M J Antony in his column (“Higher education scramble”, June 15) says, “The heuristic experience indicates that states that had reservation for the disadvantaged sections for nearly 100 years have progressed faster educationally and economically.” This is indeed true because educated people are bound to contribute more to economic growth. However, this does not make a case for reservations in higher education. We cannot prove that reservations are directly linked to growth. Is it correct to assume that students of the reserved category would have contributed less to the state’s GDP had they undergone, say, a vocational course without the advantage of reservations? Also, is there any data available to assess the contribution of students from the reserved category to their job?
In many cases, meritorious students are denied seats in colleges and universities due to reservations. And these students, for the lack of a better choice often end up opting for courses that do not do justice to their learning capabilities. Is this a loss or a gain to the talent pool of the country?
The Supreme Court says it would be unethical to lay the blame for any loss of academic standards on students in the reserved category. But then how would it explain the fall in academic standards in the country?
Saurabh Sharma, Chennai
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in