We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
The paper is also favourable for engineers due to math, if the paper did not account for math (something which is largely irrelevant for working as an MBA grad) then the difference would be unfair but the end goal is to end up creating jobs and no company would want 80 engineers male as their only management pool, hence why IIMs favour non-engineers and female candidates cause companies themselves want such diversity and if they dont get it from the IIMs, they will just hire from another university.
GEM or General, Engineer, Male are stood on a lower pedestal than non-GEM
I understand about the rationale in Article 15(3) but how can engineers be covered under it?
And Why?