Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Controversy Section

Konrad, DeepakShenoy has added this section back into the article, although we had agreed it was a current event and deserved its own page. I obviously think this is not in keeping with Wiki's policies, and need your view as an independent mediator.--Iipmalum 07:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a clarification, I'm not a mediator. Mediators are officially appointed; see WP:DR for more information. I have the pages on my watchlist just so I can see what's going on, and to try to help resolve the disputes on the articles, which is why I have not made any edits to the pages.

As to the controversy section, my opinion is that it would be in line with previous practice and other articles (such as Bill Clinton) for the information to be in the controversy article, with the main article keeping just a short summary. However, Wikipedia works on consensus, so doing this (or not doing this) would require support of the editors active on this page.

My concern is that both groups seem to be more interested in pushing their own POVs than writing a great encyclopedic article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer for the controversy section to be a small section summary which highlights the five most controvertial items, which I've added back into the page now. I think the controversy section SHOULD be a section - not just a little link. It's big enough, at least for someone looking for info on IIPM - the print ads can be misleading to the average student. But not more than five items, and not more than one section. "Professor" Deepakshenoy 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, although I am personally stringly against this, I want to compromise with you, given your fair and dignified approach to this. I'd be ok with the contrversy section remaining, renamed as "IIPM Advertising Controversy". Also, 5 points is far too much - 3 points, of one sentence each, would serve your objective, dont you think? If you agree with this, I'd be open to then working with you on the wording of this section. Please implement the changes as you see fit, I wont touch your edits but will wait for you to move first. --Iipmstudent9 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaurav Sabnis happily snuck in a line from the controversial JAMMAG + BW article into the regular faculty section, which I have deleted unilaterally, since we are all in agreement that any of these controversial alegations beling in its own section. (esp. since the matter si sub judice right noe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iipmstudent9 (talk • contribs)

I think five points is good. There are far more points, including: the degree from IMI being not valid, the hiring of students by Planman itself, Thalassa's digging up of the entire "linkages" data. ANd more uncovered by BW. I think five is a very conservative number, and will highlight the main points. Additionally, I don't think there is a factual error in Most of the regular faculty^[1] of the institute are alumni of IIPM. Prof. Chaudhuri himself is a Gold Medalist from the institute.. I'm putting the first sentence back, it's all good information. Am removing the second sentence because Arindam Chaudhari is not regular faculty (or so I guess, because his name isn't there or ever was). Deepakshenoy 16:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, the controversy section is SO BIG! This is really not necessary! The institute is not defined by the controversy, as Bill Clinton is not defined by Monica. I'd really like you to consider dropping a few points - 3 points of 1 lines each is a fair offer by iipmstudent9. And why are there 3 seperate links to the controversy page? :) And isn't the language a little 'inflammatory'? A major controversy is Bill getting caught with Monica. An aggressive marketing campaign, and a mudslinging war by competition after that does not merit such wording. Will wait for your edit, as per policy agreed by us all.. --Iipmalum 17:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The comparison of IIPM should not be with Bill Clinton but with Monica Lewinsky. Most of the (ill) fame of IIPM comes from the controversy. Hardly anyone would have bothering with this article but for it. Tintin 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my text, in it's entirety. Given the amount of (mis)information in the advertisements and the awareness of IIPM created by this controversy itself, it's occupying far less space than it really should. None of this is a mudslinging war by competition - please understand that IIPM itself has not refuted specific allegations and has hidden behind some words saying that other people are jealous. That is not how one refutes arguments. Also, in general, there is no "policy agreed by us all". As I said, I stand by my edits, and five points, as they're written right now, are quite valid. I have put in the REAL number of points on the controversy page. Deepakshenoy 18:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

New Sections

I'd like to start 2 new sections: Recruiters, and a Photo Gallery. Comments?

--61.246.28.224 17:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Recruiters: Yes, please, but do provide verifiable information, as names of people recruited + company they were recruited in + year of recruitment. Photo Gallery: There are enough photos already. Please link to a web page containing more photos. Deepakshenoy 03:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no such information on placements, and dont think it necessary. I will cite from newspaper reports. I have seen notices on campus as placement season is on - LG picked up 2 guys at 6.5 lacs, Capital One picked up two guys at $48000... But I'll just cite company names rom newspaper artciles.

And photo gallery, I'l follow Wiki policy on photo's - Konrad, I cant find any policy - please advise?--Iipmstudent9 09:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll need some sources, can you provide a link on the newspaper reports please? That would work. Deepakshenoy 10:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I'm extremely disturbed by the mere presence of such a large controversy section in this article. And it is ridiculous to say IIPM is known bacuase of the 'controversy'. Mere (unproven) allegations mean nothing. Especially allegations by a tabloid (JAMMAG) and bloggers. Whats more, IIPM has been in existence 33 years. 5000 students are currently studying there. How can anyone justify saying the institute is defined by a set of unsubstantiated allegations that bloggers have made? What more, IIPM is India's largest print advertiser. Including TImes of India, Hindustan TImes and 3 - 4 others, thats 3 million english readers and at least double those vernacular readers who see IIPM's ads etc every day in the newspaper. COmpare that to the couple of hundred bloggers and casual surfers who are in the 'controversy'.

The institute has over 20000 alumni. 400 recruiters - India's largest corporates and FORTUNE 500 companies. President APJ Kalam supports the GIDF charity work. Honorary Dean is advisor to the planning commission. 'Unknown' is an adjective that is simply wrong. These allegations do not deserve to be put, so aggressively, and linked to 3 times, in inflamattory tone. They do not need to take up so much space. And they definitely need to be reworked for language on the controversy page.

I'll do it myself, with Konrad's oversight, if you dont review and act, Deepak. Its extremely un-Wiki like to have this sort of an article. And Wiki' policies are what is most important - not personal views. --Iipmalum 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, to clarify, I have no authority of oversight, mediation or anything else. I am attempting to help sort out the disputes over this page, and help the newer users with wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions. However, it is up to each user to learn the wikipedia way of doing things and follow it. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Iipmalum, firstly, you haven't revealed your name here so I have to call you by some alias, which is disturbing. Secondly, IIPM hasn't refuted any of those allegations specifically - it has not provided data, to anyone including BW. It has not provided placement data in terms of contactable students - a name, the company that person was placed in and the salary received - this is not available after repeated efforts of a number of people. There is no effort on IIPM's part to either get affiliated to AICTE or UGC. There is no effort to withdraw names from the website in the alliances page, of people who have specifically mentioned that they are not associated with IIPM. There is no real effort by IIPM to address any of the issues mentioned. As long as that is the case, the controversy section will stay, and will stay as it is. Nothing I've said there is inflammatory, it is just facts mentioned by other articles, and all verifiable and true. You have to understand : the advertisements are a cause for concern, for those who know the terms are false, or twisting words. The controversy section has to stay - the tone, as far as I can see, is neutral - you don't like it because it doesn't put IIPM in a positive sight, which is not the intent of the Wiki. The section stays, unless specifically refuted and cited. Deepakshenoy 03:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepakshenoy, it not WP practice nor convention to require real names, and it is not necessary anyway. What matters is the quality of a person's edits, not who they are.

In addition, please don't write as if you have authority to say that a section should stay or not. Wikipedia works on consensus, so if in the future the consensus is that it should go, then that's what happens. At the moment, if any editor suggests a change that goes against the consensus, kindly just remind him/her that the consensus of editors disagrees. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

K., I'm not saying it's illegal to use aliases - just that it's disturbing. IIPMAlum has been using comments like "Hows the weather down south?" and "Use Agni's lawyers", which indicates he has used my name to find out who I am. I therefore would like to return the favour and find out who I'm talking to.

I'm only writing about my opinion that it should stay - unfortunately it does look like I'm saying I have authority. I want to confirm - I don't have authority. My vote is to keep the section as is, and I guess IIPMAlums vote is otherwise. Can others vote too, please? Deepakshenoy 05:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with iipmalum's request to remove the Controversy section. The section has its merit and it keeps future students informed about what happened. It already is cut short to a summary and the rest moved to a another page, to remove it totally will remove the article from its current neutral POV status. I vote not to remove the section. - Ganeshk 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't agree with IIpmalum's request either to remove the controversy section. I vote not to remove this sections! Bloggerbrigade 11:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"IIPM is the largest advertiser in India". I recall the advertising spree made by a company called Hometrade in India which ended up in a worser fiasco than Enron. The advertising money involved is a not a parameter for anything. The allegations like Jammag is a a tabloid is unfounded. What proof is there to support these claims. I hope IIPMAlum/IIPMStudent will clarify this. BTW I think Deepak Shenoy is right about aliases used by IIPM students. I still have a feeling that I am not talking to an individual but a group of people who are getting paid for what they are doing.

PeaSea 08:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I wont even look at ridiculous comparisons to some scam startup company called Hometrade. JAMMAG is a tabloid is beyond question - there format is tabloid size, the circulation less than a few thousand young college readers, the stories are sensational accusations, or 'exposes' of reputable institutions. The tabloid is run by Rashmi Bansal (IIM Alumnus), with 3 young part-time unqualified writers/freelancers. The style of writing is perfect tabloid, with no research and sensational lines. For example, they emailed 2 companies out of the 400 that campe to IIPM campus last year to find out if they had really come to campus - they claim the company responded in the negative. On the basis of thos eclaimed replies, they said IIPM placements is terrible. Does it make sense that if those companies names were in IIPM ads across the country, those companies would not object and get their names removed from the ads themselves> Do they need puny tabloid JAMMAG to send an EMAIL (suposedly, that too to some HR department trainee probably)!!!! Needless to say, the it is a tabloid in every sense. Similar stories against other institutes have been done, just to garner readership of the same type of audience that enjoys reading about Bollywood starlets latest flings. Rashmi as a BusinessWorld contributing editor had the story done there too - because IIPM sued JAMMAG for libel.

Based on IIPMAlum's argument, IIPM is clearly not known by the controversy. So i've taken out the link from the top of the page. People can scroll down. The controversy does not define the intitute. I've removed the line on Arindam Chaudhuri being MK Chaudhuri's son - how is that relevant to an IIPM article? Especially when Arindam is just an honorary dean and writes books and gives seminars - he's never in IIPM offices, definitely not performing duties that merit a mention in the intro paragraph.

i'm editing the controversy section, and would request other editors to provide feedback on the edits on this page. I will actively come online to re-edit based on feedback. I dont want to start a revert war, and request others to work with me to make this section better. Konrad, dispute resolution is happening right now - if this doesnt work we'll have to go to arbitration, i guess.

PeaSea, thanks, I hope your wishes come true and IIPM hires me to work with them, to take the IIPM philosophy of building great entrepreneurs to London and NY.

GaneshK, I hope to bring NPOV to the controversy section.
--Iipmstudent9 09:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Overhauled. Removed all uncited material. Rephrased cited material objectively. Characterised JAMMAG as tabloid. Mentioned that IIPM has sued JAMMAG for libel. Will wait for coments and keep implementing changes based on them.--Iipmstudent9 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted.

• Jammag is not a tabloid. I don't know where you get that from.
• You have removed the "son of founder" etc. That is a fact, and can stay.
• Both BusinessWorld and Jammag have talked to various companies, refered to on their articles.
• IIPM lawyer information: not cited, no sources provided.
• IMI Belgium line edit is unacceptable
• Outlook withdrew rankings because of the reasons I mentioned, with a source. You have overwritten that with your opinion without sources.

You have removed all the NPOV points. I have therefore reverted to the earlier version. Deepakshenoy 10:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the "son of founder" stuff. Perhaps it is irrelevant, and it shouldn't cloud judgement.

Deepak, thanks for admitting the son-father relationship is not of relevance. In return I will remove the consistent characterization of JAMMAG as a tabloid, although I have provided significant evidence stating why I think it is one. BusinessWorld has not talked to any companies. JAMMAG talked to 2. IIPM lawyer stuff was gossip from cmapus, I agree it doesnt belong on WIki. IMI belgium edit - help me to makeit fair. Outlook, check on my new edit - it is based on your earlier one, albeit phrased for NPOV. --Iipmstudent9 10:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

removed outlook, its not even part of the controversy, and belongs firmly in rankings.--Iipmstudent9 11:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

IIPMStudent9, Why you think it is a tabloid is not of relevance, remember the no original research policy. BusinessWorld's article mentions this

The placements: The IIPM advertisement claims that 400 companies - including American Express, Coca-Cola, Max New York Life, Deloitte Consulting and Hindustan Lever - are involved in its placements. Here are the facts. One, IIPM didn't provide us with any proof that these firms actually visit its campus for placements. At least one of the companies - Max New York Life - confirmed that it had never recruited from IIPM campuses. Some other recruiters confirmed they did have IIPM alumni - but these people had applied directly and were chosen on their own merit, not through any IIPM placements. The big employers for IIPM students are IIPM itself and Planman Consulting. Many students go straight back to their family businesses. As for the claims about the high salaries offered to IIPM students, no documents were provided to BW. Chaudhuri said the ads never explicitly claim that the biggest names come for campus placements - all he says is that his students are placed in those organisations. A fine distinction.

The words are clear: BW did contact companies.

Further, IMI belgium - have removed it, put a different point in. Outlook, in your new edit has been removed, I put it back. Deepakshenoy 11:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unrecognized degrees

As per http://thalassamikra.blogspot.com/2005/10/information-pertaining-to-iipm.html IIPM's degrees are not recognized anywhere, either in India or Belgium. Unless IIPM can provide any evidence of any place where the degrees they award are recognized, the statement about unrecognized degrees must stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Inventingfacts (talk • contribs)

Inventingfacts, as has been noted earlier, blogs are not viewed as reliable sources. You will need to find another source for the claim or remove it from the article. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with K. Thalassa's link has to be construed as opinion, not fact. Have rephrased. Deepakshenoy 06:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, a blog is not viewed as a reliable source for an opinion or a fact. A newspaper or other reputable source needs to make the claim for it to be included. A blog saying it is not sufficient. The claim, whether stated as fact or opinion needs a proper source, otherwise it should be removed. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the point which says "IMI rumored to be a diploma mill". Rumors, started by blogs, cannot be cited to Wiki. I have also removed the lines saying the IMI gegrees are not recognised anywhere - my direct seniors have ot admission into universities like Leeds, Lancaster, Massachusets overseas with IMI's degrees and there are copies of these available at IIPM's front desk for prospective students. So this is anyway untrue. Not to mention its cited from a blog.--Iipmstudent9 08:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is substantial evidence in that blog entry with email addresses of people involved who have mailed. I have therefore reinstated the point, as the wording indicates opinion, not fact. IMI degrees not being recognised is a citation from the mail returned to Thalassa saying they weren't recognised in Belgium. I have also removed the "not recognised anywhere" point, and rephrased it to refer to Belgium. Also, if you can give your friends details - and which universities they have gotten into, I will cross-check and verify. Deepakshenoy 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

K, I believe this particular blog entry is a reliable source of the claim that IMI is rumoured to be a diploma mill. I have checked the Reliable sources link and it says However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified. The information provided in Thalassa's post is very verifiable, containing links to NARIC-Vlaanderen and the email. There is a difference between a weblog of a person providing an opinion, and a weblog of a person who is detailing how her research was done and the results. In the spirit of Wikipedia, such links must be provided. Deepakshenoy 09:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, I understand your reasoning, but that is not WP policy. From WP:RS: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." All information about IIPM that uses a blog as a source must be removed. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

K, WP:RS says This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. In this case, I believe it is going to be acceptable, given that so many people have conducted their research and the research is verifiable. Also remember, part of the controversy led to a blogger losing his job due to threats from IIPM. I vote to retain the emminent blogs and their research - in this case, Thalassa Mikra. I think the spirit of Wikipedia is to promote verifiability, and this particular blog has it. My vote is that it stays - I've removed it from the IIPM page, moved it to the IIPM_Controversy page.Deepakshenoy 05:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If the research itself is verifiable, then where are the sources other than blogs? There is very good reason for not using blogs as sources: anyone can write them. I can post on my blog that Harvard university passes students without exams, but it wouldn't be included in the Harvard article. Please don't think I'm pro IIPM, I'm not. I simply try to ensure articles cite reliable sources, and the blog in question is not a notable nor reputable source. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The research is verifiable because the steps taken in the research are repeatable, and this is required for a non-reputable source to provide information. In any research it is important to provide information about how the research was conducted and provide verifable steps. Now, Thalassa has provided this information, and if you actually read the blog you will see the level of documentation provided about this. My opinion is that this level of information is beyond even what a newspaper or magazine provide, and is enough for a third party to verify and re-state. The concept of a reliable source, in spirit, is applicable to Thalassa's entry - not the blog in toto, but that particular entry. I repeat, the WP page on reliable source is only a pointer, not policy. Therefore, though Thalassa's entry is in a blog, I believe it can be cited because of verifiability. Reliable sources are about verifiability and the part about not using blogs is because they usually are not reliable - please understand, I'm not saying Thalassa's blog is the best on earth: just that, in that one post, she has provided verifiable research and can be quoted in this particular instance. Many others are just opinion,and you might notice that they've been removed. In fact I had removed Thalassa's entry and put it in the IIPM controversy page itself. But I'm still arguing about the spirit of WP - that a source should be reliable. I think that particular entry was reliable. (A reliable source does not need other sources to justify it, they can only reinforce it.)

Btw, I don't think you, K, are pro-IIPM, and I appreciate your input. Deepakshenoy 09:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I went through the post to try to verify the info, and wasn't impressed:

• The claim about Thierry Kirschstein designing all three websites has no source.
• The link to Thierry Kirschstein's website does not work.
• The author claims that Freddy Kirschstein is the Dean of the International Management Institute, even though the BusinessWeek article says that Luc Van Mele is the Dean and that Freddy Kirschstein is the MBA admissions director.
• The link to the Barcelona Business School does not work.
• The author says that Global Business Academy is "also based in Antwerp", when the other schools are located in Brussels and Barcelona.
• The author claims that Global Business Academy "features in the list of websites designed by Thierry Kirschstein", without any verifiable evidence.
• The author states that his friend in Barcelona "has never heard of the Barcelona Business School", which is an ad hominem, and unverifiable to boot.
• Reposted emails are not verifiable, as the author could easily fabricate/modify them. All the claims/statements/evidence in the emails must be disregarded.

I think I've made it pretty clear that the author has not done his homework and has not written an article that is reliable in the same sense that newspaper article is. A quick check shows glaring errors, and reposted emails aren't verifiable anyway. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 15:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

K, a few counter points.

• Thierry Kirschstein's site is here He seems to have modified his site to remove that link on the page.
• Thierry seems to have changed his site. Google's cache shows the original content listing www.timi.edu, Global Business Academy and BBS.
• That Freddy K is the admissions director, not dean of BBS: true, but I think the main issue is that of association and organization. But I agree, she was wrong in saying "dean" not "admissions director".
• BBS dean link is : http://bbs-edu.org/bbs/wordfromthedean.htm. I have a feeling they changed it after Thalassa's page, because I do remember visiting that site. Anyhow, links have changed.
• The International management Institute is based in Antwerp as well, as in http://www.timi.edu/contact.htm The "also" applied to that, not to the Barcelona Business School.
• The emails can be fabricated by anyone including by magazines and newspaper - heck, we've seen enough of those. The addresses are available on the linked sites for people to email and cross-check, how many newspapers even provide this info? But being a blog, Thalassa had to because otherwise people wouldn't believe her.

I think I've managed to counter most points. I agree that some points are hearsay and those are not quoted. Only quoted lines are communicated said to be received and the research conducted, and these, I believe, are citable. THe information provided is a LOT more than most newspapers or magazines care to provide, and in my opinion can be cited. Deepakshenoy 08:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point discussing this further. I maintain that the blog is not reliable, notable nor verifiable. By making a factual error in a key statement shows that the author was not thorough in preparing the information, nor had the same fact checkers that newspapers have. Providing email addresses does not make the email verifiable. The amount of information is not important; the reliability is. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak baby, on Thallasa's post, European University is called a diploma mill. IMI is a seperate entity, and European Univerity continues to exist seperately. Google it! and whats more, I would expect anyone in government to call IMI a very very private institute, becasue they woudl want to control the institute, and are frustrated vacuase they cant. All this is subjective and irrlevant, because Wiki policy is not to let opinion, expecially defamtory in nature, make its way into the encyclopedia. 'nuf said. And i'd love to meet u - but only in an IIPM campus. Girls like me dont meet people from the internet in person in any case, and I'd only do it if my friends are with me on campus.--Iipmstudent9 09:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

IIPMstudent9, IMI was earlier known as European University as per NARIC-Vlaanderen, in Thalassas link. Deepakshenoy 10:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Blog cannot be cited. And that is incorrect. I have been to IMI as part of our GOTA trip to Europe, and it is a seperate college from European Unviersity - which has branches all over. There is a no orginial research policy in place at Wiki, so please cite from a relable source. --Iipmstudent9 10:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted last known edit by IIPMStudent9 - Please note that the username IIPMStudent9 as noted previously is still being used by many people - this violates Wikipedia's policy on usernames.

IIPM in London and NY

Pasted from Business Standard Article:

1. 1. Begin pasted text##

Full Text (246 words) (Copyright 2005. Financial Times Information Limited - Asia AfricaIntelligence Wire. All Material Subject to Copyright.) from BUSINESS LINE, October 05, 2005 New Delhi, Oct. 4 - AFTER authoring 'Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch' and co-authoring 'The Great Indian Dream', Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri says, "My next book will not be for mass readership." Dean, Centre for Economic Research and Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), Prof Chaudhuri said that his next book will talk about business strategies and it will be for business leaders and chief executive officers. He further said that the book would offer solutions to companies that sit on piles of money and do not know what to do with their money. One such solution could be, says Prof Chaudhuri, to invest that money in initiatives, like non- governmental organisations, that would give back the investment if not multiply it

Prof Chaudhuri also plans to set up business management institutions in New York and London, with a total investment of Rs 100 crore, funded through internal accruals. The International Management Institute will lend its name to both these institutes, he says. The college in London will start its admission procedure by January next year, while the New York college will open in June next year

The colleges will offer bachelors and masters degree exclusively in business management. Explaining why students will enrol themselves in these colleges, Prof Chaudhuri says, "We are hopeful that we will sail through because of our course content, as we have done in the country." Deepak Goel Copyright 2005 Business Line

1. 1. End of pasted text##

I'm citing from this article n Business Standard.--Iipmstudent9 10:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Found the link, it's on Hindu Business Line http://www.blonnet.com/2005/10/05/stories/2005100503240800.htm. Of course, you can quote it! Deepakshenoy 11:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---- Next comment by DeepakShenoy --->

This has been moved to the "Faculty" section. There is no evidence that IIPM will set up NY and London branches, only that Arindam Chaudhari will.

Prof Chaudhuri also plans to set up business management institutions in New York and London, with a total investment of Rs 100 crore, funded through internal accruals.

I therefore believe that it's not confirmed that such an institution will involve IIPM - in fact, it may just be that the institution may be funded by Chaudhari and not IIPM. Either ways, it will have to attributed to a Chaudhari initiative, not IIPM. Deepakshenoy 09:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted today that you, IIPMStudent9, have tried to move this back to the main section. This is not yet confirmed to be a plan for IIPM, only an Arindam Chaudhari plan. It has since been reverted, but if you have any clarificitions or sources please mention it here.Deepakshenoy 09:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)