Hacker News Reader

Comment by gingabriska | Hacker News Reader

Taxpayer money shouldn't be spent in funding such competition.

While education systems in west are focused towards collaboration, Indian education system makes them compete against each other like wild dogs.

When will India understand, it's not about competition but collaboration.

We can argue this system creates very few winners and a lot of people feel like losers in this system.

If they made them feel better, they can increase their net education output which would be far better than showcasing any specific rank or endorsing any specific brand like IIT.

View on HN

In my opinion that's what also happens with entry to top class institutions like Stanford, MIT, Caltech etc.

Competition for better schooling is everywhere weather it is for the Grammar Schools of the UK or Gymnasium School of Germany. I have seen parents preparing their kids for Grammar School right after they leave Kindergarden age.

> While education systems in west are focused towards collaboration, Indian education system makes them compete against each other like wild dogs.

P.S.: the "competition" is just for entrance to these premier Indian colleges. I guess, the same would hold true if you want to enter prestigious U.S. colleges like Stanford, Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy League colleges. Of course, in India, the number of students applying is vastly different, which is what makes it super competitive.

>While education systems in west are focused towards collaboration

Citation needed. Capitalism is basically "free for all competition" in a nutshell.

that's a cynical view. Capitalism is the freedom to buy and sell from whoever you choose. If what you choose to sell is something so unique, you'll escape competition.

Oh no, if you want the cynical view of capitalism it's that the already rich create a rigged system in which they are able to exert disproportionate influence on the government and regulators that affect their ability to create and preserve their own wealth. They then use this influence to push weaker competitors out of the marketplace, eventually creating a single monopoly on an industry. Allowed to go to its conclusion, you replace political empires with financial rule.

That's just the short version. "free for all" is actually the optimistic view in my opinion. At least in a "free for all" metaphor you have the assumption of equal standing and "the strongest" winning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com