An Open Letter to UGC Regarding "NET"

Date: 09.02.2013

The Deputy Secretary

NET Division, University Grants Commission

New Delhi

Sub: Issues Related to UGC NET: Regarding...

Respected Mam/Sir,

            I would like to bring some points into your notice regarding NET. Currently, UGC’s position regarding the examination is quite confusing, sometime it declares that it is mandatory to have NET to be eligible for a lectureship post and sometimes it contradicts its own rule. The quality of the examination system and evaluation is getting more and more absurd. The recent cut off marks, the pass percentage, the court cases and the cry of the students have added more difficulties in the process. Let me make it more explicit.

            First of all the validity of the examination in itself is questionable. Does qualifying this examination distinguish one candidate from other in terms of teaching and research? Kindly consider the point and think of it. What is the idea behind conducting the examination once in every six months when it does not have the much prevalent value?

The other thing, UGC has to understand that NET is not a competitive examination like Civil Services or other; rather it’s an eligibility test. By bringing the cut off marks UGC is making NET a competitive examination. The top 15% strata have brought more controversy in it. Since, NET is a qualifying examination, there is no point setting such percentage limitations and cut off marks. It should have a fixed pass mark according to subject and category rather than this cut off and layer. For example just because lots of people clear class X, XI or graduation exams, will some examining body say that only the top 15% should be considered as qualified and will be awarded degree and sorry to others ‘please try next year’.

Coming to the job perspectives, if I agree on UGC’s proposal of the top 15% as eligible, I would like to ask does UGC is in a position to guarantee job to all of them. If not, then what is the point? I would like to advice let qualify all those who get the minimum pass mark and send them in the market, as they have to face a second round competition in job selection interview. Believe me our education bodies will earn good revenue from students by selling job application form to the NET qualified candidates who seek job rather than selling NET forms in every six months!

Thus, I think it’s a pertinent problem and lots of students are in this perplexed situation. Now, let’s see the other dimensions of the top 15% rule.  There are many students who have qualified NET earlier and wrote the latest exam too hoping for JRF. If we think that some of these students are good enough or got acquainted with this exam format and ends up qualifying NET again instead of JRF. So, obviously they will come in top 15% and will qualify NET again and some other will be out of the opportunity. Previously it happened too and there is no meaning to award NET several times to the same candidate. Even though some students qualify NET many times in a subject there is no credit for it in job. So, I humbly request you not to award NET to those candidates who have qualified it earlier in the same subject. Yeah, you have to work a little and sort out those people. Further, for this I would like to put forward my suggestion that please create one more option in the NET application form so that the students can apply and be evaluated like this: a) only JRF (those who qualified NET earlier), b) NET & JRF both, c) only NET. Now, we have two options.

Finally, the key of the exam is quite controversial because hardly there are any clarifications or justifications happen. It seems whatever the paper setter/s or key setter/s says to UGC, they just agree upon it without any cross check. Because I have noticed questions which are of doubt, feed backed or contested hardly change. The significant point is you can’t have a national level examination with ‘validity less paper’ and ‘wrong answer key’, or whatever the paper setter says may not be ultimate in this regard, due to all these issues and irregularities students suffer and become victim of these kinds of carelessness. Yes, there is problem with the feedback system too. Anyone can feedback for other and its open, it can be misused. Regarding this, I request to contact and see the format of the feedback APSET has created, which is good and safe enough.

Finally, I hope you got my points which may be of some use and can be worked on. Please be a responsible body as you deal the higher education in this country.

Copy to:                                                                                                  

The Chairman, UGC                                                                               

Secretary, UGC                                                                                     

All Commission Members, UGC              

Thank You

Abu Saleh

CCL, School of Humanities

University of Hyderabad

Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500046

Contact: 09494242645, absualehenglish@gmail.com