Talk:Indian Institutes of Technology

What does the latter half of "Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are the premier educational institutions for science and technology in India after the National Institutes of Technology which on lack because of a smaller alumni network" trying to say? If I knew what the author intended I would fix the grammar...Bubbachuck 04:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's a case of mother-tongue influence. As far as I see, the author wants to say that the National Institutes of Technology are the premier institutions followed by the IITs, but IITs are more popular because of their bigger and influential alumni network. This appears to be a clear case of POV to me. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 04:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

As suggested by DavidWBrooks in the history page, "but is the 'not exceptional ...' sentence POV?",
I feel its definitely a personal POV. The author can either remove it or cite some source which complements his view.
Jay 13:14 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Removed the above mentioned line which can be considered as a personal opinion of the original author.

Jay 11:32, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 different IIT = different articles? 2 IIT vs. Indian Institute of Technology 3 Fictional IITians 4 acceptance rate at iits 5 notable praises 6 no not POV

different IIT = different articles?

There are three IITs with their own articles, but all three are stubs. Does anyone anticipate each school gaining enough information to stand on its own, or could they be brought together here with sections describing each school as necessary? JPB 04:19, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ideally it should have been the other way round, a long page breaking up into smaller ones. But now that we have the stubs and no one has been adding to it since Jan 2003, what we can do now is disable the links to individual schools, and as JPB says, add sections in the main page.

Also JPB, use 4 hyphens as the separator between discussions. You have used == which is not recognized by wikipedia's software. 4 hyphens get replaced by a horizontal line.

Jay 09:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, what I did was use the "Post a comment" link on the side of the page. I didn't put the "==" (section header) there myself; I don't know why it shows up like it did. Bug alert, perhaps?

JPB 15:35, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't merge entries abt different IITs. They should be kept on different pages.
I'm from IITG and i can manage IITG page.

arvind 03:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IIT vs. Indian Institute of Technology

User:Rajasekaran Deepak, looks like you've moved Indian Institute of Technology Madras to IIT Madras etc. Are you sure IIT Madras does not violate Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(acronyms)? IMHO, IIT Madras is not "almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and ... widely known and used in that form". I've seen IIT Madras referred to all the time as "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras", especially to folks not from India. Ambarish|Talk 07:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

1. Abbreviations must be avoided to avoid ambiguity. "IIT" may be ambiguous, but "IIT Madras", etc. will never be ambiguous (because of the city name).
2. There are too many IITs, all using the same "IIT" name, so the name "IIT" is strongly associated with the IITs.
3. Using "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" is too complicated (because of the city name).
4. For example, NASA is considered valid usage by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)

Rajasekaran Deepak 08:53, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my comment. I never meant that we use IIT - of course it'll be ambiguous. My point was more about using Indian Institute of Technology, Madras rather than IIT Madras. I don't understand what you mean by complicated - after all, we have pages like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and more relevant to the topic, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As for your example, NASA is *always* known as NASA; few people even know what it stands for, whereas as above, the expansion for IIT-M is used all the time, especially in formal writing. And lastly, NASA is a pronounceable acronym, whereas IIT is an initialism. Ambarish | Talk 19:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I had not misunderstood you. By '"IIT" may be ambiguous', I meant that it might be used for other things, say 'Illinois Institute of Technology'.

The institutes are widely known as "IIT", both in India and abroad. Dilbert refers to them as "IIT" http://wavelets.mit.edu/~bharath/images/dilbert-iit.gif.html . But this is my POV. Also, my argument is weaker than that for NASA. Rajasekaran Deepak 12:34, 2004 May 21 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view-point on either choice; let me move this discussion to Talk:Indian Institute of Technology, and hope others chip in. Ambarish | Talk 22:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

(the above moved from User_talk:Rajasekaran Deepak. Does anyone else have views on whether the article on, say, IIT-Madras should reside at IIT Madras or Indian Institute of Technology, Madras? Ambarish | Talk 22:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I say to use the long form, keeping redirects at the short ones. Help random people understand better. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fictional IITians

I do not think the "Asok" chararcter of Dilbert is a recongition given to IITians. The comic character seems to be a farce. One might argue that, comic by nature is a farce. But then, this is farce squared. "Asok" is represented as a techno-s(l)av(e)yy worker. I don't think it has to be put up here. Nehru didn't built IIT to be recoginzed as part of a comic character, and that too in an Alien world. This is just my opinion. --ganesh 21:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, all are entitled to their opinions. Asok is listed under section "List of fictional IITians", and is in no way meant to mean its a list of IITians who have made their institution proud. In this case the Dilbert comic strip has a large readership and Asok is well known as well. Comics are fiction and if you notice, Wikipedia does have a number of articles dedicated to fictional characters, solely for the reason that its of encyclopedic value. Jay 22:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If the character is in a good light no one would object to it. But, it is not. I think one should advocate it to be taken away from the Dilbert comic itself. Anyways, I don't care. --ganesh 22:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

acceptance rate at iits

the acceptance rate of 1% is not correct, i think. presently, the number of aspirants (if one counts only those who write the exam) is under 200000 while the number of admits is around 4000. historically, this percentage has been going down since the number of seats has increased only in the last few years while the number of aspirants has been increasing. for example, about twenty years ago, there were about 2000 students being admitted from the aspirant pool of under 50000. it will take me some time, but i can get hold of actual statistics and provide more detail on this.

sriram iit madras alumni and faculty (currently on sabbatical)

notable praises

Is this section NPOV? It reads like a very subjective piece?

Patnaik 18:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no not POV

Personal opinions... no... the material is true. I reviewed some of the examination material they give... it is tougher (covers more material and more details) than anything CollegeBoard can throw at us