By Sonam Dorjee
Following personal opinion is not to express disapproval of the selected candidates for the year 2005. It is to shed light on fact of the matter by commenting on the policy in general, which I feel, is working against the democratic system. I have written this article in my individual capacity as a Fulbright student and I sincerely hope that the HLSC will consider it as a constructive criticism.
The preliminary selection procedure followed by the High Level Scholarship Committee (HLSC) concerning the most sought after and the coveted Fulbright scholarship is antitrust, regressive and discouraging. The unintended consequences from the present policy are far reaching and are seriously in need of introspection. It is beyond my understanding to comprehend the rationale behind adopting such a policy. In a free and democratic society, competition is the virtue by which every individual has his or her right to participate in the system. The generic rule for competition policy is to set minimum requirement and then leave it open for every potential applicant to compete with each other. The HLSC’s policy is going against the generic rule by setting both minimum and maximum requirement limits. Even from the equity point of view the rule of requirement is being set as minimum as possible, so that maximum number of candidatures could be considered to participate in the competition.
However, the present policy towards the selection of Fulbright scholarship candidate is directly restricting competition, which is totally “antitrust”. The trust, which every Tibetan prospective applicant has placed on the institution to be fair and impartial, is not being upheld. Restricting competition is literally denying opportunities to other aspirants who have nurtured a wish to study in US under the Fulbright exchange program, which is against the democratic system and clearly a sign of favoritism (intentionally or unintentionally). The thrust of HLSC, on the contrary, should be that of coordinator, encouraging more competition and bring in as many candidatures as possible to compete for the same.
The Master’s degree in India is not considered equivalent to the Master’s degree in US, which requires six years of education or certain number of school approved credit hours depending on the school program after the high school education. The educational system is different in many ways between the two countries. Unlike Indian education system, there is wide range of courses offered in the school program and depending on one’s academic objective, he/she could shop for the courses and Professors each semester. In addition, the courses are more applied and require intense research. Even if one decides to pursue the same academic major in US, it broadens one’s horizon of knowledge on the subject, as courses are designed completely different. My personal belief is that no degree is an end in itself. It should be considered as a means and there is no limit to the knowledge of education.
It is also misleading because the phrase “research oriented” that is coined by the HLSC does not say much about it. Is it being referred to the Ph.D. program or an independent research study? Having done Master’s degree in India is not eligible to apply for the Ph.D. program in US. In general, a student is required to take at least two to three research oriented courses during the Master’s program towards the fulfillment of one’s degree requirement in the US school. Therefore, it is a part of the Master’s program and not a separate program in itself unless one is enrolled in the Ph.D. program. As far as independent research study is concerned, anyone could do that with or without enrolling in any institutions. The only required thing to do an independent research study is the funding or grant. Will the TibetFund provide such funds to do an independent research study or does the US State Department allow them to do so? If it is possible and allowed then there should be another category, other than degree and non-degree category, which could be categorized under the heading “Independent Research Study” category for those who have done their Master’s degree in India. The equal number of seats should be allocated to the said category as well. I think it is important and necessary to put things into perspective and consider the stock of matter before framing a policy and implementing it.
The crux of acquiring Master’s degree should be based more on the purpose of education in general. The essence of education is to develop your mental capability; how to be more productive, how to be more caring towards the society and above all, how well one could respond to a situation in society. The academic and social challenge is enormous. The exposure to a different system of education, culture and society itself counts more than taking different courses in the school. In the light of that, it is unreasonable to come up with the reasons for having done your Master’s degree in India you will not have chance to compete for this wonderful opportunity to study and experience your life in the United States of America.
Normally, the institution sets high standards of criteria for the selection and that serves as an impetus for the aspiring students to put more effort to realize it. It is unfortunate and sorry to say that our HLSC is just doing the opposite thing. Aren’t we trying to redefine the “Human Development Index” as an indicator for development? What kind of messages are we trying to send to the future scholarship aspirants? The HLSC policy is discouraging students from pursuing further studies after Bachelor’s degree in India. It is essentially spreading a message saying that dare not do Master’s degree in India, if you want to study in US. If you have already started your Master’s program in India then leave that incomplete when you are done with your first year, otherwise you will not be considered a prospective candidate for the Fulbright scholarship. Alternatively, try to get admission in any institution, which will give you one-year diploma but do not do Master’s degree if you want to study abroad. Also the question arises, how does the HLSC know whether the applicants are candid in revealing his or her complete educational background? It is ambiguous and a subject of controversy.
I do agree with HLSC policy on the need-base selection, albeit a question in mind regarding the list of subjects finalized by the HLSC, which are too specific and not compatible with the American school program. In the best interest of both selector and the candidates, I think it should consider perhaps the least controversial procedure; i.e. selecting candidates based on their TOEFL, GMAT or GRE score report and interview. The HLSC could retain conditions like community service, Tibetan test and other basic requirements but it should consider setting only “the minimum educational requirement”. By considering that, positively there will be little room left for any kind-of misgiving and discouragement.
