From the above table itself it is clear that NET is an ‘eligibility test’ and should have to follow the rules of eligibility test. If top 15% rule is adopted NET becomes a competitive test. But in no way it ensures job or possess any characteristic that a competitive test should have. So I think everyone at least should agree NET is only an eligibility test and nothing will happen if it is conducted as an eligibility test itself.
Now we can look up to the favorable arguments towards top15%
1] Quality will be demolished if minimum passed is allowed to teach- This is multi dimensional statement. First of all meaning of quality is different for different people. At present there are many teachers in Higher education sector itself without NET or Phd, still no problem with their quality. No one heard news that a significant difference in teaching has experienced while a teacher without NET is replaced by a teacher with NET. There may be just opposite example. However a teacher’s quality is not 100% depend on whether he is cleared NET or not. NET has not contributed even 10% towards the quality of a teacher.
At the present age teacher is a facilitator and should have to take up more responsible roles for which present content and process of NET exam is not compatible or obsolete. I could not stop my laugh when a 30yrs old NET holder joined in a college as his students were well versed to design the blog but the newly appointed teacher doubted even to save a word document. What practical methodology of using the newer tools in teaching is transacted in NET?
Secondly how the ‘under standard’ people get the post of teacher if there are teaching aspirant with quality? The people who cleared with 80% or old descriptive pattern (and even the 40% supplementary of June 2012) claim they are with quality and those who with minimum is lower in quality. After the declaration
of every result, though minimum is allowed to pass there will be some candidates having higher percentage. If they feel they are superior and possess more knowledge and skills and they have more quality, they have to prove it in competitive tests and interviews. Use the quality you believe you have to defeat the ‘fools’ who passed NET with minimum. So need not to worry if you are really confident. But the aim of many of such people is not quality but an ‘easy walk over’ in competitive tests. They think at present for 10 vacancies there is 100 candidates and if minimum people are cleared the number of applicants will be 500 and ‘we have to try hard’ to get the post. So you have named your laziness as quality. You never agree it will bring quality if more people are there for competitive test and all keep preparing for it. Such a situation will be benefited to student community. The ‘uncompetitive’ walk over is the actual cause of loss in quality.
‘We can stop the minimum acquired NET holders from entering to the teaching post by our brilliance and intelligence. But it could be done in government sector only. What could we do if they are capable of offering huge black money as a bribe to enter in private management colleges to demolish the quality of
teaching? (We are only people with quality and the proof of quality lies in the server of UGC as e-certificate and no other including professors of oxford or Cambridge University has no quality because there is no pdf document for them in the server of UGC). So the already qualified candidates with high quality cannot provide enough black money to stop the entrance of less qualified. So UGC should not make them qualified. I have no direct answer to it. Is minimum acquired has any special role in bringing this corrupted system? It has been here for decades and one of the most responsible parties for making this corruption is the already NET qualified candidates themselves
The next argument is that
2] When minimum criteria are followed the number of qualified persons will be more and this effect the future of our country- The statement is made out of ignorance. Nothing will happen if a huge number is declared as eligible for teaching profession. The competition will increase and the economic rules will be begin to work. When many identify there is low scope they will be compelled to take other areas. It
is in every field-Today there are more engineering aspirants than what our country can ‘give space’. So what happens- The economy will find the solution itself. There are so many people suicide for so many causes and it is too rare to commit suicide for one who not got the desired job. So don’t be upset with
numbers. During Second World War America destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan, more than 2 lac people killed and properties costing crores were destroyed. Yet Do Japan demolished? No, in another way it made the people hard work and became a developed country with in decades. So if there was not
trouble in losing the life of 2 lac, then it is foolish to propagate India will be demolished only by giving an eligible certificate to 2 lac people.
Next argument is the following
3] Top 15% rule allows only highly talented candidates to emerge as teachers and a competitive environment for NET exam which in turn increases the quality of faculty -- The already NET holders are came out of this competitive environment? Is it cause to overflow of the quality by 10000% in every college and for the reason there is no space to pack this ‘great quality’ how are you disposing it? So we can ask government for providing a place to dispose the overflowing quality in Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean or
4] For this argument the reply is already given. The economic system and its forces should solve these problems. Providing more opportunities by opening new colleges, the govt can enhance the situation. The educational area itself is not exempt from economic laws. When there is an increased supply of teaching aspirants and no change in vacancy it will decrease the demand of NET certificate. But it will be a short term process as the market responds to it and tries to make clear the imbalances. The PG holders may concentrate in other fields rather teaching as there is a traffic jam and such responses normalize the economy of teaching field
Next argument is as follows
5] UGC had declared the December criteria before the exam and so in any way it does not equate with the June 2012 issue- It is right and any criteria should be revealed before the completion of student’s role. It can be announced within the exam notification itself. And the criteria should be a ‘fixed’ one suit with the logic of eligibility test. Top 15% in any way make eligibility test as a competitive test
6] Kerala High Court second order related with UGC case will give the reply of sixth argument. The power of
changing rule in the end of game is described there. Logically the “however…..Result” statement has only validity when abnormal course of action is happened. For eg. Suppose you are a club official and organizes a tournament. A bye-law or rule is prepared and at the last part it will contain a statement- The club has right to change the rule at any time and all teams are abide to follow the same. Suppose before a match start, when both teams came to ground to warm up and stadium is full of crowd and there is just 15 minutes to start the match, you announce the match is being postponed. You claim it by the last clause in bye-law. But it is illegal and you have to pay the sum for every party for their loss- Because there not happened anything against the normal course of action. And suppose you got credible information that a bomb is placed in stadium and so you postpone, you need not pay any sum because an abnormal course of action has occurred in this case. So getting minimum by 3lac people are not an abnormal course of action and so ‘however’ statement is not valid.
7] What can others do if you not get employment? No students asked UGC to make exam as objective or to put a low criteria. UGC can put aggregate 70% for pass within the notification itself or introduce negative marking. But at the time of application, they need maximum candidates and motivate them to apply by announcing low criteria and at the time of result they need only 7% or top 15%. On descriptive session there was options in IIIrd paper but now there is no option and this will remove the imbalance of academic