright individuals can be concentrated in one particular place”

There is a problem with your argument.
Take the case of two students that have an identical IQ score.
One student is schooled in a resource depleted establishment. The other in a school that has all resources. Both will sit the same examination. The inadequately prepared student will not be able to perform as well as the one that had the advantage of resources.

Since both students have the same intelligence, the under performance can be attributed only to the unequal resources.

The student should not be penalised for the inability of the administration to provide equal resources.

Your question:- Doesn’t a “quota” system based on districts, necessarily overlook such differences in concentration?

My answer is No, not if the Statistical Method is properly developed.

However you have a valid point about the preponderance of scholarship performers in prestigious National schools. This can be accommodated with an appropriately weighted variable representing the population of such students.

You wrote “However, you have said that “Quotas are not blindly set. Quotas are also not static.” Can you please explain the based on which these quotas are determined? It is entirely possible that my objection is grounded in a misapprehension, and I would be happy to disabuse myself”

I have already explained the first two.
In a proper statistical design, different weights would be assigned to each variable such as resources, Past performance, IQ etc. Normally this would be district based but with Dr DN’s proposal, it would be school based.

You wrote “The concern I’m raising is that the current 40:60 split (40% merit based, 60% quota based), already appears to be too skewed in favour of the assumption that resource distribution alone accounts for performance variation”

The 40% above, is merit based. The distribution of that 40% would reveal the districts that contribute to it. I would suspect that this 40% would be dominated by Schools that have a resource advantage. Out of the remaining 60% these high performing districts would also be allocated a quota. I am not aware what that quota is, but conservatively assuming it to total 25%, the students entering the Uni would be the same as a 65% meritocracy. So you see, it is not so skewed as it looks at first glance.

You wrote “Dr. Nesiah’s suggestion of school-based quotas would arguably worsen that bias, not lessen it”

By now you would understand why that will not happen.

Everything will depend on the Statistical equations that define the quota. Statistics by its nature, is actual performance data. If the equations are realistic the uneven resource allocation would get evened out without significantly affecting the other criteria.

Dear Off the Cuff,

As I have stated previously, I am not arguing against affirmative action! Please re-read my posts if you have misunderstood. What I’m arguing against is the assumption that resource distribution alone is the determinant of variation in performance. What I have attempted to show, through examples such as a higher concentration of scholarship students in, say Royal college, is that marks can vary because of intelligence distribution. In other words, a higher concentration of bright individuals can be concentrated in one particular place.

Doesn’t a “quota” system based on districts, necessarily overlook such differences in concentration? However, you have said that “Quotas are not blindly set. Quotas are also not static.” Can you please explain the based on which these quotas are determined? It is entirely possible that my objection is grounded in a misapprehension, and I would be happy to disabuse myself.

In short, I too agree with the overall thesis that Dr. Nesiah presented – that genuine disadvantage must be compensated for through affirmative action (to some reasonable degree). The concern I’m raising is that the current 40:60 split (40% merit based, 60% quota based), already appears to be too skewed in favour of the assumption that resource distribution alone accounts for performance variation. Dr. Nesiah’s suggestion of school-based quotas would arguably worsen that bias, not lessen it.

Dear Gamarala,

Affirmative action in Education attempts to equate the inequality of resources.

These resources can be Teachers, Laboratory, Library, Sports etc.

Ideally standardisation would not be needed if the resource distribution is equal amongst schools but that is not achievable in a developing country such as ours. Even USA, the richest country, practises affirmative action and if I remember correctly, there are US Supreme Court decisions that has upheld affirmative action in Education

Intelligence of a child cannot be gauged by the marks obtained at an examination when one child is deprived of an equal opportunity for no fault of the child.

Quotas are not blindly set. Quotas are also not static.
Statistical analysis is used in standardisation to even out the resource disadvantage.

What is required however, is complete transparency and fairness of the Standardisation process.

Dear Dr. Nesiah,

Regarding: “If a student from slum school scores 60% at that examination and a student from Royal College score 62% at the same examination, is it not likely that the student from the slum school is the more talented and would have scored more marks if he had been given the kind of schooling that the Royal College student had?”

I would imagine so yes. However, even in your proposal, which may perhaps be slightly better than a district quota system, the same fundamental problem remains. If students of a particular school have high marks, does that imply that privilege alone is the reason? Or that brighter students, through scholarships or other means, strive to flock to good schools?

The basic problem is that any quota system is not an equalizer of the type you explain. Take your example of a student A in a disadvantaged area scoring 55% being equal to a student B in a privileged area scoring, say 60%. Is A better than B? Most likely. But is such a comparison what a quota system does? No!

Any equalizing system must be a means by which to compare two individual scores. Instead, what a quota system does is, irrespective of this individual performance, simply assign a brute quota to an entire district, or according to your new proposal, a school. This means that a higher concentration of bright individuals in a school is simply ignored (for example, scholarship winners being concentrated in, say Royal College).

As a more concrete example: let’s assume that school X has 500 students, and that 100 are exceptionally bright.

Let’s assume that disadvantaged school Y has 500 students, but a lower density of 20 exceptionally bright and deserving students.

How does a quota system remedy this? Wouldn’t the quota per school still be, say 50 slots, despite there being a higher concentration of individual students who are brighter and more deserving in school X? Wouldn’t an extra 30 who get in through school Y, be less deserving than the 70 exceptional students who miss out from school X?

How is that remedied by a school based quota system, if not worsened?

“If such freedom is granted, it is likely that most of the heavily populated cities and regions will become even more heavily populated and most of the under populated regions and cities will become even more depleted of population. ”

There is nothing terribly wrong with this as long as it is voluntary. If they think it is better to stop farming and take up a security guard’s job in the city who are we to say otherwise? Still, it must be borne in mind that the security guard does not lose his emotional attachment to his original home. We all have a deep deep attachment to the land of our ancestors which even a couple of generations in the city or overseas cannot erase.

You say “What you have proposed, viz. equalizing per capita land, has not been tried out anywhere in the world, and for good reason.”

There has not been a Sinhala-Tamil conflict or one with identical historical, demographic and geographic factors elsewhere in the world either.

You say ” There are heavily populated regions and cities everywhere, as also under populated regions and cities. The flow of population, now and in the past, has been mostly out of under populated regions and cities. Singapore, Hong Kong, Melbourne, New York, Toronto, London, Paris, Delhi and numerous other cities are attracting new population.”

The demographic pattern in Sri Lanka is also the same. There are heavily populated regions Colombo, Jaffna Peninsula, Galle, Matara and Batticaloa. The conflict is over who in these heavily populated cities gets to control the sparsely populated areas. You say let it all go to the People of Jaffna and Batticaloa. But I say lets all share it equally.

We need to realise that it is impossible to draw up a map that joins up the abodes of every single Tamil in the country into a Tamil Administrated region. We can however demarcate an area which had a historical concentration of Tamils and includes the region most Tamils originated from and hence have a Psychological attachment to. I agree there should not be any compulsion for Tamils living outside it to move into it. But even Tamils living outside it will derive some benefit of having an area which enshrines and celebrates Tamil Culture and religion above all others and also some place where they can set up and administer schools, universities, cultural celebrations with no interference from the Sinhalese.

To sell this idea to the Sinhalese it is also paramount that this devolution is granted on the basis of fairness and equality. Even the people in the cities need sparesely populated areas for food production, recreation and as wilderness areas. The bulk of the Tamil population even 100 years ago did not live outside the peninsula and Batticaloa. So if a region is demarcated on the basis of equal per-capita land entitlement no Tamil or Sinhalese can feel short changed. I think without this guarantee any solution is a no-flyer and doomed to failure.