Proposal Critique — Mayank Srivastava — Vice President
Link to complete proposals:
Proposal 1: My KGP
Need: There is definitely a need for it as there is no existing platform which offers relevant course information such as grade distribution, faculty info and syllabus in one place. Existing course data on ERP is not sufficient for making a proper decision. Beyond this, the idea of incorporating Cab sharing and Lost and found features will surely add to this comprehensive student portal.
Feasibility: Since MetaKgp has already started working on a beta version of this, the idea seems feasible. Moreover, the timeline proposed should add to the accountability in implementing this portal. The groundwork prepared by the candidate in discussions with ERP integration should help this in becoming an official mainstay for use by the departments and faculties themselves.
Impact: If implemented, this will surely have a positive impact and ease the student life in terms of course selection and lost and found grievances which currently has no simple solution.
Proposal 2: Student Support Services
Need: While the name makes it sound imperative, the candidate has failed to give a specific example of the kind of grievances that this proposal aims to solve. Different channels of redressal already exist and there seems to be no need of bringing them under one umbrella.
Feasibility: This proposal aims at solving issues catering to various facets of student life in KGP. A committee formed of just three to four people seems highly inadequate and will result in a mismatch between the grievance and the type of redressal that can be provided by the committee members.
Impact: Implementation of this proposal without a clear end-goal will only result in overburdening the already over-burdened counselors. This will also create confusion with the already existing methods of redressal.
Proposal 3: Efficient Room Allocation
Need: With growing number of extra-curricular activities in the campus, there is an increasing need of 24X7 working spaces for collaboration with the right amenities.
Feasibility: The groundwork done to prove the feasibility of the proposal seems satisfactory and the idea of I-card deposition maintains accountability on part of students as well. However, the absence of an administrative in charge above the security personnel could result in poor implementation.
Impact: This will definitely ease the need of growing workspaces but lack of responsibility and oversight can lead to wastage of electricity resources for dubious reasons.
Proposal 4: Fair Play Award
Need: In the light of recent events, we accept the need of incentivizing fair play and civilized support from hall members for any GC event.
Feasibility: Subjective judgment and lack of a standard penalizing scheme can make the point of this entire proposal moot. However, further groundwork with concerned stakeholders in the halls should help mitigate feasibility issues.
Impact: This should not be seen as the ultimate solution to the current scenario in GC events. However, the trophy and additional 10% point weightage may result in the intended effect.
Proposal 5: Faculty Cell
Need: A vibrant campus like ours could definitely benefit from extra-academic interactions between student and faculty in all spheres of the college life. The point made by the candidate about interactions between PG, RS and UG student groups could definitely help promote inclusivity among the student community but interested students already approach the concerned faculty/researchers on their own and it can be done without the presence of a Student Body for this purpose.
Feasibility: Owing to the general enthusiasm shown by professors and students for interactions beyond the classroom, we cannot help but be skeptical about the feasibility of this. If an Open House Call by the Director for discussion on campus activities cannot get a fair attendance, we strongly feel that this will not guarantee student participation by just inviting Professors to GC events or creating a Cell responsible for organizing meetups.
Impact: We feel that it is highly unlikely that this will achieve its intended goal considering that the goal needs persistent efforts from both sides. There is nothing that ensures that this could become a long-term support system for guidance in the extra-academic sphere.
Proposal 6: External relation cell
Need: We already have companies coming in from various industries and conducting their workshops in the campus, independently or through collaboration with societies. It’s a good idea to increase the corporate exposure for campus students although the establishment of a cell just for that seems unnecessary. For collaborative links between Research groups and Industry, the functionality of the current Corporate Relations Cell could be extended or attempted through the concerned Professors-in-Charge.
Feasibility: The knowledge base needed for this cell will come from existing channels of A-Cell, CDC and Department Societies and hence all the proposed goals can be achieved through the pre-existing bodies. There is lacking groundwork in the proposal on part of the candidate in interactions with the industry.
Impact: This will fail to create the intended impact as first and second years are not equipped with the skillset required for niche corporate workshops. Similarly, CSR initiatives can be taken up directly by the groups which is what has been happening till now.
