17th February 2026
Dear All,
Sub: Study Abroad Seminar with USA/ Korea Student-Returnees – Reg.
We cordially invite you to participate in the Study Abroad Seminar, tomorrow, Wednesday, 18th February 2026, from 11.40 am to 1 pm in the Chemistry Seminar Hall.
Our current students who have successfully completed their One-Semester Abroad in the USA and in South Korea will be presenting their experiences as International Students with LeTourneau University, USA & Hoseo University, South Korea.
1. Ms. Lekhaa MeenakshiSundaram, III BA English
2. Ms. Madeeha Anjum, II BBA
3. Ms. Sharon Patricia, II BBA
4. Ms. Denita Nathalya, II BA Economics
Kindly be seated in the Venue by 11.40 am.
Students aspiring to do their One-Semester Abroad in the USA & South Korea are specially invited to participate in the Seminar, and have all your doubts clarified with the speakers.
Office of International Programmes
MCC
Invite designed by Ms. G. Rakshaya, Intern, Office of International Programmes, MCC
Can a Machine Translate Desire?
#reflections #newspaperinlearning
Managing Quality Shifts in the Age of AI
Today, even as the International AI Impact Summit 2026 begins in New Delhi, and Global tech leaders from around 20 countries, including Sundar Pichai, Sam Altman and Bill Gates are expected to participate, and India is pitching for a “human-centric” approach to AI aimed at the “economic good” of all, I was quite taken aback reading a particular article in today’s Times of India, titled, “What French romance novels could tell us about AI and translation jobs”.
The article highlights the shocking move by the renowned romance novel publisher Harlequin France for testing AI-powered translation (with a company called Fluent Planet) to lower costs and speed up production - something that has sparked controversy and intense debate in the translation industry.
Professional translation groups have called the move “unacceptable!”
On the other side, interest from other publishers is growing, with Fluent Planet reporting that, there is an increasing demand for their “hybrid” model (AI translation under human supervision).
The article highlights fears that translators will become irrelevant in the future, with political figures like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz predicting that interpreters may one day be obsolete.
The article also throws light on the technological revolution that’s “threatening” translations in general, and the human translator in particular.
A translation industry survey in Britain suggested that more than one-third of translators had lost work to AI. According to that report, “All point the finger to an indiscriminate use of language technology, in particular artificial intelligence and dedicated machine translation, to cut costs and replace or minimise human translation work.”
Unlike other industries, which are just beginning to grapple with the implications of AI, the disruption in translation is well under way. In the past few years, AI-powered tools have been improving digital translations and making realtime subtitles more accurate.
The writer looks at the situation as a ‘canary in the coal mine’ kinda predicament, quoting that, when it comes to simple tasks, already, AI is “more consistently accurate than humans”.
She ends the article in a tone of resignation, by asking a highly pertinent question, “How do we manage the resignation and quality shifts?”
In particular interest is the second part of the question –
“How do we manage the resignation and quality shifts?”
Quality Shifts??? ☹
The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind… ☹
PS: You may want to read a lovely interview done by six of our
present II MA English students, two years ago, with veteran translation
specialist Dr. Hepzhibah, University of Edinburgh, during her visit to MCC, on our past blogpost
HERE.
The Lemon Tea Chronicles | Reminiscences
Literary Afternoons on Air Force Road
This memorable photo of ten years ago, is testament to a wonderful slice of memory aka “institutional memory”.
Well, there is a specific kind of magic that happens when a lecture ends, but the conversations don’t! 😊
Looking at this memorable photograph - captured for posterity - from over ten years ago, transports me back to those good ol’ storied pasts – when, with such ritualistic vigour, we used to leave the sylvan precincts of MCC campus and make our way to a modest tea shop on Air Force Road.
In fact, the tea shop would then come alive for us all - as an open-air seminar room where the formal literary theories we discussed in class were deconstructed, debated, and reimagined over tea glass tumblers.
For once, the lemon tea wasn’t just a beverage! It was much more than that! It was our “energy tonic.” It had a way of sharpening the mind and soothing the throat long after the lecture classes were over. Whether we were parsing the nuances of a post-structuralist text or simply sharing a laugh about the quirks of campus life, that lemon tea was the cute catalyst.
Added, there was something about the quietness of the road and the ambience of the tea shop that made our literary discussions feel more grounded and vibrant.
And the lovely faces in this photo that hold those lemon-tea glass tumblers, represent a shared era of intellectual pursuit and genuine friendship.
Ten momentous years have passed us by – Dr. Ganesh has since retired, Dr. Abitha is now with Bharathi Women’s, Dr. Sandhya Ravishankar is with UAE, etc. Still, the lovely memories of those sharp, citrusy teas and the brilliant company remains with us as clear as ever.
It reminds us that sometimes, the most profound academic insights don’t happen at a lectern, but standing on a quiet roadside shop, tea in hand, with kindred spirits. 😊
So what is institutional memory?
Well, institutional memory helps in providing a shared sense of identity – from the narratives of the past that serves to connect current faculty and students to those who came before!
Institutional memory then becomes a very important asset for academia.
And what, pray, is institutional history?
Institutional history and institutional memory represent two different ways in which an institution “remembers” its past. One is a formal record, while the other is a living pulse!
Institutional history is the objective, documented account of an institution’s journey. It is what we find in archives, official commemorative volumes, and annual reports, that are “set in stone”.
On the other hand, institutional memory is the collective, informal knowledge held by the people within the institution. They are stories told in the break time, unwritten rules of conduct, and the personal experiences of long-time staff. If a key veteran leaves the institution without passing on their insights, that “memory” is often lost.
Meticulous documentation (either formal or informal) of past events, programmes, departmental activities, class activities, celebration of college events, alumni engagements, curriculum changes, etc., validate institutional history and institutional memory to a great extent.
Especially when there is a transition in administration, leadership change, or a new cohort of students are admitted into the institution, a strong knowledge of institutional memory and institutional history ensure that the ecosystem doesn’t collapse! In such an eventuality, these precious ‘institutional histories and memories’ act as anchors or stabilising rudders of sorts!
John W. Hall and Marius B. Jansen in their very engaging book on the subject of Institutional memory, titled, Studies in the Institutional History of Early Modern Japan, argue that, the concept of institutional memory acts as a critical force that provided stability and continuity during Japan’s transition from a fragmented feudal society to a centralised modern state.
The book highlights the role of ‘custom’ as the true governor of the land. Meaning that, in Tokugawa Japan, it was not necessarily the individual power of the Emperor or the Shogun that maintained order, but rather “custom”. This deep-seated institutional memory acted as a self-regulating mechanism that governed social and political life more effectively than top-down decrees.
The book foregrounds the role of documentation as a product that helps in recovering institutional memory.
As eminent Political Scientist Hugh Heclo, so beautifully puts it -
Institutional memory is not just a collection of documents; it is the lived experience and shared wisdom of those who have navigated the institution before us.
Heclo’s book titled, A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington (1977) discusses the concept of institutional memory. In this book, Heclo examines the tension between political appointees (whom he calls “strangers”) and career civil servants.
Political appointees (Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries) arrive in Washington with a mandate for change but often have no history with the department they are leading. They are “birds of passage” who stay for only 2-3 years.
Without institutional memory, these leaders are prone to making the same mistakes as their predecessors, he avers, and notes that this memory is not just about files or archives. It is embodied in the relationships and informal networks of the career staff – the “institutional soul”.
How true!
Merit vs. Social Justice: A Fiery Debate in the MA
English Class
Topic: Reservation in Jobs & Education: A Boon or a Bane?
II MA English Classroom
#classactivities #debate
13th February 2026
If there is one thing Literature students know how to do, it is the art of dissecting a narrative. However, today, for once, we moved away from fiction to tackle a very real and pressing societal narrative: The Reservation System.
What started as a standard classroom discussion quickly evolved into a high-octane debate. The classroom became quite electric, each group putting forth their intense arguments in such a gentle and gracious manner.
Here is a quick report on how the battle of ideas unfolded.
“Statistics clearly show that minorities are underrepresented in many sectors. Reservation gives them a voice and ensures equality for all,” he averred.
Lara backed this up by introducing the concept of power dynamics. She pointed out that representation is a prerequisite for power. Without marginalized communities in decision-making spaces, the claim of an “equal society” remains hollow.
The counter-argument was swift and sharp. Zibiah questioned the constant fixation on past hierarchies. Her argument centered on the individual: by constantly looking backward at caste, are we inadvertently discouraging merit and individual effort?, she opined.
Alphy took this further, advocating for a system where hard work is the sole determinant of success.
“Let those who truly deserve it get the opportunities, without preference based on caste,” she remarked.
Anagha added a layer of nuance that shifted the room’s perspective. She critiqued the current system for focusing heavily on caste while often overlooking economic background. She shared personal observations of how reservation can sometimes breed complacency, leaving deserving candidates from non-reserved categories - who might be economically struggling - out in the cold.
This sentiment was echoed by Aleena and Pooja as well, who reminded the class that the “General Category” is not synonymous with “Rich and Privileged.” They argued that struggles are universal and not limited to one specific section of society.
Just when the argument was leaning towards meritocracy, Nikita and Lindsay pulled it back to the ground reality of discrimination.
Nikita shared a personal incident where someone was rejected solely based on caste, proving that discrimination is not a relic of the past but a current reality.
Lindsay introduced the psychological aspect, speaking on “intergenerational trauma” and the continued influence of caste politics.
Lara returned to emphasise that while we say we are equal, we are not yet in a state of equal privilege. Until that balance is struck, she argued, the support wheels of reservation cannot be removed.
There was no simple winner, and perhaps that was the point.
The Pro-Reservation side (Milind, Lara, Nikita, Lindsay) successfully argued that until systemic hierarchy and historical trauma are eradicated, reservation is the only tool for equity.
And the Sceptics to Reservation (Zibiah, Alphy, Anagha, Pooja, Aleena) raised valid concerns about merit, economic oversight, and the struggles of the general category.
The MA English class proved today that we can disagree passionately while engaging deeply with the social structures that shape our world.
A rewarding debate in every way!
.jpeg) |
| The Group Leaders of both the teams - [Standing in the Picture] |
Rapporteur: Ms. Safa Salsabeel
Group Leaders: Ms. Zibiah and Ms. Nikita
Time Keeper: Ms. Terese Maria Broosily
Official Photographer: Ms. Vasupradhaa
Kalaiagaran’s
First Solo Journey by Jazz!
Kalaiagaran, II MA English, has done an awesome vlog, documenting his first solo motorcycle trip on his Honda SP 125.
He not only explores historical sites but also presents some interesting glimpses into natural scenery in the process, along the coast near Chennai.
His solo-journey begins at 8:45 AM from Pulichur, on his bike that he has fondly named as “Jazz,” and then starts to share with his viewers, his excitement on his first solo expedition.
His first pitstop is at Sadras Fort aka Sadranga Pattinam, a Dutch fort that was a major trading hub for muslin, cotton, ghee, and pearls.
He takes us on a tour of the well-preserved granaries and a secret tunnel that historically led to the queen’s room by the sea for privacy. He then proceeds to visit the Dutch cemetery, which contains 14 graves with intricate, unique patterns on them.
While he is in awe of the architecture, he also expresses his deep sense of frustration at the graffiti and vandalism that are causing great damage to this great historical site.
His next pitstop is the Alamparai Fort, which was built by the Nawabs of Arcot between 1735 and 1740, and later gifted to the French before finally being destroyed by the British. Unlike Sadras Fort, this fort is almost in total ruins, with only the outer walls remaining, as a lone witness to such a great empire.
Back then, this site seems to have served as a mint for copper coins known as “Alumpari Vahan”.
En route to Alamparai, he stops at a scenic pine forest, and also gives a note of caution to solo travellers to be cautious of camouflaged snakes like the Russell’s Viper in dry leaves.
He also shares a quick tip for identifying Eucalyptus trees by crushing and smelling the leaves to distinguish them from similar-looking Pencil trees.
Kalai takes his viewers on his final stop – the scenic Kovalam Beach, where he enjoys the atmosphere and revisits childhood-style carnival games.
The highlight of this stop is trying “mole crabs” which he describes as a healthy, protein-rich snack.
Kalaiagaran concludes this engaging video by advising fellow riders to take frequent breaks to avoid back pain and to stay hydrated throughout the trip. After a rewarding day on wheels, he reaches home, by 6:51 PM, marking a successful end to his first solo vlog.
Kudos, dear Kalaiagaran!
You
may want to watch his YouTube Vlog HERE
AI was always a tool. It is a tool. And it always will be a tool
If you use AI to brainstorm, your brain is not
storming
The Great Debate | III BA English
12th February 2025
Report by Ms. Lekhaa MeenakshiSundaram
The topic of the day: Does AI scuttle or enhance creativity and critical thinking. The class divided themselves into two teams.
“Mind Wins” claiming that AI scuttles creativity and critical thinking, and “Smart Work” claiming that AI enhances creativity and critical thinking.
To everyone’s surprise, only two people in the class were on team “Smart Work.”
The photographer for the debate was Catherine and the time keeper was Libby. Lekhaa recorded the proceedings.
Team Mind Wins won the coin toss and opted to dispute. Gouri, from team Smart Work started the debate, talking about how AI began. She said that “AI was always a tool. It is a tool. And it always will be a tool.” She said that we don’t know how to use it properly, which is why problems arise. She stated that no one, including the companies that create AI systems say that it is replacing human intelligence.
Ilfa, for team MW, disputed this when she spoke about generative AI. She asked why there are so many artists talking about how their work was stolen by generative AI. She said that people are not willing to think about the ethics surrounding plagiarism. She said that art has been “commodified” and used to build tools further. She also said that if people stop to think and talk to other people, they can figure out the things that they need AI to do. For example, if one wants to know what places to visit in a place, say Chennai, they can do so by talking to the people around them.
Thang, for team SM, asked whether Ilfa –
or people in general – had the time to go figure things out in person. Even if
they did, he asked if they really would go talk in person, or ask Google, or
call other people. He believed that they would use Google or a similar search
engine, as it is the best way to find places. He claimed that indirectly,
people who claim to dislike AI rely on it.
Shauna, for team MW, said that the best place to actually see a place is to go there. She said that human experience can explain things that AI cannot. She said that “AI is a tool for submission or subjugation, which obstructs our thinking process.” She also came back to the argument that AI takes artists’ work and turns it into something else.
Gouri, for team SM, challenged Shauna – and the others – to try to live without AI or the internet for one day. She said that technology structures society and that we need it for societal survival and progress. We cannot move on without technology, and a huge part of technology is AI. However, behind it is a human working for the future of the society.
Shauna, for team MW, countered with the difference between AI and technology. What makes AI different is that it is artificial, not backed by human intelligence. She said that we can not progress without water to drink and the drinking water is being used to cool down the AI systems. She agreed that the society needs technology to progress, but what if there is no world to progress on?
Thang, for team SM, reasoned that if AI is a threat, why do global powers depend on and fight for AI. He talked about how AI could be a destructive weapon. Then, he said that AI can be a threat or be good in warfare, and that is both a threat and redeemer. It depends on how it is used.
Shauna, for team MS, said that global superpowers are afraid of AI because such systems pose a threat, referring to the Epstein files. Then, she said that they support something destructive, like AI, just like they have supported other outrageous things in the past.
Gouri, for team SM, said that AI is a tool, but it depends on ethics and the person using it. Anything can be used in a bad way. She said that everyone uses AI, but asked if that puts a lid on creativity.
Shauna, for team MW, countered saying that an ultimatum was needed. AI as we now know it uses tons of water and harms the environment. Instead, there are AI systems that run on data, and that to expand such systems would be the way forward for the good of the environment.
Ann, for team MW, added that AI does not have a mind of its own. She talked about Intellectual theft and the consequences of stealing ideas that AI can not comprehend. She said that people are blatantly stealing ideas and styles. Similarly, Humanize AI (AI Humanizers) do not really humanize things, but instead they are what AI thinks a human thinks like.
Gouri, for team SM, talked about emerging intellectual property rights. She said that they can be used to counter the negative aspects of AI that Ann talked about. She reiterated that AI is a tool and assistant and that rights can be protected based on how people use AI
Megha, for team MW, revealed the harsh truth that our legal system is very slow. She said that many more important problems are not solved, and that those rights do not work. By the time the verdict in the court comes out, one’s idea is already stolen and there is going back. She said that in an ideal world, AI could be an assistant, but that it is not being used as such.
Eshal, continuing for team MW, talked about the damages caused by AI, such as picture morphing. She reiterated that we do not live in an ideal world. Often, the damage is done and people are suffering. Even if justice is served, it is still out on the internet and tarnishing people’s reputations. She said that the benefits do not outweigh the damages.
Gouri, for team SM, talked about free will. She said “if you are scared of it, just don’t use it.” She said that AI is a learning system, which will obviously take things from the internet. She said that we should be vigilant. Then, she said that if AI is so dangerous, we should use our free will and use it in a non-dangerous way.
Catherine, for team MW, said that the whole point of laws is because of the misuse of AI. She said that intellectual property rights have not caught up to ethics and that subjective morality comes into play when it comes to free will, not societal ethics. Without that boundary, it is hard to understand what’s right and what’s wrong. She said that only a small portion of people use free will correctly.
Ilfa, continuing for team MW, said that the
creation of art is political, not small scale. It reflects the society we live
in and that we should want to live in a world filled with creativity. Without
the process of learning, unlearning, and relearning, we hinder human empathy.
She said that AI does not do this and that it’s recreation of art does not
represent society.
Gouri, for team SM, countered that AI is not everything. AI cannot completely disappear. It can help as an assistant and to brainstorm. She said that it is not our whole life, but it will be a part of life.
Shauna, for team MW, concluded saying that “If you use AI to brainstorm, your brain is not storming. For critical thinking to work, you need to think yourself.”
PS: You may want to look up an exciting debate on a similar topic, in the II MA English Class, three years ago, HERE on our blog.
