The University Grants Commission (UGC) and National Testing Agency (NTA) have launched a newer mechanism of common test for PhD admissions through their notification dated March 27. Now, the PhD admissions have been clubbed with NET (National Eligibility Test) for appointment as university/college faculty and with various kinds of national fellowships, such as JRF (Junior Research Fellowship), NFSC (National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste), NFOBC (National Fellowship for Other Backward Classes), and NFPWD (National Fellowship for Persons with Disabilities).
Many central universities like Delhi University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Banaras Hindu University have endorsed this newer arrangement withdrawing their own tests and bypassing their own statutory bodies like the Academic Council. While there are some specific contingent problems of the newer common test for PhD admissions, there are many fundamental issues with all such common entrance tests.
Scrapping the non-NET fellowship
Students who get admission into PhD programmes without obtaining NET or JRF receive a non-NET fellowship of Rs 8,000 per month under the current system. They secure admission through the university entrance tests or direct interviews. However, since the new system of PhD admissions is clubbed with NET, the fate of non-NET fellowships is under threat of being scrapped. The government had intended to scrap this scheme about a decade ago, but it did not happen due to huge protests launched by students, which came to be known as the ‘UGC Occupy Movement’.
Yearly validity of NET scores for PhD admissions
More than 10 lakh students from all states and universities register for NET in every biennial cycle, and approximately six lakhs finally appear in it. About 6% of the total number of candidates qualify NET, and approximately 1% of them are awarded JRF. However, the UGC-NTA has now reduced the validity of NET scores for PhD admissions to only one year. It is an additional academic and financial burden and a hardship on a large number of applicants. This provision will deprive candidates of focused attention on their research proposals. Even those aspirants who are already in jobs will be compelled to qualify for the CUET (Common University Entrance Test) every year until they gain admission into a PhD programme, which will reduce the scope for their career advancement.
Plight of MPhil degree holders
The MPhil degree was scrapped under the National Education Policy (NEP 2020), but large numbers of its holders, including some currently enrolled students, do exist. The UGC-NTA could have allowed them direct appearance before the interview boards on par with the JRF, as they do possess adequate research experience, but the agency has completely ignored this fact.
Discriminatory for the holders of national fellowships for disadvantaged groups
The national fellowship for PWBD was until now given on the basis of merit without any exam. National fellowships for SC, ST and OBC were of course linked with NET scores. However, these are separate from JRF. Their lists are separately issued. The awarding agencies are also different.
For instance, annually 1,000 OBC and 2,000 SC candidates securing 1% to 2% lesser marks than the candidates selected for JRF are identified from the NET result and awarded national fellowships. However, the newer scheme of the UGC-NTA allows only JRF holders to appear directly before the interview board, but not to the holders of the national fellowships for SC, ST, OBC, and PWD.
It needs to be recognised that such candidates reached this level after facing more challenges in their lives and they perform more-or-less equally to those who are selected for the JRF. Therefore, they should be treated at least as equal, if not as more capable, worthy, meritorious and deserving to appear directly before the interview boards at par with the JRF holders.
Problem of cut-off points for SC, ST and PWBD
The existing provision is that respective merit lists are to be prepared for all the SC, ST and PWBD candidates possessing minimum eligibility criteria with specified relaxation. Thereafter, the advertised seats for these categories are filled from amongst this list whatever marks they might secure in the entrance without any cut-off point, because they already possess the prescribed minimum qualification with relaxation. The second barrier cannot be fixed in the name of any cut-off point, because it might be used to leave some earmarked reserved seats vacant. However, the UGC-NTA notification is silent about these provisions regarding the preparation of separate merit lists for SC, ST and PWBD candidates and fixing no cut-off point for them.
Newer barriers for the disabled
The UGC-NTA testing scheme further disables the PWBD (persons with benchmark disabilities) and PWD (persons with disabilities) applicants. While the term PWD covers a larger number of people including all individuals with disabilities, PWBD specifically refers to those with significant disabilities (at least 40%) who are eligible for additional support and benefits under Indian law.
As per the Higher Education Survey 2020, only 79,000 PWD students are enrolled into higher education in the age group of 18-23, which forms less than 1% of the total enrolment. The existing system of education from school to collegiate levels has excluded children and youth with disabilities to the extent that they are the most marginalised. But now, the UGC-NTA expects them to face such tests on par with others.
Representative image. Photo: Karan Sudhakar
Earlier, all enrolled PWBD research scholars in Higher Education received fellowships. However, about little more than a decade ago, the number of fellowships for them was fixed at 500. But over the last few years, only 200 fellowships for PWBD could be disbursed. This is the situation even without any test. In such a situation, the UGC and NTA have for the first time linked the fellowship of PWBD applicants to NET scores. It also subjects them to the regime of yearly validation of their NET scores for PhD admissions. This testing scheme is therefore likely to become another mechanism of their exclusion.
Further, the UGC-NTA notification fails to prominently highlight mandatory adherence to the accessibility norms for PWD and PWBD applicants by the examination centres. Instead, it unnecessarily demands from the PWBD candidates to produce another certificate to be issued by the CMO (Chief Medical Officer) of a government hospital on the prescribed format of the UGC-NTA validating the requirement for scribe or alternative modes of exam writing to be adopted by them. However, the UGC-NTA could have easily settled this issue differently by prominently highlighting relevant guidelines. Further, they could have directed the examination centres to follow such guidelines and provide the required facilities after validating the requests of PWBD candidates with their UDID (Unique Disability ID).
Fate of applicants from state-level universities
The newer scheme of the UGC-NTA for a clubbed CUET for PhD admissions is limited to central universities. However, the above-mentioned national fellowships for SC, ST, OBC and PWBD as well as the eligibility tests like NET and SLET (State Level Eligibility Test) have not been otherwise limited to the applicants from central universities. The clubbed CUET for PhD admissions will be conducted only in Hindi and English.
So far, the avenue for applicants educated in regional languages to acquire eligibility for teaching positions was the SLET. While the SLETs continue to provide the eligibility for teaching positions for posts in both state or central universities, these are not recognised under the centralised system of PhD admission being created by the UGC-NTA. Thus, it further reduces the prospects of students educated in state-level universities and regional languages to make their way into central universities. Otherwise, following the UPSC model wherein ten lakh candidates appear every year and tests are conducted in scheduled languages, the UGC-NTA could have made similar provision. The agency could have also allowed applicants to submit research proposals in the language of the state where a particular HEI is established.
Flawed epistemological framework
Until quite recently, for admitting students within research programmes, the university departments and faculties continued rigorous testing of critical understanding of applicants through their own entrance tests and comprehensive interviews based on research proposals. Even when universities were made to conduct their own MCQ or short answer question-based entrance tests, these focused their question papers on discipline-centric knowledge. These followed the syllabus of their own, more familiar to their students taught by their own teachers. Teachers were directly involved in the process. As oppose to this, the NTA has not been transparent about the mode of selection of teachers who make these papers and the qualification of their supporting staff.
The design of the UGC-NTA centralised tests for PhD admissions under-values the critical understanding of disciplinary knowledge. It accords one-third space to questions on general aptitude. Even the familiarity with the discipline as tested through typical factual MCQs reflects only a kind of general knowledge. Interestingly, general knowledge, contrary to its nomenclature, is neither intended to b, nor it is accessible to all. Questions from a particular discipline also become general knowledge in such tests. Why and how?
Teaching learning process in regular or ‘mainstream’ education from school to university levels catering to a much larger section of our population is expected to be critical, dialogical, student friendly, socially relevant, contextual, diverse and descriptive. However, this so-called general knowledge required for common tests is about the retention of factual information usually in MCQ, or one word answer formats.
This so-called general knowledge, whether from the chosen discipline, or from other subject areas is a skill, not academic education. It is separately acquired or practiced by a select few. It does not require the recipient to become conscious about the Gray areas, as it only recognizes two categories: right or wrong. It does not provide scope for the recognition of the multiplicity of perspectives, and complexity of truth if seen from different vantage points. The kind of knowledge to be examined within such tests is constrained to become more generalised under the present scheme of the UGC-NTA because the UG passed outs under FYUP with 75%, PG passed outs, as well as PhD holders, will face the same questions despite differences in their age, attainments, and objectives.
Expansion of the coaching industry
This general knowledge is so different and alienated from academic education that a certain section of students, from classes XI and XII to UG and PG levels almost constantly remains absent from regular classes under different kinds of arrangements in order to prepare for competitive exams. Similar to other all-India entrance exams, such as NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) for medical education, JEE (Joint Entrance Examination) for engineering, CMAT (Common Management Admission Test) for management, CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) and others, the design of the clubbed centralised test for PhD admissions is likely to aid proliferation of coaching industry. So far, the investment in expensive coaching was largely directed towards professional education. Now, the road for its expansion into liberal education will be cleared.
However, the absence of this support is likely to impact particularly the economically weaker sections, especially rural people, SCs, STs, OBCs, PWDs, and women amongst each of them. Given the political pressure, even if the earmarked reservation quota of these categories is filled in the admission lists, although a difficult proposition, the selected applicants will largely come from the creamy layer or upper stratum of these groupings and the remaining majority continue wallowing in ignorance.
Impact on curricular knowledge
This epistemologically flawed nature of the common test for PhD admissions along with similar other competitive examinations is also now impacting the thrust of education. It can already be seen in the reduced emphasis upon knowledge of the chosen discipline at the bottom of Higher Education under FYUP (Four-Year Degree Programme), which includes many additional courses beyond the chosen discipline, such as the GE (Generic Elective), VAC (Value Added Courses) and SEC (Skill Enhancement Courses) to be taught within the same available teaching time.
The master’s programme is being reduced to one year. The MPhil Programme has already been scrapped under the National Education Policy 2020. Thus, the choice of students for specialisation and in-depth study of a particular discipline is being constantly curtailed on pretext of enforced ‘interdisciplinarity’. The scope for discipline-centric knowledge is rapidly shrinking and being shifted to courses that either students had consciously left behind or have already studied at the school level.
Conclusion
Common testing mechanisms are increasingly becoming the norm globally within the neoliberal market model of education. Education is seen here as a commodified service provided by a firm to the consumer. It is seen as beneficial to its individual possessor, not as a social good. Therefore, neither coaching services nor the collection of GST (Goods and Services Tax) on application fees is seen as a problem or contradiction with the understanding of education as a social good or right.
In addition to the market logic of neoliberalism, these all-India tests are pushed through the centralising thrust of educational policies. History tells us that the centralised tests and curriculum can be easily turned into instruments of ideological propaganda by the ruling regime.
One objective of testing mechanisms is to reject most of the candidates and admit only a few of them, because facilities created by the system are far less than the prevalent demand. Testing mechanisms are essentially marked with their epistemological preferences, because the specific kind of knowledge used within it is selected by the hegemonic group controlling the system. It, therefore, also reflects their social biases. This results in a skewed distribution of social power.
Since testing mechanisms rely upon the knowledge of a specific set of people to judge the levels of attainments of others, they are more exclusionary for those who are far from the corridors of power. For instance, the common admission test for UG admissions conducted in online mode is based upon the CBSE syllabus of classes XI and XII. This syllabus is followed by only 16% of schools in India.
Barring Delhi, these are generally private schools of the affluent classes. Similarly, the CUET for PG and PhD is based upon the UGC model syllabus largely followed by the central universities. While the decision to conduct PhD admission test through OMR sheet in physical mode is laudable, it is surprising, because the admission at initial levels of Higher Education, the UG and PG levels are still being conducted in online mode.
Centralisation of education aids the process of epistemological homogenisation. This leads to the replacement of even the discipline centric knowledge with general knowledge even if taken from a particular discipline. It distances the masses drawn from heterogeneous socio-cultural, geographical and educational backgrounds from further educational opportunities. It increases the prospects of success for those who have acquired cultural and epistemic proximity to those who decide what is to be asked in the exam. This has also significant quality implications in terms of what kinds of candidates are selected? How and what kind of research activities will they carry on?
Within a federal structure, the subject of Education is part of the Concurrent List under the constitution of India, wherein, while the state governments are entitled to make educational decisions, central government has the responsibility of coordination. The Parliamentary Act of 1956 establishing the UGC and similar other legislations also upheld the value of the academic autonomy of universities. In India, the overwhelming masses constituting 85% of its population are drawn from mufassil towns and villages and belong to socially marginalised groups and intersecting categories, such as Dalits, Adivasis, other backward Castes and classes, religious/linguistic/ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQs and women amongst each of them. They receive education within a multilayered and multilingual system comprised of state-level as well as central boards of school education and central as well as state-level universities alongside private universities.
The above analysis shows that the newer scheme of PhD admissions is likely to prove as yet another factor to augment social inequality, perpetuate exclusion, reduce epistemic quality, cut down linguistic diversity, curtail academic autonomy, weaken the federal status of educational arrangements, downgrade the quality of testing mechanisms, and promote coaching industry even within liberal higher education. Therefore, we need such decentralised testing mechanisms which provide a level-playing field to heterogenous aspirants drawn from different regions and diverse social backgrounds. Selection mechanisms must be appreciative of different knowledge traditions, critical quests, experiences and aspirations.
There is a need to respect the academic autonomy of universities and establish testing mechanisms that value the talent at the margins, the intersected nature of exclusion, the pluralist nature of our society and the federalism of our polity. If inequality is present at every level within our education system, the introduction of such common tests cannot eradicate it, because ‘common’ and ‘equal’ are not synonyms.
Vikas Gupta is a professor at the University of Delhi.
