Changing Admissions Policies and the Destruction of Higher Education in India—Vighnesh Tekriwal

The past several years have seen a massive assault on higher education in India, which has taken various forms, including funds for research being cut, teachers and academics being denied permanent positions, gross violations of the reservation policy, the appointment of the ruling party’s loyalists as heads of institutions despite their dubious credentials, and the move towards privatisation. This article looks at changes in admissions policy in higher education institutions, with reference to the abrupt and radical changes that were announced and implemented in varying degrees at Jadavpur University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and St. Stephen’s College, Delhi. Although these changes differ somewhat in nature and concern separate sets of authorities, they are strikingly similar in their intent to curb the autonomy of teachers in the admissions process and threaten critical thinking and dissent, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.

The entrance exams held by Jadavpur University for admission to six of its thirteen Arts courses at the undergraduate level are unique in their emphasis on students’ ability to think critically, argue coherently, and most importantly, their ability to dream. The English Literature exam, in particular, has been described by many as a thoroughly enjoyable experience and one in which, despite their anxieties about being selected, they were able to express themselves as they had never done before. Jawaharlal Nehru University conducts entrance exams for admission to all its courses, which receive more than a hundred thousand applicants each year. Most of the courses at JNU being interdisciplinary, the entrance exams, which until 2018 comprised entirely of subjective questions, required them to demonstrate their skills at thinking and arguing logically about debates in the concerned discipline rather than test them against a set syllabus. St Stephen’s is the only college in Delhi University that follows an exacting three-stage admissions process, which requires candidates to have achieved a certain mark in their Class 12 board exams, take an aptitude test, and appear for an interview with the faculty. The interview, meant to be solely academic in nature, allows teachers to gauge an applicant’s suitability for a discipline in a way that is simply not permitted by their board results alone.

The JU Executive Council’s decision last year to cancel entrance tests to the six Arts courses and instead admit students on the basis of their board results seemed to threaten the very fabric of the university. The respective departments have kept on holding these tests for the past forty years with satisfactory results, allegedly without any objection ever being raised against the procedure. It was perplexing therefore as to why the authorities felt the need to do away with it. There was severe opposition to this decision throughout the university, with students protesting for several days and twenty students from the Arts Faculty Students Union going on hunger strike. The majority of teachers had announced that they would withdraw their collective labour from the admissions process if the decision were seen through and a host of alumni expressed their solidarity and signed a statement condemning the decision. The role played by social media in building this solidarity and keeping people informed about developments cannot be overstated, with hashtags such as ‘#HandsOffJU’ and ‘#HandsOffJadavpur’ becoming veritable symbols of the protest. The administration eventually conceded to this overwhelming opposition, but only partly, and departments such as English, which previously admitted students solely on the basis of their performance in the entrance test, now have to give equal weightage to their board marks and the former.

Jadavpur University is perhaps the only higher education institution in India to have successfully resisted this fundamental change in its admissions policy. The almost instinctive manner in which students, teachers, staff, alumni, and even prospective students came together to defend a free space that they held dear can hardly be taken for granted. The emotional fervour of these protests and the extensive dialogue that they generated only throws into relief the absolute quiet with which several institutions had had their admissions policies transformed seemingly overnight. Presidency University had instituted a Multiple Choice Question – based test administered by the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board in place of its rigorous subjective entrance test the previous year and Visva Bharati University had dropped its entrance exam altogether and adopted a marks-based admissions policy a few years before. A similar fate has befallen Jawaharlal Nehru University, which held online MCQ-based tests for all its courses for the first time this year. Such tests are standard admissions procedure for courses in engineering and technology, but even in the sciences their legitimacy is widely disputed by academics. For the humanities and social sciences though, the MCQ method is spectacularly unsuited and can lead to disastrous consequences. The fundamental principle by which an MCQ test works, that of the ‘correct’ answer being available from a handful of options, belies the very essence of the social sciences and humanities.

Although the aforementioned cases concern fundamental changes in admissions procedure, the recent instance of St. Stephen’s College deciding to include a member of the Supreme Council of the college in the admissions interview panel is similar in that it curtails the teachers’ role in selecting students. The Supreme Council, part of the governing body of the college, and comprising six members of the Church of North India, is responsible for ‘the religious and moral instruction of the College’ and controls all matters ‘affecting its religious character as a Christian College of the Church of North India’. However, the college constitution lays down that the Supreme Council has no jurisdiction over the administration of the college. When three teachers from the college spoke to the press about this evidently unjust and illegal decision, they were promptly sent notices by the principal reprimanding them for the same. Journalists were not allowed inside the college and students were barred from holding demonstrations. Students and teachers decided therefore to hold a protest meeting outside the college premises, on a narrow pavement in front of the college lawn, on the 17^th of May. Neither the midday heat nor the prospect of a looming exam could discourage people from turning up in substantial numbers to make their dissent felt. The teachers sought to contest the college’s decision on the grounds of its unconstitutionality and appealed to the Delhi High Court to issue a stay order on the inclusion of the additional member, but were turned down by the court.

All of these changes were aimed to some extent at excluding teachers from the admissions process and from the larger decision-making process in their respective institutions. Taking the responsibility of framing questions for admission tests away from teachers and handing it to ‘external experts’, the exact nature and extent of whose expertise is shrouded in mystery, reveals that it is exactly these teachers that these changes are meant to suppress and marginalise. This should, in fact, come as no surprise given the authoritarian nature of the current dispensation. Spaces of critical thinking and dissent pose one of the greatest challenges to a government which demands complete obedience and has little regard for creativity, imagination, or truth.

These few remaining places where one can breathe and think freely have long been an eyesore for the powers that be. By directly taking charge of who makes it through the gates of these institutions and the manner in which they do so, the administration hopes to close a crucial avenue of dissent. Whether in the guise of enhancing ‘objectivity’, promoting greater ‘regularity’, or ensuring the ‘Christian character’ of the institution in question these changes are similar in the abrupt and authoritarian manner in which they were introduced. The fact that an indefinite delay in admissions would mean serious harm for prospective students limits the scope of students’ and teachers’ resistance to such decisions. One of the effects of this phenomenon is the decreasing accountability of public institutions and the emergence of undemocratic structures, whether private corporations tasked with conducting exams or governing bodies loyal to the administration. Attempts to reclaim public institutions will have to take into account and resist this disturbing phenomenon.