COIMBATORE: Former Anna University vice-chancellor E Balagurusamy has once again differed with the Tamil Nadu government’s stance, this time on state’s decision to cancel arrear exams for all students except final year students.
Balagurusamy on Thursday said that this would lower academic standards of universities.
"It is really very strange and unfortunate that the Tamil Nadu government has announced the cancellation of the arrear exams of all students (except final year) based on 'students' demands and expert panel recommendations'," he said in a statement.
"Universities do not conduct exams and give results based on 'whims and fancies' of students and politicians. Universities are highly autonomous bodies and their syndicates, senates and academic councils have all powers and authority and they can only decide about the conduct of exams and passing of results. Governments have no right in interfering in the academic matters of universities and unilaterally cancel the exams," said Balagurusamy, a former member of UPSC.
"It is high time that Vice-Chancellors wake-up and realise their autonomous status and resist any such unethical moves in the interest of the quality of education and image of the universities. Exempting students from writing semester exams is one thing and cancelling failed students' arrear exams and making them pass is entirely a different thing. People should not confuse these two," he contended.
“I understand that many students have more than 10 arrears and scored even less than 20% marks in most subjects. How can a university declare these students pass just because they have paid the exam fees?” he asked.
"It is absolutely ridiculous. Such an action will not only lower the academic standard of the university but also affect its credibility badly. It is unimaginable to see a world-class university like Anna University implementing such a lopsided decision. It is very sad that university academic bodies have been made irrelevant," opined Balagurusamy.
Earlier, he disagreed with the TN government’s insistence that only a two-language policy would be followed in the State, claiming that he was among those to have been adversely affected by the policy.