Re: Hindi in canadian school

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:15 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:correct me if I am wrong, but 11% illiterates below 50 would translate to 87% (85 -11/85 * 100)literacy rate till age 50.
The 11% is under the extreme assumption that everyone 50 and over is illiterate, which is obviously not the case. If you consider say half of the people in that bucket to be illiterate (which is still much lower than national average of 74%), you end up with 16% in the 7-49 age group, or 81% literacy rate in that bracket. So the best possible estimate of literacy in the 7-49 bucket is 81-87%. Having anywhere between a fifth and a sixth of your working age population illiterate is a tremendous waste of human capital, and I don't see any way to put lipstick over that pig and portray it as a good situation.

Again, the government's goals were:

75% literacy by 2007, according to NLM (http://www.nlm.nic.in/nlmgoals_nlm.htm): goal not met; 74% in the 2011 census (note that the goal is NOT stated as literacy among 7-49, or any specific age group; it is an overall literacy goal)
Functional literacy for all people in the 15-35 age group by 2007, according to NLM: goal not met
85% literacy by 2012, according to Planning Commission: goal on track for not being met, with 74% in the 2011 census

artood2 wrote:Again the basis was mostly census numbers and I believe that this is the number that Govt. uses for planning. Census is exhaustive and more recent data than NFHS so lets stick to census 2011 numbers for literacy.
In this case, the census is less reliable, because it relies on people self-identifying themselves as literate. So if the head of the household doesn't want to disclose to the pretty village teacher that he is illiterate, he can tell her that he and his wife are actually literate, and that would be that. NFHS has a higher threshold for literacy, producing more reliable data. You can see for AP that ten entire percentage points drop off for female literacy on NFHS. There is no way that difference is because of progress -- because the 2001 census number is 50.4% for AP.

Let me get it clear. The NLM has targetted 15-35 years age group since the beginning of its funding. And you are not working age groups older than that. It is their goal to literate *all*. So you do not work on 25% of population and target 85% literacy rate? This does not make sense. The numbers have to be in the targetted age group (that is 15-35 and later expanded to include 7+). I do not see any way how you can achieve the target unless you are waiting for those older folks to move on to say unearthly pastures. I think this is basic mathematics. If Planning commision indeed set 85% overall target without working on 25% of the population, well they are (insert your favorite *dumbass* equivalent here). The NLM "objective" is to get to all and they have goals on their path to all in that age group.it never says all till 2007, it says " The goals of the National Literacy Mission is to attain full literacy, i.e., a sustainable threshold level of 75 percent by 2007". Please do not tweak the numbers. Yeah you can declare 74% as short of 75%, I am fine with it being <1% range.

NFHS has a different definition of literate than census and so those numbers are not equivalent. NFHS can set matriculation as a bar if they want but the basic definition of literate has been defined and census sticks to it.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:30 am

Your argument can be summed up into

1. Assimilation is important

-->assimilation and ease of governance and movement for all Indians is important.
2. The only way to assimilate is by learning Hindi

--> The best way to achieve both is a link language and English is not that one (on sheer numbers).

3. Hindi promoters are not chauvinists.

-> I am arguing the need of common langauge for achieving 1. I am not arguing about promoters.

4. Hindi is just another Indian language, why not learn it? It can't be that hard.

--> Learning hindi for most of Indian population is easier because of similarites to other languages.

5. India has enough resources spend on programs that have not shown to realistically make a difference, at least in achieving #1

--> the resources spent on 1 make a lot of difference to a lot of population that is not visible to English speaking group.

6. If there is no link language, regional and linguistic pride and differences will be rampant, and India's integrity as a nation will be in danger.

--> The reorganization of states on linguistic lines institutionalized language barriers. it divided people more. Rest of what you said is a figment of your imagination. i gave example of Tamil/Kannada riots to show how a purely geographical problem became a linguistic problem because of the first line of this paragraph.

It is probably an unrelated and an unfavorable comparison, but Pakistan was created on the basis of a single identity and religion, is more homogenous, is not as diverse and doesn't have as many linguistic differences as India, but it is nearly no where where India is at this time.

--> and the point is? there are far more countries in this world that are far ahead of both India and Pakistan each with less diversity than India.

We've done reasonably well without much assimilation or a link language so far. In hind sight, if Hindi had already reached the status of a link language in the past 60 years with the effort expended so far, it would have been good.

--> Like poverty line reduction did not reach anywhere with effort expended so far, so abandon it.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:39 am

artood2 wrote:Please do not tweak the numbers. Yeah you can declare 74% as short of 75%, I am fine with it being <1% range.

The bottomline is this. If someone had a 75% goal, and four years later is still at 74%, I wouldn't consider that "good progress."

artood2 wrote:NFHS has a different definition of literate than census and so those numbers are not equivalent. NFHS can set matriculation as a bar if they want but the basic definition of literate has been defined and census sticks to it.

Now you are losing sight of the very purpose of literacy. Is the goal to have as many people as possible "claim to be literate" or it is to have as many people as possible "be able to read and write"? The NFHS administers a simple literacy test to people, instead of relying on self-declarations of literacy. So it is a more accurate measure of literacy.

Either way, what matters is that ~15% of Indians in the 7-49 age group are illiterate. Like I said, no amount of lipstick can make that pig look good.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:41 am

artood2 wrote:The reorganization of states on linguistic lines institutionalized language barriers.

If it did, it still has nothing to do with Hindi, English and the need for a link language that you are trying to establish.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:49 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Again, India has enough money to spend on both literacy and link language promotion in an effective manner.
I do not see any data to backup that assumption you made. India, like any other country on earth, has many competing needs and limited resources. Your assertion that there is enough money for everything is quite naive.

Please go check the total outlay. Check the defense budget, check the food budget with all the subsidies, check the energy budeget. Cap it with govt/bureaucracy expenses for every tiny state created. There are enough places to cut. Cut down plan *leakage*. Bigger the outlay the richer that minster get. Same level of energy improvements are possible at a much larger funding level. We have a $90 billion total outlay.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:51 am

artood2 wrote:
charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Again, India has enough money to spend on both literacy and link language promotion in an effective manner.
I do not see any data to backup that assumption you made. India, like any other country on earth, has many competing needs and limited resources. Your assertion that there is enough money for everything is quite naive.

Please go check the total outlay. Check the defense budget, check the food budget with all the subsidies, check the energy budeget. Cap it with govt/bureaucracy expenses for every tiny state created. There are enough places to cut. Cut down plan *leakage*. Bigger the outlay the richer that minster get. Same level of energy improvements are possible at a much larger funding level. We have a $90 billion total outlay.

The Hindi promotion budget may be a sacred cow for you, but we don't agree on the value it generates. So in my mind it is just as wasteful as the other things you mention as potential target for cuts. In fact, I think food subsidies generate more social return than Rs. 700 crore spent on ads promoting Hindi, some of them in Dehradun.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:12 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Please do not tweak the numbers. Yeah you can declare 74% as short of 75%, I am fine with it being <1% range.
The bottomline is this. If someone had a 75% goal, and four years later is still at 74%, I wouldn't consider that "good progress."

You are getting what I said and you understand that a goal of 85% is a mock one if you are not going to work on 25% of the population.

artood2 wrote:NFHS has a different definition of literate than census and so those numbers are not equivalent. NFHS can set matriculation as a bar if they want but the basic definition of literate has been defined and census sticks to it.

Now you are losing sight of the very purpose of literacy. Is the goal to have as many people as possible "claim to be literate" or it is to have as many people as possible "be able to read and write"? The NFHS administers a simple literacy test to people, instead of relying on self-declarations of literacy. So it is a more accurate measure of literacy.

Either way, what matters is that ~15% of Indians in the 7-49 age group are illiterate. Like I said, no amount of lipstick can make that pig look good.

NFHS took 6th standard as the bar. They can set it to bachelor's if they want. Its moving the goalpost. Govt is spending on free primary education and you can measure that goal sperately. NLM's literate definition does not match NFHS and we will stick to NLM's definition and that was what the goal (which you are a stickler for) was set for.

15% of illiterate is not good but hey we started pretty low. the rate of improvement is good. If you are not working on a certain section %age numbers will start dipping. All lagging states made progress. Women's rate is still less than men's but they closed the gap. The disparity in male-female literacy is likely to be greater in older age groups and it is not a simple question of underfunding. It is difficult for older women to read because of social reasons. This is not always fixable by pure funding. 82% males are literate and assuming 15% in 50+ group and 50% literacy in that group it is closer to 90% literacy in males for 7-50 group. so this rate is good and should hit 95+ range in next 10 years. Since literate folks are not going to let their kids go illiterate this should be easier in terms of funding going forward.

what matters is 15-35 years rate now as that group will become the older group in next 10 years and provide funding for their kids to be literates.

by Guest Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:15 am

charvaka wrote:The Hindi promotion budget may be a sacred cow for you, but we don't agree on the value it generates...I think food subsidies generate more social return than Rs. 700 crore spent on ads promoting Hindi, some of them in Dehradun.

indeed, it is difficult to argue when the merits of a link language are pitted against the gains reaped from a food subsidy. it is difficult to answer when the economic advantages of a link language are questioned to advocate its promotion. just because it is not possible to enumerate the benefits of having a link language, it does not mean there aren't any. at a rudimentary level, the purpose of a link language is to allow for ease in communication at a pan indian level. if you want to know the economic benefits of having that privilege -- well, go ahead term it a sacred cow for i do not know what the ecominic benefits of better communication are save that it is as necessary and as important as literacy.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:20 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:
charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Again, India has enough money to spend on both literacy and link language promotion in an effective manner.
I do not see any data to backup that assumption you made. India, like any other country on earth, has many competing needs and limited resources. Your assertion that there is enough money for everything is quite naive.

Please go check the total outlay. Check the defense budget, check the food budget with all the subsidies, check the energy budeget. Cap it with govt/bureaucracy expenses for every tiny state created. There are enough places to cut. Cut down plan *leakage*. Bigger the outlay the richer that minster get. Same level of energy improvements are possible at a much larger funding level. We have a $90 billion total outlay.
The Hindi promotion budget may be a sacred cow for you, but we don't agree on the value it generates. So in my mind it is just as wasteful as the other things you mention as potential target for cuts. In fact, I think food subsidies generate more social return than Rs. 700 crore spent on ads promoting Hindi, some of them in Dehradun.

I clearly said that funding in hindi speaking area should be cut and devoted in other areas. And you have repeated the Dehradun argument twice after that.

I see the value of this funding for lower economic strata people, for central government employees, for general administrative functions like armed forces/CRPF, for anyone who did not have the previlege of English education. English domination in government allowed the elite to advance their interests and it remains out of reach for a vast majority of rural population. The divide between the have and have nots have been gradually increasing and that is not a healthy thing.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:23 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:
charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Again, India has enough money to spend on both literacy and link language promotion in an effective manner.
I do not see any data to backup that assumption you made. India, like any other country on earth, has many competing needs and limited resources. Your assertion that there is enough money for everything is quite naive.

Please go check the total outlay. Check the defense budget, check the food budget with all the subsidies, check the energy budeget. Cap it with govt/bureaucracy expenses for every tiny state created. There are enough places to cut. Cut down plan *leakage*. Bigger the outlay the richer that minster get. Same level of energy improvements are possible at a much larger funding level. We have a $90 billion total outlay.
In fact, I think food subsidies generate more social return than Rs. 700 crore spent on ads promoting Hindi, some of them in Dehradun.

Firstly, i meant to write fertilizer subsidies and not really food subsidies. And according to one of the links (I could not find right now) India's defnece outlay was 164000 crores, food security was 160000 crores. you see the scale you are talking about.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:24 am

artood2 wrote:the rate of improvement is good.

As I showed elsewhere, the rate has dropped this past decade.

artood2 wrote:82% males are literate and assuming 15% in 50+ group and 50% literacy in that group it is closer to 90% literacy in males for 7-50 group. so this rate is good and should hit 95+ range in next 10 years. Since literate folks are not going to let their kids go illiterate this should be easier in terms of funding going forward.

Between the two genders, the one that matters (in the sense that it is correlated with outcomes for children) is the literacy rate for women. Literate women are more likely to send their children to school, provide vaccinations, have fewer children, and have them spaced out more. Now, the literacy rate for women is 65%. Assuming 15% over 50 and 33% literacy in that group (i.e. assuming older women are half as likely to be literate as the national average), the literacy rate for women in the age group 7-49 is an atrocious 54% in 2011.

According to estimates at the rate of improvement seen in 1990, India will take as long as 2060 to achieve universal literacy. That rate has actually slowed. That IMO is unacceptable.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:35 am

artood2 wrote:I see the value of this funding for lower economic strata people, for central government employees, for general administrative functions like armed forces/CRPF, for anyone who did not have the previlege of English education.

For lower economic strata: none of the central government's Hindi promotion helps lower economic strata people outside the Hindi zone. In other words, funding to CHD, DBHPS or DOL do not benefit the poor southern, western, eastern or northeastern Indians. It benefits middle class people from those areas who already know English. This funding indirectly benefits poor people of the Hindi zone, by educating their potential customers in Hindi, so they have an upper hand over poor Telugu people in the latter's neighboring states.

Now the central government... this government is supposed to provide services to all people, not just the 40% that speak Hindi. Instead of training the <1% of people that work in government to speak the language of the region they serve, your prescription is to teach the 60% of people who don't speak Hindi that language. There is no way this is more efficient than simply requiring that central government employees learn -- at their own expense -- at least three Indian languages. Test their proficiency in at least three Indian languages before hiring them, and you will get officials who you can deploy in multiple regions. (Canada does this effectively with its requirement that every federal employee needs to know both English and French.)

In the 60% of India where Hindi is not spoken, those who did not have the privilege of English education do not get Hindi education. If they are lucky, they get educated in their native language. So Hindi as a "cheaper alternative to English" does not work except when you view it from the lens of the Hindi heartland.

artood2 wrote:English domination in government allowed the elite to advance their interests and it remains out of reach for a vast majority of rural population. The divide between the have and have nots have been gradually increasing and that is not a healthy thing.

This is true. But the role of English in India is a fait accompli today.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:42 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
charvaka wrote:The Hindi promotion budget may be a sacred cow for you, but we don't agree on the value it generates...I think food subsidies generate more social return than Rs. 700 crore spent on ads promoting Hindi, some of them in Dehradun.

indeed, it is difficult to argue when the merits of a link language are pitted against the gains reaped from a food subsidy. it is difficult to answer when the economic advantages of a link language are questioned to advocate its promotion. just because it is not possible to enumerate the benefits of having a link language, it does not mean there aren't any.

There are many programs whose benefits are a lot clearer than the benefits from promoting Hindi. The government spends hundreds of crores on advertising about Hindi -- that's a criminal waste of money, when the budget for research into communicable disease is one-twentieth of that amount. You cannot be spending public money without a clear business case. That we waste money in many places cannot be the justification for wasting money on Hindi promotion.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:well, go ahead term it a sacred cow for i do not know what the ecominic benefits of better communication are save that it is as necessary and as important as literacy.

You don't know what the benefits are because the benefits are nebulous at best, and negative at worst. The government's promotion of Hindi can be argued to be actually hurting the country in a number of ways -- by stacking the playing field against poor migrants from non-Hindi regions, by creating a sense of entitlement amongst Hindi speakers, by breeding resentments in non-Hindi regions and strengthening the hand of those who would rather see India disintegrate.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:48 am

artood2 wrote:Firstly, i meant to write fertilizer subsidies and not really food subsidies. And according to one of the links (I could not find right now) India's defnece outlay was 164000 crores, food security was 160000 crores. you see the scale you are talking about.

The scale argument does not work. If your company is spending $10 million on employee salaries, that does not mean it would happily squander $1,000 on an unnecessary employee expense that doesn't give it much return.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:48 am

[quote="charvaka"]

artood2 wrote:the rate of improvement is good.

As I showed elsewhere, the rate has dropped this past decade.

artood2 wrote:82% males are literate and assuming 15% in 50+ group and 50% literacy in that group it is closer to 90% literacy in males for 7-50 group. so this rate is good and should hit 95+ range in next 10 years. Since literate folks are not going to let their kids go illiterate this should be easier in terms of funding going forward.
Between the two genders, the one that matters (in the sense that it is correlated with outcomes for children) is the literacy rate for women. Literate women are more likely to send their children to school, provide vaccinations, have fewer children, and have them spaced out more. Now, the literacy rate for women is 65%. Assuming 15% over 50 and 33% literacy in that group (i.e. assuming older women are half as likely to be literate as the national average), the literacy rate for women in the age group 7-49 is an atrocious 54% in 2011.

According to estimates at the rate of improvement seen in 1990, India will take as long as 2060 to achieve universal literacy. That rate has actually slowed. That IMO is unacceptable.

Your math for women gave the wrong answer. it cannot be less than the overall average of 65%. It should be 71% instead of 54%. Acoording to some link (one of the wikipedia ones) there was 74% literacy for women in 15-25 age group in 2001. So even the 33% estimate may be on the high side. The literacy rate for women in 15-35 group should be greater slightly above 80% now given the fact that women outnumbered men in literacy in the last decade. The disparity in male-female literacy rate is likely to be higher in 35-50 group.

A literate woman has huge benefits but even a literate man will not let his kids go illiterate. That is the positive feedback I am talking about. If 90% men are literate in 7-50 group, their kids should grow up literate.

The 1971-81 showed a bigger jump because 1981 data stopped counting <7 years as illiterates. The current rate is same as 1981-91 thougha little less than 91-01. Again, if you are not working on a constant set, the overall rate of improvement will look worse.

i am not sure how you got 2060 as universal literacy unless you expect the improvement rate to drop to 6-3% etc Or you are waiting for all old folks to move on.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:59 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:I see the value of this funding for lower economic strata people, for central government employees, for general administrative functions like armed forces/CRPF, for anyone who did not have the previlege of English education.
For lower economic strata: none of the central government's Hindi promotion helps lower economic strata people outside the Hindi zone. In other words, funding to CHD, DBHPS or DOL do not benefit the poor southern, western, eastern or northeastern Indians. It benefits middle class people from those areas who already know English. This funding indirectly benefits poor people of the Hindi zone, by educating their potential customers in Hindi, so they have an upper hand over poor Telugu people in the latter's neighboring states.

No it benefits all poor people who travel to other states. They need to pick up rudimentary hindi to move to all states. English definitely does not help them

Now the central government... this government is supposed to provide services to all people, not just the 40% that speak Hindi. Instead of training the <1% of people that work in government to speak the language of the region they serve, your prescription is to teach the 60% of people who don't speak Hindi that language. There is no way this is more efficient than simply requiring that central government employees learn -- at their own expense -- at least three Indian languages. Test their proficiency in at least three Indian languages before hiring them, and you will get officials who you can deploy in multiple regions. (Canada does this effectively with its requirement that every federal employee needs to know both English and French.)

In the 60% of India where Hindi is not spoken, those who did not have the privilege of English education do not get Hindi education. If they are lucky, they get educated in their native language. So Hindi as a "cheaper alternative to English" does not work except when you view it from the lens of the Hindi heartland.

it is not about 60% of people learning a new language, it is about 100% of people learning a non-native language. You need to learn the regional language and hindi. Again the basic point is you need a link language for govt to function properly. And the simple argument is Hindi is a better link language than english and cheaper for govt to administer. hindi is easier to learn than English for most people. I am still trying to figure out how English would be cheaper.

artood2 wrote:English domination in government allowed the elite to advance their interests and it remains out of reach for a vast majority of rural population. The divide between the have and have nots have been gradually increasing and that is not a healthy thing.

This is true. But the role of English in India is a fait accompli today.[/quote]

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:02 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Firstly, i meant to write fertilizer subsidies and not really food subsidies. And according to one of the links (I could not find right now) India's defnece outlay was 164000 crores, food security was 160000 crores. you see the scale you are talking about.
The scale argument does not work. If your company is spending $10 million on employee salaries, that does not mean it would happily squander $1,000 on an unnecessary employee expense that doesn't give it much return.

The returns are not visible to you does not mean they are not there. And yeah spending $1000 on employee expenses that does not give much return is, umm.., ubiquitous. It is besides the point because I am saying that it has returns. Only the English speaking folks do not see it as the govt gives them as alternative. The number of English speaking folks is probably 15%.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:06 am

artood2 wrote:The literacy rate for women in 15-35 group should be greater slightly above 80% now given the fact that women outnumbered men in literacy in the last decade.

No way... according to NFHS, which is the only recent source that tracks age distribution of literacy, only 55% of women 15-49 were literate as of 2005. If you even add a few percentage points for the higher standard NFHS uses, and a few more percentage points for progress from 2005 to 2011, you won't end up with 80%.

Yes, my math was wrong on the female literacy projection for 2011. Trying this again: 65% overall literacy for women in 2011. Assume 15% of women are over 50, and 33% of them are literate. So 67% of women 50+ are illiterate, so 10 percentage points of the overall female illiteracy of 35 percentage points is attributable to 50+ women and the remaining 25 percentage points to 7-49. So the literacy rate of 7-49 is (65-25)/65=62%. This is much more in line with the NFHS with the adjustments I talked about (for higher standard and for progress.)

artood2 wrote:i am not sure how you got 2060 as universal literacy unless you expect the improvement rate to drop to 6-3% etc Or you are waiting for all old folks to move on.

Here: http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/p&p015.pdf. See policy implications on the last page, where it says improvement at the pace seen in 1990 means it will take 70 years to achieve full literacy.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:10 am

artood2 wrote:The returns are not visible to you does not mean they are not there. And yeah spending $1000 on employee expenses that does not give much return is, umm.., ubiquitous. It is besides the point because I am saying that it has returns. Only the English speaking folks do not see it as the govt gives them as alternative. The number of English speaking folks is probably 15%.

IMO those returns are like the emperor's new clothes. The government thinks they are there, you think they are there, but nobody can show what they are.

Max posted an article the other day that's very pertinent. It shows how the market has taken a very different track from what the government has done. English is the direction the market has taken, while the government is still pushing Hindi. I think with every passing year the case for English is getting stronger.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:21 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:The literacy rate for women in 15-35 group should be greater slightly above 80% now given the fact that women outnumbered men in literacy in the last decade.
No way... according to NFHS, which is the only recent source that tracks age distribution of literacy, only 55% of women 15-49 were literate as of 2005. If you even add a few percentage points for the higher standard NFHS uses, and a few more percentage points for progress from 2005 to 2011, you won't end up with 80%.

Yes, my math was wrong on the female literacy projection for 2011. Trying this again: 65% overall literacy for women in 2011. Assume 15% of women are over 50, and 33% of them are literate. So 67% of women 50+ are illiterate, so 10 percentage points of the overall female illiteracy of 35 percentage points is attributable to 50+ women and the remaining 25 percentage points to 7-49. So the literacy rate of 7-49 is (65-25)/65=62%. This is much more in line with the NFHS with the adjustments I talked about (for higher standard and for progress.)

artood2 wrote:i am not sure how you got 2060 as universal literacy unless you expect the improvement rate to drop to 6-3% etc Or you are waiting for all old folks to move on.
Here: http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/p&p015.pdf. See policy implications on the last page, where it says improvement at the pace seen in 1990 means it will take 70 years to achieve full literacy.

C, do not move the goalposts. The literacy definition is well defined in NLM and census measures that. Once we achieve that we can go on to primary/secondary education etc.

Again your math on female numbers is incorrect. (85 -25/85 * 100) = 70.5%. This link estimated feamle youth literacy rate at 74% in 2004-2008. I can not find my original link where it said 74% female/88% male/82% average for 2001.

That paper is a 1990 paper and I do not see the math working if 15-35 age group has good numbers.

EDIT: I did not say 80% for 7-50, I said 80% for 15-25.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:24 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:The returns are not visible to you does not mean they are not there. And yeah spending $1000 on employee expenses that does not give much return is, umm.., ubiquitous. It is besides the point because I am saying that it has returns. Only the English speaking folks do not see it as the govt gives them as alternative. The number of English speaking folks is probably 15%.
IMO those returns are like the emperor's new clothes. The government thinks they are there, you think they are there, but nobody can show what they are.

Max posted an article the other day that's very pertinent. It shows how the market has taken a very different track from what the government has done. English is the direction the market has taken, while the government is still pushing Hindi. I think with every passing year the case for English is getting stronger.

==> I have seen people benefit from them and I can see why it was easier for me with English forms.

Max's thing is like the india shining campaign, India shone but not everywhere. I already mentioned that English is benefitting the privileged. Government has to administer and it is more important for it to be inclusive and more considerate for weaker sections.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:28 am

artood2 wrote:C, do not move the goalposts. The literacy definition is well defined in NLM and census measures that. Once we achieve that we can go on to primary/secondary education etc.

Again your math on female numbers is incorrect. (85 -25/85 * 100) = 70.5%. This link estimated feamle youth literacy rate at 74% in 2004-2008. I can not find my original link where it said 74% female/88% male/82% average for 2001.

My intent is not to move the goalpost. I don't need to, because my original argument with you holds. There are still millions of people in the 15-49 age bracket who are illiterate. If 29% of women in that age group are illiterate as of 2011, that's a huge problem. It behooves the government to focus on helping them out, rather than spending money on teaching an additional language to the people who already know English and their native language (which is what the overwhelming majority of the government's Hindi promotion money goes towards.)

artood2 wrote:That paper is a 1990 paper and I do not see the math working if 15-35 age group has good numbers.

Yes, as you pointed out the rate of growth in 1990 is similar to what we saw this past decade. The projection is based on the rate of growth.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:32 am

artood2 wrote:I have seen people benefit from them and I can see why it was easier for me with English forms.

If you mean people benefiting from Hindi promotion, sure, I have seen them too. Invariably they are middle class people who were educated in their own language (and a smattering of English.) By definition, anybody who needs to be taught Hindi already knows how to read or write in their own language. DBHPS teaches Hindi in Telugu to Telugu people; if you can't read Telugu you can't learn Hindi from them. I personally know many dozens of people who benefited from DBHPS; every one of them knew Telugu and some English before.

artood2 wrote:Government has to administer and it is more important for it to be inclusive and more considerate for weaker sections.

I agree. That is why I say focus on illiterate people who need the government's help the most, not on middle class people who are already educated.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:36 am

artood2 wrote:I did not say 80% for 7-50, I said 80% for 15-25.

80% for 15-25 is possible. But you can't write off the 26-49 age group. Those people will be in the workforce for another 20-30 years, and in the population for 10 to 20 years after that. Even NLM with its limited mission focuses on people up to 35 years of age.

IMO, 80% in the 15-25 age group is nothing to be proud of either. Missing out a full one-fifth of young women is a tragedy.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:39 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:C, do not move the goalposts. The literacy definition is well defined in NLM and census measures that. Once we achieve that we can go on to primary/secondary education etc.

Again your math on female numbers is incorrect. (85 -25/85 * 100) = 70.5%. This link estimated feamle youth literacy rate at 74% in 2004-2008. I can not find my original link where it said 74% female/88% male/82% average for 2001.
My intent is not to move the goalpost. I don't need to, because my original argument with you holds. There are still millions of people in the 15-49 age bracket who are illiterate. If 29% of women in that age group are illiterate as of 2011, that's a huge problem. It behooves the government to focus on helping them out, rather than spending money on teaching an additional language to the people who already know English and their native language (which is what the overwhelming majority of the government's Hindi promotion money goes towards.)

You are moving the goalpost when you are applying NHFS criteria. Yup 29% illiterates is a big problem. However it may not a pure funding problem. You have to measure the differential between male-female in a really young group.

It is a social reforms problem and it may be tougher to educate females of 35-50 in rural areas. And it is a social problem. Again there is enough funding available for literacy if needed.

artood2 wrote:That paper is a 1990 paper and I do not see the math working if 15-35 age group has good numbers.

Yes, as you pointed out the rate of growth in 1990 is similar to what we saw this past decade. The projection is based on the rate of growth.[/quote]

I do not want to go research a 1990 papers for their assumptions. I am guessing that is like an exponential decay curve they came up with.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:41 am

artood2 wrote:No it benefits all poor people who travel to other states. They need to pick up rudimentary hindi to move to all states. English definitely does not help them

How do you propose that illiterate day laborers learn Hindi? They first need to be made literate, before they can study another language!

artood2 wrote:it is not about 60% of people learning a new language, it is about 100% of people learning a non-native language.

You don't need that. What is much more efficient is for the <1% of government employees to learn the local language of the area they are posted in. About 0.1% of India's population is in the armed forces; let them all learn one language (my preference for that would be English, given that they need to deal with advanced equipment and technology all of which is speced out in English.)

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:42 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:I did not say 80% for 7-50, I said 80% for 15-25.
80% for 15-25 is possible. But you can't write off the 26-49 age group. Those people will be in the workforce for another 20-30 years, and in the population for 10 to 20 years after that. Even NLM with its limited mission focuses on people up to 35 years of age.

IMO, 80% in the 15-25 age group is nothing to be proud of either. Missing out a full one-fifth of young women is a tragedy.

a

I am not sure if it was 15-25 or 15-35. I already stated elsewhere, the goal should be 99% and 95% for M-F in 15-35 range in next 10 years. More females got literate than males in absolute numbers during the last 10 years. So whatever govt is doing is working better. Again, I do not see it as a purely funding problem. We will never be able to achieve similar rate in 35-50 age group unless there is a social movement for that.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:48 am

artood2 wrote:Yup 29% illiterates is a big problem. However it may not a pure funding problem. You have to measure the differential between male-female in a really young group.

Dude, first you assumed that most of the illiterates that remain are old people, hence funding is not the problem holding them back. Now that it has been proven conclusively that a large fraction (as high as 29% of women) of working-age people are illiterates, you are still not changing the conclusion you had reached based on your mistaken assumption!

artood2 wrote:It is a social reforms problem and it may be tougher to educate females of 35-50 in rural areas. And it is a social problem. Again there is enough funding available for literacy if needed.

You go from "funding may not be a problem" to "there is enough funding available" in two sentences. It looks like you are going to disregard the data and just assume what you want to assume.

The "social reforms" you are talking about don't come free. I would rather see Rs. 700 crore added to the funds for women's empowerment programs than seeing that money wasted on ads about Hindi.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:50 am

artood2 wrote:Again, I do not see it as a purely funding problem.

Nobody is suggesting that it is "purely" a funding problem. You started saying the inverse -- that funding is not a problem at all because the illiterates that remain are mostly old people. Now that that assumption has been disproven, you are moving the goal posts saying 35-50 is hard to change.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:50 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:No it benefits all poor people who travel to other states. They need to pick up rudimentary hindi to move to all states. English definitely does not help them
How do you propose that illiterate day laborers learn Hindi? They first need to be made literate, before they can study another language!

Just the same way as you suggested that they pick up rudimentary Kannada. i am talking of basics that will help them explore opportunities anywhere in the country.

artood2 wrote:it is not about 60% of people learning a new language, it is about 100% of people learning a non-native language.

You don't need that. What is much more efficient is for the <1% of government employees to learn the local language of the area they are posted in. About 0.1% of India's population is in the armed forces; let them all learn one language (my preference for that would be English, given that they need to deal with advanced equipment and technology all of which is speced out in English.)[/quote]

how did you come up with the assertion that you dont need that. I have repeated the same thing again. And this is my last post on it. There is a need for a link language for a multitude of things, discussed in multiple places in this thread. I am not going to repeat that argument again. Elites has no issue, the underprivileged have plenty of issues. That you did not face issues does not mean they do not face any. They need a link language and hindi is easier for them to learn.

It is not how many people are in armed forces. it is what they do. They need good communication with locals and a common language helps.

Its late and I am done on this one.

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:52 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:Again, I do not see it as a purely funding problem.
Nobody is suggesting that it is "purely" a funding problem. You started saying the inverse -- that funding is not a problem at all because the illiterates that remain are mostly old people. Now that that assumption has been disproven, you are moving the goal posts saying 35-50 is hard to change.

i repeated multiple times that I never said that those remaining was old people. I said that it is a positive feedback loop and it will take care of itself once it reaches critical mass in lower age group and that the current funding levels and current level of growth in those age groups is good enough.

by charvaka Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:00 am

artood2 wrote:the current funding levels and current level of growth in those age groups is good enough.

We have established that at the current funding levels and current rate of growth, we still have 29% of women in the 7-49 age group who are illiterate. This IMO is most certainly not "good enough."

by artood2 Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:25 pm

[quote="charvaka"]

artood2 wrote:the current funding levels and current level of growth in those age groups is good enough.

You started saying the inverse -- that funding is not a problem at all because the illiterates that remain are mostly old people. Now that that assumption has been disproven, you are moving the goal posts saying 35-50 is hard to change.

We have established that at the current funding levels and current rate of growth, we still have 29% of women in the 7-49 age group who are illiterate. This IMO is most certainly not "good enough."

I am repeating it for the last time. You are conveniently picking parts of the argument and i am done repeating.

Literacy is a positive feedback loop problem where it is sustainable when you reach a threshold.The current *rate* of growth is good enough to achieve that goal in the age group that govt has targetted since the beginning of the program (15-35 years). I never said that everyone remaining is old and never said that everyone below that is literate. You said it requires more funding and I said that the current funding levels are adequate. I also said that the age wise numbers from 2011 are not available (as is the case and we do not know literacy breakdown in youth groups). And I added that the lag in female literacy required more social push and it is not a pure funding problem (as you have mentioned in terms of programs needing funding). And I also said that there is enough funding available for literacy is 2011 numbers indicate so. I think i am done with this topic.

by Another Brick Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:25 am

i am going LONG on this thread and SHORT on other popular threads (jokes, official clubs, blip blop etc.). i see this thread outperforming others by a margin. i revise its rating to AAA from BB-.

by Guest Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:55 pm

charvaka wrote:You don't know what the benefits are because the benefits are nebulous at best, and negative at worst

you have a dog in the manger attitude. i cannot argue with you on the economic benefits score, for, i agree with you, it makes more sense to feed a hungry man food than a link language.

The government's promotion of Hindi can be argued to be actually hurting the country in a number of ways -- by ... creating a sense of entitlement amongst Hindi speakers

what does this mean?

by Sponsored content