He depicted getting a GPA of 6.8 as though it were really a hard nut to crack, and I believe this is just a plain lame excuse. Further you do understand that conversion of % into GPA is not exactly dividing 100 by 10. AFAIK, I may be wrong, you get a GPA of around 9+ when you get 80%+ at IIT.
To be clear that we are on the same footing, I said that statement of variation of syllabus relatively in comparison to variation in grading.
On variation in syllabus between different univs : I would say that still there wouldn't as high as made out to be. The courses still would be more or less same. You wouldn't have one univ teaching high school calculus and the other teaching graduate (master's) level math. The courses still would be engineering focused: Theory of Compuation, Comp Arch, Discrete Math, etc would be taught to everyone and at about the same level. Further, these students at IITs and NITs are assumed to intelligent, so they are given slightly extra work load. Therefore, they should be able to cope with that work load and be able to get similar marks as those from lower colleges.
On variation of courses vs Variation in grading: This argument can be easily nullified. My first question : Are there more affiliated colleges or more universities? (Mumbai Univ has 100+ colleges. Similar case with Anna Univ.) Ofcourse, Universities. Now, each university has its own syllabus, and each college affiliated to the university will follow the same course. This is guaranteed. However, can same standard for giving internal marks be guaranteed? Of course not. Therefore, there is more variation in grading than in syllabus. In fact some colleges barely give more than 30 out of 50 in internals, whereas some give 40/50 to even mediocre students.
Come to think of it, I've seen a variation in which a topper from 1 college got 85-90% marks, and a topper from another college got 65-70%, and this is with same syllabus, and the difference usually used to be because of internal marks.
Now this is one instance of plain injustice.