<p>Courage is becoming so unfamiliar to the people of India that even a statement, such as "water finds its true level", is considered a statement of great courage. If you say something which contradicts the state-sponsored truth, you are being too adventurous. A common person can even think of doing something like this, but for a person in a position of authority to differ from the state or government is considered audacious or foolish. It is unthinkable as that position of authority is seen as a gift from the powers. Your continuance in that position depends on the pleasure of the State or the government.<br /> <br />That is why when the vice chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University expressed her doubts about the methodology of the National Combined Central Entrance Test for postgraduate courses, Prof Avijit Pathak called it a courageous act. We wondered: Is she one of us, or has she come from another planet? No vice chancellor in our recent memory has done something like this. Remember that the vice chancellor has not even opposed this joint test. She is merely requesting the government to rethink the multiple choice questions based test. Her intent to submit this before the government is seen as a brave act. It only shows the quality of our academic leaders has sunk to in recent times. Expressing her reservation in a conversation with the Indian Express, she said, "At least in Masters', you cannot have admission on MCQs (multiple choice questions) alone because we don't even know whether the student can write anything. For PhD, we have been able to convince the government that everything cannot be MCQs. So, 70 per cent will be there, there will be a 30 per cent interview, and JNU will do it. This is in keeping with the vision of NEP 2020 about holistic, inclusive education with critical thinking." The JNU is fortunate that, at least for the PhD courses, it managed to get out of this MCQ madness. Other universities do not have a VC like the one the JNU has now.<br /><br />Earlier this year, the then VC of the JNU decided that admissions to postgraduate courses would be made through a joint entrance examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). It was strongly opposed by the students and teachers of the university. There was a reason for their opposition. Since its inception, the JNU has conducted its own entrance exams for various courses. No one has questioned it to date. The JNU has its own admission process. Like the JNU, Delhi University and the Central University of Hyderabad also conducted their own entrance examinations.<br /><br />The question papers in these examinations were prepared by the teachers of the respective courses. That is the most appropriate thing to do. These teachers know what their curriculum is and what is needed in a student to be able to pursue these courses. Needless to say, there is always room for improvement in any examination. When we used to prepare questions for the entrance examinations, there was a lot of debate and discussion in our department. A part of the question paper was multiple choice based. Such questions are framed to test your recall ability. You can easily score high marks if you have memorised names, dates, and events. But there were also essay-type questions. Or what we call subjective questions. They are framed so that they can test the capacity of the student to express her thoughts and ideas. Also, test their analytical ability.<br /><br />That is what the JNU VC said, "The government (needs to) understand that these are the difficulties that we have in reality. We are not opposing the system per se, but the implementation can be disastrous if we are going to have this type of uniformity. Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages get the bulk of the students. The whole debate on fact versus value, the limitations of the quantitative testing has been accepted in the '70s and '80s in the West. India is very diverse, we can't have this uniformity." She is right.<br /><br />Along with this, we also had to consider that the students would come from different kinds of universities. Not all of them have the same level. Their courses are different, and the methods of teaching are also different. How can one question paper deal with the challenges of diversity, variation and disparity at the undergraduate teaching level? It has always been a struggle. In 2009, when 16 new central universities were established, a proposal was made that there should be a joint entrance test for admission to all of them. But universities were also free not to participate. So not all the new universities opted for it. That was a time when universities could make their own decisions. Today this freedom is no longer available to them.<br /><br />We must, however, note that there is no mandate as such. But the vice-chancellors are expected to understand both the will and the gesture of the government, and they have never failed the government. One university is not a copy of another. There is a difference in their curricula. That's why students are more inclined to go to one, not the other. In India, it is still difficult to understand why a student should try to get into the physics department of one university than the physics department of another university. After all, physics is being taught everywhere. Why this preference?<br /><br />In addition to the curriculum's uniqueness, teachers are crucial in how students pick universities. Who is teaching where? Ask students who want to move to the USA or London how much research they do about the department before admission. The departments of these universities also want to know their potential students before admission. Therefore, in the admission process, the closer the two are to each other, the more it benefits both. There is also a principle behind it. Universities are considered competent to take decisions on their own in these matters. They are autonomous. Therefore, whether they choose the teacher or the student, it should not be decided by any outside authority. This is what is practised at the best universities in the world.<br /> <br />The second principle is that of diversity. Any centralised policy or process imposes uniformity. While saying so, it is important to keep in mind that uniformity and equality are not the same. This principle was the basis of university education in India. But the trend of centralisation has increased in the last two decades. The government wants to control universities. Its medium is the University Grants Commission. It wants to make their courses uniform. Now it wants to centralise their admission processes and take over their functions. Again it is not questioned.<br /><br />No VC says that it is beyond the mandate and powers of the UGC. This work has been given to the National Testing Agency (NTA). It is considered to be capable of conducting all kinds of examinations. The NTA has no intellectual abilities of its own. A few years ago, it was given the responsibility to take the postgraduate entrance examination. It was also decided that the test would be only MCQ based. The entrance test will be conducted in only one mode.<br /><br />The JNU ended its own entrance examination process and handed over this task to NTA. The vice chancellor of JNU says that when the decision was taken, she was not there. Otherwise, she would have opposed it. She herself has been a student of JNU. She knows the uniqueness of JNU, irrespective of her ideology. That's why what she says now has significance. Also, because she is not against the government, that is why she has been chosen. She has expressed her gratitude to the prime minister for her selection, even if, by law, the PM has no role in selecting the vice-chancellor of a university.<br /><br />Whatever the case, what she says now should be heard. She says that she will request the government to change the admission method. But as the teachers point out, going to the government with this request is unnecessary. It is absolutely the right and prerogative of the university to withdraw from this centralised test and conduct its own entrance examination. To give up its own authority, to hand over its autonomy to some other agency is to destroy oneself. What the VC of the JNU says is not only about JNU. It is about all universities. We, teachers, have been arguing the same thing for quite some time. As the JNU VC cleverly put it, gurus are supreme in the Indic tradition. They must be heard.<br /><br /><em>(The writer teaches at Delhi University)</em><br /><br /><em><strong>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</strong></em></p>
<p>Courage is becoming so unfamiliar to the people of India that even a statement, such as "water finds its true level", is considered a statement of great courage. If you say something which contradicts the state-sponsored truth, you are being too adventurous. A common person can even think of doing something like this, but for a person in a position of authority to differ from the state or government is considered audacious or foolish. It is unthinkable as that position of authority is seen as a gift from the powers. Your continuance in that position depends on the pleasure of the State or the government.<br /> <br />That is why when the vice chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University expressed her doubts about the methodology of the National Combined Central Entrance Test for postgraduate courses, Prof Avijit Pathak called it a courageous act. We wondered: Is she one of us, or has she come from another planet? No vice chancellor in our recent memory has done something like this. Remember that the vice chancellor has not even opposed this joint test. She is merely requesting the government to rethink the multiple choice questions based test. Her intent to submit this before the government is seen as a brave act. It only shows the quality of our academic leaders has sunk to in recent times. Expressing her reservation in a conversation with the Indian Express, she said, "At least in Masters', you cannot have admission on MCQs (multiple choice questions) alone because we don't even know whether the student can write anything. For PhD, we have been able to convince the government that everything cannot be MCQs. So, 70 per cent will be there, there will be a 30 per cent interview, and JNU will do it. This is in keeping with the vision of NEP 2020 about holistic, inclusive education with critical thinking." The JNU is fortunate that, at least for the PhD courses, it managed to get out of this MCQ madness. Other universities do not have a VC like the one the JNU has now.<br /><br />Earlier this year, the then VC of the JNU decided that admissions to postgraduate courses would be made through a joint entrance examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). It was strongly opposed by the students and teachers of the university. There was a reason for their opposition. Since its inception, the JNU has conducted its own entrance exams for various courses. No one has questioned it to date. The JNU has its own admission process. Like the JNU, Delhi University and the Central University of Hyderabad also conducted their own entrance examinations.<br /><br />The question papers in these examinations were prepared by the teachers of the respective courses. That is the most appropriate thing to do. These teachers know what their curriculum is and what is needed in a student to be able to pursue these courses. Needless to say, there is always room for improvement in any examination. When we used to prepare questions for the entrance examinations, there was a lot of debate and discussion in our department. A part of the question paper was multiple choice based. Such questions are framed to test your recall ability. You can easily score high marks if you have memorised names, dates, and events. But there were also essay-type questions. Or what we call subjective questions. They are framed so that they can test the capacity of the student to express her thoughts and ideas. Also, test their analytical ability.<br /><br />That is what the JNU VC said, "The government (needs to) understand that these are the difficulties that we have in reality. We are not opposing the system per se, but the implementation can be disastrous if we are going to have this type of uniformity. Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages get the bulk of the students. The whole debate on fact versus value, the limitations of the quantitative testing has been accepted in the '70s and '80s in the West. India is very diverse, we can't have this uniformity." She is right.<br /><br />Along with this, we also had to consider that the students would come from different kinds of universities. Not all of them have the same level. Their courses are different, and the methods of teaching are also different. How can one question paper deal with the challenges of diversity, variation and disparity at the undergraduate teaching level? It has always been a struggle. In 2009, when 16 new central universities were established, a proposal was made that there should be a joint entrance test for admission to all of them. But universities were also free not to participate. So not all the new universities opted for it. That was a time when universities could make their own decisions. Today this freedom is no longer available to them.<br /><br />We must, however, note that there is no mandate as such. But the vice-chancellors are expected to understand both the will and the gesture of the government, and they have never failed the government. One university is not a copy of another. There is a difference in their curricula. That's why students are more inclined to go to one, not the other. In India, it is still difficult to understand why a student should try to get into the physics department of one university than the physics department of another university. After all, physics is being taught everywhere. Why this preference?<br /><br />In addition to the curriculum's uniqueness, teachers are crucial in how students pick universities. Who is teaching where? Ask students who want to move to the USA or London how much research they do about the department before admission. The departments of these universities also want to know their potential students before admission. Therefore, in the admission process, the closer the two are to each other, the more it benefits both. There is also a principle behind it. Universities are considered competent to take decisions on their own in these matters. They are autonomous. Therefore, whether they choose the teacher or the student, it should not be decided by any outside authority. This is what is practised at the best universities in the world.<br /> <br />The second principle is that of diversity. Any centralised policy or process imposes uniformity. While saying so, it is important to keep in mind that uniformity and equality are not the same. This principle was the basis of university education in India. But the trend of centralisation has increased in the last two decades. The government wants to control universities. Its medium is the University Grants Commission. It wants to make their courses uniform. Now it wants to centralise their admission processes and take over their functions. Again it is not questioned.<br /><br />No VC says that it is beyond the mandate and powers of the UGC. This work has been given to the National Testing Agency (NTA). It is considered to be capable of conducting all kinds of examinations. The NTA has no intellectual abilities of its own. A few years ago, it was given the responsibility to take the postgraduate entrance examination. It was also decided that the test would be only MCQ based. The entrance test will be conducted in only one mode.<br /><br />The JNU ended its own entrance examination process and handed over this task to NTA. The vice chancellor of JNU says that when the decision was taken, she was not there. Otherwise, she would have opposed it. She herself has been a student of JNU. She knows the uniqueness of JNU, irrespective of her ideology. That's why what she says now has significance. Also, because she is not against the government, that is why she has been chosen. She has expressed her gratitude to the prime minister for her selection, even if, by law, the PM has no role in selecting the vice-chancellor of a university.<br /><br />Whatever the case, what she says now should be heard. She says that she will request the government to change the admission method. But as the teachers point out, going to the government with this request is unnecessary. It is absolutely the right and prerogative of the university to withdraw from this centralised test and conduct its own entrance examination. To give up its own authority, to hand over its autonomy to some other agency is to destroy oneself. What the VC of the JNU says is not only about JNU. It is about all universities. We, teachers, have been arguing the same thing for quite some time. As the JNU VC cleverly put it, gurus are supreme in the Indic tradition. They must be heard.<br /><br /><em>(The writer teaches at Delhi University)</em><br /><br /><em><strong>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</strong></em></p>