Your argument No 1
1.UGC must maintain one fixed qualifying criteria because NET is one eligibility testing exam not a competitive exam. In SSC , PUC, Degree passing marks are fixed , it will not vary with number of passing students, it is not like that if peoples score good marks hence this time ssc passing is 70% minimum. If depending on peoples score ugc change passing marks then what ugc do if all score 100%. Is it possible to keep 101% as cut of marks? It must give equal priority to all subjects; it must select equal number of candidates from all subjects for LECT and JRF because growth of country depends on growth of all subjects not on few selected subjects.
NET is an eligibility test. UGC has maintained fixed qualifying criteria at subject level. There is no fixed procedure stated anywhere in norms to conduct an eligibility test. That is, in any rules there is not stated the procedures that to be followed while conducting an eligibility test. PG and degree or even 10th standard exam may be eligibility test and conducted by putting minimum criteria as for pass just they are following the custom procedure derived out of educational research that in any normal exam, the 50% of total appeared candidates normally will get 40% of total marks. But it has no legal binding or an agency conducting an eligibility exam could not be compelled that “you should follow this procedure”- It is just a customary practice and not legally responsible to follow the same. The agency conducting test (whether it is eligibility or competitive) can decide the procedure of conducting the exam. It means an eligibility test can be conducted by following the rules of a recruitment/competitive test. The filtration process of selecting only the top 15% of candidates from those who secured minimum marks in each paper specified for the respective category is suitable only to a competitive test, but presently applied in NET exam. It is noted that the top 15% criteria is being approved in June 2013 by about 9 lac candidates even including the petitioners for June 2012.
The question what will do if all get 100% and if such happened can 101%? , is absurd because it is only imaginary and practically never occur.
]Then it is stated that equal number of candidates must be selected from all subject so as to maintain growth of country. It is wrong. In subjects like German (code 44) and Spanish (code 40), the total number of candidates appearing is below 100. If all of them are allowed pass means 100 candidates only should be made passed in every subject. For Commerce (code 7) appears a total of nearly one lac candidates. If every subject should be equal rule is followed then in German 100 out of 100 will be passed and in Commerce 100 out of 1 00 000 will be passed so that winning percentage in German is 100% and 0.1% in commerce? Actually it is inequality and badly effect growth of country
Your argument No 2
2. It must give equal priority to all subjects; it must select equal number of candidates from all subjects for LECT and JRF because growth of country depends on growth of all fields not on few selected subjects. UGC must concentrate towards the problem where students are not getting sufficient teaching staffs in few subjects, also in some college because staff running college is becoming very difficult.
For first part, refer to answer for the above question 1.The problem of not getting sufficient staff for some subjects and enough or more staff in some other subject has derived not by June 2012. It happened due to the old method of conducting descriptive exam, in which scoring 40% in Paper III in some subjects were easy and some others it was difficult. The procedure had been followed from origin of NET to December 2011. Academic world pointed out this problem and so UGC made reforms and made all papers objective to solve the said problem. So from June 2012 onwards, this problem is solved and for June 2012, the top 7% of all appeared in exam, subject to minimum, made passed and top15% from minimum from December 2012 onwards. This can be illustrated as follows
|Subject||No.of candidates in December 2011||No.of 45% scored in descriptive paper III (and passed)||% of pass|
|Commerce||80 000||20 000||25%|
|No.of candidates in June 2012||No.of passed||% of pass|
|No.of candidates in December 2012||No.of passed||% of pass|
The above table is an approximate in number of candidates, but it shows accurately how in some subjects there is large number of staff available and how in someother subjects it became short. It was due to taking wrong method of taking all of who get a fixed percentage passed. So to maintain equality in each subject to ratio of total appeared for that subject, there will be different cut off.
Your argument No3
3. In question paper if students get wrong questions then it is mistake of ugc not students. Hence ugc must award full marks for wrong questions. If all questions are wrong and ugc award no marks then how it is possible to students to score marks. Ugc must accept its mistakes and award full marks to wrong questions.
Refer minutes in official site, candidates have been awarded fullmarks for wrong/questions. The argument that what will do if all questions are wrong is just imaginary and even a fool can understand it will not happen in any exam.
Your argument No 4
4. Because all subjects are different and level of difficulty is also different. We can’t compare two subjects using common cut off hence UGC must and should use subject wise cut off. If UGC use minimum common marks then no need of using subject wise cut off but if UGC want to use different cut off, higher than minimum cut off then it must calculate different cut off for different subjects. We can’t say science students that because arts student score more than 90% you score 90% because everyone knows the difficulty level of subjects are different.
This is supporting the argument of taking different cut off. When a common minimum is taken, you can see the problem referred in table, a lot of passed in some subjects and rare in some other occur which will lead to problem you stated in your argument 1 and 2