Talk:Indian Institutes of Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Indian Institutes of Technology:
  • Try and find a representative classroom picture to be used in Education Section.
Former featured article Indian Institutes of Technology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2006.
WikiProject India / Education (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Education in India workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


There's a red map dot with a legend floating in the middle of Indian_Institutes_of_Technology#Reservation_policy. Can anyone fix? AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Major Upgrade[edit]

I think all of us who know anything about this great institution should get together and improve this article,significantly,so that in a month or so,we get it the featured article status.We in India and the Americans know about the IIT but the rest of the world needs to know too.The Article needs to wikified definetly,most of the existing article i think needs to go and make it more appealing and explain people the real spirit of the IIT.Also if any IITians are around,a couple of good snaps will do us a lot of good,as if anybody is bothered on where the actual location of the IIT is,the image on the page is definetly below par.Prateek01 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

different IIT = different articles?[edit]

There are three IITs with their own articles, but all three are stubs. Does anyone anticipate each school gaining enough information to stand on its own, or could they be brought together here with sections describing each school as necessary? JPB 04:19, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ideally it should have been the other way round, a long page breaking up into smaller ones. But now that we have the stubs and no one has been adding to it since Jan 2003, what we can do now is disable the links to individual schools, and as JPB says, add sections in the main page.
Also JPB, use 4 hyphens as the separator between discussions. You have used == which is not recognized by wikipedia's software. 4 hyphens get replaced by a horizontal line.

Jay 09:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, what I did was use the "Post a comment" link on the side of the page. I didn't put the "==" (section header) there myself; I don't know why it shows up like it did. Bug alert, perhaps?

JPB 15:35, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Don't merge entries abt different IITs. They should be kept on different pages.
I'm from IITG and i can manage IITG page.

arvind 03:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IIT vs. Indian Institute of Technology[edit]

User:Rajasekaran Deepak, looks like you've moved Indian Institute of Technology Madras to IIT Madras etc. Are you sure IIT Madras does not violate Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(acronyms)? IMHO, IIT Madras is not "almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and ... widely known and used in that form". I've seen IIT Madras referred to all the time as "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras", especially to folks not from India. Ambarish|Talk 07:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

  1. Abbreviations must be avoided to avoid ambiguity. "IIT" may be ambiguous, but "IIT Madras", etc. will never be ambiguous (because of the city name).
  2. There are too many IITs, all using the same "IIT" name, so the name "IIT" is strongly associated with the IITs.
  3. Using "Indian Institute of Technology, Madras" is too complicated (because of the city name).
  4. For example, NASA is considered valid usage by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)
Rajasekaran Deepak 08:53, 2004 May 14 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my comment. I never meant that we use IIT - of course it'll be ambiguous. My point was more about using Indian Institute of Technology, Madras rather than IIT Madras. I don't understand what you mean by complicated - after all, we have pages like Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and more relevant to the topic, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As for your example, NASA is *always* known as NASA; few people even know what it stands for, whereas as above, the expansion for IIT-M is used all the time, especially in formal writing. And lastly, NASA is a pronounceable acronym, whereas IIT is an initialism. Ambarish | Talk 19:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I had not misunderstood you. By '"IIT" may be ambiguous', I meant that it might be used for other things, say 'Illinois Institute of Technology'.
The institutes are widely known as "IIT", both in India and abroad. Dilbert refers to them as "IIT" . But this is my POV. Also, my argument is weaker than that for NASA. Rajasekaran Deepak 12:34, 2004 May 21 (UTC)
I don't have a strong view-point on either choice; let me move this discussion to Talk:Indian Institute of Technology, and hope others chip in. Ambarish | Talk 22:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
(the above moved from User_talk:Rajasekaran Deepak. Does anyone else have views on whether the article on, say, IIT-Madras should reside at IIT Madras or Indian Institute of Technology, Madras? Ambarish | Talk 22:53, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I say to use the long form, keeping redirects at the short ones. Help random people understand better. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:43, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fictional IITians[edit]

I do not think the "Asok" chararcter of Dilbert is a recongition given to IITians. The comic character seems to be a farce. One might argue that, comic by nature is a farce. But then, this is farce squared. "Asok" is represented as a techno-s(l)av(e)yy worker. I don't think it has to be put up here. Nehru didn't built IIT to be recoginzed as part of a comic character, and that too in an Alien world. This is just my opinion. --ganesh 21:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, all are entitled to their opinions. Asok is listed under section "List of fictional IITians", and is in no way meant to mean its a list of IITians who have made their institution proud. In this case the Dilbert comic strip has a large readership and Asok is well known as well. Comics are fiction and if you notice, Wikipedia does have a number of articles dedicated to fictional characters, solely for the reason that its of encyclopedic value. Jay 22:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the character is in a good light no one would object to it. But, it is not. I think one should advocate it to be taken away from the Dilbert comic itself. Anyways, I don't care. --ganesh 22:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

acceptance rate at iits[edit]

deleted by author Iitmsriram 10:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

selectivity statistic has been quoted wrongly. cited article indicates there were 4935 seats in 2005 with about 200,000 test takers. that is a selectivity of about one in 40, not one in 75. in 2006, there were about 300,000 test takers but the seat count has gone up to 5444 (ref. the just released 2006 jee counseling brochure; not yet available on line, will add a citation when that becomes available), so the selectivity is about one in 55. i am not sure where the 'less than 3900 seats' figure comes from. perhaps, it is based on non-reserved category seats from 2005? but then, 2005 had only about 200,000 test takers and they were not all non-reserved category. historically also, the selectivity has been hovering around one in 50, perhaps one in 30 or 40 but never as low as one in 75, i believe. in earlier years, there were fewer seats, but there were much fewer test takers too. Iitmsriram 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, here is the official seats availability list for 2006. its at Iitmsriram 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

notable praises[edit]

Is this section NPOV? It reads like a very subjective piece?

Patnaik 18:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "I do know cases where students who couldn't get into Computer Science at IITs, they have gotten scholarship at MIT, at Princeton, at Caltech." While he did say this (I saw this episode of 60 minutes) it is proveably false. MIT does not give academic scholarships (why would they need to?). I imagine Princeton and Caltech don't either. Need-based financial aid is not the same as a scholarship.

no not POV[edit]

Personal opinions.. no... the material is true. I reviewed some of the examination material they give... it is tougher (covers more material and more details) than anything CollegeBoard can throw at us

Re-sit the JEE[edit]

It is mentioned here that Students once enrolled in an IIT cannot re-sit for the JEE again. I think this is false, since I know at least a couple of my juniors in IIT-Madras who re-sat JEE and went to IIT-K and IIT-D. Have the rules changed since 2002?

I moved/edited the original wording in copy editing the article to try to make sense of something that was unclear. Under notable IITians (not under JEE) it said "Also if a student once selectedin his/her first attempt he or shecannot reappear in the JEE again." -- Paul foord 14:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
yes, the rules have changed. this is the correct present position.Iitmsriram 09:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Video Link in External Links[edit]

Suggest whether it would be appropriate to add this link to the external links section. It is about the CBS 60 Minutes Coverage on IITs. The only problem with this one is that its very big video (92MB). I will try and find if any smaller is available. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Size is fine. We can probably mention it too. And if there's a smaller version, we can put both hi-res and low-res, so the reader can choose depending on his net speed. deeptrivia (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Books on IITians[edit]

I think that we should also aim to write atleast stub articles on the Books on IITians. If they appear as redlinks, it will create an impression that we have mentioned non-notable books. Atleast making a stub on The IITians should be easy as it is a vey well known book. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Let's also work at the layout and how to go about everything. A look at the following FAs might be helpful:

Suggestions based on other articles[edit]

After going through the Featured Articles mentioned, I can only say that the biggest hurdle we will be facing is that we can't concentrate on one particular IIT, as the FAs mentioned are of one institution, and not a group. I think taking a cue from article Ivy League, we should construct a table comparing the IITs on various heads such as student intake, land ownership, year of establishment, location, number of hostels, etc. We can even have different tables like one exclusively for student intake, under the various heads of B.Tech., M.Tech., etc. The idea of shields and motto table can also be considered.

We can also have a section on the Inter-IIT sports meet. Also, it would be better if we can trace the evolution of JEE since its inception..the way it has changed, etc.

I also wanted to know whether it would be Ok to have a section on how the IITs have handled the reservation rule for the backward classes in its unique way, i.e. the Prep course concept. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comparision tables is a great idea. We can definitely discuss reservations, prep courses, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sister Projects[edit]

I have moved the quotations about IITs to Wikiquote and copied the Dilbert Image to Wikicommons. Should we keep the dilbert image or delete it from the main page. My opinion is Keep, as otherwise the page hardly has any images/photographs. Should we include any photograph from any IITs page to this one? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

About the dilbert image .... keep --Keynes.john.maynard 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PUCL Link[edit]

I have found a very good source of alternate views and statistics at a article. However, the article has a very strong POV. Is it okay to include this as a reference? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

alternate views, yes, and yes, it has a strong pov. the pov is enough to present some of the statistics in distorted form; why, some of the 'statistics' are plain false. i think we should strive for factual accuracy and pass on otherwise relevant additional information and links that may not be accurate. Iitmsriram 05:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Dilbert's Strip[edit]

Can anyone check the status of Dilbert's Strip image on the article. Does it qualify as fair use? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion plans?[edit]

Flows better with it after IIT family. Thoughts? -- Samir (the scope) 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I did it per Nichalp's request in PR. I don't have any strong views where it should be present hence I accepted his request. Nowadays, he is a bit busy with other things, but we can always discuss when he comes back. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Probably better to discuss current IITs before future ones. Just my .02 but I defer to your better judgment, Ambuj. -- Samir (the scope) 16:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree expansion section placement is not logical. --Blacksun 19:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the "IIT Family" section before "Establishment". Nichalp wanted "Expansion" merged under "Establishment", but we can always move "Establishment" after "Family". Now I believe it will look good to all. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of subsections[edit]

Subsections are best used when you have more than one sub-categories and a heading that gives an overview of each sub-category. Expansion plans (under Establishment), Cultural festivals (under Student Life), and Recent developments (under Reservations) all need to be merged or made into separate categories or re-done so that it meets the correct format. --Blacksun 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blacksun, Even I know what you are telling but am stuck with this scheme in the absence of better alternative. I think I will need your suggestions on this. Here's what I feel may be an alternative. We can call the part under "Establishment" not under "Expansion" as "First phase" or some better phrased heading. With "Student life", we can probably write "Daily life" or something better. In "Reservation policy", I can't actually think of any suitable title, just some vague ones like "Pre-Mandal policy", etc. As you can see that none of my above suggestions look great enough to be written, I haven't done it already. If you can come up with good suggestions, I will be glad to make the improvements. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, I am not sure about why we need a separate heading for recent developments under reservation. I think it should be simply a paragraph at end of reservation section with dates (In 2006 blabla...). Few years from now it is not going to be recent and creates unnecessary maintenance burden. In fact, i think you can just delete the "recent developments" heading and keep everything else the way it is. I understand the urge to highlight what is happening right now but it is going to be old soon :).
  • Also, expansion can be kept as a separate section in my opinion and moved after establishment or if you can make it breif, it can be merged with establishment itself.
  • Finally, cultural festivals can once again be merged with Student Life. I dont think you need to rename it as "daily life". Maybe "Student culture" or "Student life & Culture" might be a better heading. However, this could make the section too large. Other options are keeping Cultural festivals as a separate section or making a super section called "Campus Culture" or "IIT culture" or "Campus Life" and having two separate subsections "Student Life" and "Cultural festivals" with a proper overview in the super section. If you do that then you might want to place IIT intersports meet in that as a subsection too. Regards, --Blacksun 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Also please note that currently "Student life" is filled with information that arguably belongs in a section that deals with student facilities or education infrastructure.--Blacksun 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the sections. Hope the current scheme is acceptable to all. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is much better. However, I am not sure about the name "extracurricular life." I reckon it will change as the article progresses. Also, I am still concerned that their is content in this section that does not match the name. I will go through some college catalogues to see if I can find a better heading. --Blacksun 13:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do come up with a better title. Even the title "Success story" can be changed to something more appropriate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Enrollment at IIT Kharagpur[edit]

i seriously doubt if iit kharagpur can have 4000 undergraduate students. if it does, it should be giving out around 1000 bachelors (or btech + dual + msc) degrees every year; last year, the total number of degrees given out was about 1200, including over 500 mtech/ms/phd degrees. based on the total number of degrees given in the last convocation ("In this Convocation, the Institute conferred degrees on 1203 outgoing students comprising 170 Ph.D, 20 MS, 345 M.Tech, 17 MCP, 37 MBM, 94 Dual Degree, 10 MMST, 63 PGDIT, 4 PGDBMOM, 90 M.Sc, 343 B.Tech(H) and 10 B.Arch(H)"), i am putting the total student strength at about 4500 - say, 5000 as an upper limit. Iitmsriram 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds more reliable. I haven't got a reply from the Public Information Officer and until that happens, we can do with the aggregates itself. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Yuppiiiii! Its' Featured! Congrats ambuj and all others. Also, it got featured quite fast.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from my side too. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I was also very surprised as the nomination wasn't even a week old (just 5 days). The one for Sardar Patel took full 10 days. Thank you all who helped it getting featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


The recent copyedit is good. By the way, the section title "The IIT family" sounds a bit antropomorphic. Can we change it to something better? "The IITs", "group of institutions" or something along those lines? Not a serious issue as the word "family" is used as a collective noun for so many things. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for adding another word to my vocabulary :) -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Organisational structure[edit]

I think the above section requires some major copyediting. In its present form, it wouldnt pass Tony's criteria. I have made a few minor changes to the other well written sections. -- Lost 18:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit changed the meaning of the sentence. The President of India is ex-officio visitor, and hence has residual powers. He isn't the ex-officio visitor because he has residual powers. Anyway, I will look into the section again for copyediting. Thanks for pointing out the possible problems. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for that... Actually, it sounded as if the organisational structure of IITs had the residual powers. Hence the chage..Pls change to a more apt version -- Lost 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah...never thought that way. Anyway, fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Admission to M.S. and Ph.D. programs is based primarily on a personal interview, though candidates must also appear for a few written tests. - Not very sure about the singular use and how many are a few written tests? --Lost 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidates who clear IIT-JEE. Is a better word possible? -- Lost 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

a minimum of 60% marks in aggregate in -- Lost 18:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

comprising of English, basic physics, chemistry and mathematics at the IIT concerned - why only one subject with Caps? -- Lost 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More specifically on organisational structure, first sentence says President is the ex officio visitor and second sentence says directly under him is ... and the visitor. Also the second sentence is very long.

3rd + 4th + 5th + last sentence of 2nd para: Under the: Is this the best word that can be used here? Sorry for being very finicky -- Lost 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The confusion of second sentence may have risen because of a missing "and". Actually the sentence fragment it belongs to is "and three appointees each of the Central Government, AICTE, and the Visitor". I find no way of breaking the second sentence. If you have any way, go ahead. I thought about removing the details of the members and write the aggregate figures only, but I feel that the information is highly relevant and shouldn't be left out. I also thought abou the "Under the.." problem, but am unable to find alternative words for it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There were a total of three criticisms of the policy of reservation. Other two were removed as not very notable. Your edit is perfectly fine. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For each semester, the students are graded on a scale of 0 to 10 based on their performance, by making a weighted average of the grade points all the courses with their respective credit points. - Something wrong with this sentence -- Lost 04:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Master and masters - both are used in the article. Pls standardise. -- Lost 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the research work in IITs is done by doctoral students, but the doctorate programs of the IITs are not very notable having average research output, in terms of publications and patents. - Might qualify as POV unless cited -- Lost 04:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (removed as POV). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically a drama, each PAF is a combination of many cultural arts including dramatics, literature, music, fine arts, debating, and dance. - Is PAF a drama or a festival? -- Lost 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The PAF is organised as a drama, but is a blend of many other arts as written in the sentence. "Performing Arts Festival" is a proper noun, so we have to quote it as such, even if its actually not one. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In contrast, a typical college in India employs postgraduate students with or without experience as lecturers and professors. - Can this be cited -- Lost 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the sentence. Regarding citations, I could very well add faculty qualification requirement from some of the colleges, but it will not cover the "typical" adjective, something I am not hopeful of finding a reference for. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

compared to other engineering colleges in India according to a number of educational surveys. - cite? -- Lost 05:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations in details in the "Educational Rankings" section and its "see also" section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Rajat Gupta is not MD of Mckinsey any more -- Lost 13:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

changed to former -- Lost 13:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire article as closely as I could and i think the grammar and POV complaints do not exist anymore. Am off to support the featured status at FARC -- Lost 13:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


guys could add a little info on NPTEL.also a whole new article similiar to MIT OpenCourseWare would be brilliant.User:Msreeharsha 9:30,9 July 2k6.


I found a detailed chapter on the IITs, their impact, and the quality in The World Is Flat by Friedman. Can someone cite that? And he quotes the Wall Street journal on this as well. Btw, can someone lay out the references in two columns (there're templates for that)? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No template required. It can be done by adding the parameter style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;" to the div tag. But I am not sure if it would be useful to this article. Check out Ketuanan Melayu - an article where 2 columns are really helpful. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Such a looooooong list that one! This article now appears to have a short list of references. ;) And thanks for the style tip. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I went through the book and could only find a few references to IIT system, and not a detailed chapter. Most of them were quotes sourced from the CBS 60 minutes. I would be adding the quotes to the Wikiquote article on IIT, but couldn't find anything substantial to be added to article. The mentions like "best bargain for the USA" sound a bit POV to me. If you can be more clear what you find relevant, I will look it up again. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some info from the reference mentioned. I have also updated the wikiquote page. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


The present Article does not differentiate between SC and BC and refers SC and Backward Castes This may confuse a reader who is not conversant with Indian Social Scenario. Confusion can be sorted out by editing and changing Backward Caste into Scheduled Castes in the text. Doctor Bruno 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to which sentence/paragraph you are talking about? Don't know which part you are referring to. Thanks - Cribananda 07:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
See here [1] I have made few edits. I saw the misleading words, then thought about alerting the community and then corrected my self. i forgot to strike the message after the edits. Hope the issue is clear now. Doctor Bruno 15:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of IITs[edit]

The POV regarding selection of location of IITs occured because of two reasons. First, by addition of IIT Roorkee; and second, because Gangetic plain is very large. For more detailed reasons as to why specific locations were chosen, see History of Indian Institutes of Technology#The next four IITs. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over acceptance rates[edit]

Nearly 300,000 students take the IIT-JEE examination every year for 4,078 seats in IITs and another 1,366 seats in IT-BHU and ISM Dhanbad. Thus the acceptance rate through the JEE is 1 in 55. It should be noted that it is not possible to infer the acceptance rate of IITs through the JEE, and using 4,078 seats would be wrong as we don't know how many of the students giving JEE want to get into IIT. As an analogy, IIT Kanpur would say that the acceptance rate for it is 1 in 540, since it admits only 555 out of 300,000 candidates. Hence, I have changed the sentence to now talk about IIT-JEE only, and not IITs through JEE. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

reservation pie chart[edit]

i believe the pie chart on fraction of students coming under the reserved category is based on incorrect data - perhaps, some old data. the data in the book cited (vinay kripal and meenakshi gupta) is for enrollment statistics from some ten years ago and this looks like what might have been used. i got hold of 2004 statistics from the jee annual report. the actual number for 2004 is sc 14.7 % (against 15% reservation or 545 out of 556 seats) and st 4.5% (against 7.5% reservation or 167 out of 279 seats). if it-bhu and ism dhanbad are also included (since they also use jee), then the numbers are 11.4% and 3.5% (it-bhu and ism dhanbad did not admit any st student and only 42 sc students against reservation of 150 seats for sc and 76 for st). if needed, i can get hold of 2005 and 2006 numbers, which are similar to the 2004 numbers. so, the actual number of reserved category students admitted is significantly higher than what is shown in the pie charts. Iitmsriram 14:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I have included the updated info in the article. I was unable to fix the pie-chart myself, and have asked the creator to modify it. Ahead of the article appearing on the main page of the encyclopedia, I have removed the image as it gave a wrong impression of the current situation. The image will be re-added as soon as it gets corrected. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


"The IITs subsidise undergraduate student fees by approximately 80% and provide scholarships to all Master of Technology students and Research Scholars in order to encourage students for higher studies. This has translated into superior infrastructure and better faculty in the IITs..."

To me the subsidy to students doesn't imply "superior infrastructure" will naturally occur. IS there a concrete reason, or has an intermdediate sentance got lost? Rich Farmbrough 15:18 23 August 2006 (GMT).

There was a sentence mix-up. I have fixed that. Thanks for pointing it out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Why are the references appearing as <<REF:1>>, <<REF:2>> and so on? Is that the way they are supposed to be? - Cribananda 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed them. Hope everything is fine now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Research staff[edit]

The article contains the term "research scholar". Now, research is what all scholars do, so the phrase is tautological. Furthermore, I get 24.5 million Google hits for "research staff" compared with 1.9 million for "research scholar" and "research scholars" combined. I appeal to your sense of logic not to propagate this abuse of language, keeping in mind that "research staff" accurately describes the subject. That failing, I would like to see a reference for the exclusive use of "research scholar" within the IITs (e.g. an administrative guideline). - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In practice, people pursuing a PhD programme are called "research scholars" in India. "Research staff" is reserved for those who work on research projects for a salary. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Do we have a reference? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost all the search results for "research scholar" back the fact that they are used for the western equivalent of "research staff", if that is the way non-employee PhD scholars are referred to in the west. For example, this page clearly refers to Seminar talks by PhD student, and then goes on to refer them as "research scholars". Personally, I don't find it tautological. Only during the projects/doctorate research, do people do research. For example, till the third year of our undergraduate studies, we were not involved in any research, but were scholars (since we undertook systematic study of a discipline). In fact, I find it odd that non-employees are referred to as staff in the west, which is wrong while talking about the PhD scholars, who are not employed by the institute. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all scholars research and not all those who research are scholars :) Doctor Bruno 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No, PhD students are referred to as "graduate students", which also includes Masters (usually MSc) students. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Samsara. There are a lot of differences between education in India and education in States. What applies in US may not apply here (for example there is nothing called as Medical School in India and I am sure there is no medical college in US). The term consultant in UK refers to a senior respected post, where as the same "Medical Consultant" in Tamil Nadu Medical Services is the lowest rank for a doctor To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia is a GLOBAL encyclopedia and should remain so. Just because a term research scholar does not exist in your place (or you are not aware of that) it does not automatically mean that it (research scholar) does not exist in the entire world. (And dear Sunthar, another example is Ayyavazhi !!!!)Doctor Bruno 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way I feel that "do research" is a tautology and "research" is enough. Opinion pleaseDoctor Bruno 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Samsara, you might have a point about research scholar being a tautology, but this is not the place to make your point. It is not about Inglish either, as these references from the Cornell university website [2] and the U.S. government show [3]. Your point on the number of results for research staff vs. research scholar proves nothing: why should they be replacement terms? - Cribananda 19:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Congradulations for making this article a featured one. As an IITian (Alumnus) I feel proud of it. Here and there, I wish some point to be added or explained a bit better; but if I do it I shall certainly make sure they do not in any way compromize with the FA status and quality. Cygnus_hansa 17:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a may go ahead with them. However, if you feel any addition may be controversial, you can discuss them on this page with other editors. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving individual IIT articles to actual names[edit]

Currently, except for Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati article, all other individual IIT article are incorrectly named. For example, the actual name of IITM is Indian Institute of Technology Madras, but the article is located at Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. The correctness can be confirmed from the website of individual IITs, which doesn't mention the comma before the location. I propose that all the articles be moved to their correct names. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree... -- Lost(talk) 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Indian Institutes of Technology"[edit]

The article currently states the pronunciation of "Indian Institutes of Technology" in Devanagari and International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST). While Devanagari may still be acceptable, I think that giving the IAST is going a bit overboard as this is not a language/linguistics article. I suggest that we remove the IAST script. I also wanted the opinion of other editors if they feel that the Devanagari script should be removed. I personally feel that even that is not necessary, and quite irrelevant. If someone wants to know the Devanagari equivalent, s/he can just click on the Hindi Wikipedia article's interwiki link. — Ambuj Saxena () 06:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Student Demographics[edit]

There seems to be no information on the demographics of the IIT student body, gender, religion, state of origin etc. Can this information be added ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The student body is an elected one so there is no control over its composition. It has students from nearly all parts of India, both men and women, from all religions, etc. The demographics change year to year depending of who is found most suitable for the job. I don't think this needs to be added as it is a characteristic of any freely elected body. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused; what job do you mean? I'm pretty sure they mean the demographics of all the students that go to all the different IITs. --Geniac (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New IITs[edit]

From what I could gather there are 8 new IITs planned: Bihar, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa. IT-BHU will also be given the IIT status.

Each new IIT will be assigned a mentor IIT as shown below.

  • Himachal (Mandi district): IIT Roorkie
  • Punjab (Ropar): IIT Delhi
  • Rajasthan: IIT Kanpur
  • Bihar (Patna): IIT Guwahati
  • Andhra (Medak district): IIT Madras
  • Gujarat (Ahmedabad-Gandhinagar): IIT Bombay

IIT Bihar, Rajastan, Andhra will become operational from this year. But there are some reports in Ahmedabad editions that IIT Gujarat will also become operational this year with an intake of 120 students.

Here are some links: [4], [5], [6], [7].

Should we add another section/paragraph to the article considering that this is the biggest expansion drive of the IITs and hence a significant moment in the history of the IITs? - Aksi_great (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Zero cut-off[edit]

Is it true that Physics paper in entrance exams has zero cut-off for candidates from scheduled castes and tribes? Anwar (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is probably true, but this is not a problem, since the total marks is the only criterion for ranking, and is the primary means of rejecting students. The subject cutoffs are like the pass percentage required for CBSE, and other exams. IIT subject cutoffs are pretty low, irrespective of the student's reservation status. -- (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009[edit]


I have removed the following sentence and reference to the TOI article, though I have no strong reasons to believe it is untrue.

}}</ref> with regard to quality of faculty, teaching standards, research facilities and campus placements. In international surveys, the IITs achieve topmost rankings in technology. The Times Higher Education Supplement (2006) ranked IIT's as the third best in the world in the field of technology.


The Times Higher Education Supplement (2008) ranked IIT-Delhi and IIT-Bombay 157th and 174 th best overall universities respectively in their World University Rankings.

Please feel free to re-add, but then the paragraph has to be re-written to make way for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cribananda (talkcontribs) 19:23, 5 June 2009

purge them,[edit]

they are meant to be purged —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2010-June-13[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: closed, no move billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indian Institutes of TechnologyIndian Institute of TechnologyRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC) This article is not about institutes of technology in India, its about those under the name Indian Institute of Technology. Relisted. Fences&Windows 23:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Arjuncodename024 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the article refers not to one institute, but to "a group of fifteen autonomous ... institutes". It refers to them in the plural throughout and each institute seems to have its own article: Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, etc. Station1 (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"Indian Institute of Technology" is more like a "brand name"/label. It is used by all "campuses" which is regulated by an act passed by the Parliament of India. This article is not about a set of institutes, it's about those under the name/label "Indian Institute of Technology". Arjuncodename024 09:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Pls see [8] Arjuncodename024 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You may well be right; I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion one way or the other. I was just pointing out, as a first-time reader of the article, that the proposed title seems not to match usage throughout the article, which would probably need to be edited for the title to make sense. Hopefully, someone will respond who is more familiar with IIT(s) than I am. Station1 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment if they are being referred to collectively and therefore not as proper nouns, maybe the name should be Indian institutes of technology which seems to address the ambiguity expressed above. billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No, they are referred to as "IIT campuses" or "IITs". "Indian Institute of Technology" is a label to be used by these campuses. Arjuncodename024 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Indian Institutes of technology won't work because that would include other, non-IIT, institutes of technology as well. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think the institutes are collectively referred to as a system. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the other argument. but, the current title seems the most appropriate. --CarTick 02:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: My view is that the suggested new name is correct, as that is accurate name for the institute. There are many of them, does not mean that anyone has right to capitalize and still pluralize to Institutes (as pointed out above by others). Content also should reflect this title Indian Institute of Technology with appropriate words / sentences to clearly show the multiple institutions. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment We don't have "many Indian Institutes of Technology"; rather we have "many Indian Institute of Technology campuses". Arjuncodename024 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Is that correct? Are IITs a part of the same university system with a single overall governing body? For example, the State University of New York is a university system with many campuses with one chancellor. My understanding is that each IIT is a separate entity with completely independent governance. Therefore it is not correct to say that each is just a different campus of a single university system. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Even if they have separate governance, it does not mean it is not a system... Université du Québec is a system where each institution is a separate entity, but also under a system. (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The name is at the appropriate title, refer to the name that they call themselves at their website Letter (unfortunately url is spam filter blocked) billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was Merge.--Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge IITs established in year 2008 into Indian Institutes of Technology. The article provides zero information not already included in Indian Institutes of Technology, or that can be included easily, and serves no purpose as it is. --Muhandes (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with him. The new proposed IITs have been up and running since the past 3 years. They aren't "proposed" anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Indian School of Mines Dhanbad[edit]

The only source for Indian School of Mines Dhanbad changing to IIT is this which only says it is a recommendation by the Jharkhand government. That's a long way from being an IIT. It should therefore not be added to the tables, though I see little harm in mentioning it elsewhere (which I am going to do). --Muhandes (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is still at proposal stage, I think. ISM Dhanbad should probably not be listed in this article till the conversion (if it happens) is complete. --Engineering Guy (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

New IITs[edit]

I am not sure of the criteria for "New IITs" now. I could see that before April 30 2012, current IITs and new IITs could be distinguished based on the fact that new IITs were still officially not IITs as the bill was not passed in Rajya Sabha. Now with the bill passed in Parliament, shouldn't we merge the current IITs and new IITs section? Abhijeet 1998 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the distinction is still very clear and valuable. The newer ones are the ones established through the amendment act. Maybe in five years they will be the same, but right now they are still "new". --Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the reason why the distinction of New IITs and Old IITs have been kept, Were not all the IITs new at some point of the time. Is'nt Roorkee a new IIT? There is no point to keep this fictitious distinction. Also What is the rationale for ordering of the colleges or their pics in a particular order, is'nt it shows some bias? Why not made them alphabeticall strictly or if quality or ranking is some criteria, then Put them by ranks. Just by putting Your college under Old IIT and upper in the table or pic, You people want to show your supremacy, which is wrong. Either Equality must be maintained or if meritocracy then strict ranking. No False distinctions like old and new IITs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The distinction is very clear cut. The "old" IITs drew their authority from the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. The "new" ones draw it from The Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act, 2011. There is consensus that this distinction is important, and not, as you say "fictitious". I agree the naming is a bit misleading though, would you rather call them "pre-amendment" and "post-amendment"? You are welcome to start discussion on this matter.
As for the ordering, it was decided, again by consensus, to order the institutes and their pictures by the order of the date in which they were made IITs. I think it is a valid ordering, though you are, again, welcome to start discussion and achieve new consensus. I guarantee you that throwing false accusations about "You people" who "want to show your supremacy" will not benefit this effort. --Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: as sort of temporary compromise, I changed "current" and "new" to "older" and "amendment". This is, naturally, still open for discussion. --Muhandes (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Established institutes"[edit]

I strongly object the idea of using "established" and "new" institutes which very clearly has only one reasoning, which is to WP:BOOSTER IIT BHU. The current sorting is by date in which the institute was made an IIT. The current sectioning is by whether the institute was made IIT by the 1961 Act or the 2011 Act. These are clear and neutral sorting and sectioning. If you have a better naming than "older" and "amendment", lets hear them, but lets avoid boosterism and stick to neutrality. --Muhandes (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki so please bear with me as far as protocols are concerned. I have been living in USA for last 12-13 years and I have never heard amended IIT term. Institute can be listed in any order but what is rational for using Amended IIT term? I will like to hear arguments in support amended IIT term if anyone has any. We need to make IIT even a stronger brand and having misleading name as amended IIT does not help with this cause. I saw some one had put established IIT and new IIT. That seems fine to me because it conveys that 8 new IIT's are still not established. I personally prefer not having this new IIT and established IIT category but till new IITs gets their campus, we can use new/established IIT term.

Muhandes - I did not attend BHU but many of my friends attended BHU and it has very good brand name. We need to have BHU alumni brand name enhancing already good IIT brand name. I don't care in which order BHU or any institute is listed under established IIT category. I saw it was listed on top due to BHU was established right after Roorkee. If you or any one else have an issue with this then just put it in different order. That's an irreverent issue. Having studied in so called this old 5 IIT and being out of India for so long, One thing I will can say with 100% confidence. Graduates from Hyderabad, Mandi and new institutes might not have famous alumni at this moment but anyone doing well from those places will add to IIT fame. In few years, we should not even have a tag like new and old if we want to benefit from good work done by any IITian.

I will also advice using newer ranking to show that IITs have top spots in ranking. I found outlook and India today ranking of 2012 as latest ranking source which puts variious IITs in top. It looks better rather than using some old ranking. We need to make the page more readable. Some one had put different IIT name in bold. I don't know if this violates any convention but it helps in reading the page. I will suggest keeping top level information on this page uniform. We should have similar information like number of branches, students intake etc for all IITs. We should have more information about different IITs in separate page. I noticed that some new institutes like Indore and Rajasthan had only one line. I think we should put 4-5 lines for each institute to give uniform information about all IITs under this page.

All thoughts and ideas to make this page better are welcome.

IITwiki (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) IITwiki

First of all, we can't deny history, Roorkee and BHU were established much before the other IITs , Govt. has tried to bring all its best institutes under one umbrella IIT , but it does'nt mean anyway denying history, So IIT-BHU can't be put under the category of New IITs. Secondly there were some new IIMs too , but no such false categorisation like old /amendment has been used there — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Muhandes seems to invent new terms like amendment IITs , which he must have discovered in his Eureka moments, but it can't be called consensus in any terms. He also seems to have developed a love with the old rankings, then what is the use of new rankings to be released by Outlook and India today. He also does'nt want to give space to new IITs. I have strong objections against Muhandes's dictatorial and biased actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to ignore ad hominem arguments (the ones by the anonymous IP). Please make arguments about the content, not the author. I will answer other arguments one by one.
  • "We need to make IIT even a stronger brand". No we don't, since this will be boosterism. We need to stay neutral. Wikipedia is not a tool to promote the IITs. Same goes for arguments about "IIT fame"
  • You are mixing two issues, the first issue of how to section, the second is how to name the sections. There may be a third issue of how to sort within the section.
  • How to section: what the article currently uses is a completely neutral sectioning, reflecting the legal status of the IITs. It says nothing about quality. More importantly, it can be easily supported by the sources. You are suggestion a sectioning which is not neutral as it is boostering the established ones. Moreover, it is not supported by any source.
  • Naming the sections: I am not going to protect the term "amendment institutes" because I don't like it either. It used to be "old" and "new" which I thought is misleading (BHU is older than most) so I changed it. If you can come up with a better name, I do not object. How about "1961 Act institutes" and "2011 Act institutes"? Seems perfectly neutral to me, saying nothing good or bad abut anything, just the simple legal fact. I went bold and changed the section names thus, but if you object, revert it per WP:BRD and we will continue the discussion.
  • I think sorting should be by date the institute was declared IIT. Lets not muddle the discussion though, we can decide on that later.
  • Ranking: I have no idea why the discussion went there. Why would I or anyone else object to someone updating the ranking? You may use the updated ranking which I added to List of Indian engineering college rankings.Anonymous IP made a funny comment: "He also seems to have developed a love with the old rankings". Please check who was the individual who updated the list, the template and the individual articles before uttering false accusations.
  • Bold names: goes straight against MOS:BOLD, so don't.
  • Uniform information: I don't object. I think four-five sentences is too much though, two sentences are more than enough. Remember reliable sources. --Muhandes (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I think this edit by Adnan.thinkbig is even better. It clarifies that there is no attempt to say "these are better than these". It is a neutral, legal distinction, nothing more. --Muhandes (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Muhandes - I agree, this new version without category is much better. I did not mean to have wrong information in Wiki to boost IIT brand name. I only meant that it will create dilution in brand name due to using terms like amended IIT because it is not used anywhere. Combined IIT list without having any categories looks best. I am new to Wiki so did not know if bold would be an issue. I found it easier to read. When I get time, I will try to put 2-3 sentences which gives basic information about each IIT to make the top level uniform. I think students from new campuses should take some time to put good page for new campus separately. Everyone feel free to edit if you find any issue with my 2-3 sentences.

Everyone - I think the order of listing is not an issue even though I will like Kanpur to appear first. Just kidding. Since BHU and Roorkee were established first , it's all right if order is sorted by institutes establishment date. Either way is fine. Please don't attack any editor. We can discuss and find best solution. Put your points clearly and we all can discuss. Goal is to have good information related to IITs for anyone accessing this wiki page.

IITwiki (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC) IITwiki

Hi Everyone - I edited few days ago and put established and new tags. Not having tags is actually better. I also replaced older ranking with latest rankings. I think due to many reverts, older rankings were coming back even though no one was trying to keep the older one intentioanlly. Anyway, latest version has new rankings. I used estasblishment date while ordering due to using established tag name in header. Only three institutes( Roorkee, BHU and Delhi) were given IIT name later. Others existed as IIT from start.

It seems order is important for few people here other wise there won't be so much talk about using institute establishment date or the date when they were acting as IIT. I suggest putting all IITs in alphabatical order. It will put IITs in random order. Older campuses and upcoming campuses will get mixed and order will lose any significance. Putting names in alphabatical order is widely used practice. It won't look odd if we put all IITs in alphabatical order and it will also serve the purpose of not creating any impression of one being better than others beacause new campus and old campuses will get mixed. We can use default order of name and if anyone wants to see it in different order then they can always sort by using different criterion by clicking on header. Advantage of this approach is clear but I would like to hear any arguments against it before we start any edits. I want to avoid a situation like last rounds of edits where we were losing some valuable edits ( new rankings, additional infromation about new campuses).

IITwiki - I agree with you and Muhandes on having short but uniform description of each IIT on main page. Details with different degrees can be used in individual campus page. (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Alumnus

The history of IITs is naturally chronologically ordered by the date in which institutes were made IITs. Any other sorting loses this important feature. --Muhandes (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Ordering must be done as per the year of establishment (actual), year of establishment as IIT may be put alongside with it. So no important thing would be lost. But Year of establishment of College is very much important, we need to recognise the historical role of older institutions.does anyone can deny the role of Roorkee and BHU alumni in Building IITs in india as professors. Now when all are legally equivalent ( we are repeatedly citing IIT act 1961 and 2011, can anyone tell me ,in what ways govt. differentiating these two sets of IITs, Answer is in No way. Legally and technically all IITs are now equivalent. So when Govt and law is not differentiating, we should also not do so), sorting must be done as per some neutral factor like year of establishment as college only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Muhandes - I was not talking about changing the chronological order in history section. I was talking about the table under institute section which does not deal with history. Table simply lists all IITs. We have 5 headers in table which lists all IITs. Headers are, "Name", "Short name", "Established", "city/town" and "State". Most logical order to list institutes will to use "Name". Second most logical order will be to use "Short name". Third most logical choice will be to use "Established" and so on. Currently it is not even sorted based on established date.

We have dates in bracket which indicate when 3 institutes started acting as IIT. We also have dates without brackets for all institutes to indicate establishment date . We are not even sorting by establishment date. We are using dates with brackets and dates without brackets in combination to put the order. If we want to keep historical order of establishment then we should simply use established date order otherwise alphabetical order for listing institute is most logical choice. Sorting by first column, which is "name" in our case, is widely used practice. All opinions from everyone is welcome. (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Alumnus

Alphabetical ordering is the most logical, I too agree with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to sorting the table alphabetically. --Muhandes (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I too support alphabetical sorting. Anir1uph (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Since we all agree that Alphabetical order is best way, I will edit the default order and anyone interested can still sort it using 5 headers. We also have campus pictures under "The IITs" headings. I will put that in Alphabetaical order as well to match with default order of table. (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Alumnus

Reference to second and third para in article[edit]

The second paragraph of the article reads "The 1961 act lists seven institutes". But it must be brought to attention that the IIT Biill 2012 has been published in the gazette and its an Act now. Institutes of Technology Act 1961 stands amended therefore and anyone filing an RTI and asking about the institutes included in IT Act 1961 would be replied with 16 institutes. The link for the Gazette notification is this: So the statement that "The 1961 act lists seven institutes" is false with effect from 21st June 2012. Hence its my request to accept the changes made by me in the concerned paragraphs. I have also posted a link over there which is as follows: which clearly shows that Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Bill 2012 is an Act now. Please refer to item no. 21 in the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:36, 29 June 2012‎

I agree this should be reflected in the article, but not by removing the entire history. I added four words to the lead that perfectly represent this information without removing the history. --Muhandes (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to bring to your notice that original 1961 Act included only 5 old IITs at Bombay, Delhi, Kharagpur, Kanpur and Madras. The Act was amended in 1994 by Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act 1994 to include IIT Guwahati and again amended in 2002 by Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act 2002 to include IIT Roorkee. Hence it would be better to mention this in history as well. I suggest that as the 2961 Act stands amended now, its not correct to differentiate between the old 7 institutes and 9 new ones. History can be mentioned but preferably in some later paragraphs and not in the main first and second paragraph. History can be mentioned in Institutes or History section but first, second and third paragraph must state the thesis of IITs and not their history. Kindly refer to the present version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulkit.26mar (talkcontribs) 18:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning the history in a separate section. In fact, per WP:LEAD this material should be in a section and only be summarized in the lead. I strongly object to removing the material, which is what you did, repeatedly. I also object to edit warring. Please read WP:BRD. --Muhandes (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Why is the geographical map of India used to mark the location of IITs in India? Is the map politically correct? Iqbalbaig.iitm (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is the most neutral map. It denotes the territories actually held by the various countries. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)