Anatomy of entrance tests

THE introduction of entrance tests for admissions to various university courses was welcomed by all, hoping that it would end biased entries. No one could have realised that these tests would become a bigger evil.

The entrance tests, which were introduced for academic reasons, have now become essential because of their money-spinning potentiality. The government has legalised this fleecing of students, by conveniently shirking its responsibility, and asking all the educational institutions, including the universities, to raise their own resources.

If there has to be a test then there should be just one test. For example, after 10+2, the CBSE conducts a test, at the all-India level, for admissions to all the medical colleges of India against the 15 per cent or so seats reserved under orders of the Supreme Court. Do we say that this test is biased for any particular institution, university, or state? No. Then what prevents the universities or other institutions from using this merit list of the CBSE for admissions to the remaining seats? These institutions or universities can put in any number of additional criteria required by them, like domicile, etc, and accept the basic merit of the CBSE. But who wishes to lose funds?

Let us look into a simple calculation, presuming that a reasonable number of 20,000 students take the examination for admissions to the engineering/medical colleges in a state. Taking the average cost of the prospectus as Rs 400, and the average cost of the bank draft, to be attached with the application form, as another Rs 400, the collections made by an institution come to Rs 1.6 crore. Giving room for an even lavish expenditure on the conduct of the examination, including paper printing, etc, the institution makes a cool earning of Rs 1.25 crore.

However, what society has spent for this single test is not just Rs 1.6 crore. The expenditure on sending requests for the prospectuses, their submission, subsequent queries, the stamped envelopes to be enclosed, etc, adds up to another Rs 100 per head. That is Rs 20 lakh. Each form has to be accompanied by a number of certificates and photographs. To get these photographs and certificates and to have their copies attested, the average expenditure would be another Rs 100 per head. So, add another Rs 20 lakh. And please remember all these certificates are in fact not needed at this stage. The candidates have to show the certificates again if they qualify the test. So why not have these certificates only from those who qualify the test?

Now come to the examination day. There are only a few centres in the whole state. Therefore, people must travel often long distances. Since the tests start early in the morning, one has to travel day early — usually accompanied by at least one guardian. The average cost? If only 25 per cent of the candidates travel along with their guardian, then the minimum expenditure, leaving aside the lost man-hours, would be around Rs 500 for each such candidate. The expenditure incurred on this account would be Rs 25 lakh. Harassment is free.

Therefore, the total cost to society for one test is more than Rs 2.25 crore! Please remember the merit so obtained is valid for only one course! For another course, work out another round. After the test, one has to fill-up separate forms for each of the institution where one intends to take admission. Again it is only about Rs 400 for each college/institution or for each university department, and just one set each of all the certificates, photographs, etc. And just another round of several interviews.

The pretext of bringing uniformity in admissions is more imaginary than real. There are coordination committees to bring in the uniformity of courses, and there are hardly any significant differences between the syllabi at different levels for the same subject. Under the garb of entrance tests, the universities are “disowning” not only the marks awarded by them in their own final examinations, but even the merit lists of the competitive tests conducted by them.

JAI RUP SINGH
Amritsar

* * * *

Hysteria vs patriotism

it is unfortunate that some self-appointed guardians of the country should be allowed to link Bollywood veteran Dilip Kumar's award of Nishan-e-Imtiaz given by Pakistan with his loyalty to the nation "Hysteria vs patriotism", (July 10). Such people and groups are giving a communal twist to the issue for their own vested political interests. They need to know that nationalism is a sentiment leading to the deepening of national consciousness and unity on the basis of common ideas and beliefs, and it does not believe in raising baseless controversies.

In the first place, the patriotic credentials of Dilip Kumar (Yusuf Khan) are beyond suspicion. Secondly, it was with the consent of the Prime Minister and the President of India that he accepted this award. Above all, he is not the first Indian to be bestowed upon this highest civilian honour of Pakistan. Morarji Desai too had received this award.

The politically inspired hysteria, in the wake of the Kargil crisis, should not be allowed to blind our vision of national unity and communal harmony. Nor should the self-proclaimed guardians of the patriotism be allowed to rob someone of his dignity to prove his patriotism. If Dilip Kumar, the tragedy-king of Indian cinema, is put in the dock only because he happens to be a Muslim, we might be sowing the seeds of communal distrust and animosity.

Those who raise the accusing finger at others should also know that the other three fingers on their hand are raised at themselves.

VED GULIANI
Hisar

* * * *

Why be afraid of debate?

I fully share the point adumbrated in the well-argued editorial "Of CMs and Rajya Sabha" (July 9), forcefully pleading for a special session of the Rajya Sabha viz-a-viz the Kargil crisis.

Looking at the fact that the country is in the throes of a grave crisis, it seems important to take the nation into confidence through an informed debate on all aspects of the issue in the country's apex legislature. A special session of the "permanent half" (better half) of the country's legislature appears all the more necessary under the obtaining circumstances when the country is without a Lok Sabha.

As the editorial aptly observes, if Parliament was such a dispensable institution as has consistently been made out by the BJP, the founding fathers would not have made it the central pillar of the country's Constitution.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's stark diffidence in facing a special session of the Rajya Sabha shows him in woefully poor light, bluntly speaking.

A conference of the Chief Ministers over the matter is absolutely no substitute for a special session of the Rajya Sabha. The Chief Ministers enjoy no right to decide whether the country's Parliament should or should not be allowed to meet and debate a sensitive issue as Kargil. Let the Prime Minister pause and ponder!

TARA CHAND
Ambota (Una)