PhD - Passing with High Difficulty?

About a year ago, when I read about Kamal Hassan being conferred a PhD by some random university in Chennai, I felt that the so called custodians of the Indian education system (most of them ex-convicts or politicians; well they are actually one and the same) have tampered with and squeezed enough profit out of undergraduate education through engineering colleges that they are now targeting the doctorate degree for their next butchering act (poor Masters, nobody cares about it). And now when I read about Vijay, I was reminded of a very bad pj that my friend used to tell when we were in 3rd or 4th grade - "What is Phd? Passing with High Difficulty." That is precisely what the acronym has been reduced to. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear about Ajith being offered one soon (after all, the thalai can never be lagging behind the thalapadhi). So as this burlesque act continues, like a uncontrolled nuclear reaction, the PhDs will multiply and eventually destroy the system.

So what does it take to earn a PhD in India - act in a few movies? Maybe I could digest this parody if the movies that we are taking about here were at least original. But that not being the case, (90% of the movies are being made are rehashes of English or still worse, Tamil movies) what did these so called experts in the art of movie making create to be worthy of the highest academic degree. Maybe the actors associations (Since most actors are owners of some Engineering college and are also affiliated with one of two political parties, actors associations are synonymous with legislative assembly/parliament or the Directorate of Education) got together and thought "well, we cant win Academy awards with the kind of movies we make, lets honor ourselves with something that a Kurosawa, Nicholson or a Bergman don't have - a PhD".

Well, to all my friends who are still slogging it out in research labs solving differential equations and developing inventory models to obtain that coveted degree, I really really feel bad for you, because I am taking off to Kodambakkam to get my PhD in...Copyrights Violation?

East or West, India is a land of snake charmers at its best

I saw two ads on cable TV today (Vitamin Water & Tanqueray Rangpur) on different channels within a span of 20 minutes and interestingly enough both featured India, symbolized not by the Taj or the Himalayas, not Gandhi or Aishwarya (supposedly the two most recognized Indians in the world) and definitely not the sprawling IT corridors of Bangalore or Hyderabad. India was proudly represented by the antediluvian images of snake charmers and their pets showing off their latest moves. I would have had a good laugh had the ads shown a call center in Bangalore or Noida.

So what is it with the West and its perception of India as a land of magic, swamis, snakes and most bizarre of cultures and spiritualism. Is the West oblivious to the developments that have taken place in the country over the last 20 years, from becoming the services hub of the world to housing R&D centers for global leaders like GE and Intel and becoming the twelfth largest economy in the world in that process (with a GDP growth rate of 9.4% in 2006-07)? Or is it just a blurred vision of a few that keeps reinforcing the stigmatic images of the country that was made popular by BBC shows and the Indiana Jones adventures? A third possibility is that though the West has embraced India when it comes to recruiting its brilliant engineers, setting up its latest product centers or accepting the importance of Yoga and Karma in their day today lives, it continues to market the country to its common man as it has always done - deliberately choosing to ignore the sublime growth of a new nation, perhaps as a result of the inertia to preserve the mystique and exoticness that has been long associated with the country. Having spent the last 6 years in the US, my personal opinion is that it is the listless work of a few that continues to project India in such deprecating ways.

Shaolin Soccer

I am not a big soccer fan and so I restrict myself to just the World Cups. (NBA, NFL, Tennis and cricket continue to hold sway over me). The glorified initiation that got kicked off with Maradona's genius in '86 never really grew on me as it did on some of my other friends who follow English Premier League and Spanish League with their own fantasy teams just like I follow NFL.

Recently I happened to watch a soccer game on TV as part of Copa America and it got me to wonder why the game never really got my adrenalin pumping. Even Golf, which I thought could never be a TV sport because of the snail like pace and Boxing, which always got me to wonder why the two guys are fighting in the first place, eventually won over me, but Soccer remains my neglected step-child. Why?

The primary reason is that the game's ultimate motive - to score goals - happens very infrequently. The average number of goals in in the 2006 World Cup was 2.27 (Source: Wikipedia, where else?). Assuming a 90 minute average time per game, that translates to a wait of 40 mins per goal. Though for the rest of time we might be treated to excellent dribbling, solid defense and swerving free kicks, 40 minutes is too long a wait for a single piece of action that moves the game forward.

So what can be done to make this game more appealing to me and the others (mostly Americans I would imagine) who share the same view of the most popular game in the globe. Here is a simple solution - take out the goal keeper.

What does this do to the game?

1. It takes away the use of hands from the game completely. All players are now bound by the same rules.
2. In my opinion if the person has taken the ball past the midfielders and defenders, there is no need for him to go past one more opponent who can can use his hands, to score a goal. Having a goal keeper in soccer is akin to having Shaq guard the basket in NBA for the full 48 minutes (imagine the scoreline of Basketball games in such a scenario) or playing cricket with 15 players, all of them planted on the boundary.
3. Taking goalkeepers out of the game would definitely improve the quality of defense and offense. All players are now forced to play tough defense and block shots and not rely on the goalie and to score, they must work the ball close to the goal and not take long shots; so control, dribbling, passing and movement are all better than the regular game.
4. Most importantly it would increase the number of goals scored in a soccer game without sacrificing its quality thus making it more attractive for people like me to watch.

What do we call this? Shaolin Soccer?