It is college admission time and we are outraged (again) as various Indian colleges announce their cut-off levels. A few at the Delhi University are at 100% and most are above 90%. So we will rant for a while, and like our friend Ali Haider sang many years ago say, "Yahan ka system hi hai kharab!" 

Why is the cut-off at 98% or 100%? Obviously, these colleges have received applications from a sufficient number of students with those marks - else why would they create an artificial entry barrier. Earlier, these colleges didn't have such high thresholds for entry, as confirmed by a celebrity media anchor (rather modestly): 

Next on news today at 9: crazy cut offs. 98 per cent needed to get into a top Eco college. I certainly wouldn't have made it!

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) June 25, 2015

So why have the cut-offs crept up? 

Maybe the kids are getting brighter - they have many more avenues to learn from and are therefore, smarter than ever before. Perhaps the exams are getting easier, in an attempt to make education easier and more inclusive. Whatever the reason might be, we now have a greater demand from youngsters who have scored high marks in their school exams and are seeking higher education amongst the top Indian colleges. 

How can a large and increasing demand be a problem? Under normal market circumstances, more demand is good. But in education, we don't have a normal market. While there are many colleges (supply), the problem is that there are just not enough good quality ones. Due to various regulations and controls, only the politically connected or the unscrupulous seem to be investing in expanding education facilities. The situation is so bad that many folks who have young children are wondering how much they have to save every month if they had to send their children for studies overseas.

Given that education is so fundamental to our thinking and the choices we make, I believe that no government - irrespective of ideology - will give up control . So is there no way out? 

The answer could be IIN. 

Is that a joke!? Wait, before you fall off your chair... here's what I mean... let us consider the IIN concept (as shown in the ads) - that you don't necessarily need to go to a formal college to learn the skills that are required to succeed in life. There are several, emerging options - many enabled by technology - which can substitute formal college education... it's just that you will not get the degree.

And it is the degree granting authority of the universities / colleges that give them the power, why they are in so much demand. The degree matters, partly for the social recognition (remember that photo with a funny hat and gown), but mostly because the job market demands a degree, creating yet another entry barrier. Rarely do you come across a job that is not qualified by the degree that is necessary for it. So you see that the limited or controlled access that begins at high school continues all the way to the job market.

But, WHAT IF, what if some large company came forward and said, you know what - these degrees don't matter much. Most of what you learn in college for 3-4 years is outdated or not connected to the job. We will test you on basic aptitude, specific skills and attitudes; we will anyway train you for a while to get you up to speed. WHAT IF a few other companies followed suit. WHAT IF the degree was no longer an entry barrier or gatekeeper to the job market. 

So here's my disruption scenario (and I wish Idea Cellular had actually, publicly played this out)... one or more corporates build institutes (or portals) of learning and certification but not degree granting. Anyone above a certain age is eligible to join based on an aptitude test, irrespective of how much they scored in any school exam (or whether they went to a school or not!). Since there is no degree, no government or university approval is required. They offer to hire all those who qualify through the programs. Soon, other corporates seeking to tap into this qualified talent pool would make competing offers to these students or set up their own such institutes. Or, as is more likely, entrepreneurs will create a mix of online/offline models of certification (think MOOC++) on the basis of demand from these corporates.

Is this feasible? I think so... there are many IT services companies which (each) hire thousands of "engineers" and then put them through months of training. What if TCS, Infosys and Wipro that hire over 50,000-70,000 freshers annually said that in 2016, 25% of our entry level hires will not require any degree, just the appropriate skills? I can tell you, just like the IIT coaching cottage industry bloomed, we will have private tutors, entrepreneurs and portals coaching young people for the job interviews. Five years ago, I wrote briefly about the need for corporates to do something about it... it's still not too late.

One might argue that this is a very materialistic view of education; there's more to it than just getting a job. True, and I am not asking that colleges and degrees be done away with. Just that for a majority of the student body, the primary purpose of education is to enable a livelihood. We need to ensure that their access to the job market through good quality education is not blocked because they haven't scored 98% or their parents cannot afford to send them overseas.

Anyone who has taken Gallup's Q12 employee engagement survey would have recognised that this post is about the most controversial question of the twelve. Employees are required to rate, on a 5-point scale, if they have a best friend at their work place. Most respondents read this question literally and reply that their "real" best friends are not their colleagues. Some others question the relevance of such a question and seek to keep their personal lives separate from the professional.

In fact, I recall this NYT article about the difficulty of making new friends once you are in the thirties and forties. A subsequent discussion about this article with several colleagues revealed that there could be a western / eastern divide on this topic. For instance, in India, the workplace is often a seamless extension of the personal space / family. Many Indian organisations refer to themselves as families. On the other hand, the (typical) western view of a job is led by the employment contract. (As always exceptions exist.)

But this post is not really to discuss the Gallup survey or west/east divides. It is about friends. And some reflections on the topic during my 24 months out of a workplace.

Many of us, over the course of our careers, give all our time to our job. This comes at the cost of our personal relationships, including a connection with the self. As we jump from one role to another and hop from one airport to the next, friends and family take a hit. Somehow, due to greater proximity and responsibilities, we might keep the family ties alive but friends from yester-years (childhood, school/college, first job) are forgotten. Yes, Facebook might remind us of their birthdays and a Whatsapp group creates an illusion of fun and conversation but the connect is lost.

Meanwhile, we build new relationships with colleagues and others whom we meet in the context of work. Or parents of our kids' friends. Yet, very few of them rise to the best friend category. The NYT article mentions three conditions that are essential to creating friendships: proximity, repeated/unplanned interactions, and a setting that enables people to confide in each other. I believe that the first two conditions are enablers whereas the third seals the bond. That's the reason friends from childhood (age of innocence) or hostel life (high level of dependence on each other) are often in the BFF category. On the other hand, even as corporate relationships provide opportunities for meeting frequently, most organization cultures (or politics) prevent the confiding from happening.

So we end up with this set of highly transactional relationships with colleagues. Meanwhile, lack of proximity and/or repeated interactions with our original best friends weakens the bond of trust. When we change jobs, new work relationships replace the old ones, and the illusion of company continues. The hollow nature of such existence is most felt when we quit a job for a solo gig (like I did)... there may be no 'workplace' nor are we surrounded by constant emails and meetings that have come to define our social life.

I was fortunate that some of my work relationships did turn into good friendships - perhaps it was the challenging journey at Tata Communications or it was just a coincidence. Even though we lived in different cities/countries, work created sufficient opportunities to meet frequently; shared passions (like gadgets and innovation) and values (like humility and respect) helped transcend age / hierarchy barriers. Now, we meet less often... will this also go the school/college friend way?

The last two years have taught me a lot about relationships, in both professional and personal lives. The achievements that we care about so much - grades or earnings or deals concluded or goals overachieved - matter very little beyond the immediate. People stay in touch (or not) because of their experience of who I was as a person. My former colleagues might have all but forgotten what I did at the company for ten years; however, they probably have a vivid recollection of how I made them feel during our interactions. 

Take a minute to answer these (or any similar) questions:

When was the last time you went on an impromptu road-trip with your school friends?

When was the last time you surprised your parents (or grand-parents) with an unplanned visit?

When was the last time you cuddled with your spouse on a weekday because the weather was such?

When was the last time you began (and continued) a new hobby?

If you cannot remember the answer, note that your friends & family cannot too.

It is not possible to turn the clock back on what we did or didn't do in the past. But we can surely work on the present and future. We must change the way we measure our life and (re-)allocate our resources accordingly. Now, pick up that phone...

Following my earlier post on FoE, one question that remained unresolved in my mind: does FoE automatically granted everyone the freedom to insult. Rajeet raised a similar issue in his comments on that post. Here I try to (somewhat) address that question and also share some more ideas and information that I have come across.

It appears that the United States has taken an extreme position on free speech, through its interpretation of the First Amendment that there shall be no law abridging the freedom of speech. The US Supreme Court, in a landmark case in 1969, went so far as to permitting even "hate speech" as protected by Constitution unless it presented the possibility of "imminent lawless action." This formulation, referred to also as the Brandenburg test, looks for "imminence, intent and likelihood" of the speech leading to violence or violation of laws.

Another recent US Supreme Court judgement in Snyder vs. Phelps reaffirmed this "extreme" view on protecting speech, thereby enabling the Westboro Baptist Church to make offensive statements at a soldier's funeral... as long as it was speech in public interest, made at a public location. Essentially, as long as a particular speech is not personal in nature nor delivered to a "captive audience," the state has no right to prohibit it, subject to the Brandenburg test. In an earlier case, Cohen vs. California, the USSC struck down a law that tried to regulate content of speech, whereas the state may be within its right to determine conduct (timing, location, etc.) Even with regards to restrictions on conduct, the USSC had issues with a law that was "vague" and did not specify what citizens could do or not. They said that the words "offensive conduct" alone cannot "be said sufficiently to inform the ordinary person that distinctions between certain locations are thereby created." Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote, in the context of a four-letter expletive in this case, that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Therefore, my understanding of the US position is that insulting a religion is permitted under FoE because it is a matter of public interest, but insulting someone personally - the fighting words doctrine - would not be protected speech.

So, should you punch someone in the face because he/she insulted you or your family? Clearly Pope Francis believes, yes, in spite of what Jesus suggested about turning the other cheek. Ironically (because of the context of the statement), another spiritual leader, Swami Vivekananda also expressed similar sentiments about what he would do in such a situation. Beyond the rhetoric, the legal position appears to be quite clear: a violent reaction to a verbal insult will put you on the wrong side of the law. So while one would have legal recourse against verbal abuse, particularly if it is threatening or defamatory in nature, giving it back in the same vein might be a more prudent response, if at all. The issue with laws that start encroaching on the verbal insult / abuse territory is that politicians / police officers / lawyers won't know when and where to stop. In fact, faced with (often silly) distorted implementations of the law against insulting, England recently removed the restrictions on using insulting language (unless it is specifically personal) in its Public Order Act.

Given how the US laws treat free speech, it is quite clear that freedom of expression is severely, and vaguely, restricted in India, because of the First Amendment (how ironic!) to its Constitution.

Just take another recent issue around the Censor Board... while its official name is the Central Board for Film Certification, it actually acts as a guardian of morality and a state-enabled filter for speech. Isn't it strange that a nation of such complexity, diversity and size has allowed a few people, sometimes with no appropriate qualification, to determine what movie content is officially available to be watched. Unfortunately, not only has it been taken for granted that censorship will exist, the new chief of CBFC wants to extend this policing to other forms of content. Incidentally, the US does not actually have a censor board equivalent... the closest they have is the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which is a private trade body and administers the MPAA Ratings that are voluntary for film-makers to use.

Finally (for this post), I want to share this post by Nitin Pai which provides great clarity on the liberal nationalist position on free speech. Here's a portion that I found very interesting:

How much merit is there to the movement for a complete libertarian state where speech is truly free? Is it even possible?

There cannot be a complete libertarian state, as that is an oxymoron. A state involves a social contract where some liberties are traded away for the privilege of enjoying the rest of them. So we give up the right to violence to the state, so that we may enjoy the right to life, property, free speech and so on. 

A figure of merit, therefore, is how few of our liberties do we need to give up in order to enjoy the rest. North Koreans give up 90% of their liberties to enjoy the remaining 10%. North Americans give up 10% of their liberties to enjoy the 90%. I think India should aim to move towards the North American standard, rather than the North Korean standard.

As usual, I am learning more on this topic... please feel free to share your views and suggestions.

Freedom of Expression is being feverishly discussed and debated around the world, particularly in the context of the gruesome terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. In India, the discussion has taken the usual political connotations... and in all this freedom of expression, so much is being said that very little is being heard and understood. 

Here are some observations from my side... I am sharing these partly to clarify my own thoughts and partly in the hope that they will help some others in developing their point of view.

1. India does not really have FoE

While there is a lot of discussion around various people's tolerance levels for expression, FoE is not primarily about how each of us react to others' expression. FoE is foremost about how the state (government) treats expression by its citizens. Does it permit, nay encourage, individuals to express what they have in their minds? It appears that most countries / governments accept some form of restrictions on free speech, particularly around speech that harms or offends others. 

The issue in India is that the caveats on free speech give enough leeway to the government to act in a highly subjective manner:

These rights are limited so as not to affect:

• The integrity of India
• The security of the State
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation or incitement to an offence

If there is one thing that must be debated, it is the First Amendment to the Constitution of India that added "reasonable restriction on freedom of speech" -- it has led to additions in the Indian Penal Code that ensure that true freedom of speech does not exist in India. Anything meaningful that you say will offend someone else and therefore, can give rise to a criminal offense.

The first amendment was brought about, soon after the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, because the then government was unable to silence a critical magazine. All subsequent governments have just enjoyed this cover without questioning it.

2. FoE is not a one-way street

It is amusing that most of us latch on to the FoE bandwagon when it suits us. If we believe in the absoluteness of this freedom, then we must be ready for its consequences. As I mentioned above, any meaningful opinion could offend somebody or the other. If I want to be able to express my views, I should be prepared that others may also say things that I might dislike. By the way, accepting FoE does not mean I have to agree with the content of what others say... this implies that I should be prepared for others to criticize me. 

Content creators like authors, painters, movie-makers, etc. seek absolute freedom to say what they want, however, they should then be ready to accept criticism, in whatever (legal) form it takes. If you are not ready to accept people protesting your content, calling you names or filing legal cases against you (not difficult, given point 1 above), then you should not exercise your freedom of expression. Strangely, journalists who believe in the God-given right to ask questions of anyone on any topic are the first to block others' freedom in asking questions or commenting on them. 

3. FoE is just an excuse 

Many folks asked if Charlie Hebdo should not have been so irreverent about Islam, particularly when they were aware of the violence threats. Why would you go and provoke somebody who has a different thought process / cultural background? 

To this, I will paraphrase something that I wrote during a Facebook discussion on the topic:

Take the "let's not provoke them since they don't like it" argument further ... those who are aggressive and violent will win; those who fear such violence will be silenced. Don't know how this will ever end well. 

Further, I don't think the jihadis really care about the cartoons or the "western" notion of FoE. They probably don't understand religion (else why would they kill other Muslims!?)... I think they just want to provoke everyone else into a "war"... Everytime something like this happens, a few people on the other side get pushed to an extreme, will call all Muslims names or make it tough for them; this provokes some of the moderate Muslims into extremism and creates a fresh source of recruits for the jihadis. It's just a power game... God / faith is just a potent fig-leaf. 

But the problem with becoming silent / withdrawing expression is that it doesn't matter, no? If the goal is to find some excuse for provocation, then it will be found, how much ever accommodating you are. If somebody wants to be aggrieved, they can bring anything up from anywhere / anytime.

Over the last few months, several friends and colleagues have asked me for tips on becoming an independent consultant, a euphemism for being unemployed :) Many others have asked me how one can prepare for the life beyond a regular job. It made sense to share my thought process while it is still fresh in my mind, and not coloured by the eventual outcome of the decision.

In my experience, there are three major steps. (Please note that these may be relevant if you are turning towards entrepreneurship too, but I wouldn't know for sure. My thoughts are about the process of moving from corporate employment to being self-employed.)

1. Financial Planning

One of the certainties of having a job is the pay-check at the end of each month. Over time, as the salary increases, your monthly earning is easily much more than what you need to spend. But you stop caring. Of course, many of us plan for the future and make investments / retiral funds, etc. However, the reality is that you don't know how much money you need. You earn X and as long as you are spending / investing less than X, you are OK. (By the way, when I say "you", I am referring to all the earning members of your family; depending on the composition of the earning, some of the below may not be relevant to you.)

The day you become self-employed, the X vanishes. Now you have an income stream that could vary considerably month to month. The approach now has to be, what is the Y that I must earn every month in order to live a decent life. For that, you have to first define what "decent life" entails... what are your unavoidable expenses, E1 (e.g. society maintenance, electricity, school fees, groceries, phone bills, insurance premiums, etc.), what are your basic lifestyle expenses, E2 (e.g. eating out / movies once in a while, fuel and driver expenses, new handset once in x months, clothes & accessory shopping, replacement of consumer durables, repairs & maintenance, etc.) and finally, what are your luxury lifestyle expenses, E3 (e.g. family vacations, new gadgets, new jewelry, saving more for future, etc.). Believe me, getting to an estimate of these numbers is not easy since most people don't track their expenses at this level. Once you have an estimate of E1, E2 & E3 (all converted to a monthly equivalent), you can decide where to draw the base-line. I would believe that E1+E2 (net of what other members of your family earn) would be the minimum line and E1+E2+E3 is the earning goal.

As I said earlier, some months, particularly in the initial months may not get you E1+E2, maybe not even E1. So you have to be prepared for it, with liquid funds available to take care of the short-fall. Also, in order to ensure that E1 is not a humongous scary figure, the following assets should have been already paid for: the house you live in and the car that you drive. With the big ticket items out of the way, you should have liquid / near-liquid funds equivalent to at least 18 months of E1+E2. That will give you the freedom to experiment with your new career/life without worrying about basic necessities. The 18 month funda is simple... 12 months to experiment without any tension and 6 months to find a new job, if you eventually decide to give up.

The biggest learning of this exercise is that you will now be able to earn what you need rather than spend what you earn.

2. Make a Positive Change

Self-employment is not a solution for a job gone wrong. Don't take a negative decision to quit your job out of frustration and think that being self-employed will give you joy. Not only will your monthly pay-check vanish, but also many other things that you take for granted will go with your job. As I wrote in my earlier post, the biggest issue will be to answer the question, "What do you do?" Try explaining to your grandmother or the nosy neighbor why you don't go to office any longer. You were used to people listening to you when you spoke as the 'so&so' of this big company; now, you represent yourself and it is a very different thing. Being self-employed will also mean a whole bunch of new administrative things that you never worried about earlier. Get yourself registered for service tax and professional tax; raise invoices; collect your dues; pay service tax and advance tax quarterly; track all your business expenses and create your P&L... the list goes on! 

The only reason to still go through with it is because you care about what you are doing. The passion to do something different should drive you to make the change and will help you through the uncertainties and challenges of carrying it on. So, make a positive change.

Another thing: if you have to ever give up your new endeavor and go back to your job, it would help that you didn't hate it in the first place!

3. Test Market your Passion

It is one thing to believe that you like something and another to live your life doing it. One way to know for sure is to of course, do it. But that need not be the only way. Why not test it out, if possible? How would it feel when you actually pursue the new career idea? And more importantly, would others (say, your prospective customers) accept you in that role? In my case, I got several opportunities to test out my interest in teaching, both within my corporate environment as well as outside, in the academic world. 

Since it was "teaching" (seen as a 'noble' activity), I was able to do it while keeping my day job but it may not be possible for you to moonlight as a consultant. An alternative test would be to write out your "pitch" - why should anyone engage you? If you want to be a strategy consultant, make your brochure or pitch presentation. Ask your friends if they would engage you (instead of say, a consulting firm) for any project? Would you, objectively, engage yourself for your current employer?! Writing out your value prop and perhaps, your business plan, will help you clarify your thoughts and build confidence about what you are about to embark on. You may, in this process, even identify your early / anchor clients and start focusing on the first income stream.

The other benefit of doing this, in case you decide to progress, is that you have already begun your preparation for your next avatar, and can get off the ground running. (Note, you have to ensure that you are not violating any rules / codes of your current employment - as mentioned above, you want to leave your job on a positive note!)

Those are my three preparatory steps towards making the transition from corporate to self employment. You would have noticed that I put the financial planning up front, even above the passion bit. In that sense, it is different from becoming an entrepreneur. Becoming self-employed, I have felt, is just another form of career progression (towards Maslow's self-actualization level); it's mostly a low-risk move and at the same time, it isn't aimed at very high returns or wealth creation. Also, to be professionally self-employed, one needs to have built some credibility and a good network that can only come with time. 

Hope this helps; I would be happy to hear from others who have taken or are contemplating similar moves. It is still early days for me and I am eager to learn more.

Two months ago, I wrote about a change of direction in my career / life and about a month ago, I became unemployed (self-employed sounds better, no?). Here is a brief checkin of the first month. I am writing this for two reasons: one, some of my friends / colleagues wanted to hear about and (perhaps) learn from my experiences; and two, this helps me clear any self-doubts about how I am using my time.