JNU: New admission norms for research programs widens rift in campus

The new admission norms for research programs implemented from the current academic year has widened the rift on Jawaharlal Nehru University campus in the Capital.

The JNUTA (JNU Teacher's Association) has alleged that the administration has enforced UGC norms in an arbitrary manner which has led to a sharp decline in the intake for research programs offered by the prestigious university.

In the statistics presented to the 144th Academic Council, only 159 of the 290 seats announced as intake, were offered for admission. JNUTA has blamed new norms like 50% cut-off for the written test, 100% weightage to viva voce, and the denial of relaxations in marks for SC/ST/OBC/PC for this decline.

As per a study produced by the JNUTA, data from the admission exercise for the research programs of the university (M.Phil/PhD (JRF/non-JRF), M.Tech, and PhD) for the academic year 2017-18 shows 131 seats were not even offered, making offers of just 54.8% of the intake.

Of the 159 seats offered, only 31 seats were reserved - making reservation for just 20.75%, the report says. It has further highlighted that there is a sharp decline in the share of economically weaker sections and those from rural areas in the admission.

The reasons for this fall on both parameters is the withdrawal of deprivation points. This same provision has also been crucial in promoting the all-India character of the JNU admissions, which has also taken a severe hit. Deprivation points have a very important role in ensuring that there isn't an overwhelming dominance of Delhi and other metros in admissions.

The new admission norms have come in as a bolt from the blue for aspirants.

Dushyant, a PhD aspirant at JNU said, "The competition has doubled while the number of seats have gone down to half, one fourth or even zero in some centres. The pretext used to cut down seats is that it will get quality students, but JNU has always been producing quality earlier as well. I think in this government social sciences is not getting any emphasis."

Professor Ayesha Kidwai, President, JNUTA, spearheading campaign against the new norms has called it a very ham-handed, unjust implementation of the UGC regulations.

"Our administration has perversely misinterpreted UGC norms. Earlier, we used to have a 70-30 ratio, 70 for the written and 30 for the interview and then the marks for both were added," she said.

"As per the new norm, one gets to the interview only after passing the written test, and the pass mark has been set at 50%. This is a ridiculous high cut-off percentage which no entrance examination in India can operate with and with no relaxation for any category," she further said.

Professor Kidwai alleges that the academic council never approved the new policy.

"This is an admission policy which is set to fail. I would say this is being done to destroy a fine research institution. There is some element of punishment, because this is a university which is perceived as left liberal, opposing authoritarian approach by any government,' she added,

The academic council, however, is divided over the new policy. Professor Ashwini Mahapatra, member of the Academic Council has defended the new admission policy.

"The university is bound by the UGC regulation which were framed by the UPA government and not by the present government. These regulations are enforceable and one cannot escape them, they are mandatory for all the universities", he said.

"The previous vice chancellor simply sat over it or avoided it because of the internal pressure of the JNUTA and the student association which often work in tandem," he added.

Professor Mahapatra said, "We need to implement reservation at all levels as per the government policy, both at written and interview level. The UGC, I suppose is working on it and hopefully they will agree with our demand."

He said, "Earlier, we used have almost unrestricted admissions at the M Phil and PhD level and this had led to compromise with the quality of the PhDs. As per the new norms, each guide has been allotted certain number of candidates. There is a growing concern that with the PhD at the age of 30 and 30 plus, we are producing an army of educated unemployed youth who are, as it happened in the past, susceptible to all kind of anti-state propaganda. Their frustration is somehow sought to be directed by certain anarchist elements against the state. This needs to be, and we can productively utilise whatever talent they have if we are able to check the quantity and improve quality of the intake."