u/Pure-Albatross-2890

Looking for moderators to help out please

A good thing about this group is that there are no profs lurking here 🥱

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. ⁠Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. ⁠Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. ⁠Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. ⁠Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. ⁠When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Taken from r/IISc sub Reddit.

Hi,

Since we are on the subject of ethics and appropriate behaviour by faculty at the esteemed institute, I would like to draw your attention to this behaviour.

Dr. Arpita Patra recently posted a fund raiser on Milaap to raise funds for her next mountaineering expedition.

My two cents:

1. Utilizing a platform deeply associated with survival to fund a luxury, high-cost hobby (mountaineering) risks diluting the platform’s core mission. A donor visiting the site with the intent to save a life may feel misled or structurally manipulated when encountering a campaign for a recreational expedition.
2. Full professors at this level enjoy stable, top-tier institutional salaries, comprehensive government benefits, and significant societal privilege. Mountaineering especially pursuing the "Seven Summits" is widely recognized as one of the most expensive hobbies in the world, costing tens of thousands of dollars per climb for permits, logistics, and private guides. It is ethically questionable for a highly compensated professional to ask the general public (many of whom may earn significantly less) to subsidize a deeply personal bucket-list ambition.
3. Climbing a mountain is ultimately a personal achievement. If the goal is truly to promote gender equity or inspire rural students in West Bengal, the hundreds of thousands of rupees raised could arguably be directly donated to girls' education or rural science infrastructure, rather than being spent on international flights and climbing permits.
4. Seeking corporate sponsorship via a professional pitch deck is a standard, ethical exchange of branding and marketing. Shifting that financial burden onto the public via a charity crowdfunding link suggests an unwillingness or inability to secure traditional athletic sponsorship, defaulting instead to public goodwill and the prestige of the "IISc" brand to solicit personal funds.
5. When a donor contributes to a mountaineering expedition because they respect the professor's academic background, that money is effectively diverted away from local charities, medical emergencies, or actual grassroots community development. From a utilitarian ethical standpoint, the "good" generated by funding one individual's hobby is vastly outweighed by the "good" that same capital could do if directed toward systemic societal needs.

Dr. Patra's achievements are objectively impressive, but using a public charity platform to finance an incredibly expensive, optional, and elite sport while occupying a position of significant economic security is a misuse of public generosity.

PS - She has significant corporate and government funding for her lab running in crores and drives a big car that costs atleast INR 15 lakhs

PPS - Dr. Patra, if this post reaches you, please try to come up with an explanation. You are answerable.

Hi,

I know it’s the admission season and I want to share a piece of advice. If you’re considering joining PhD or research in AI/ML don’t ever join Prof Chiranjib Bhattacharyya of CSA. He is an absolutely narcissistic piece who takes pride in destroying other people’s careers and very conveniently removes their names so that you cannot trace those students.

If you join him forget about getting married. He won’t even allow you to have a gf/bf. If you get married, he will further delay your thesis. When one of his PhD students handed him the wedding card to invite him, he said, “I will attend but I don’t approve”. This guy submitted his thesis after 9 years.

To those asking why he delays thesis. The only logical conclusion I could come to is that He is a psycho. He has some trauma from his own PhD days where his own guide was very hands-off and he didn’t have a paper for the first five years of his PhD. Hence, he himself finished his own PhD in seven years. He is passing the same trauma to his students.

This was just a caution.

With the exception of few such Profs, rest are fine.

Best of luck!!!

PS: In case of any doubts about labs in CSA, put the name of the Prof in comments I will write down about them here.

And if you are a female, be careful. Some of these Profs chase young female students.

People asking me about the good Profs-

1. Prof Shalabh Bhatnagar. Genuinely a very nice guy.
2. will soon update this list. Maybe others can chime in too.

****************************************************
Since we are on this topic, if you ever have to go on an academic break due to any reason, be careful. One of a well-known prof discontinued his PhD student while he was still on a health related break, WITHOUT informing them or discussing anything with them. They were on therapy at home while on the break and got to know from the students portal that they have been discontinued from the program.