y

What is generally asked in interview? FPM interview mainly revolves around your academic soundness, work experience, if any, and research aptitude. You are also checked for your perseverance, determination and focus - because FPM is a four year program, and is demanding in terms of your commitment towards the course requirements. You may also be asked to justify your answers written in FPM form. For FPM program - at every stage - what matters more than anything is the relevance of professional background, attitude and research acumen and how you can use your professional and personal skills for pursuing management research. If it is reflected apparently or subtly that - there is a proper match between your background and requirements of FPM program, your candidacy gets strengthened. Your answers should reflect your keenness for the domain and also, that your background and skill will help you in adding value to your learning and contribution into the domain.

How to write answers? SOP is to know your career objectives, and how FPM would help you in achieving those. Research Proposal is to know how much aware you are about your field of interest and scope of research into it. You may provide an overview of the possible research options in that area or sub-domain of the area. This is obvious that as a beginner you may not be able to zero in a specific research problem but if you can give examples, this will add value to your answers. Suggestion: First make a list of - what strengths your background has offered you, and then find out what FPM program demands. Also, do the vice versa. See what are your career plans, and your expectations from the program; and what FPM can offer you. If you find a match between these things - pick the pen, write downs the ideas. This will help you in answering questions in the Form, and at the time of interview also. It will also add thrust and confidence into your answers as these are not the crafted ideas; these are drafted ideas - and that too by yourself, not by guidance of someone else. Similar exercise can also be done for deciding upon what area you should apply for. Why Research Its long I have been hounded by this question by variety of people. The spectrum is wide - from graduates to Post Docs. The first type of questioners are my parents. Like every parents, they dreamt their son to earn in lakhs, marry a drop - dead gorgeous girl and support the family. Hence when I decided on a career of research, initially I found my father researching the options left before me and how I can fulfil his dreams. But unlike every parents, mine were different. No impositions, no arguments, but a hug from him - a silent but firm gesture - showed his faith on me. Whatever may be the outcome of this endeavour, it is a tribute to them, and their faith on an individual who loves to give them surprises, many times nasty and sometimes pleasant. The second type of questioners are my school friends. Few of them are married and almost all of them are employed. Their reaction to my this endeavour was a mixture of shock and disbelief. I was labelled as "insane", "maverick" and what not. Few of them send me their wives' photographs wishing to poke my hormones and the "bright future that I happen to miss". Good luck to you guys ! The third category are the peer group I am in. However each of them ask that question to get my future career plans. It always happens that I get advised be many over various "options" before me. An answer follows a comment and ultimately ends in proving the superiority of certain departments and disciplines over others. Today I thought seriously to clear the air why I am in research. This is not to answer the questioners, but to reaffirm my faith in myself. I view research as an act of evolvement with involvement. You get involved with yourself, discover the assumptions you normally take for granted and question the origin of those assumptions. Research according to me is an act of refinement of mind and through that the being. You present a slice of truth to the waiting mankind, who try to find soccur and solace in it for sometime. You are in the business of solving a puzzle - a puzzle to reconstruct the truth and you dont do it for money... for it cannot be done for money! Research is done for seer joy of doing it. Research is not the act of proving but contributing. What can you find that does not exist ! What can you prove that is not proved ! You just throw light, you direct attention and offer a view point. The euphoria is in giving another alternative to mankind. Its like the universal spiritual principle of God being one and religions being the paths to the same. So the joy lies in exposing a buried phenomenon. It is a sort of intellectual excavation, where repeated reinforcements have solidified some ideas to permanency. Research loosens it up and makes you mobile. It makes you accept and respect the viewpoints of others. It makes you simple yet effective. The product of 4-5 years in a research program is not a few papers or a thesis. It is you - a changed being who is impartial and unbiased. The process should make you approachable and one should be able to view things objectively. Hence all the arguments about disciplines and departments being superior should subside. For a true researcher appreciates every organ of the body, missing of any one however small makes the body look ugly. Imagine your hand without the little finger, you will know what I mean !

Let me conclude by stating that all our theories are nothing but generalizations of an observed phenomenon over a wide range of contexts. But somewhere the applicability of the same comes to an end. So why the fights and egoes between researchers? Not proving others wrong but reaffirming ones' rightness is the goal. Let it not happen that your learning loses its value in the absence of an audience. Learn for yourself, for the aim is evolvement !

Publications in USA journal

Today we had a talk conducted on "How to publish in reputed US journal?". I realised how far these two questions stand from each other - "How to do good research" and "How to publish in good journals". The question itself eluded the very sense of doing research. Our speaker unveiled very striking but true facts about the publication process. Some of the highlights for those who missed the talk are: 1. Prior to approaching these journals, presenting your paper in at least two schools/conferences helps 2. One may incorporate (positive) comments earned during these conferences to market the paper 3. Reflect positive and optimistic attitude in your writing style 4. Abstract and Introduction are THE decisive factors. One must provide the gist as well as importance of his/her contribution here. 5. Sophistication in your writing is desirable. (say hi to people who talk addition, multiplication in the language of sets ;) ) 6. About Revision - Make reviewer feel good about himself. You may write letter to him/her explaining how seriously you took his comments. - Re-submitting too early (you didnt give enough time to comments) or too late (they might loose interest) is fatal. Speaker advised that one should re-submit the paper within six months but not before two months. - If you feel that reviewer is (terribly) wrong, some of the options (#@%$#^) are: i. co-author with a US author ii. present examples from the journal itself in which they have accepted the reviwed mistakes iii. have patience, apply somewhere else. Points mentioned above are just the summary of today's talk for those who missed, and wanting to know about it. There are no personal biases involved in these points. Speaker also mentioned about the jargon of "Clean Vitae" and "Dirty Vitae" its a kind of informal-club-making process where people involved in publishing categorise you as clean vitae or dirty vitae author based on you CV. Fair enough. Now, turn for my personal comments :) WHERE IS GOD!!! No, honestly I am not yet such a good scholar that I get this frustrated. But I would like to say - happy researching.