Context: Overdependence on standardised examinations: Exams such as NEET, JEE and UGC-NET use uniform, multiple-choice formats across diverse disciplines, often failing to adequately assess critical thinking, reasoning and subject-specific aptitude.
- Core concern: Excessive reliance on measurable scores is undermining academic judgement, intellectual diversity and institutional autonomy in Indian higher education.
Decentralising Examinations to University Departments
- Department-led selection: University departments should conduct discipline-specific assessments to identify candidates’ aptitude, reasoning, originality and subject knowledge rather than relying exclusively on national rankings.
- Limitations of MCQ-based tests: Uniform, memory-oriented examinations may reward test-taking techniques while overlooking analytical ability, independent reading and intellectual curiosity.
- Impact on classrooms: The author argues that examination-driven education has weakened classroom discussions, extensive reading and students’ willingness to question teachers.
- International practices: Many Western universities provide institutions and departments with greater discretion in admissions and academic assessment, offering an alternative to excessive dependence on centralised rankings.
Quantification of Academic Performance
- Research-score dependence: Recruitment and promotions increasingly rely on publication counts and research scores, encouraging quantity over originality and scholarly quality.
- UGC Regulations, 2018: The regulations discontinued the earlier API-based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) and introduced a revised assessment framework incorporating research scores; however, the author argues that excessive quantification persists.
- Low-quality journals: Publication requirements have encouraged journals with weak academic standards and inadequate peer review, which publish papers primarily to help applicants satisfy prescribed research-score criteria.
Declining Quality of Doctoral Research
- PhD evaluation: The author highlights selection systems in which a doctorate may carry 30 marks in a recruitment matrix, without adequately assessing the thesis’s originality, methodological rigour or intellectual quality.
- Misuse of publication identifiers: Possessing an ISBN (International Standard Book Number) or ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) does not establish the scholarly credibility of a book or journal.
- Weak peer review: Some multidisciplinary journals publish research across unrelated fields without rigorous evaluation by qualified subject experts.
- Poor doctoral supervision: Inadequate thesis scrutiny by supervisors and the reduction of the viva voce examination to a formality undermine doctoral research standards.
Flaws in Senior Academic Appointments
- Unsuitable selection criteria: Search committees for Vice-Chancellor appointments may emphasise patents and publication counts, disproportionately favouring candidates from Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields.
- Unequal research opportunities: Scientists working in large laboratories may co-author numerous papers, whereas humanities scholars often work independently, making raw publication counts an unreliable basis for comparison.
- Leadership beyond specialisation: University leadership requires broad intellectual understanding and institutional experience, not merely achievements within a narrow research domain.
- Nepotism and networking: Some appointments are allegedly determined by professional connections rather than merit, making changes to scoring systems alone insufficient.
- Model of fair selection: The author cites an experience of a rigorous, 40-minute academic interview conducted by eminent professors as an example of merit-based selection through intellectual discussion.
Way Forward: Restoring Academic Judgement
- Peer-based selection: Admissions, faculty recruitment and promotions should involve rigorous, discipline-specific evaluation by qualified academics, including substantive interviews and intellectual discussions.
- Quality over quantity: Assess research originality, methodological rigour, contribution to knowledge and genuine peer recognition rather than relying primarily on publication numbers or identifiers.
- Institutional autonomy with accountability: Give university departments greater decision-making freedom while holding selection committees accountable for the fairness and quality of their decisions.
- Transparent appointments: Strengthen scrutiny and safeguards against favouritism, as stricter penalties for testing agencies alone cannot resolve structural weaknesses.
- Reorienting universities: Universities must prioritise the cultivation of independent minds over the production of examination scores, restoring trust in academic expertise while maintaining accountability.
