FEDCUTA Letter to UGC on API, 30.4.2015

The Chairperson,
Expert Committee on API,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi

Dear Sir/Madam,

Sincerely,

Nandita Narain                                                      Sachidanand Sinha
(President, FEDCUTA)                                         (Secretary, FEDCUTA)

WHY THE PBAS BASED ON API SCORES SHOULD BE SCRAPPED COMPLETELY

1. Quantifying teaching contribution in terms of time cannot be any index of the quality of teaching. Rather, this quantification has had the consequence of pushing teachers into a ‘rat race’ for gathering points. By pushing teachers to acquire points for recruitment and promotion, it forces teachers to mechanically turn to score building rather than reflecting on their responsibilities to teaching and to their students.
2. The neglect of classroom teaching and of engagement with students outside the classroom is a fallout of this system. The compulsion to be present in seminars and conferences to acquire points leads to the neglect of classroom teaching. On the other hand, the amount of time that teachers spend with students outside the formal structure of the classroom has been devalued.
3. The insistence on production of specified quantity of research output within specified time periods has led to devaluing of both teaching and research. This system does not recognize the fact that research engagement cannot be regimented and insistence on time-bound outcome at definite periods in a researcher’s life is inimical to quality. 
4. There has been no attempt to create positive conditions for research by re-examining the workload norms or by providing satisfactory infrastructure and resources. The prevalent student-teacher ratio, stipulation of a “minimum” and not maximum number of direct teaching hours, evaluation of a large number of students (that too twice a year under the semester system) and engagement with other areas of institutional life has led to overburdening of teachers. Moreover, in the case of college teachers in particular, minimum facilities for academic engagement such as a place to sit and work, access to quality library and laboratory facilities are missing. Similarly, the quantification of examination and evaluation work has had the consequence of devaluing the quality necessary for such work.
5. This system of quantifying every activity of the teacher and forcing the teacher to acquire points under every category does not account for individual inclinations, talents or interests of teachers. The capping of points under different categories makes it necessary for teachers to be a mere “jack of all trades” and interferes with the academic freedom and creativity of teachers. It forces teachers to collect points from activities that may not be of interest to them, and disallows them the opportunity to pursue a long-term engagement in any area. 
6. The strict regimentation of teachers’ work by the PBAS is inimical to the generation and dissemination of knowledge, which can only happen in an atmosphere that promotes free and critical thinking. 
7. The fears that teachers’ bodies had regarding the unhealthy consequences of this system at the time of its introduction have come true. The proliferation of unhealthy and unfair practices such as spurious research, substandard publications, creation of paid journals, splitting one publication into two or more to get more points, to mention only a few, has had very undesirable consequences for Higher Education in the country. Ever since API scores were made mandatory, there has been a mushrooming of new journals, which  chase/pursue academics to publish substandard research on payment  to get around the requirement of API scores. This has caused tremendous harm to genuine and quality research. 
8. Unhealthy competition to occupy minor administrative positions in academic institutions as well as the compulsion to be physically present in different seminars and conferences, often at the cost of classroom teaching and genuine research, have become a reality in universities today. 
9. The allocation of administrative duties is increasingly used by the authorities to promote their favourites, silence dissent and penalise independent-minded teachers. This has fomented a culture of patronage and has had an unhealthy effect on the overall democratic character of the institution. It has adversely affected the culture of debate and discussion, suppressed a free and fair exchange of ideas and endangered academic freedom, without which meaningful education is impossible.
10. As pointed out by scholars who have studied the effects of this system, the API completely disregards the diversity in the mandates and missions of universities across the country. It is an attempt at standardization and homogenization that is inimical to the diversity of culture, missions and ethos in various institutions. 
11. The current API system expects an impractical and unrealistic output from all the teachers irrespective of available facilities and infrastructure. Moreover, since the infrastructure, research facilities and teaching load (including counselling of students from weaker sections) varies from institution to institution, a uniform marking pattern is especially detrimental to the growth of teachers from socially and economically backward areas.