There was this article http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/ites/capgemini-india-chief-says-65-of-it-employees-not-retrainable/articleshow/57232268.cms which literally bugged me into writing this post. More often than not I hear NASSCOM and IT giants give baashan on how to train our Engineering college grads to be more industry ready. In other words, these IT cos don’t want to waste their precious money in training the grads to suit their project needs, but want to push the cost into the curriculum of the very colleges from where they do campus hires. And now per this article, even those who have been trained as such by these folks are no longer trainable!! The comment section of the article throws much better light on the state of affairs than the post itself. Its people, who give such hyperboles for sound bites, just because they’ve to utter some nonsense for a mike in front of them, who create more harm to us and our employment state than any bird brained politician. And what should be said about the paper that carries this article and sensationalism being its sole bread winner, having allotted maximum viewing space for this nonsense of a view point.
If you take a step further into the article by PTI, probably to be renamed as “Pointless and Trustless” rather than “Press Trust”, the headline cries CG India chief says 65% employees not re-trainable. The first para leads about mid level employees and followed by his comment that 65% of them are “just not trainable”. Was he referring to CG employees or speaking for IT in general?? No clarity. He again proceeds to crib more about how low caliber engineering colleges churn out similar caliber students and is probably the reason why entry level pay has remained pretty much static at around 3 to 3.5 lakhs for several years now as against inflation correction. When I joined the workforce, there was disparity between Science grads and Engineering grads, with the latter earning more than double the formers pay. It took at least 2 jumps in career for science grads to catch up with their engineering counterparts. Now the reason for unchanged entry pay is shifted to low quality engineering colleges. Meaning – the IT companies would very well go for campus grabs and would shore up their base of the pyramid structure, yet the reason for unchanged pay is shifted to the caliber of the colleges. If having to spend money in training the kids from such institutes is the reason for low pay, then why hire them in first place and not go for esteemed institutes which would negate the spend. Does students from such institutes, if at all they exist, are paid in premium? What are those institutes? No answer to these questions either.
He goes on to add that, when questioned on the very semester topics, most of the students couldn’t answer the basic questions related to their subject of study. So, if a mechanical engineering grad answers all questions on his subject, does he qualify for better pay in an IT job which is not even in the same pin-code of relevance of his study? Or was that guy who gave the sound bite referring to queries on IT asked to IT grads? Everyone knows the syllabus of any engineering grad and other than possibly IT and Computer Science, none of them would match with IT industry requirements, for the purpose of their professional study is not to train them in this industry itself!! Was the CG person talking about IT grads in specific or all BE grads? If he has to say 65% of IT grads from our education system are untrainable, that begs a question – is the syllabus in IT colleges are those that they are looking for employment? What is the agenda/selection criteria of their campus drives? How many of them have program or computer related interview or exam questions rather than stone age era aptitude and general knowledge questions? How many group discussions involve IT and current industry trends rather than debating is “dowry a necessary evil?”. (Yes. That was the debate topic in my GD and the company chief who is crying his bleeding heart in this article has taken over the company who conducted that debate).
Words are something that every floats around and bends it per their wish. But when you talk numbers, you better make sense. 65% is not a small one to throw around carelessly and in times of reducing job market and de-globalization era dawning fast across all horizons, the last thing one wants is false and incorrect information being spread.
If you take a step further into the article by PTI, probably to be renamed as “Pointless and Trustless” rather than “Press Trust”, the headline cries CG India chief says 65% employees not re-trainable. The first para leads about mid level employees and followed by his comment that 65% of them are “just not trainable”. Was he referring to CG employees or speaking for IT in general?? No clarity. He again proceeds to crib more about how low caliber engineering colleges churn out similar caliber students and is probably the reason why entry level pay has remained pretty much static at around 3 to 3.5 lakhs for several years now as against inflation correction. When I joined the workforce, there was disparity between Science grads and Engineering grads, with the latter earning more than double the formers pay. It took at least 2 jumps in career for science grads to catch up with their engineering counterparts. Now the reason for unchanged entry pay is shifted to low quality engineering colleges. Meaning – the IT companies would very well go for campus grabs and would shore up their base of the pyramid structure, yet the reason for unchanged pay is shifted to the caliber of the colleges. If having to spend money in training the kids from such institutes is the reason for low pay, then why hire them in first place and not go for esteemed institutes which would negate the spend. Does students from such institutes, if at all they exist, are paid in premium? What are those institutes? No answer to these questions either.
He goes on to add that, when questioned on the very semester topics, most of the students couldn’t answer the basic questions related to their subject of study. So, if a mechanical engineering grad answers all questions on his subject, does he qualify for better pay in an IT job which is not even in the same pin-code of relevance of his study? Or was that guy who gave the sound bite referring to queries on IT asked to IT grads? Everyone knows the syllabus of any engineering grad and other than possibly IT and Computer Science, none of them would match with IT industry requirements, for the purpose of their professional study is not to train them in this industry itself!! Was the CG person talking about IT grads in specific or all BE grads? If he has to say 65% of IT grads from our education system are untrainable, that begs a question – is the syllabus in IT colleges are those that they are looking for employment? What is the agenda/selection criteria of their campus drives? How many of them have program or computer related interview or exam questions rather than stone age era aptitude and general knowledge questions? How many group discussions involve IT and current industry trends rather than debating is “dowry a necessary evil?”. (Yes. That was the debate topic in my GD and the company chief who is crying his bleeding heart in this article has taken over the company who conducted that debate).
Words are something that every floats around and bends it per their wish. But when you talk numbers, you better make sense. 65% is not a small one to throw around carelessly and in times of reducing job market and de-globalization era dawning fast across all horizons, the last thing one wants is false and incorrect information being spread.
Comments
Seri. Gilsukku 30% increment koduthutta pochchu. Gilsu happy :)