Home » Posts tagged '3rd Amendment'
Tag Archives: 3rd Amendment
MHRD must take all stakeholders on board
The New Indian Express | 07th June 2016 |
The Union Ministry of Human Resource Development ends up courting controversies with each of its attempts to change the education system. The latest in this series is a gazette notification of UGC Regulations which, on the face of it, appears aimed at rationalising the workload of college and university teaching staff and also to implement a “scientific” appraisal system. The notification is, however, being interpreted as an attempt to cut ad hoc teaching positions, which would result in the sacking of thousands of ad hoc staff and, on the other hand, scuttle promotion and career growth opportunities of permanent teaching staff. University teachers across the country are up in arms against the MHRD. Before going into the merits of the arguments it needs to be pointed out that there is distrust between the Ministry and the academic community. The MHRD must take steps to address the trust deficit by adopting a more conciliatory and consultative approach.
There is a perception that university teachers have a lot of spare time and any attempt to optimise their services should be welcomed. The MHRD appears to have a similar opinion which reduces the idea of teaching to classroom lectures, while teachers engage and mentor students outside classrooms. They also spend hours in preparation, in carrying out research and in fulfilling administrative responsibilities. Since the existing teaching staff at current working loads will not be sufficient to meet a college’s total teacher requirements, ad hoc and temporary teaching staff are hired. Increasing and redefining working hours would result in loss of jobs for thousands of temporary and ad hoc teachers, who have worked tirelessly for years with the hope of being regularised. Though the government is trying to allay this and fears relating to appraisals, it should not let this repeat with regard to its major initiative, the New Education Policy. Hope the MHRD ensures that it takes everyone on board. – Courtesy
Learning to Teach: Why the UGC-Proposed Workload is Unrealistic and Undesirable
The Wire | By | 05/06/2016 | Opinion |
Questions raised by those unhappy with teachers protesting the UGC-proposed increased workload norms highlight a gross misunderstanding of the academic process.
Recently, the University Grants Commission (UGC) amended a resolution regarding teaching norms of faculty. The norms prescribed different numbers of hours for assistant, associate and full professors, an example being 18 hours of teaching for ‘teaching only’ assistant professors. These proposed increases have caused considerable outrage amongst faculty members and faculty associations have begun registering their protest. As a consequence of these protests, the amendments have been since withdrawn. One thing, however, that has been left out is an academic discussion of what a reasonable teaching load should be. Besides focusing on the politics of the matter, it is important to understand the misconceptions of the academic process. Several comments to articles published by various news outlets and posted on social media have included three themes. These themes can be summarised as: 16 hours (chosen as a representative number) a week does not sound like much; these faculty members are complaining because they do not wish to work hard; there are poor people in India to whom working “just” 16 hours a week would be a luxury/taxes are wasted on these faculty members who do not even want to work for 16 hours a week; and more teaching will mean better students – what is the faculty supposed to do, if not teach? These questions represent a profound misunderstanding of the academic process, making it necessary to clarify what the process is like and explain why the proposed numbers seemed unrealistic. There is a reasonable number of hours a faculty should be expected to teach, depending not just on the seniority of the person but also the kind of institutional responsibilities he or she is given. Being a physicist, my examples are drawn from the science institutions in the country, though the arguments presented generalise to other disciplines as well.
Different roles within universities
In order to describe teaching and research institutions in India, colleges and universities can be divided into three categories: teaching institutions, joint institutions and research institutions. By teaching institutions, I refer to many private colleges in India and several governmental institutions whose primary focus is to prepare undergraduates and masters students for higher education. The second category, which I have termed “joint” (teaching and research) institutions, include all state and central universities and the Indian Institutes of Technology. There is a third category, composed of purely research institutions such as the Tata Institute for Fundamental Research. This third category trains researchers and mostly does not concern itself with degrees below PhD, making them less relevant for this analysis. How much teaching is appropriate in each of these institutions? One might be tempted to argue that since there are typically eight working hours in a day and assuming that there are five working days in a week, the answer is 40 hours. But this number would be a gross overestimate.
This is because teaching an hour’s class takes roughly two to three hours of preparation. To even the foremost expert in a given field, teaching a class on the topic of her expertise is time intensive. This is because she has to organise this material into a structured course plan, prepare and work through examples and theorems and contextualise the material by reading and including contemporary examples. For instance, a professor teaching a course on relativity should certainly include a discussion on the discovery of gravitational waves, a phenomenon first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916 and observed last year (reported this year). This kind of preparation is not easy and cannot be “done just once”. Taking the number to be two hours of preparation per hour of teaching (a conservative estimate), it is easy to see that a faculty who works 40 hours a week should not be expected to spend more than fourteen hours a week teaching in a classroom. This fourteen hours implies that the faculty does not have time to engage in research and is not obliged to participate in administrative duties. If we assume that such a faculty at a teaching institution is expected to spend a modest 20% of their time doing administration, then the number drops from thirteen hours to ten hours. Here lies the problem. In teaching institutions, where the expectation is that faculty teach and participate in administration a modest 20% of the time, the teaching load would be too much if the faculty is expected to handle anything more than ten hours of teaching. Assuming a six day work week would increase this to twelve hours of teaching. This is after leaving out important duties like grading, which take up a lot of additional time. In joint institutions, it can be presumed that faculty members are expected to do research 40% of the time, teach 40% of the time (paying equal attention to teaching and research) and perform administrative duties 20% of the time. This means that out of the 40 hour work week, faculty should be expected to teach five to six hours a week. All of the faculty’s research activity will have to be accommodated into the remaining 18 hours, a hard task at best.
Lessons from elsewhere
The thumb rule of two hours outside class for every class hour is quite standard across the world. In the US, four year colleges sometimes have exclusive teaching faculty, who are at best required to teach four “three credit” courses, which amounts to twelve hours in the classroom. Compare that to the UGC suggestion of 18 teaching hours for teaching only faculty and it becomes clear why academics were protesting the numbers. In four year colleges, the typical joint faculty teaches at most two courses a week, amounting to six hours of classes, usually the number being even smaller. The corresponding Italian (and much of European) number is also six hours in the class per week, while it is about ten hours in the UK. There are variations across fields and departments in the numbers quoted here. For research faculty at US universities, the load can be as low as three hours one semester and zero hours the next. The conclusion is inescapable, which is that the number of teaching hours in Indian universities fostered by the UGC are already too high and not in keeping with international workload standards. This could be having an adverse impact the quality of teaching and research.
Luxury and efficiency
The is another popular argument . Since India is a poor country, the argument goes, faculty at UGC affiliated institutions should work very hard. In theory, there is nothing wrong with hard work. The devil, as always, is in the details. That poverty alleviation is an urgent goal for India is something nobody would disagree with, which is one of the important reasons why I think we should be worried about these new norms. Successive governments in India are committed to poverty reduction. Education is a key ingredient if this national ambition is to ever become reality. Given that India will add eleven million workers each year for the next ten years, there is a palpable urgency to grow industry and have a well-educated workforce participate in growing the Indian economy. Good quality education and training are key to having such a well prepared workforce, but substituting the quality of teaching for quantity in various institutions will not support that. This will negatively impact the stated goals of economic development, worsening the already existing skills gap. The final reason why the current number of hours proposed by the UGC is worrying is societal. Across nations, there is consensus that faculty members are overworked. This pressure is upsetting the work-life balance of teachers, negatively affecting society in many ways. While other nations are arguing about reducing the workload to manageable levels and demanding better quality from their faculty members, India should not fall victim to a “quantity is quality” fallacy and increase workloads disproportionately.
Conflicting demands
An unrealistic workload can also be seen as being in conflict with two other “national desires”. The first is increasing quality in the average (non elite) institution. This has to be done for India to enjoy a large pool of qualified researchers and teachers. Increasing the workload in already underperforming institutions is not guaranteed to produce better results. Perhaps the effect will be the opposite. Here, what is needed is a guided approach that improves quality of teaching. The second demand in conflict with the UGC demand is for India to have several “world ranking” universities. These rankings compare very specific things, publications being one of them. One thing that is certain is that the quality of research in joint universities will suffer if teaching loads and research loads are impractical and incommensurate with each other. The stipulated teaching workloads and research outcomes must be realistic. Otherwise, we risk overburdening faculty and negatively impacting outcomes. Alternatively, a well reasoned policy of prioritising quality over quantity can help India effectively educate her citizenry. – Courtesy / Sai Vinjanampathy is a researcher at the Centre for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore :
Why college and university teachers all over India are angry
The Indian Express | Aranya Shankar | June 2, 2016 | Opinion |
On May 4, UGC notified significant amendments in its 2010 regulations, including altering teachers’ workload requirements by redefining “direct teaching hours”. Teachers from several universities, besides the All India Federation of University & College Teachers (AIFUCTO), have issued statements in protest, and the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) has gone a step further — some 8,000 DU teachers have been boycotting evaluation of answerscripts of all subjects for roughly 1.3 lakh undergraduate students since May 24. So, what exactly is the issue?
What changes has UGC made?
The definition of “direct teaching hours” has been changed. It included lectures, practicals, project supervision and tutorials, all of which were treated at par. Tutorials have now been removed, and the definition narrowed to “Lectures/Practicals/Project Supervision”. The number of teaching hours was increased. An Assistant Professor was required to teach 16 hours weekly; Associate Professors and Professors 14 hours — including time spent on tutorials and practicals. This was changed to 18+6 hours per week for Assistant Professors, 16+6 for Associate Professors, and 14+6 for Professors. The “six hours per week include… hours spent on tutorials, remedial classes, seminars, administrative responsibilities, innovation and updating of course contents”. No reason was given for the changes.
But what is the problem with all this?
Several, say teachers, but mainly: 1) They will drastically increase teaching hours (including tutorials), and make it difficult to focus on research and administrative responsibilities; 2) The API (Academic Performance Indicators) target — on which teachers are promoted — set by the notification, especially for Assistant Professors, will make promotions impossible; and 3) With the reformulation of the workload, thousands of ad hoc teachers and Assistant Professors will lose their jobs.
Why would API changes hit promotions?
Because the maximum points that can be got for teaching are 60 per year, but the points will be determined by dividing the “actual hours spent per academic year divided by 10”. According to DUTA president Nandita Narain, “this means that any teacher who is interested in 60 points will have to teach 600 hours per year or 300 points per semester. In a semester of 15 weeks, this works out to 20 hours a week — a target that will be impossible to meet even if a teacher takes no leave at all, does not fall ill, does not enroll herself in Refresher Courses or do Research Projects.”
So? 20 hours per week is just four hours per day with two weekly offs, and most people work at least double that!
Teachers insist it doesn’t work that way. These four hours are just teaching hours, and don’t account for all the other work teachers have to do. “Lecturing for 18 hours and tutoring or conducting practicals for an additional 6 hours is madness. When will teachers get the time to prepare for lectures and tutorials? Each hourly lecture takes at least 4 hours of preparation,” says Saikat Ghosh, Assistant Professor of English at SGTB Khalsa College. DUTA says the move will increase their workload by 50%. “At any top international university, teaching hours are not more than 6-7 (a week). Even in Ambedkar University, Delhi, they are 8-10. We’re teaching double the international average,” Narain said.
And why whould ad hocs lose their jobs?
“The workload is the basis for hiring. By making tutorials extraneous to workload calculations, they are not removing them, as tutorials are still a part of the curriculum. They are merely calculating workload based on lectures, which results in a quantum reduction,” Ghosh said. According to Narain, approximately 5,000 teachers will be rendered surplus, and will lose their jobs. “The hardest hit will be the young teachers working in ad hoc and temporary capacity for years, waiting for regularisation. Many of these are women, SCs, STs and OBCs,” Narain said.
What has been the HRD Ministry and UGC’s response?
A Ministry directive issued on May 26 said “the direct teaching-learning hours to be devoted by Assistant Professors (16 hours) and Associate Professors/Professors (14 hours) will remain unchanged”, but did not address the complaints about the definition of direct teaching hours and calculation of workloads. The day after a protest march by teachers at Jantar Mantar on May 30, the UGC issued a press note reiterating the MHRD directive. The UGC has called a stakeholders’ consultation meet on June 6 to “discuss Academic Performance Indicator (API) scheme and workload of teachers”. It “will also seek perspectives and suggestions from teachers, for its consideration”.
Could the evaluation boycott lead to DU results and sessions being delayed?
Yes, if the issue isn’t resolved soon. However, teachers have said that if the issue is resolved, they would work overtime to finish the work, so students don’t suffer. The boycott was initially for three days, but a General Body Meeting extended it to June 2, when another GBM is scheduled. In its Extended Executive meeting held on Wednesday, DUTA resolved to “intensify” its agitation. A lot depends on the June 6 meeting. – Courtesy
New UGC notification puts teacher aspirants in a fix
The Hindu | Chennai, May 31, 2016 | |
Those who were awarded PhD before 2009 are at a disadvantage
The latest UGC notification amending its regulations prescribing minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in universities and colleges has put teacher aspirants who were awarded a PhD degree prior to 2009 in a fix. The apex regulatory body for higher education in 2010 came up with the UGC on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations. It exempted candidates who were awarded a PhD degree in compliance with the provisions of its regulations of 2009, from passing the National Eligibility Test or State Eligibility Test (NET/SLET/SET) for appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in universities and colleges.
However, on May 4 this year, the UGC notified a third amendment to its 2010 Regulations. As per this, teacher-aspirant candidates who had registered for the award of PhD programme prior to 2009 shall be exempted from clearing the NET/SLET, subject to five conditions. “Two of these conditions are controversial. One, the UGC has said that the PhD degree-holders must have published two research papers out of which at least one in a refereed journal from out of his/her Ph D work. Two, the candidate must have presented two papers at seminars/conferences from out of his/her PhD work,” says Prof. C. R. Ravi, Principal, A.M. Jain College, Chennai, who has been championing the cause of the pre-2009 Ph D holders who do not have a NET certificate.
Putting the clock back
They have been exempted from taking the national eligibility test only if they meet five conditions – Courtey
Despite MHRD’s rollback, college teachers protest ‘increased workload’
The Indian Express | Express News Service | Chanidgarh | May 28, 2016 |
Members of the Punjab and Chandigarh College Teachers’ Union on Friday continued their protest against the third amendment to the UGC Regulations (2010) regarding recruitment, promotions and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). According to the recent guidelines of the Union Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), the working hours for assistant and associate professors were to be increased by two hours each. However, after widespread protests by the teaching community across India, the MHRD on Thursday rolled back the UGC regulations for increasing the working hours. According to a fresh notification issued by the MHRD, “The direct teaching-learning hours to be devoted by assistant professors (16 hours) and associate professors/professors (14 hours) too will remain unchanged, as a consequence of the direction from MHRD and subsequent notification by the UGC.” In the wake of the suggested increase in the teacher workload, teachers from various aided colleges of Chandigarh have been boycotting the exam evaluation work at Panjab University. A boycott in the evaluation work at all universities across the region has also been scheduled on June 1 against the recommended changes in the teacher workload.
General secretary, Chandigarh District Council of PCCTU, Bhupinder Singh, said the recent amendment issued by the MHRD does not address the issue of excluding six hours per week of tutorials, seminars and others from actual teaching workload. Members of Panjab University Teachers’ Association (PUTA) also called for a meeting on Friday to deliberate on the stipulated increase in workload. According to a statement from the meeting, “The new academic session is about to begin and workload distribution is to be determined in the departments within next fortnight. In the absence of clear cut guidelines, it will be difficult to carry out the allocation of load. We will wait for formal notification of amended workload, monitor the situation, before deciding further course of action. We are sending our representation to the UGC and MHRD on the issue. Meanwhile, PUTA is in touch with other teachers’ bodies.” – Courtesy
HRD ministry rolls back UGC regulations 2016 on increased teaching hours
The Economic Times | By ET Bureau | 26 May, 2016 |
NEW DELHI: Amid protests by the teaching community over increased work hours brought in by the UGC recently, the Smriti Irani led Human Resource Development ministry today stepped in to roll back the move and direct the UGC to amend the relevant regulations immediately. “There will be no increase in the workload of teachers, after the amendments, in comparison with the workload prescribed earlier”, a ministry statement issued on Thursday evening said. UGC guidelines notified earlier this month had sparked protests by teachers association as they increased teaching work hours by two hours for each category prescribing that an assistant professor teach 18 hours a week instead pf 16 hours, an associate professor’s teaching requirement was increased from 14 to 16 hours. With the ministry’s intervention today, the direct teaching-learning hours for teachers will once again revert to the older format – Assistant Professors (16 hours) and Associate Professors/Professors (14 hours).
The HRD ministry said in a statement that it has issued a direction to the UGC, under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act, 1956, to undertake amendments in the Regulation- UGC (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education ) Regulations, 2010. The amendments to be effected following the ministry’s directions will ensure that the workload ‘remains unchanged’ at be ‘not less than 40 hours a week for 180 teaching days’. “The direct teaching-learning hours to be devoted by Assistant Professors (16 hours) and Associate Professors/Professors (14 hours) too will remain unchanged, as a consequence of the direction from the MHRD and subsequent notification by the UGC.”, the HRD ministry said in a statement.
Agreeing largely with the issues raised by the teaching community which was protesting the UGC regulations, the ministry has further added that while a teacher’s work may entail more “mentoring, guiding and counselling students” beyond the structure of classroom teaching, there can be “no prescribed hours for such efforts, measured either in weeks or months”. The ministry has also said that these contributions though they will not be included in the calculation of the API scores, these are nevertheless important and significant activities that could be carried out by teachers. Teachers were required to allocate 6 additional hours per week, beyond the direct teaching-learning hours, on research. These hours can now be also utilized for tutorials/remedial classes/seminars/administrative responsibilities/ innovation and updating of course contents, the ministry added.- Courtesy : MHRD Circular – Ministry of HRD directs UGC to amend regulations regarding workload of teachers
AAP, Congress take on Centre, criticise UGC’s third regulations 2016 through gazette notification
The third regulation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) relating to service conditions of teachers turned into a political issue on Wednesday with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress attacking the Modi government for bringing in such a regulation. Delhi University teachers boycotted the evaluation process. All 13 centres where evaluation was to be held wore a vacant look on the second day. The teachers have been protesting against the regulation which had increased their workload and could lead to around 5,000 temporary and guest teachers losing their jobs. AAP Delhi convenor Dilip Pandey along with teachers affiliated to the party held a press conference on Wednesday.
They said that the new regulation by the MHRD and UGC was an attack on the autonomy of the university and an attempt by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to fill academic posts in the universities with its own cadre. “Why should teachers suffer when they are not at fault? There was no recruitment in the university and colleges and now with this regulation they are all set to be out of jobs.The regulation needs to be immediately withdrawn,” said SA Jafferi, assistant professor at Rajdhani College. In a statement, the AAP said the Modi government was trying to impose the decision of the previous Congress-led UPA government to introduce points system for promotion of DU teachers. Similarly, the Congress called the regulation a move towards privatization by the Modi government. DPCC President Ajay Maken with teachers of the Indian National Teachers Congress (INTEC) addressed the press conference. “This regulation would lead to the complete breakdown of the public funded higher education system,” said Ashwini Kumar, INTEC chairman. – Courtesy
UGC regulations 2016 are welcome, but rot in Indian education runs deep
Dailyo.in | Valson Thampu | 25-05-2016 | Opinion |
All right-minded citizens, who are even casually aware of the rot in higher education, will feel relieved that the UGC is now initiating some long-overdue, bottom-line cleaning up operations, via the UGC Regulations (3rd Amendment), 2016. As someone who has struggled in this sector a lifetime, I hail this initiative. First, direct teaching hours are proposed to be increased to 24 hours per week for assistant professors, and 22 hours per week for associate professors, in place of 16 hours and 14 hours per week, respectively. The UGC had, earlier, reduced the working hours of college teachers from 18 to 16 hours per week for assistant professors, and from 16 to 14 hours per week for associate professors. And this, knowing fully well that teachers were almost laughably underworked. A doctor, who is more qualified than a teacher in the corresponding category, works 55-60 hours per week. The PM of the country logs nearly 120 hours per week. Daily wage workers, who are also human beings, work for 49 hours, under incomparably harsher conditions, and are paid a pittance and are not, unlike the teachers, paid for Sundays.
Underemployment is a greater source of mischief than unemployment. With the workload prior to the present amendment, the teachers were under-employed for the following reasons-
1. The logic for assigning a lighter workload to teachers is that they invest the resultant leisure into reading and research so that, (i) the quality of teaching improves, and (ii) they, through research, contribute to knowledge.
Neither happens. As per my first-hand experience, most teachers stop reading regularly, and preparing better, after the first five years of teaching. This is not in the realm of speculation. It can be easily verified from the lending logs of any college library. My investigations with respect to the borrowings of teachers in a very distinguished college, resulted in shocking revelations. There were teachers who, in a whole semester, had not borrowed a single book from the library. It may be argued that these is no need to borrow books from the library. Internet resources are sufficient. Concede that this is correct (which simply is blatantly untrue), and teachers are improving their scholarship regularly through private means, the question then would be, “What, for goodness’ sake, have you produced in 20, 30, 40 years? Even a couple of meaningful lines?”
I suggest that the UGC spend a little money and commission a national survey of college and university teachers to ascertain the level and quality of their intellectual productivity. Now, come to teaching: first, quality of teaching. The tell-tale sign is student truancy. Why are class rooms nearly empty, if classes are held? I remember admonishing a student who was erratic in attendance. He kept quiet for a while and then said, “Sir, you do not know what we have to suffer. How do you know if the lectures are worth attending?”
The present system aids and abets lazy, mediocre teachers, by arbitrarily slapping on students an attendance requirement of 66. 6 per cent. This only serves to provide a captive audience to mediocrity and serves to protect and perpetuate unprofessionalism. It needs to be abolished. A teacher who cannot motivate students to attend lectures/tutorials on the strength of quality, must be sacked. It is a crime to torture young people. I’d prefer confinement to a solitary cell in Tihar than have my mind abused by the voice (I mean, noise) of mediocrity day after day! The meagre workload prescribed for teachers did not work to the benefit of education. If anything, it has been ruinously counterproductive. It aggravated the intellectual laziness of most teachers, which is my second point.
2. The widespread tendency to bunk work in connivance with students increased, not decreased, after the workload was reduced last time. This is a fact. And the logic is simple. What the state meant as a measure to encourage serious, scholarly work, was misunderstood by a large proportion of teachers as the invitation to further laziness. Confront the truth: one of the reasons why many people prefer to be in teaching is that it is the easiest, least demanding job, abounding in holidays and vacations than working days. (A former colleague of mine has barely taught 18 months in six calendar years.) There is no accountability. The system is custom-designed to institutionalise laziness, except in the case of those who have a clear sense of vocation. All of us know that such individuals are rare. This is not cynicism, but realism.
There are multiple problems here:
(a) By patronising laziness – albeit unwittingly – we ensure that teachers go not grow and stay stunted. They become, alas, an educational road-block.
(b) Since it is an unhappy and burdensome thing for them to teach, they bunk work. In order to do that, without the risk of being found out, they enter into a dishonest deal with students. Text messages are sent to students regarding cancellation of classes. No leave is applied for.
In the eyes of a student, the teacher is a cheat. And such teachers are expected to build the character of these students! No! they corrupt students. This is a crime against the nation. Stringent measures need to be urgently put in place to eradicate this national disaster. We need to hail the move to make API points-requirements more stringent. What I stated in a previous paragraph becomes clearer in this context. Since most teachers are doing no research and producing no worthwhile (leave alone original) insights, they resort to cheating in respect of API requirements. Most publications, if you care to go through, are worse than undergraduate tutorials. In a particular case I read a whole book by a university professor replete with multiple mistakes on each page. It is a published work, entitling the charlatan to API points! This must end! Only peer-reviewed publications should count. The PhD manufacturing industry must be dismantled. Cheating should no longer remain an avenue of profit. Anyone found guilty of this, must be blacklisted for life. Students are punished severely for cheating in examinations. This menace is increasing, but I will not blame students alone for this. Teachers are their role-models.
3. Assessment of teachers by students. It is only to be expected that teachers will resist this tooth and nail. They know the old adage, “the victim knows the truth”. But there is a problem here as well. This measure, if not implemented with due vigilance, will reinforce the already depraved student-teacher transactions. Teachers will bribe students by indulging them in many ways: granting them attendance gratis, inflated grades for tutorials (even for tutorials not held), fudging internal assessment data in their favour, and so on. The worst teacher could procure the best student feedback. The nation needs to wake up to the alarming rot and degradation in higher education today. Even poisoning the food we eat, is a lesser crime than poisoning our children. Education must become a zone of zero-tolerance for corrupt practices of every kind. Rest assured, teacher associations will go on the streets in protest. Accountability is deemed an insult by teacher activists. Teachers have become a stumbling block to every attempt to invigorate and clean up the education sector. This must not be allowed to continue. If teachers agitate against measures meant to safeguard accountability and professionalism in education, they expose themselves badly in public. Only the dishonest and the hopelessly mediocre will resist transparency, accountability and standardisation. I would urge that the professional records of all such “negativists” (which is a more accurate term than “activists”) must be investigated. Substandard negativists, who are educational liabilities, must be weeded out mercilessly. The sooner, the better . – Courtesy
UGC on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 3rd Amendment & Academic Performance Indicators (API) for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Regulations, 2016
UGC on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 3rd Amendment & Academic Performance Indicators (API) for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Regulations, 2016 – Gazette Notification , 4th May 2016
No.F.1-2/2016 (PS/Amendment).—In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section(1) of Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956),the University Grants Commission here by frames the following Regulations to amend the University Grants Commission on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education,Regulations, 2010, namely: -2. Short title, application and commencement:2.1 These Regulations may be called the University Grants Commission on minimum qualifications for appointment of eachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education (3rdAmendment), Regulations, 2016.2.2 They shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a StateAct, every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission,in consultation with the university concerned under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a university under Section3 of the said Act.2.3 They shall come into force with immediate effect.3. In the University Grants Commission on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher Education, Regulations, 2010 (Principal Regulation 2010) the following amendments are made: – Principal UGC Regulations 2010,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR – MUSIC, PERFORMING ARTS, VISUAL ARTS AND OTHER TRADITIONAL INDIANART FORMS LIKE SCULPTURE, ETC.. UNIVERSITY ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN / COLLEGE LIBRARIAN
Engineering, Science & Technology Resources Portal 