Almost every PhD programme in the country requires MCQ-based tests as a first step for admissions.
In an attempt to centralise the eligibility criteria, the University Grants Commission (UGC) recently declared that the National Eligibility Test (UGC-NET) could be used for all PhD admissions.
It is still unclear if these new considerations also apply to the CSIR UGC NET, which caters to science subjects.
The notice brings to life a three-tiered qualification: Category 1 is eligible for PhD admissions, lectureship and a Junior Research Fellowship. Category 2 does not get the fellowship but is eligible for the other two, and finally, Category 3 is eligible only for PhD admissions.
Nearly 35,000 scholars receive “non-NET” fellowships of a meagre Rs 8,000 per month. There are more who do not get any fellowships at all. Most of these scholars would fall in the second and third categories in the future. The notice also says that 70% consideration will be given to the NET score and 30% to an interview.
Marginalisation
There is evidence suggesting that multiple choice questions, or MCQ exam scores, do not correlate with research outcomes or rates of completing a PhD.
The “subject-GRE” is an exam used for admissions to PhDs in the US, similar in spirit to the NET and its brethren.
Using data from physics PhD admissions, Dr. Casey Miller et al. were able to show that not only GRE scores fail to predict completion of a PhD, but they also restrict access to enrollment of marginalised groups.
This has led a large number of American PhD programmes to make the GRE exam optional or completely redundant.
MCQ tests also have gendered outcomes. The research says that such exams show bias against women during the selection for the Olympiads both in Australia and India.
However, there haven’t been extensive studies on how these results intersect with and exacerbate other relevant factors in Indian academia, such as caste, language, and socioeconomics, which educationists should investigate further.
When an exam is given 70% weightage, such as MCQs, that enables candidates to opt for expensive private coaching classes to enhance their strategic test-taking skills and acquire topical knowledge or problem-solving abilities. And this shifts the focus away from teaching and coursework at universities.
Topical specificity for PhDs in languages, cultural studies, interdisciplinary topics is an issue as they do not have subject specific exams, and students have to study for an exam completely out of their area of specialisation to meet admission criteria.
What could be done?
The question frequently posed in this discourse is: how do institutes filter candidates “objectively” when thousands of applicants apply for only a handful of positions?
As mentioned earlier, MCQs aren’t an objective metric for anything to do with the outcomes of a PhD and may actually introduce significant bias.
Firstly, MCQ exams need to be fundamentally reconsidered.
Some major research institutes in India, like the Chennai Mathematical Institute, do not rely on MCQ exams as their first filter for PhD candidate selection. Till a few years ago, they had a written test with five longform problems to work on, encouraging slower and more deliberate thoughts.
Similarly, a portion of the annual cohort admitted to institutes like the National Center for Radio Astrophysics (NCRA) and the International Center for Theoretical Sciences come through their summer research programmes, where research interns are interviewed directly for PhD positions.
Interestingly, as per the data reported by professor Nissim Kanekar, the gender ratio of students selected through this intake is more balanced as compared to that which comes through MCQ exams at NCRA.
An alternative to MCQ exams for applying to PhD programmes at IIT Bombay is having two years of professional experience. This option provides a pathway for students who couldn’t pursue unstable research careers right after college due to various socioeconomic pressures.
Many IITs and IISERs relax the MCQ exam criteria for students from certain centrally funded institutes with a CGPA of 8 or above. However, this privilege is not typically extended to most university graduates.
Therefore, institutes can offer to conduct a subjective test or request relevant research or professional experience or have a grade threshold for the PhD candidate selection process. They can also have an optional MCQ exam score.
It is also important to acknowledge where MCQ exams might be relevant; they provide a path for people who have qualifying degrees with significantly different coursework or poor grades or need to display proficiency in the topic for some other reason. Therefore, they can absolutely be an optional criterion the student chooses to be evaluated on.
Each of the above, or a combination thereof, could be a choice the candidate makes to be evaluated by for the first filter.
There are widespread reports from RTI filings that institutes flout reservation rules during PhD admissions and enable systemic discrimination during interviews. Some are even exempt from having reservations by being institutes for national importance, leading to poor representation in the student pool.
Making sure that reservation policies are not disregarded at any step of the process is paramount. The diversity of selection criteria becomes meaningless if these policies are not upheld.
Access to knowledge creation
The above approach can be implemented with very little extra resources, while maintaining institutional autonomy and unique research character.
However, it does not address the precarity which is at the root of this issue.
Considering the cutthroat competition involved in entrance tests and half of all scholars working with meagre to no wages, there is a clear unmet demand. Even in a pragmatic neoliberal framework, India spends less than a percent of its GDP on research, two to three times less than comparable economies. Economies which invest in research and train PhDs get large returns on their investment.
Research groups need to be cultivated and funded. Their numbers need to be expanded at smaller public state universities and colleges. The inequality between per capita expenditure of state universities and national institutes on research is huge, especially considering the asymmetry in the number of students enrolled.
All scholars need to be given a living wage, regardless of the institute they belong to.
Research is not perceived as labour in our economy. PhD scholars can have some respite in collective bargaining by associating themselves with trade or workplace unions. This has found significant success in the US in the recent past. Working within teachers and students’ unions is also viable.
There is evidence suggesting that diverse groups with disparate backgrounds and abilities working together in academia leads to better research outcomes.
The natural and social universes are complex systems which require multiple approaches and lived experiences to be understood. The current path to a PhD does not reflect that, nor does it select for a broad range of abilities.
Moreover, given that know-how is central to civilisation, representation and access to knowledge creation become matters of justice. Much of modern academia revolves around the PhD, making it an opportune starting point for addressing structural issues
Neel Kohle is a PhD candidate in Astrophysics at Paris Observatory and has been part of mutual aid groups helping students navigate research careers in India.
