The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) recent notice on using National Eligibility Test (NET) scores for PhD admissions has stirred a hornet’s nest. A section of academicians and students are up in arms, resisting the move as they feel it is regressive. They contend that centralised tests, while serving no useful purpose, are counterproductive and rob academia of academic and administrative freedom.
Traditionally, the NET, held biannually in June and December, has been primarily considered for awarding Junior Research Fellowships (JRF) and as an eligibility criterion for appointment as assistant professors for candidates holding post-graduate degrees. Under the new directive, successful NET candidates will be categorised into three groups. Category one includes individuals eligible for PhD admission with JRF and assistant professor appointments. Candidates in category two are eligible for assistant professor appointments and PhD admission without JRF. The third category is those eligible just for PhD admission.
The UGC’s rationale behind this policy shift is two-fold. Firstly, it aims to streamline the admission process, sparing students the burden of undertaking multiple examinations for PhD programmes. Secondly, the move aligns with the objectives stated in the National Education Policy 2020, which advocates implementing a single test for PhD admissions. Effective from academic year 2024-25, the UGC has mandated all higher educational institutions (HEIs) to adhere to these guidelines.
To assess the ramifications of such a decision, it is imperative to examine the test under consideration. The NET comprises two papers: the first assesses candidates’ teaching and research aptitude, while the second evaluates their subject knowledge. However, those familiar with the test would likely concur that its reliance on objective-type questions with no negative marking tends to prioritise memorisation over deep understanding and application of knowledge.
Questions predominantly focus on factual recall, emphasising who, when and where, over why and how. For instance, in the literature paper, the significance of the line, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” from Shakespeare’s Hamlet is trivialised by merely asking students to identify the speaker. Many questions require students to recall authors’ names, works and characters. This methodology primarily assesses lower-order cognitive abilities like remembering while neglecting higher-order critical thinking skills, such as analysing, evaluating and creating.
Previously, the test included a descriptive paper that offered valuable insights into students’ writing and critical thinking capabilities. However, this component has been discontinued, diminishing the test’s capacity to measure research aptitude and skills. Consequently, the current structure of the NET, combined with the widespread presence of coaching centres nationwide, merely encourages circumvention through repetitive practice.
At this point, asking what pursuing a PhD entails is essential. Cultivating effective communication skills is paramount for those aiming for a doctoral degree. Despite its challenges, academic writing forms the bedrock for crafting a cohesive thesis. Furthermore, PhD scholars must generate original research and publish their findings in peer-reviewed and Scopus-indexed journals. They must also present papers at conferences that demand written and verbal communication skills.
Academics widely concur that a successful research journey depends on robust analytical skills, whether applied to quantitative or qualitative studies. Without these competencies, scholars are likely to face numerous obstacles along the way. They must possess patience, resilience, and perseverance to navigate this endeavour successfully. They must maintain an unwavering passion for their subject, self-motivation, independence, receptivity to new ideas, and a willingness to learn.
Regrettably, the NET falls short in assessing or nurturing these skills. The contention that these skills could be assessed during the interview lacks substance, particularly considering the minimal weightage (30 percent) and limited time allotted. Consequently, universities may admit scholars skilled in rote learning but lacking essential competencies. PhD aspirants will be compelled to undergo a ritualistic examination that adds little to their development. Additionally, the one-year validity for scores among category two and three students may cause mental and financial strain, prompting repeated test-taking and benefiting only coaching centres.
With the implementation of the new rule, the UGC seeks to centralise control over the operations and procedures of HEIs under a unified framework. Introducing the Common University Entrance Exam earlier was one such initiative. Now, by adding a centralised examination for PhD aspirants, the UGC has advanced this approach further. One can’t help but ponder what lies ahead for India’s HEIs.
Clearly, the intention to promote uniformity in higher education is not progressive. While the UGC has traditionally served as a regulatory body, its increasing involvement in directing all aspects of functioning could prove detrimental to Indian HEIs that already face mediocrity accusations. Moreover, such a move poses a significant risk of compromising the autonomy of HEIs. I have often heard and read in public forums UGC officials extol the importance of independence for HEIs. However, initiatives like this could only be perceived as a blatant infringement upon the autonomy of institutions that are already grappling with restricted freedom.
(Views are personal)
(johnjken@gmail.com)
John J Kennedy | Professor and Dean, CHRIST (Deemed) University, Bengaluru