NET Trap: How Policies Are Holding Back Future Scholars

The University Grants Commission (UGC) faces sharp criticism as non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state governments protest its draft regulations, including vice-chancellor appointments, calling it a violation of India’s federal principles. Amid this turmoil, the UGC’s mandate making the National Eligibility Test (NET) compulsory for PhD admissions has also sparked outrage in academic circles. Critics argue that both moves aim for uniformity but undermine diversity and educational autonomy. These policies risk centralising control and stifling India’s vibrant yet fragile academic ecosystem, triggering nationwide calls for a more balanced and inclusive approach to higher education reforms.

Furthermore, instead of investing in resources, faculty development and research infrastructure, the government has chosen to impose a one-size-fits-all policy that risks undermining the autonomy of premier institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi University (DU), Hyderabad Central University (HCU), and others.

By centralising PhD admissions around NET, the UGC is not only disregarding the unique academic cultures of individual universities but also ignoring the potential fallout of such a homogenised system. If India truly aspires to become a global knowledge hub, it must adopt a more nuanced, inclusive, and well-funded approach to doctoral education.

Are Premier Institutions Losing Out on True Talent?

Centralising PhD admissions through NET may simplify administrative processes, but it also threatens to undermine the autonomy and unique admission procedures of premier institutions. Universities like JNU, HCU, and many other well-known institutions have long relied on multi-tiered evaluations, including entrance exams and interviews, tailored to their specific academic goals. A one-size-fits-all approach could stifle this diversity and limit the institution's ability to identify candidates aligned with their research priorities.

The move toward centralisation mirrors broader efforts in policy-making to unify processes, akin to initiatives like “One Nation, One Election.” However, in the context of higher education, standardisation should not come at the expense of institutional individuality or the ability to cater to diverse academic needs.

Premier institutions have historically employed rigorous selection methods to identify candidates with the intellectual curiosity and perseverance required for research. By relying mainly on NET scores, the admission process risks prioritising exam-taking skills over genuine research potential. Moreover, making NET scores visible during interviews may also introduce an unconscious bias, as interviewers might be influenced or get rejected by a candidate’s performance on the test.

Interdisciplinary Research: Are Aspirants Lost?

Interdisciplinary research, a cornerstone of addressing complex global issues, faces significant hurdles under the current NET framework. The exam’s rigid subject-specific structure often disadvantages candidates whose academic backgrounds span multiple disciplines. For instance, a student specialising in environmental economics might struggle to align with the syllabi of either economics or environmental science.

Institutions, such as JNU, sought to tackle this issue by adopting a percentile-based approach for interdisciplinary applicants, deviating from the UGC guidelines that mandate the use of raw NET percentage scores. However, this approach has created confusion and may inadvertently disadvantage deserving candidates. A more adaptable system, with interdisciplinary evaluation criteria and dedicated provisions for such candidates, is essential to promote innovative research.

What About Forgotten Fields Without NET?

An additional challenge lies in the absence of NET exams for several emerging and niche fields. Without a formal mechanism for these disciplines, admissions are often delayed or inconsistent, disrupting academic continuity and discouraging aspirants. Last year, JNU faced significant setbacks in admitting students to disciplines such as Korean Studies, the School of Art and Aesthetics, and the Centre for Informal Sector and Labour Studies due to the absence of NET for these subjects. Even though the university has appointed a panel to work on this issue, this oversight highlights critical gaps in the current admission framework.

Does NET Guarantee Research Excellence?

The UGC claims that the NET mandate will establish a standardised benchmark for PhD admissions. However, tangible proof to back this claim remains elusive. NET predominantly evaluates factual recall and subject-specific knowledge through multiple-choice questions. While these are important, they do not fully capture critical thinking, originality, or research aptitude. But qualities central to doctoral pursuits.

Globally, renowned universities, such as Harvard and Oxford, adopt a multifaceted approach to PhD admissions, assessing candidates through research proposals, academic achievements, and rigorous interviews. This comprehensive method ensures a well-rounded evaluation of a candidate’s potential and alignment with research interests.

Unfortunately, as of now, by relying solely on NET scores, India risks deviating from these proven practices, potentially compromising research quality and its standing in the global academia. As we position ourselves to attract international students, producing world-class research becomes imperative.

To reconcile standardisation with inclusivity, UGC must rethink its reliance on NET for PhD admissions. Research is inherently diverse, requiring unique skills and innovative thinking tailored to specific disciplines. A standardised test like NET, while assessing subject knowledge, falls short in evaluating critical, analytical thinking, and much-needed research aptitude qualities for doctoral success.

Instead, empowering top-tier institutions according to the NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council) framework and NIRF (National Institutional Ranking Framework) ranking to design their own admission processes, including separate examinations, can ensure academic excellence while respecting the distinct needs of different research areas. Historically, these institutions are well-equipped to identify and nurture the next generation of exceptional researchers.

Otherwise, the government may need to devise an efficient mechanism that guarantees equal accessibility while ensuring exceptional quality in outcomes, effectively addressing all the concerns raised above.

As the debate continues, the future of India’s research landscape hinges on a balanced policy that respects the unique strengths of its academic institutions while molding a culture of excellence. The consequences of inaction are far too significant to overlook.

The writer is Secretary to a Lok Sabha MP and alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The views are personal.