<p>They were first faulted by the Tandon Committee in October 2009. The committee was formed to evaluate infrastructure, faculty and other basics at the hundreds of deemed universities that have multiplied across the country with lack of quality.<br /><br />The Central government had on January 17, 2011, told the Supreme Court that it was all set to divest the 44 universities of their special "deemed university" since they had misused the deemed university status. The universities in question had asked the Supreme Court to grant them more time to battle the Centre's complaints against them. The government then set up a panel of experts to review the findings of the Tandon Committee. The universities have once again been found wanting.<br /><br />Deemed universities are entitled to autonomy in deciding their fees, syllabus and other matters. Some have misused this autonomy. Many deemed universities are run by politicians and have obtained the prized "deemed" status based on political connections rather than merit. <br /><br />Others are run as "family fiefdoms" rather than institutions of academic excellence. According to the affidavit, most of the 44 deemed universities, have failed to maintain high standard of academic excellence. They were offering post-graduate and undergraduate courses that are "fragmented with concocted nomenclatures".<br /><br /> They had disproportionately increased their seats in lucrative course beyond the actual intake capacity. The Review Committee came across several aberrations in the functioning of some of the institutions deemed to be universities. It found families rather than professional academics controlling the functioning of institutions. The Supreme Court will now decide the case which will be heard on November 22. "List these matters for final disposal on November 22, 2011," the Supreme Court bench had stated in its order passed on August 24, which means that a final decision on the matter is expected to be taken on November 22.<br /><br />What are the consequences of divesting these universities of their “deemed” status? There are over two lakh students in these universities. Their future is at stake. The Central government has said that their degrees would be valid. And yet how will the markets look at them? The Deemed Universities will now have to revert to their parent Universities as affiliated colleges. However, the state governments can make problems. It would depend on the equations these universities will have with the state. The question now is: How would the public look at them? <br /><br />Money and influence<br />A more important question is who is responsible for this mess? Why were they declared “deemed” if they were ineligible? They were declared “deemed universities” after an inspection by an expert body appointed by the University Grants Commission (UGC). <br /><br />The expert bodies after examining all the laid down criteria had proposed to the University Grants Commission that the institution can be declared as a “deemed university” and the UGC had them declared as “deemed”. The allegation now is that they did not fulfill all the criteria that were prescribed. Money and influence have played their role. Many of these institutions are managed by political families and others by those who are close to the centers of power. The conclusion is simple – the expert bodies are amenable to corruption and the deemed status was given due to reasons other than academics.<br /><br />How could the University Grants Commission appoint such academicians amenable to corruption into their expert bodies? Shouldn’t there be an action on these experts as well? Merely withdrawing deemed university status is not enough. It is important and necessary in the whole battle of fighting against corruption that people who are responsible for the mess are identified and the law should take its course.<br /><br /> The other question of course is on academic standards. If the Central Government has to apply the same standards as they have applied to these institutions to some of the state universities, most state universities may have to close shops. Is there a bias or double standards in applying the law? While not making a case in favour of ‘deemed universities” if they have not made the required grade, one would surely like to raise the issue of the standards of state universities. As the Tandon committee rightly pointed out, there are limitations in the “deemed universities”. How about the limitations of state universities? <br /><br />If the measures of the Ministry of Human Resource Development could help raise standards, one would not feel sad if the “deemed universities” are divested of their status. What we have witnessed in the last one decade is the construction of large infrastructure that meets international standards by several institutions without commitment to academics – teaching and research. In recommending de-recognition, the HRD has made a point. Universities are centres of learning and research and not mere buildings and infrastructure.<br /></p>
<p>They were first faulted by the Tandon Committee in October 2009. The committee was formed to evaluate infrastructure, faculty and other basics at the hundreds of deemed universities that have multiplied across the country with lack of quality.<br /><br />The Central government had on January 17, 2011, told the Supreme Court that it was all set to divest the 44 universities of their special "deemed university" since they had misused the deemed university status. The universities in question had asked the Supreme Court to grant them more time to battle the Centre's complaints against them. The government then set up a panel of experts to review the findings of the Tandon Committee. The universities have once again been found wanting.<br /><br />Deemed universities are entitled to autonomy in deciding their fees, syllabus and other matters. Some have misused this autonomy. Many deemed universities are run by politicians and have obtained the prized "deemed" status based on political connections rather than merit. <br /><br />Others are run as "family fiefdoms" rather than institutions of academic excellence. According to the affidavit, most of the 44 deemed universities, have failed to maintain high standard of academic excellence. They were offering post-graduate and undergraduate courses that are "fragmented with concocted nomenclatures".<br /><br /> They had disproportionately increased their seats in lucrative course beyond the actual intake capacity. The Review Committee came across several aberrations in the functioning of some of the institutions deemed to be universities. It found families rather than professional academics controlling the functioning of institutions. The Supreme Court will now decide the case which will be heard on November 22. "List these matters for final disposal on November 22, 2011," the Supreme Court bench had stated in its order passed on August 24, which means that a final decision on the matter is expected to be taken on November 22.<br /><br />What are the consequences of divesting these universities of their “deemed” status? There are over two lakh students in these universities. Their future is at stake. The Central government has said that their degrees would be valid. And yet how will the markets look at them? The Deemed Universities will now have to revert to their parent Universities as affiliated colleges. However, the state governments can make problems. It would depend on the equations these universities will have with the state. The question now is: How would the public look at them? <br /><br />Money and influence<br />A more important question is who is responsible for this mess? Why were they declared “deemed” if they were ineligible? They were declared “deemed universities” after an inspection by an expert body appointed by the University Grants Commission (UGC). <br /><br />The expert bodies after examining all the laid down criteria had proposed to the University Grants Commission that the institution can be declared as a “deemed university” and the UGC had them declared as “deemed”. The allegation now is that they did not fulfill all the criteria that were prescribed. Money and influence have played their role. Many of these institutions are managed by political families and others by those who are close to the centers of power. The conclusion is simple – the expert bodies are amenable to corruption and the deemed status was given due to reasons other than academics.<br /><br />How could the University Grants Commission appoint such academicians amenable to corruption into their expert bodies? Shouldn’t there be an action on these experts as well? Merely withdrawing deemed university status is not enough. It is important and necessary in the whole battle of fighting against corruption that people who are responsible for the mess are identified and the law should take its course.<br /><br /> The other question of course is on academic standards. If the Central Government has to apply the same standards as they have applied to these institutions to some of the state universities, most state universities may have to close shops. Is there a bias or double standards in applying the law? While not making a case in favour of ‘deemed universities” if they have not made the required grade, one would surely like to raise the issue of the standards of state universities. As the Tandon committee rightly pointed out, there are limitations in the “deemed universities”. How about the limitations of state universities? <br /><br />If the measures of the Ministry of Human Resource Development could help raise standards, one would not feel sad if the “deemed universities” are divested of their status. What we have witnessed in the last one decade is the construction of large infrastructure that meets international standards by several institutions without commitment to academics – teaching and research. In recommending de-recognition, the HRD has made a point. Universities are centres of learning and research and not mere buildings and infrastructure.<br /></p>