4 ms·

@dang why was the post title edited? It said 'IISc Bangalore Scientists experimenting with drone seed-bombing to plant a forest'. I see no problem with it, oth

by ktta 9y ago

@dang why was the post title edited? It said 'IISc Bangalore Scientists experimenting with drone seed-bombing to plant a forest'. I see no problem with it, other than IISc not being as well known as say MIT. But it is still a very good institution and I think they deserve to be known. The name of the institution should be celebrated for their research, not just put behind a large banner of 'Indian Scientists' which gives no recognition to the institution. Just like MIT/Stanford scientists aren't called American scientists every time some article about research comes out from that University. If someone doesn't know what IISc is, we know they can just google it.

frozenport 9y ago
World ranking is about 200
- ktta 9y ago
  Overall ranking is 190 (I assume you're looking at this[1]). Ranking by subject, it is at 51 in many subjects. That's because Indian Institutions tend to neglect fields other than mainstream Tech/Science because that's all they can get funding for. Still, if their ranking is at 190, why shouldn't they be called by their name? [1]: https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/indian-institute-science-iisc-bangalore https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/indian-institut...
  - frozenport 9y ago
    I hate to be mean but there is a reason why the school isn't named, and it was a rational decision by the editor. Internationally, nobody has heard of them outside of India because unlike Stanford and MIT they have yet produce any technologies of value. While American universities live on patents, Indian schools are know for suppling large US software companies with cheap labour - often below market value. Importantly you'd be hard pressed to find somebody that can tell them apart. Indian "scientists" has a better connotations than the specific school, whose reputations are unknown or second rate - this immediately questions the rigour and relevance of their work.
    - ktta 9y ago
      I acknowledged that the school isn't well known. There is also something called Google where you can search for things you don't know about. Sorry about talking down but you have seemed to miss the entire point of my argument. Even though the school isn't well known, I said they can search for the name if they don't know about it. >Indian schools are know for suppling large US software companies with cheap labour - often below market value I don't know how this suddenly came into the argument. If this was some remote university in Russia, my point would still stand. You seem to have a very prejudiced view of Indian universities. Please educate yourself. You aren't being mean, just ignorant. Indian schools are also known for producing world-class engineers. Not just software. Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Pepsico, Mastercard. Do you know what they have in common? A CEO educated in an Indian University. >Indian "scientists" has a better connotations than the specific school, whose reputations are unknown or second rate We shouldn't do that has better connotations but what's right. And acknowledging the achievements of a university is what is right. >this immediately questions the rigour and relevance of their work. That's your problem. Any scientific work must stand independent of whoever publishes it. Yes, screening process gets easier, but the questioning the accuracy must be accompanied by proper arguments, not bias. Do you really think a country with three times the population of the US doesn't have any scientific achievements? Just recently there was a huge rocket launched with a fraction of the budget of the science department of a US university.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xFFFE 9y ago
  So?
viksit 9y ago
Funny, I had the exact same question since I meant to come back and read this post but couldn't find it thanks to the name change. I'd love to know the reasoning behind this edit.
dang 9y ago
Probably a moderator thought most HN readers wouldn't know what IISc is, but sure, you make a fair point. We'll revert the title. Often we change a phrase like that to just "Scientists" for brevity, but there's probably no need to emphasize nation rather than institution. Though in Canada we tend to put "Canadian" in front of everything.
- ktta 9y ago
  >Though in Canada we tend to put "Canadian" in front of everything. Maybe that should change too.

by ktta 9y ago

frozenport 9y ago

World ranking is about 200

ktta 9y ago
Overall ranking is 190 (I assume you're looking at this[1]). Ranking by subject, it is at 51 in many subjects. That's because Indian Institutions tend to neglect fields other than mainstream Tech/Science because that's all they can get funding for. Still, if their ranking is at 190, why shouldn't they be called by their name? [1]: https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/indian-institute-science-iisc-bangalore https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/indian-institut...
- frozenport 9y ago
  I hate to be mean but there is a reason why the school isn't named, and it was a rational decision by the editor. Internationally, nobody has heard of them outside of India because unlike Stanford and MIT they have yet produce any technologies of value. While American universities live on patents, Indian schools are know for suppling large US software companies with cheap labour - often below market value. Importantly you'd be hard pressed to find somebody that can tell them apart. Indian "scientists" has a better connotations than the specific school, whose reputations are unknown or second rate - this immediately questions the rigour and relevance of their work.
  - ktta 9y ago
    I acknowledged that the school isn't well known. There is also something called Google where you can search for things you don't know about. Sorry about talking down but you have seemed to miss the entire point of my argument. Even though the school isn't well known, I said they can search for the name if they don't know about it. >Indian schools are know for suppling large US software companies with cheap labour - often below market value I don't know how this suddenly came into the argument. If this was some remote university in Russia, my point would still stand. You seem to have a very prejudiced view of Indian universities. Please educate yourself. You aren't being mean, just ignorant. Indian schools are also known for producing world-class engineers. Not just software. Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Pepsico, Mastercard. Do you know what they have in common? A CEO educated in an Indian University. >Indian "scientists" has a better connotations than the specific school, whose reputations are unknown or second rate We shouldn't do that has better connotations but what's right. And acknowledging the achievements of a university is what is right. >this immediately questions the rigour and relevance of their work. That's your problem. Any scientific work must stand independent of whoever publishes it. Yes, screening process gets easier, but the questioning the accuracy must be accompanied by proper arguments, not bias. Do you really think a country with three times the population of the US doesn't have any scientific achievements? Just recently there was a huge rocket launched with a fraction of the budget of the science department of a US university.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
0xFFFE 9y ago
So?

viksit 9y ago

Funny, I had the exact same question since I meant to come back and read this post but couldn't find it thanks to the name change. I'd love to know the reasoning behind this edit.

dang 9y ago

Probably a moderator thought most HN readers wouldn't know what IISc is, but sure, you make a fair point. We'll revert the title. Often we change a phrase like that to just "Scientists" for brevity, but there's probably no need to emphasize nation rather than institution. Though in Canada we tend to put "Canadian" in front of everything.

ktta 9y ago
>Though in Canada we tend to put "Canadian" in front of everything. Maybe that should change too.