The UGC has introduced new guidelines for M.Phil/Ph.D. candidates. There are some nice things in the guidelines. For example, it is now mandatory to have doctoral committees for each student who will monitor his/her progress. Then there are stuff that makes one wonder.
The government/powers to be/bureaucrats want to show how sensitive they are to women and that they understand how the society tilts towards men. So there are now three clauses added to the guideline. One is that a woman is entitled to 240 days of maternity leave. I have no problems with it.
Currently, everyone is supposed to do 1 year of course work and 4 years of research work. If they are unable to publish a paper and submit their thesis within this stipulated time, they are given one year (365 days exactly) extension to complete the work. The revised guidelines now state that the women candidates may be allowed a relaxation of one year for M.Phil and two years for Ph.D. in the maximum duration. In addition to it, they can avail 240 days of maternity leave.
The second clause states that if a woman shifts here place of residence due to marriage or otherwise than she is allowed to take the data generated with her to the new University and continue the work there.
I have serious problems with these two clauses. The first clause regarding the relaxation is actually a very patriarchal attitude couched in benevolent terms. Oh, the poor women. You know how difficult it is for her. Let us be more lenient towards her. I do not want such a condescending attitude. I want level playing field where I do not want authorities to put obstacles on my path. I am willing to do the hard work and manage everything as long as I am treated as an equal. The moment this clause is introduced, you automatically state that you do not consider women to be equal to men. Further, in science, if anybody takes a two year relaxation (which implies long leave), you not be able to compete with the world. No one is going to stop their work just because you have taken a leave. By the time the candidate comes back, the hypothesis would be obsolete and the research would have moved in some other direction. Also in science, it is the PI who writes grants and gets money. So if a candidate takes it slow because the law allows you, what is the PI supposed to do? What answer does the PI give to the funding agency?
The second clause regarding the women be allowed to take the data generated in one lab with her to another is also problematic. Students in science do not generate their own funds or their own ideas. The problem is usually given to them by the PI who has conceived the project, written the grant, got the money, and in the initial days (and in some cases till the end) tells the student what to do. So the clause essentially says that the student can take the PI's idea and move? Move where? Which lab? Because the student will need a lab to complete her work. And unless the PI has a collaboration with a researcher in the new place, the whole clause is doomed to fail.
But who can tell all this to UGC. They have issued a gazette notification and we have to follow.
The government/powers to be/bureaucrats want to show how sensitive they are to women and that they understand how the society tilts towards men. So there are now three clauses added to the guideline. One is that a woman is entitled to 240 days of maternity leave. I have no problems with it.
Currently, everyone is supposed to do 1 year of course work and 4 years of research work. If they are unable to publish a paper and submit their thesis within this stipulated time, they are given one year (365 days exactly) extension to complete the work. The revised guidelines now state that the women candidates may be allowed a relaxation of one year for M.Phil and two years for Ph.D. in the maximum duration. In addition to it, they can avail 240 days of maternity leave.
The second clause states that if a woman shifts here place of residence due to marriage or otherwise than she is allowed to take the data generated with her to the new University and continue the work there.
I have serious problems with these two clauses. The first clause regarding the relaxation is actually a very patriarchal attitude couched in benevolent terms. Oh, the poor women. You know how difficult it is for her. Let us be more lenient towards her. I do not want such a condescending attitude. I want level playing field where I do not want authorities to put obstacles on my path. I am willing to do the hard work and manage everything as long as I am treated as an equal. The moment this clause is introduced, you automatically state that you do not consider women to be equal to men. Further, in science, if anybody takes a two year relaxation (which implies long leave), you not be able to compete with the world. No one is going to stop their work just because you have taken a leave. By the time the candidate comes back, the hypothesis would be obsolete and the research would have moved in some other direction. Also in science, it is the PI who writes grants and gets money. So if a candidate takes it slow because the law allows you, what is the PI supposed to do? What answer does the PI give to the funding agency?
The second clause regarding the women be allowed to take the data generated in one lab with her to another is also problematic. Students in science do not generate their own funds or their own ideas. The problem is usually given to them by the PI who has conceived the project, written the grant, got the money, and in the initial days (and in some cases till the end) tells the student what to do. So the clause essentially says that the student can take the PI's idea and move? Move where? Which lab? Because the student will need a lab to complete her work. And unless the PI has a collaboration with a researcher in the new place, the whole clause is doomed to fail.
But who can tell all this to UGC. They have issued a gazette notification and we have to follow.
In my opinion (and in my experience), the real question is: why pursue a PhD in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThat said, how come male students do not get similar benefits from UGC, say, 240 days of paternity leave for example? Or would that be too "condescending"?
And if a male student shifts his residence due to marriage is he allowed by UGC to move his research data to another lab? (since "empowered" women these days expect their husbands to leave their parents - as I did once upon a time).
Not trying to be argumentative and/or misogynistic. Just pointing out that it is the prerogative of the funding agency to dictate terms, however incongruous those terms may seem to the beneficiary.
All funding agencies are like that. Private-sector funding comes with worse terms, as you might know. My money, ergo my rules.
Which is why, in spite of my meager resources (and lack of a PhD), I decided to walk out of a very lucrative research job, and fund my own little research program. My employers very curtly- and very rightly - invited me to put my own money where my mouth is.
Funding your own research - you ought to try it sometime, Professor.
Cheers and Season's Greetings ... SK Srinivas.