LUMS -- Lahore University of mis-Management Sciences

re:#75 by tahmed32
Indian students are more submissive types, unable to take up a leadership role when circumstances demand it. Americans are trained to look after themselves. That is their culture. I won`t say that they are trained to think. Indian schools carry a tougher curricula than american counterparts. Also, American universities are better equipped. In the fellowship program i studied in, the Library itself was a huge 9 storied building with all latest facilities. PCs were everywhere. Research facility was excellent. One need to have infrastructure to show results. Sadly, such an infrastructure is lacking in India in most medical colleges except the very best.
Sridhar
P.S: i am not commenting on Engineering in India or facilities in Pak as i do not know what is going on in these areas and am not qualified to comment.

some excellent points have been raised by various posters, i think. after having gone through the drill that others posters are starting, my experience reinforces what some of the various posters (who are at the other end - the beginning - of the drill) seem to know already. a good name university is good for the first job - and that too if it is in an area of demand. what comes next has to do with the kinds of things romair lists.

in the long run, in fact, what turns out to be most important is not the grad school you went to but what you learnt in kindergarten and at home. also, the main difference between pakistan education and US education i think is not a difference in knowledge - it is a difference in attitude. the US students, i found, had a lot more confidence in themselves than those of us coming from india and pakistan in particular. again, confidence is what they teach you in kindergarten, whereas my experience in pakistan was that the entire education system (particularly at the Panjab University economics department, and later in the civil services academy) was designed to ensure that I dropped any faith I had in my own brain. Many indian students with me at the time told me they had the same feeling - they knew as much as the US students, but lacked the ability to think for themselves. My brother (who studied engineering in Germany) told me he had the same experience when he first came to Germany.

#72 by HisExcellency

Hmm. An interesting spin on things. My personal opinion is that that adage of quality superseding quantity holds true and I cringe at the thought of accepting low standards, but I can understand where you`re coming from. I think it`s better to do something well rather than to bite off more than a mouthful (and after some time working in the industry I am reluctant to credit certifications and short courses for much) but I guess only time will tell whether producing ``less graduates with excellent qualifications`` is necessarily better than churning out ``more graduates with decent qualifications``.

About IIT. I think one of the reasons it has done so well over the years is because India has a much bigger population (and a higher literacy rate) than Pakistan. Whereas our primary education sector is excellent, it just isn`t extensive enough. We simply don`t produce enough good students to feed into our higher education institutes for them to be competitive. At the end of the day, any place is about as good as the people who go there to study.

Interesting discussion.

My experience has been that the university one goes to, though important, is never the deciding factor in one`s career. I used to think otherwise, when I was starting out in entry level jobs and when I was studying. Since then, I have had a chance to consult with a lot of companies, helping them set up, and reorganize, their IT depts. Often times this involves hiring a lot of people for them. One gets a pretty good idea of who`s who and what`s what, as far as qualifications and characteristics go. I would prioritize the important features, in getting a job and moving up, in the following order, from highest to lowest:

1. The field of study/experience: A person with a CS degree with Joe Schmoe university (or equivalent experience) has more chances of getting a job than a person with a BA degree in Philosophy degree from Harvard.

2. Successful job experience: After the entry level jobs, it is really a job experience record that counts. Ivy Leagues degrees, by themselves, without an excellent job experience record are useless, for moving up in management and executive positions.

3. The personality of the person: How the person behaves. His/her work ethic. Personality. Dress sense. Soft skills. etc. etc.

4. The College he attended: This is where the college comes in.

5. The level of degree: Unless it is for a research position or a position in academia, the level of qualification (BS, MS, Ph.D) etc. doesn`t matter much

One of the most interesting selections we went through once was for an Java developer. The company paid a lot, so we were always able to attract good candidates. We interviewed a small group of people. One had a Ph.D. from Harvard in Physics (or something, can`t remember). One had an BS from MIT (in Computer Science). And one had a Bachelors degree from Jawarlal Nehru University, with no degree from USA. We ended up hiring the guy from JLNehru. Primarily because the Harvard guy had a terrible attitude. The MIT lady had seven years of experience, but in C. The JLN guy was a nice guy, with three years of Java (which at that time was a lot), and knew his stuff.

So University Name matters, but only at three stages: a) Entry level b) When one gets to the executive ranks (this assumes one is good to begin with) c) When a candidate is approaching someone who knows nothing about him - they will get you an interview

Other than that, its who you are as a person and your experience record, that counts. Of course the ideal professional is someone who scores high on all four of the areas mentioned in the first para.

And I have found that Pakistanis do quite well - doesn`t matter where they are from in Pakistan. This is why I think Pakistanis overly and unnecessarily criticize themselves. Three countries, about which I can safely say, on the average, one can hire candidates from for IT, without worrying too much (specially if they have supplemented their BS degrees with a US degree): a) India b) Pakistan c) Iran

Chinese are good also, but their communication skills are severely lacking in many cases.

#69 by JacobianMatrix

Well said. Having worked with this gentleman, I don`t think he needs to create such a hype about himself. If he delivers even 50% of what he promises, inshallah prominence will follow him. And not vice versa. He has the capability to deliver. Let`s hope he also has the initiative and perseverance for this task.

Sigh. After going over some of the posts below, let me make a couple of small clarifications.

Firstly, social networks are important, but they`re not everything. Secondly (and more importantly) there`s a significant difference between possessing social networking skills and having contacts. The former may lead to the latter over time, but things don`t necessarily work in reverse. In other words, simply having contacts does not suddenly endow you with social skills.

By charging exorbitant fees LUMS ensures that the MBA program consists primarily of the upper strata of society. Doing so, it provides you with a set of useful contacts that may help you get jobs... not a set of skills. If the people at LUMS got together and sat around in Gymkhana, I don`t think they would achieve any less.

As for the fact that LUMS grads manage to find jobs, well, if you belong to some of the richest families in Pakistan, I would be surprised at your inability to do so. I think places like IBA should get credit for sufficiently empowering their students to go out and get jobs despite the greater diversity of student backgrounds. That`s really the key point: a college helps you develop abilities. It doesn`t just introduce you to people.

#66 by HassanShah

++
It`s about time LUMS started realising things are amiss and checked the rabid expansion that`s been taking place of late till they get a set of individuals capable of leading research efforts. Jobs at Microsoft, ABN Amro etc. might keep the applications coming in, but till philosophicla enquiry takes root, LUMS will never be recognized around the world.
++

I disagree. The present student population is too small to meet the market demand. I think it is better to produce more graduates with decent qualifications, than less graduates with excellent qualifications. I say this because no matter how good a student you are, the real learning takes place on the job. The market follows the 80-20 rule: 80% of the time, you only use 20% of the skills you learned in university. The remaining skills can be picked up slowly ``on the job`` depending on seniority and role.

Like a person, institutions also go through several phases of their lifecycle. From 1986 to 1994, LUMS was a baby that offered just one programme. Between 1994 and 1999, this baby took smaller (baby) steps towards boyhood (or girlhood if you prefer) by offering new programmes (BBA, BCS) with small class sizes. Having learnt its lessons and worked out the administrative requirements, this child is now poised for teenage and adulthood. The undergrad program has been expanded. More majors (e.g. Social sciences, Mathematics) are being offered. A Law school is being started. The MCS and PhD programmes have already been launched. In years to come, class sizes must expand further.

LUMS should not remain an exclusive university where only 1000-odd Lahorites, Karachiites and Islamabadis study. It needs to be a national university where even students from smaller towns like Faisalabad, Peshawer, Quetta, Multan, Hyderabad, Bahawalpur, etc can study.

In the end, it is all a numbers game. This is the secret of India`s phenomenal success in IT... i.e. Produce more graduates, even if their quality is just okay; then let them polish themselves on the job through certifications and short executive courses.

very impressive. definitely. no denying that. im proud of any pakistani who ends up at mit. wow. only point is that hes not a faculty member as i hear he keeps telling people he is. lets give credit for what is and not what isnt. i was excited when my friend at lums told me about the youngest professor ever at mit being from pakistan and it later turned out the he was not even close to the youngest and not even a prof. also turns out that research assistants at mit do teach classes as instructor from time to time. disappointing were not content about what we are and must fool others by pretending to be things we arent. lums even published an ad about it. im going to wait to see what the `institute` in lahore does before getting my hopes up high again. simply getting a grant from the govt doesnt count for anything.

zird:
grad school: despite the faculty from `not so great` unis, i think its still quite a feat that lums grads are studying at grad schools in ivy-leages in the US and are surviving the rigours too.

so? a lot of other pakistani students who haven`t gone to lums are also doing the same, from GIK, NED, UET etc...my question is: what`s with the attitude, dude? You guys are not even being hired by local firms now because of the badass attitude...me me me i`m special i want this i want that...get OVER yourselves! What is it about desis and superiority complexes? You get a little and you want the whole nine yards. Jeeez! Even foreign grads don`s have these `nakhras`! This is more so in the case of MBAs. Of course, I am generalizing greatly. I`m sure there are lums grads around who don`t have their heads in the clouds but most of them do have a problem dealing with the `common` folks...i wonder what the deal with that is!

Sobia #47,

If LUMS compares favourably with mid-level American Universities in terms of the undergraduate curriculum it offers, I would say it has done rather well. Would you
disagree with this assessment ?

To digress a little, the IITs have maintained their standards through a ridiculously
difficult entrance exam, which ensures a very motivated and intelligent
undergraduate student body. From what I have read in this article, LUMS seems to offer better infra-structure (student/computer ratio) and the living conditions in IIT campuses
used to be spartan at best.

#57 by dost-mittar

Well, to be quite honest, my knowledge of SFU, as I have already admitted, is close to zero. I did surf the web and it seems that SFU is rated well outside the top 100 economics programs around the world, behind places like Queens, University of Montreal, McGill, U of T, McMaster, York, U of Western Ontario etc. in Canada alone. Besides, the point I`m making is not critically dependent on the merits and demerits of SFU alone (it was just one in a list of places).

When LUMS started out they had a pretty impressive faculty. For various reasons (interesting in their own right for they are a consequence of the smug attitude of the administration), that`s no longer the case. I think it`s a startling decline for the university and one they need to check. The standard of education does not merely depend on the most accomplished one or two professors in a college but on the majority of the faculty. It`s about time LUMS started realising things are amiss and checked the rabid expansion that`s been taking place of late till they get a set of individuals capable of leading research efforts. Jobs at Microsoft, ABN Amro etc. might keep the applications coming in, but till philosophicla enquiry takes root, LUMS will never be recognized around the world.

Of course, for all this to happen, someone needs to wake up to reality. Unfortunately, it seems that those who matter in LUMS think everything`s just nice and dancy.

I did my BE (CSE) from GIKI and then went to graduate school here in US at CMU.

I think universities can be compared to democracies. The older the better, they get refined, stable, reknown and nurtured. The fact that NED and UET have produced great professionals can be partly attributed to the reason that not only have they been around for quite a while, many of the alumni have contributed in some way or another to improve the ambience as a whole. However, it is to note that as great leaders are born in a corrupt governments too, so are great students in mis-managed universities, and I believe in larger numbers.

Pakistan is Pakistan and US is US. You have to change your mind-frame when you compare, or even talk. The objective of a university is to impart education. Why am I not too worried about `not-the-best` living conditions at LUMS? I think the foremost should be what do they offer. LUMS, GIKI along with other institutions offers an oppurtune way for people to come abroad for better jobs and education. On a comparison with other institutions in Pakistan, I see one of the most creditable faculty at LUMS. A GIKIAN recently got his doctorate from US and returned back to Pak, and is teaching in LUMS and has opened a Computer Vision research centre - I doubt such an oppurtunity for research or exposure exists anywhere else in the country. Now which student or how many students can cash on it, is a different matter - let`s remember we are Pakistanis too and all the things that come with it and our nature.

GIKI had great resources but was isolated and did not have the faculty and suffered and still suffers from such mis-management rumours too. Does that mean that it did not produce good students? Did they not end up at top universites in the world or in top firms? No. This applies to NUST and LUMS also. NED/UET have made their marks, and these new universities are, perhaps not in the best-est of ways or the ways we would like, but they surely are. They are making and producing students - good ones and individuals - with strong fundamentals. And they are usually cheaper compared to any place here in the US.

As I did my graduate studies here in the US, I did not feel that my undergraduate university (GIKI) hampered my grooming by not offering facilities/time/resources to learn, instead I realized that I did not actually make use of all they had to offer (like most people).

JacobianMatrix #56

Yeah so his formal title is Postdoctoral Associate - who cares. But the fact remains that he is an ``instructor`` for courses at MIT. e.g. http://cag.lcs.mit.edu/classes/6.898/ and not just ``TA`` or ``staff``. And being an instructor for an MIT graduate-level course sure beats being a full professor at a run-of-the-mill US college.

#56 by JacobianMatrix

++
yeah! i keep hearing about him all the time from people. there was an ad in the newspaper about him too. i checked out the mit site and also asked a couple of people i know there and it turns out hes not really a prof... some kind of staff or something but definitely not faculty. from what i hear he has just been creating that impression just because he was involved as an assistant for some class or something. still impressive but only half the truth.
++

I believe he is a Research Assistant in the Ubiquitous Computing group at MIT. During his PhD at Cambridge, he contributed to the Oxygen Project and now he is in the process of setting up a Research institute in Lahore. Apparently, the govt has apportioned a grant of $30m for this purpose. More details will probably emerge only after this project materializes.

On the contrary, I think this is the best school to go to for learning business and management sciences or art. It teaches you, by examples, how to maximize profits by squeezing available resources to the limit. Learn it well as you have to implement it routinely in your practical life to come.
You and your school are part of the commodity market, where education is the product that you two are exchanging. You want more bang for your buck and school wants thicker stream of cash flows flowing. The school has to grow and growth comes from raising money. You are the capital providers. Did you say they are admitting more students than they can handle? No! they are accumulating more money and guess what, one can always handle more money. You know that.
And don’t sweat too much about the quality. Think of this way, you are far superior than those third grade government school poodles even if you don’t learn nothin’. When you walk into that interview room with your LUMS chip on your shoulder, you will get priority over crippled public school graduates with no membership in the Rich People Club (I am implying(I am not implying that u are part of the club but the majority is).
The quality wavier applies to you only if you decide to remain in the country, but if you want to go to Umrica, for instance, then it may turn out to be a whole different ball game.

Caution: response may sound bitter for I sensed a brat in 2nd to last sentence of your post.

#54 by HassanShah

I know quite a few LUMS MBAs who are working for McKinsey, A.T.Kearney and Goldman Sachs in NYC. One of my former classmates is working at Citibank in London. Most of the folks have gone into Investment banks and Management consulting companies. Quite a few have joined Internet venture funds and startups in D.C.

Compared to the early and mid-1990s, the only difference now is that LUMS MBAs need to wait longer to find jobs. My IBA friends tell me that they also face the same problem. So I don`t think this has anything to do with LUMS or IBA. Too many MBAs are entering the market and many have returned from the U.S. because of visa problems/layoffs. Effectively, LUMS MBAs are now competing with U.S. qualified MBAs. Strangely, though most of the times, employers still prefer a LUMS MBA (albiet with good grades) to a foreign MBA from mid-tier universities.

++
Perhaps my view of an educational institute is skewed, but I thought a college is meant to educate people. Not to merely serve as a social networking club.
++

LUMS is much more than a social networking club. The average MBA student at LUMS spends 70-85 hours a week in class, group discussions, assignments and case studies. Networking, no doubt, is one of the benefits of joining LUMS. But it is not the entire picture.

To put it bluntly, professional education is not about education alone. Networking and soft skills are equally crucial, especially during an economic slowdown.

Graduate studies are very different from elementary school, high school or college. The focus in grad school is specialization and networking, not general education. It has to be seen as an investment, not an exercise in character-building. It is no different from a business investment which ultimately must yield a financial return.