The past month has been a difficult one with Ph.D. interviews and the school lock-down. 8 FIRs were filed by girls from one lab against their supervisor. The complaint was about sexual harassment. As the matter is now in the hands of the police (who true to form are not doing anything), I will not comment on the matter. Suffice to say, the school lock down has been lifted, the complainants demanding new supervisor have been allotted one of their choice, and we are limping back to normal. The administration did not budged an inch on any of the issues but the students and the faculty have to complete the course work, end-term exams, thesis submissions...so we are back to work.
What I am going to talk about is the admission to our Ph.D. program.
The UGC has made an entrance exam mandatory for entrance to Ph.D. program. A student has to score 50% in the written exam to be eligible for interview. During the interview, the research scholar has to present the research topic he/she wants to work on. If selected, the research supervisor has to be assigned immediately.
There are many things wrong with this guideline and I will explain it with our experience this time.
1. We were not sure how the 50% cut-off would work if we introduced negative marking. Given our past experience we were, in fact, sure that we would not get many students. In fact, the schools that had kept negative marking did end up seeing far less or none qualifying the entrance exam. So we removed negative marking. The end result- 837 candidates qualified.
2. We are offering 40 seats. So we requested the administration to call 3-5 times the number of seats i.e anywhere between 120-200 candidates. This is where we ran into the biggest block. We have to ensure the reservation policy is followed. The administration found out that the UGC gazette notification does not spell out how to ensure the reservation policy (which of course was something that the faculty have been pointing out for past one but the administration in its "we-know-it-all" approach have never acknowledged our concerns). So they told us that all 837 candidates will have to be interviewed.
3. They sent the interview call letter to all the 837 candidates. We then pointed out that if a candidate is called at 10 am in the morning and the interview happens late in the afternoon, the poor student would be sitting/waiting for the interview many times without eating because they are so stressed out. It has always been the policy to divide the students into two groups. One group would come in the morning and the other in the evening. Further, as the interviews were happening in March, we have classes in the morning. We have to work things out. The next thing we knew was that the students had been called from 2.00 pm onwards and we had to conduct the interviews in the afternoon!
4. The administration also told us that 56 candidates will appear everyday. They also told us that it would be spread over 15 days. So we met, discussed, and decided to have three interview panels. Each panel would interview 19 candidates.
5. The administration also instructed us to interview each candidate in domain knowledge, analytical ability, and research proposal. This makes sense if we have at least 30-40 minutes with each candidate. When we have only 10-15 minutes, this makes no sense. But we did. We figure out a way. Three faculty would ask the student on domain and analytical knowledge. One would examine the research proposal the student had brought with them.
6. In social sciences, the students decide their research topic but in sciences, where extensive laboratory work is involved, the students are assigned their research topic. Further, at least in Sciences, the students do not know who to formulate a research topic. Our education is not geared towards it. The research proposal that most students brought with them was usually an extension of the work they had done as part of their M.Sc project. Further, since we do not encourage our B.Sc/M.Sc students to read research papers (when I do this as part of my course, I am always told by senior faculty that students cannot read research papers and that my approach is wrong), they do not have any idea of the research work or how to design experiments or what to propose.
7.The administration then insisted that the research supervisor has to be assigned immediately. We protested. If we are interviewing 837 candidates over a period of 15 days, where the student has no idea what is research, how can we assign a faculty to a student? I would not remember the student who came on the first day. I would not know from a 15 minute interaction whether the student would be a good fit for my lab. The student would have no idea whether I would be a good research supervisor for him/her. These things are always done after a discussion. The administration refuses to see the logic. According to them, we have to follow the UGC gazette notification. This is an issue that we still have not resolved.
8. Finally, we also tried to tell them that since we held the interviews early but admission will be done only in July, we are not even sure who will join us. IISc, IISERs, CCMB, TIFR, NCBS, and all the other institutes will be holding their interviews. Most of our selected candidates will go over to these institutes. Many will go abroad. We do not know how many selected candidates will eventually end up with us. Of course, our conversations with the administration are always one-sided. There is never a dialogue as they do not believe in it.
At the end of 15 days, the entire process is a blur. I have stopped caring.
What I am going to talk about is the admission to our Ph.D. program.
The UGC has made an entrance exam mandatory for entrance to Ph.D. program. A student has to score 50% in the written exam to be eligible for interview. During the interview, the research scholar has to present the research topic he/she wants to work on. If selected, the research supervisor has to be assigned immediately.
There are many things wrong with this guideline and I will explain it with our experience this time.
1. We were not sure how the 50% cut-off would work if we introduced negative marking. Given our past experience we were, in fact, sure that we would not get many students. In fact, the schools that had kept negative marking did end up seeing far less or none qualifying the entrance exam. So we removed negative marking. The end result- 837 candidates qualified.
2. We are offering 40 seats. So we requested the administration to call 3-5 times the number of seats i.e anywhere between 120-200 candidates. This is where we ran into the biggest block. We have to ensure the reservation policy is followed. The administration found out that the UGC gazette notification does not spell out how to ensure the reservation policy (which of course was something that the faculty have been pointing out for past one but the administration in its "we-know-it-all" approach have never acknowledged our concerns). So they told us that all 837 candidates will have to be interviewed.
3. They sent the interview call letter to all the 837 candidates. We then pointed out that if a candidate is called at 10 am in the morning and the interview happens late in the afternoon, the poor student would be sitting/waiting for the interview many times without eating because they are so stressed out. It has always been the policy to divide the students into two groups. One group would come in the morning and the other in the evening. Further, as the interviews were happening in March, we have classes in the morning. We have to work things out. The next thing we knew was that the students had been called from 2.00 pm onwards and we had to conduct the interviews in the afternoon!
4. The administration also told us that 56 candidates will appear everyday. They also told us that it would be spread over 15 days. So we met, discussed, and decided to have three interview panels. Each panel would interview 19 candidates.
5. The administration also instructed us to interview each candidate in domain knowledge, analytical ability, and research proposal. This makes sense if we have at least 30-40 minutes with each candidate. When we have only 10-15 minutes, this makes no sense. But we did. We figure out a way. Three faculty would ask the student on domain and analytical knowledge. One would examine the research proposal the student had brought with them.
6. In social sciences, the students decide their research topic but in sciences, where extensive laboratory work is involved, the students are assigned their research topic. Further, at least in Sciences, the students do not know who to formulate a research topic. Our education is not geared towards it. The research proposal that most students brought with them was usually an extension of the work they had done as part of their M.Sc project. Further, since we do not encourage our B.Sc/M.Sc students to read research papers (when I do this as part of my course, I am always told by senior faculty that students cannot read research papers and that my approach is wrong), they do not have any idea of the research work or how to design experiments or what to propose.
7.The administration then insisted that the research supervisor has to be assigned immediately. We protested. If we are interviewing 837 candidates over a period of 15 days, where the student has no idea what is research, how can we assign a faculty to a student? I would not remember the student who came on the first day. I would not know from a 15 minute interaction whether the student would be a good fit for my lab. The student would have no idea whether I would be a good research supervisor for him/her. These things are always done after a discussion. The administration refuses to see the logic. According to them, we have to follow the UGC gazette notification. This is an issue that we still have not resolved.
8. Finally, we also tried to tell them that since we held the interviews early but admission will be done only in July, we are not even sure who will join us. IISc, IISERs, CCMB, TIFR, NCBS, and all the other institutes will be holding their interviews. Most of our selected candidates will go over to these institutes. Many will go abroad. We do not know how many selected candidates will eventually end up with us. Of course, our conversations with the administration are always one-sided. There is never a dialogue as they do not believe in it.
At the end of 15 days, the entire process is a blur. I have stopped caring.
Thirty years ago, as I was nearing the end of my MPharm research work, my guide asked me to continue with him for a PhD. All I had to do was to work for three years more, and I'd have my PhD. In my time, an MPharm degree at ICT, which was under Bombay University in those days, was a research degree. No entrance exam, no course work.
ReplyDeleteGiven that my guide had promised he would give me my MPharm after only two years of research, and given that he actually let me go after five years, I declined his kind offer for a PhD in three years.
But, in those days, admission to a PhD program was that simple. If your guide liked you, he'd take you in. Of course, he'd take his own sweet time to let you go.
Admission to a PhD program is far more complicated these days. One sympathises with you. All those tough entrance exams and elaborate admission procedures aside, in the end, India still produces mediocre scientists (at least in the Pharma sector). Caste-based reservation is only partly to blame. Mediocre research guides produce mediocre PhD's (once again, I speak about the Pharma sector).
I am quite glad though, that those girls at JNU raised their voices against sexual harassment. This dirty practice was prevalent even in my time, and from what I hear, is still rampant across the country. Boys get harassed too, though not sexually.
Research students, in general, are shabbily treated. Even in my "premier" institute. Some research guides are even noted for demanding bribes for signing off on PhD theses. Makes me wonder why students still go to such thugs for their PhD's.
Reservationism and maladministration of Science will never leave this country, and will eventually take Indian Science to ruin. There's nothing one can do about it.
Makes me feel a whole lot better about deciding never to pursue a PhD.
Cheers ... SK Srinivas, Bangalore.
It took incredible determination and courage for the girls to speak up. However, their real battle is starting now and it is going to be a long and arduous journey before they get justice. The main problem is that we Indians are capable of coloring every issue in political/caste hues. The complainants are discovering that now for themselves.
ReplyDeleteScary stuff. Hats off to all of you who have survived this...
ReplyDelete