Disclaimer: Vox Populi, IIT Kanpur, is the exclusive owner of the information on this website. No part of this content may be duplicated, paraphrased, or interpreted in any other way without written consent from Vox Populi. If you want to reproduce any of the content on this page, please contact our chief editors directly or reach out to us by email at voxpopuli@iitk.ac.in
Note: This article is an Opinion piece by Sweta, Pool Captain, Shauryas (Takneek 22-23)
INTRODUCTION
Takneek, the inter-pool science and technology championship, is conducted annually by the Science and Technology (SnT) Council, IIT Kanpur. The students are divided into 5 pools, namely Aryans, Kshatriyas, Nawabs, Peshwas, and Shauryas. This division is done based on the halls of residence.
For example, the pool-wise hall division for Takneek 22-23 was as follows:
- Pool A: Kshatriyas – Hall 2 — Hall 7 — Hall 13a
- Pool B: Aryans – Hall 3 — Hall 10 — Hall 13b
- Pool C: Nawabs – Hall 5 — Hall 8 — Hall 13c
- Pool D: Peshwas – Hall 12 — Hall 11 — Hall – 13d
- Pool E: Shauryas – Hall 6 — GH-1 — Hall 4
Pool Shauryas is the pool of all female students. Shauryas has ranked last in all editions of Takneek conducted so far. This opinion piece is an analysis of the potential reasons behind this.
BACKGROUND
- Takneek Structure : Usually, the events are spread over two weeks. There are approximately 30 events/problem statements. There are majorly three categories: a) Problem statements spanning over days (usually 8-10/6-8/4-6 days), b) On-spot events, where groups/individuals solve a problem statement revealed right there in the span of a few hours, and c) SnT Code, which is the flagship event. SnT code is an all-night event in which all the pools assemble on OAT to solve multiple problem statements and participate in competitions until the next morning.
- Pool History : The pool of female students was made recently. The pool first participated in the general championship of 2016-17 as pool ‘Veeras.’ Prior to this, the female students were divided among the different male pools. This contrasts against the male pools that have existed for a long time. Pools of Hall 2 and Hall 3 have existed ever since the general championship started.
It is interesting to note here how the official term used is ‘pool’ while the majority refers to it in daily conversations as ‘hall’. This can be seen vividly through the hall t-shirts of the UG halls, which have the pool names and symbols on them, and hence the understanding developed here is from the perspective of halls: four male halls and one female hall.
ISSUES
There are various issues associated with the participation of the pool of females in Takneek. The resource and budget constraints, representation in the Science and Technology Council, and lack of guidance have been analysed here.
1. Resources and Budget
There are various hardware-based events and problem statements. The SnT Council allocates a budget of approximately INR 6000 for the same. Any additional funds needed were to be arranged by the pools themselves. Takneek has been a UG-centric activity, and hence, the PG halls do not invest in it. This becomes important for the case of the female pool, because the first-year UG students now reside in a primarily PG hall. This change happened Y22 batch onwards due to the space crunch on campus.
As mentioned above, the pool of females (now Shauryas, formerly known as Veeras) was formed very recently. Moreover, the position of the Science and Technology Secretary in the Hall Executive Committee (HEC) was introduced in the tenure 2022-23 for the first time. They lacked not just funds and hardware but also the logistical know-how of the functioning of Takneek.
An incident in particular which reflects upon this is from Takneek 22-23. The participation of 1st/2nd/3rd-year UGs is made compulsory for Takneek (as it is an exploratory and learning event for freshers). From the Y22 batch onwards, first-year female undergraduate students reside in Hall 4. With no historical logistical setup as such, there was a major confusion between Halls 6 and 4 on who should fund Takneek. While the other halls have been funding Takneek for many years, despite the freshers residing in Hall 13, this was a new situation for the female pool. Due to the misunderstanding between the two halls, participation from Hall 4 was hindered. This confusion led to the first-year students, who are residents of Hall 4, not being able to participate for 2-3 days, which is a huge setback for any type of problem statement.
Secondly, as the history of Takneek gives the male pools a stronger ground to stand on since they had the majority of these hardware materials within their reach, the halls were also willing to invest significantly greater amounts of their budgets for the sake of culture, one which is yet to develop for the pool of females. This creates a division in the quality of submissions made. As evidence of the above-stated factor, here is a recommendation from the Post Conduction Report of Takneek 23-24 – “Many concerns were raised regarding the conduction of the hardware PS’s in Takneek, we would recommend that either the construction of hardwares of all the pools shall be enforced to be made very similar by the guidelines of the PS, if there is a scope of creativity of distinctiveness in construction of hardware, each and every case of submission should be very carefully thought of and very descriptive PS should be designed.”
2. Representation in the SnT Council
The undergraduate students are distributed between various halls on a gender and graduation year basis. The pools are divided such that each pool has an equal distribution of students from all years. Approximately 1000 undergraduate students are there in each pool. However, in reality, not all members of a pool participate in such events.
The effective participation in Takneek comes from students who a) are currently associated with the SnT council, b) were previously associated with it, and c) want to explore the council/plan to be associated with it. These students are the following:
- 4th year UG students: Ex-coordinators
- 3rd year UG students: Current coordinators*, ex-secretaries
- 2nd year UG students: Current secretaries
- 1st year UG students: The entire batch can be considered
*They are usually the ones who make the problem statements and are not allowed to participate but make up an essential part of the analysis.
Here is an assessment of the number of people involved in the SnT council per pool during each year’s Takneek:
A.) Takneek 22-23 : In this edition of Takneek, only a few entities had their problem statements, and only those are considered for the analysis.
- 4th-year UGs (Y19s): For 1 female ex-coordinator, there were 2.2 male ex-coordinators per pool.
- 3rd-year UGs (Y20s): For 1 female coordinator, there were 2.55 male coordinators per pool. For 1 female ex-secretary, there were 1.01 male ex-secretaries per pool.
- 2nd-year UGs (Y21s): For 1 female secretary, there were 2.65 male secretaries per pool.
B.)Takneek 23-24: For this edition, the problem statements for each category were selected from a random draw from a fixed set of problem statements submitted by all entities, and hence the entire council is considered.
- 4th-year UGs (Y20s): Same as above – For 1 female ex-coordinator, there were 2.55 male ex-coordinators per pool.
- 3rd-year UGs (Y21s): For 1 female coordinator, there were 1.32 male coordinators per pool. For 1 female ex-secretary, there were 1.24 male ex-secretaries per pool.
- 2nd-year UGs (Y22s): For 1 female secretary, there were 1.4 male secretaries per pool.
*For this analysis, the total number of males vs females for each category was analysed. The total number of males was then divided by 4, to take into account the average number of people in the SnT council from a male pool. (Data source: SnT Council ratification lists)
Note: These numbers since the Y20 batch are the maximum that has been seen yet. This is also partly because of the jump in the intake of female students.
3. Guidance
While the guidance available to the junior batches in a pool cannot be quantified, the importance and relevance of it is mutually agreed upon by all the participating pools. This is so because the problem statements are specific to the domains covered by respective entities within the council. Therefore, with more domain-specific guidance, the solutions proposed improve qualitatively. Moreover, the number of pool members associated with major entities (some entities have more problem statements or higher weightage) has a direct proportionality with the quality of submissions and the points secured.
The lack of seniors available for guidance (majorly Y19s and Y20s) for pool Shauryas was a major factor contributing to their position in the competition. When compared against the guidance given by experienced seniors to the other pools, this shows the lack clearly. Moreover, it is a commonly held ideology that ‘girls lack the motivation for Takneek’. This can be questioned when the number of submissions made are assessed. Pool Shauryas had almost the same number of submissions as the male pools. The fact that the pool still secured the last position supports the argument that it was because of the poor quality and not a lack of motivation.
CONCLUSION
These factors, guidance, representation, and resource constraints, contribute greatly to determining where females will land in such events. For this reason, such a result not only reinforces sexist stereotypes but also hits hard the self-esteem of first-year undergraduate women. However, it is important to note that we are not dealing with a mere problem-solving situation here; rather, what is needed is a more profound comprehension of the present context. By refraining from proposing solutions immediately we give ourselves time to fully understand all details involved. The understanding acts as our first major step towards righting the wrongs caused by years of this kind of imbalance.
It is important that we acknowledge and recognize the hard work put in by many undergraduate female students. They should receive equal amounts of attention as male students who have achieved dissimilar levels of success. To my dear colleagues who have worked tirelessly for hours on end, your input counts just as much as anyone else’s does.
Opinion piece by Sweta, Pool Captain, Shauryas (Takneek 22-23)
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel