New qualifying criteria dashes hopes of many NET aspirants

Candidates who failed may seek legal recourse

The high hopes with which a majority of candidates appeared for the UGC’s National Eligibility Test in June after a change in the question paper pattern have come crashing after the publication of results earlier this week.

For the first time, NET was conducted in objective mode for all three papers in two sessions. Till then, the third paper in descriptive format was not favoured by many. However, the relief over replacement of the descriptive format with multiple-choice questions has turned out to be short-lived.

The adoption of new qualifying criteria by the UGC has denied thousands of candidates an opportunity for lectureship in universities and colleges.

The candidates blame the UGC for coming out with a last minute specification that an aggregate of 65 per cent in three papers was necessary for qualification for general category candidates. The qualifying minimum was fixed at 60 and 55 per cent for OBC and SC/ST/visually challenged/physically challenged categories.

While the NET notification stated that the scores of only those candidates who score the minimum specified marks would be considered for the preparation of result, the UGC’s new criteria for qualification required candidates in general, OBC, and SC/ST/VC/PC categories to post minimum scores (out of 350 — 100 marks each for first and second paper, and 150 marks for third paper) of 227.5, 210, and 192.5 respectively.

So far, corresponding scores of 155, 138 and 130 were accepted as passing minimum for the three categories of candidates. The NET notification stated: “Only such candidates who obtain the minimum required marks in each paper separately, as mentioned above, will be considered for final preparation of result. However, the final qualifying criteria for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Eligibility for Lectureship shall be decided by UGC before declaration of result.”

The candidates are shocked. “The result has caused depression. My efforts have gone in vain,” lamented Gajendran, an Assistant Professor, who felt confident about clearing NET this year, after many attempts over a decade.

His overall score of 188 did not measure up to UGC’s new criteria. Had the UGC struck to the pattern of passing minimum it had been following so far, the pass percentage would have increased manifold, said Vijayalakshmi, a professor in a private college.

While NET/SET is the minimum eligibility for recruitment and appointment of assistant professors in universities/ colleges/ institutions, candidates with Ph.D. in accordance with UGC Regulations 2009, are exempted from clearing this examination.

But, with Ph.D. turning out to be costly and time-consuming, candidates usually devote their attention to clearing NET first before pursuing Ph.D. Hence, their disappointment is only natural, according to S. Iyyampillai, Professor of Economics in Bharathidasan University, Tiruchi, who has vast experience in training candidates for NET/SET

Candidates across the country who have not passed the NET due to the “last minute” changes in the eligibility norms have planned to get their acts together for legal recourse, Ms. Vijayalakshmi said.

No Indian institute in world’s top 200 universities

America's Massachusetts Institute of Technology grabbed the top slot from UK's Cambridge University in a list of QS world university rankings for 2011-2012.

There was little reason for India to smile when the prestigious QS World University Rankings were announced recently. No Indian institute figured in the world’s top 200 universities of the list of 700 that were ranked under the scheme.

For the first time, America's prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology grabbed the top slot from UK's Cambridge University in a list of world university rankings for 2011-2012. However, four of the six top slots in a global university “league table” by QS World University Rankings were occupied by the UK universities.

With MIT leading the list, Cambridge University slipped to the second spot and Harvard still down to the third rank.

University College, London (UCL), Oxford and Imperial took the fourth, fifth and sixth places respectively. The seventh place was awarded to Yale University, followed by University of Chicago, Princeton University and the tenth position to California Institute of Technology.

The QS World University Rankings is a ranking of the world’s top 700 universities by Quacquarelli Symonds using a method that has published annually since 2004.

The QS rankings were originally published in collaboration with Times Higher Education from 2004 to 2009 as the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings. In 2010, Times Higher Education and QS ended their collaboration. QS assumed sole publication of the existing methodology, while Times Higher Education created a new ranking methodology with Thomson Reuters, published as Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

 

The QS rankings rate the world's top 400 universities, evaluating each institution's strengths in research, teaching, the employability of its graduates and international outlook. While India is yet to secure a place in the top 200, other Asian countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan sit comfortably among the top 100 of the rankings table, led by University of Hong Kong (22) and University of Tokyo (25).

“If we are serious about staying on top, the government must concentrate investment where it will have the most impact — in our world-class research-intensive universities,” director general of the Russell Group of research-based universities Dr. Wendy Piatt said.

In 2010, the Indian Institute of Delhi was ranked 202 in the list but it has fallen to 218th this time. Similarly, IIT-Bombay (was 187, now 225); IIT-Madras (was 262, now 281); IIT-Kanpur ( 249, 306); IIT-Kharagpur (311, 341); IIT-Roorkee (428, 438) and IIT-Guwahati (501, 563). The other universities have followed suit – University of Delhi (was 371, now 398); University of Mumbai (493, 578); University of Calcutta (506, 649) and University of Pune (578, 661).

India has scored very badly on quality research and fall in all the universities’ academic reputation. The employer reputation of IIT-Bombay, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Kharagpur, IIT-Guwahati and universities of Mumbai, Calcutta and Pune has slid backwards too. For the academic and employer ratings, inputs from as many as 33,000 academics and 16,785 employers from more than 130 countries were taken by QS, the largest surveys of their kind ever conducted.

Well begun is half done

If getting into engineering colleges is a dream come true for many, tackling the challenges of the first year is another thing altogether.

The results of the first year (second semester) engineering examinations were declared recently and they show a disturbing trend. The pass percentage dips considerably at the end of the first year: Whether it is Tamil Nadu or Mumbai or Nagpur, the trend remains that the performance in the first year is far below the pass percentages obtained in the final year. These are the same students who go on to do well in later years, so what are the reasons for this poor performance in the beginning, when they ought to be carried away by the force of their preparation and enthusiasm?

It seems like a natural conclusion that after three years or so of being pushed to excel — in their board exams, the JEE, AIEEE and other exams — the students tend to relax once they enter the college of their choice.

Says Siddharth Dash, who is now in his second year at BITS Pilani, Hyderabad, “I know many students who used to study for 10 to 15 hours during their 12th.” In the first year this drops to about two hours a day and in the second year increases to about 5-6 hours.

Though the spread of subjects in the first year is fairly continuous from the school curriculum, the method of teaching is different. “We teach more to get the concepts across and we are less exam- oriented, which is what they have been used to at school and in the coaching classes. So they need to become more independent and it takes them a while to understand,” says P. K. Thiruvikraman, Associate Professor BITS Pilani, Hyderabad. He goes on to say that language might be a problem too, with reading habits on a low due to shortage of time and English classes receiving less attention. “Most teachers and parents want to emphasise on Math, Physics, etc.”

Seniors lend a hand

Would they benefit from counselling? Siddharth does not feel the need for this. He feels that the nature of their doubts are such that friendly seniors can help them out. This is also the case with Adarsh A Tadimari who is now in his first year of B.Tech at IIT Madras. He says that his seniors really do pitch in and help out. Even in doing assignments, they are eager to lend the juniors their laptops and help clear doubts on how to prepare for the exams, etc.

Pradymna Kodali, II year, BITS Pilani, Hyderabad, feels that his peers may benefit by counselling, but that is because many of them do not understand what they want to do and have chosen their streams based on their grades and not based on what they are interested in. He also feels that homesickness is a major reason why performance in the first year dips.

Perhaps some students also feel that the first year only consists of common core courses like math and physics and hence take it easy, whereas the second year seems more important because it has subjects of their specialisation. This is being short-sighted because basic math and science is something that they will come back to when they practise their craft. The first year therefore requires more attention and those who manage their first year well are likely to do well in the long run.