u/HumbleMajor2123

same as the title, do we get to introduce new engine next year?

Before anyone misunderstands this, let me be clear: I support affirmative action. I support increasing women's representation in higher education. But I don't think the current deprivation points system is the best way to achieve that goal.

(this is regarding JNU'S Deprivation Points system)

Here's why.

1. It often measres identity instead of actual deprivation.

A student from a remote district who studied in a government school, had no coaching, limited internet access, outdated study material, and almost no academic exposure can end up with fewer deprivation points than someone from a Tier-1 city who studied in elite schools and had every possible resource. If the purpose is to compensate for disadvantage, does that really make sense?

Let's suppose a boy from a rural background who completed his graduation through distance university, under current system the most point he can get is 4-6 points, while a female candidate from tier-1 city who has studied in elite schools and colleges and had better exposure and access to resources (not even in quartile 1 or 2) gets upto 5-7 points

2. Not every disadvantage looks the same.

Gender-based barriers are real, and they continue to affect many women. But so do poverty, poor schooling, geography, lack of educational infrastructure, and limited academic exposure. The current system doesn't always distinguish between someone who belongs to a disadvantaged group and someone who has actually experienced greater educational deprivation.

3. Representation and deprivation are two different objectives.

If the aim is to improve women's representation, then pursue policies that directly address representation. If the aim is to compensate for educational deprivation, then the criteria should reflect measurable educational and socioeconomic disadvantage. Mixing these two objectives under one "deprivation points" system can produce outcomes that many students perceive as unfair.

4. The system should reward the hardest journeys.

A student who prepared with outdated books, no coaching, poor schooling, unreliable internet, and little guidance has overcome enormous barriers. Those struggles deserve recognition. A deprivation policy should prioritize the severity of educational disadvantage, not rely primarily on broad demographic categories.

5. There are better ways to measure deprivation.

Instead of assigning points based largely on identity, universities could consider:

• Family income.

• Parents' education.

• Government vs. private schooling.

• Rural or remote schooling.

• First-generation college student status.

• Educationally backward or aspirational districts.

• Access to coaching and academic resources.

These factors paint a much more accurate picture of the opportunities a student has actually had.

A Better Way Forward:-

Rather than abandoning affirmative acton, we should make it more precise and transparent.

• Replace gender deprivation points with 33% horizontal reservation for women within every category\*\* (General, OBC, SC, ST, EWS, etc.). This directly ensures women's representation instead of indirectly doing so through additional marks.

• Create an Individual Deprivation Index\*\* that awards points based on measurable educational and socioeconomic disadvantages rather than broad demographic assumptions.

• Cap the maximum deprivation points to a reasonable limit(maybe 10-12 marks in 300 marks paper for PG) so that the entrance examination remains the primary basis for selection while still compensating genuine disadvantage.

• Review the deprivation criteria periodically: Using updated educational and socioeconomic data so the system evolves with changing realities.

• Invst before the examination, not just during admissions. Better government schools, scholarships, free coaching, digital libraries, mentorship programmes, and improved educational infrastructure will do more to reduce inequality than admission-stage adjustments alone.

Affirmative action is essential in a country as unequal as India. But good intntions alone are not enough. A deprivation policy should identify those who have genuinely had fewer opportunities and compensate them accordingly. The objective should be equal opportunity through accurate identification of disadvantage, not reliance on broad assumptions that may not reflect an individual's educational journey.

Before anyone misunderstands this, let me be clear: I support affirmative action. I support increasing women's representation in higher education. But I don't think the current deprivation points system is the best way to achieve that goal.

Here's why.

1. It often measres identity instead of actual deprivation.

A student from a remote district who studied in a government school, had no coaching, limited internet access, outdated study material, and almost no academic exposure can end up with fewer deprivation points than someone from a Tier-1 city who studied in elite schools and had every possible resource. If the purpose is to compensate for disadvantage, does that really make sense?

Let's suppose a boy from a rural background who completed his graduation through distance university, under current system the most point he can get is 4-6 points, while a female candidate from tier-1 city who has studied in elite schools and colleges and had better exposure and access to resources (not even in quartile 1 or 2) gets upto 5-7 points

2. Not every disadvantage looks the same.

Gender-based barriers are real, and they continue to affect many women. But so do poverty, poor schooling, geography, lack of educational infrastructure, and limited academic exposure. The current system doesn't always distinguish between someone who belongs to a disadvantaged group and someone who has actually experienced greater educational deprivation.

3. Representation and deprivation are two different objectives.

If the aim is to improve women's representation, then pursue policies that directly address representation. If the aim is to compensate for educational deprivation, then the criteria should reflect measurable educational and socioeconomic disadvantage. Mixing these two objectives under one "deprivation points" system can produce outcomes that many students perceive as unfair.

4. The system should reward the hardest journeys.

A student who prepared with outdated books, no coaching, poor schooling, unreliable internet, and little guidance has overcome enormous barriers. Those struggles deserve recognition. A deprivation policy should prioritize the severity of educational disadvantage, not rely primarily on broad demographic categories.

5. There are better ways to measure deprivation.

Instead of assigning points based largely on identity, universities could consider:

* Family income.

* Parents' education.

* Government vs. private schooling.

* Rural or remote schooling.

* First-generation college student status.

* Educationally backward or aspirational districts.

* Access to coaching and academic resources.

These factors paint a much more accurate picture of the opportunities a student has actually had.

A Better Way Forward:-

Rather than abandoning affirmative acton, we should make it more precise and transparent.

* Replace gender deprivation points with 33% horizontal reservation for women within every category** (General, OBC, SC, ST, EWS, etc.). This directly ensures women's representation instead of indirectly doing so through additional marks.

* Create an Individual Deprivation Index** that awards points based on measurable educational and socioeconomic disadvantages rather than broad demographic assumptions.

* Cap the maximum deprivation points to a reasonable limit(maybe 10-12 marks in 300 marks paper for PG) so that the entrance examination remains the primary basis for selection while still compensating genuine disadvantage.

* Review the deprivation criteria periodically: Using updated educational and socioeconomic data so the system evolves with changing realities.

* Invst before the examination, not just during admissions. Better government schools, scholarships, free coaching, digital libraries, mentorship programmes, and improved educational infrastructure will do more to reduce inequality than admission-stage adjustments alone.

Affirmative action is essential in a country as unequal as India. But good intntions alone are not enough. A deprivation policy should identify those who have genuinely had fewer opportunities and compensate them accordingly. The objective should be equal opportunity through accurate identification of disadvantage, not reliance on broad assumptions that may not reflect an individual's educational journey.

So I was thinking about finding good coaching notes of some of the topics like :

Indian Society , International Relations, disaster management, science and technology, etc..

I know these are current-heavy papers, but I was trying to find some baseline materials to pair up with ca.. can anyone tell me where to find notes (good quality and comprehensive yet not so bulky) for the same??