Why Write

Why Write

27/8/21

Writing is a basic skill all are taught in schools along with reading and ‘rithmetic.  Later in life, for some professions it becomes an essential skill, while for many others a minimum level of competence is the required norm. (That goes for the other skills too; many jobs don’t require reading, and arithmetic is mostly used to figure out how much change you can expect after paying cash.  A survey reports that about 15% of people with college math education use it on a regular basis in their profession.)  The reason writing is important because it provides the more unambiguous mode of communication, and with the availability of many communication tools and platforms it has also become easier and cheaper to use this mode of communication.  Thus, if you have anything worth communicating, writing offers one of the most reliable platforms.  Of course there are other methods in which people excel, such as oratory, rhetoric, acting, recording, drawing, painting, film making, etc.  But the ease of communicating through writing cannot be matched by the others.  While oral communication might be simpler to execute, the chances of misunderstanding is high (look at all the misquotes of important people when they get into soup) and the duration of the effect shorter (unless it is recorded in another medium).  In spite of this, writing regularly and of a high quality is a difficult skill which needs to be practiced and perfected with continuous effort.

          While there could be many reasons why one must write, the reasons may broadly be split into two categories – one for professional contribution and the other for just sharing of ideas.  For professional writing there are many rules and structures which are taught and can be learned, the process could be simplified with templates or instructions.  This leads to, in most professional circles, the content to be sterile and conforming to the boundaries of the template.  However, for sharing of ideas, usually there are no prescriptions for the content or style.  But it is more difficult to develop content and style which could be self-styled.  One begins by replicating the style, if not the content of someone they admire.  If they want to stand on their own legs, then sooner than later they have to learn to find the ground and develop strength in their style.  Practice is a useful tool for this, but what could be useful is some guidance or pathway.

Career Questions

Career Questions

13/8/21

However might one describe my career, one description which will be without any argument, and hence more accurate is that it has been long.  When I turned to full time academic line towards my last phase of my long career one of the regular questions I got asked and was expected to answer was “What is the scope for —- course?”  (Fill in the dotted line with any of B.Sc. / B.Tech. / biotechnology / industrial biotechnology /biomedical engineering / genetic engineering / etc.)  Not that I did not face this question before, but that was more in the domain of small talk and no one paid any attention to my answer.  But once I got into an academic position I felt people asked this question to test me rather than learn anything from my answer.  Mostly people wanted affirmations to their own biases or ideas or the decisions they might have already made.

          The question mostly was asked by parents trying to decide career paths for their child who was on the verge of leaving school and they were scouting for a ‘good’ university / college / program for him/her.  At times the question was asked by their children, but mostly the children accompanied their parents to see how their parents  were convincing themselves.

          I have never answered this question honestly.  Let me explain.  There is no single or simple answer to this question, which means any answer will be correct to some degree.  When I say ‘honestly’ I just mean that I don’t give the answers which I believed were most correct, in my best judgment.  So, in some sense, I have deceived my interrogator.  To begin with, the question itself was not honest.  They really want to ask “will my son/daughter get picked up by a company and pay well but does not stress him/her out?”, but possibly that it was not appropriate to ask.  Surely there are jobs which will meet with these criteria.  In my growing up days government jobs were considered to meet the above requirements.  And, even now many believe this to be true.  (For evidence, look at the number of applicants for a few peon positions in the UP government, Railway Recruitment or Nationalized Bank clerical cadre posts, etc.), although it may not be the case at all.  Many of the old benefits have disappeared.  There are better paying jobs with lesser attached stress in other places.

          So, what’s my answer to the question “what is the scope …?”  This is a wrong question to begin with.  The more appropriate question(s) would be: (1) What will I be good at?  (2) What will be the skills I will be taught and what will be the demand / supply situation for these skills in the job market space? 

The answer to the first question will be difficult to be answered by a stranger.  We need to build systems / processes / experts in high schools for youngsters to get some answers to this question.  The answer will have to be built from several parts such as:  (i) how much is your focusing capacity (long or short; intense or superficial); (ii) what are your motivations; (iii) is your thinking guided by rules / systems / processes already in place, or do you feel constrained by them; (iv) will you be inclined to move out of these constraints and be comfortable with it.           The answer for the second question is strongly influenced by the changing dynamics between established fields, the skills required to prosper in them and the emerging fields and the places where you can get trained.  The emerging fields have unpredictable future (in terms of the demand) since they become obsolete at a much faster rate than demands in the established fields.  The demands for skills in established fields are more readily predictable, and will require regular replacements with fresh blood.  The emerging areas tend to be populated with mostly fresh blood.  So, what will happen to the professionals in these areas which tend to become obsolete quickly?  Most likely they will adapt to get into some established fields with some cross fertilization of skills from the fields in which they had built up their expertise.  Moreover, these emerging fields will get reshaped more frequently that one must expect and be prepared for it; i.e., you will only be partly ready when you leave the program, and must be prepared to further shape yourself for being in a productive career.  Sometimes, this uncertainty can be daunting to many people.

Humanization of the Sciences

Humanization of the Sciences

13/8/21

While I was a student I was exposed to these descriptions.  I didn’t know what to make of them, but they served as a useful indicator of the evolution of knowledge.  In that spirit, what they were and how we are moving:

Physics is the king of all Sciences

Mathematics is the queen of all Sciences

Statistics is the prostitute of all Sciences

Now we have moved on to:

Data Science is the bastard of all Sciences It’s just a thought.  May be you have more pithy descriptions.

Olympian Dreams

Olympian Dreams

8/8/21

It is not common, even during Olympic Games, Indians win medals.  In this context, yesterday was extraordinary in that two medals were won by Indians.  So, I was eagerly looking forward to how the newspaper headlines would report the news.  There were more prominent and distinct news headlines about congratulatory notes than the glory and success of the champions.  I may not know what the managing editors may know – what is news, what is newsworthy or what their readers want as news, but messaging has become news.

          India’s performance and achievements in Olympics is not only newsworthy in India but also in other country news outlets.  This is just a reflection of the number of Indians consuming news world over, and more importantly, as the tenor of these news reporting show, the not so “nothing to write home about” kind of news has become news at these ‘foreign’ newspapers.  The main theme in these news media is the unexpectedly low representation of Indians in the ‘medals’ list, while the news in India is more about which state the player is coming from and the political patronage they ‘appear’ to be enjoying, etc.

          The mystery of the lack of medal winners from India has all kinds of explanations, ranging from genetic insufficiency to nutritional inadequacy.  But looking at the response of the countries’ the news media hyperbole, my guess is it is more sociological than biological or financial.  Although India has sent a record number of participants this year compared to any previous Olympics, that is not the reason India has won the most number of medals this Olympics.  For the size of our population, and the financial improvements that has happened in the past few decades, the Indian representation at the Olympics (per capita) must be the lowest among the competing countries.  It is not for want of representation our medal tallies are small.  There are many systemic problems we have not addressed, the most prominent being the sports administration’s attitude (or lack thereof) towards the interests of the sportspersons.  Many talented individuals, in all sports in the country, fail more because of their inability to tackle the administrators than the opponents at the field of play.  Secondly, the opportunities for learning and training are open to only a few select groups.  In spite of this, like wrestling, hockey, etc. where Indians have excelled in this Olympics, the cost of participation is not very high, a few committed individuals get engaged and rise in spite of the system.  For financially more demanding sports like golf or shooting, expenses are barriers for entry for the most, unless it is subsidized by an employer or sponsor.

Since Indians like to watch than play sports, in a few spectator sports there has been substantive progress – players are able to become professionals without worrying about earning for a livelihood.  Unfortunately for most Olympic sports this culture has not percolated.  The reason our medal numbers are low is because they don’t give away medals to administrators, but being an administrator is more lucrative than participating in the games and that attracts more talent.

Focus and Perspective

Focus and Perspective

30/7/21

The Olympics are on, and it brings out the concepts about becoming champions rather vividly.  These are the insights which we strive to learn throughout our life, but the Olympics puts the spotlight on the champions from whom we can learn what leads to progress.

          In most of the sports the key character for any athlete is the ability to focus on the goal to be achieved – whether it is archery, weight lifting or swimming – the ability to ignore distractions and put the energy / effort on reaching the target.  But in a few other sports, especially the team games, a greater skill that is required is the ability to have a perspective.  As an example, in soccer, a player needs to know what is the play, which streams are weakly protected to provide opportunity for moving the game, what is the talent level of a team mate or an opponent, how to maximize returns on efforts.  At the outset these two skills – focus and perspective – are counter to each other.  In terms of ability, each player will be better at one or the other, generally not both, since the efforts required to build up either of them will dilute the effort put on the other due to contradictory requirements.  We find individuals excelling in one or the other, usually not in both, for performing at an exceedingly abnormal level, as world class athletes are.  But, for the most of us, who form the middle in the skill spectrum among our fellow members in society, we generally are required to build competence both in focus and in perspective.  This is usually the training regimen in most circumstances – schools or places of work.  While are required for a decent progress in a career, outstanding skill in both of them is not expected.

          I have a lot of experience now (45 years, to be precise counting from the time of my leaving college).  It is a euphemism for saying I am old.  Being old has both advantages and disadvantages.  The disadvantage is that your systems and processes are more corrupted compared to what you can remember about how good they were only a few years back.  But the advantage is that you gain perspective.  The smell test for being old is that most of the people you meet in your daily engagements are younger.  And youngsters (and the others as well) always show respect to you in your face (don’t contradict you, shout at you, etc.), but most likely reserve their true opinions to themselves or worse, share among select groups of common acquaintances.  You are old if you are aware of this, if not you are yet to get old.

          One of the advantages of being experienced is that I have seen both successful and attempting to succeed organizations.  Some organizations are perpetually attempting and have folded in the process.  So, what distinguishes between the two?  It’s not the people in the organization or the domain of business they operate in, both of which essentially come from the same pool of supply.  My theory is it is the culture in the organizations that drives their path.  The culture is usually molded by the perspective of the leadership.  This can clearly be seen in multi generational organizations where the culture changed rather drastically with the change of reign at the top.  When the leadership views the people as a resource they try to protect it and enhance its value.  When they view it as a tool (or expense) they tend to use it, dispose it and minimize (optimize) its value.  The former tries to build on to the existing structure and its players and enhance the outcomes deemed to be important for the organization.  The latter, on the other hand, is happy with scouting for fresh blood and moving the processes where the trend appears to be.

          To build you require plans followed by action.  For planning perspective will be the key while for performing focus will be the key.  When organizations fail to recognize the balance that is required to drive both planning and execution, progress, if at all there is any, gets forced by external drivers and not shaped by internal purpose.  While the Olympics may put the spotlight on the extremes, for the rest of us its lessons on exceptionalism will be of great help.