E-Paper
UGC’s new teacher appraisal norms are more holistic
The assumption that removing API constitutes moving away from objectivity to subjectivity disregards the inherent limitations of a mechanistic framework
The criticism of the University Grants Commission (UGC)’s recent reforms based on the National Education Policy 2020 in these columns (UGC’s flawed proposals for teacher hiring, promotions, Sukhadeo Thorat, February 18) fails to recognise higher education governance’s dynamic and evolving nature. The argument that online consultations on regulatory matters compromise thorough reflection is based on an outdated understanding of discourse and participation. Digital platforms have become vital in democratising engagement with stakeholders to provide input, making the process more inclusive rather than less rigorous.
Has the academic performance indicator (API) been removed from the 2025 draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Institutions) regulations without extensively studying its limitations? This question assumes that the deficiencies of API were unknown or insignificant. The assumption that removing the API system constitutes moving away from objectivity to subjectivity disregards the inherent limitations of a mechanistic evaluation framework. While the API was conceived with good intentions, the system had evolved into a rigid, number-driven mechanism that often incentivised quantity over quality in academic contributions.
Faculty members were forced to comply with API rather than focus on genuine intellectual growth, making scholarship a mere arithmetic exercise. In the best institutions globally, it is recognised that academic excellence is multidimensional and cannot be represented by rigid scorecards. The notion that faculty recruitment and promotion are objective solely when numerical indicators are used to assess performance is a narrow interpretation of fairness. While numerical scores may provide a semblance of fairness, they are ill-equipped to capture the full spectrum of intellectual and pedagogical contributions made by faculty members.
Instead of depending on API, the 2025 UGC draft regulations emphasise qualitative judgment and peer evaluation for assessing a scholar’s contributions. This evaluation process accommodates intellectual diversity without reducing it to mere numbers and aligns with the evolving nature of academic inquiry. Such an approach is not a step toward opacity but a move toward a more reflective, context-sensitive, and inclusive evaluation system.
The continuous refinement of policies should be viewed not as an erosion of standards but as an effort to align academic governance with the aspirations of a progressive and knowledge-driven society. NEP 2020’s vision of multidisciplinary learning, research excellence, and institutional autonomy necessitates moving away from archaic evaluation frameworks that stifle rather than stimulate intellectual vitality. In embracing these changes, UGC is not discarding transparency but enhancing it by ensuring that academic contributions are assessed to reflect their impact and significance.
The contention that the selection committee’s discretionary powers would lead to favouritism is based on an oversimplified dichotomy between numerical objectivity and human judgment. An effective selection process incorporates multidimensional assessments that balance qualitative and quantitative measures. Exclusive reliance on rigid numerical thresholds does not necessarily ensure high academic standards; instead, the subject experts in selection committees must focus on an appraisal of teaching effectiveness, research impact, and innovative contributions that may not always fit within a predefined formula. The assertion that if subject experts in a selection committee evaluate research publications and academic contributions inherently leads to bias disregards the importance of peer review and institutional oversight. The presumption that the selection committee wields unchecked authority and operates without accountability overlooks academic governance and professional assessment principles. It is not uncommon for reputable educational institutions worldwide to function on the principles of rigorous peer evaluation, ensuring that quality and scholarly integrity are upheld.
Furthermore, introducing an assessment parameter called “significant contributions” in the 2025 UGC draft regulations should not be hastily dismissed as an arbitrary shift in policy. Digital content creation, establishment of start-ups, student mentorship, research in Indian knowledge systems and promotion of Indian languages in higher education reflect an attempt to align faculty evaluation with contemporary academic and societal needs. Any claim that such contributions lack clear definitions overlooks the possibility that they are intended to encourage a broader and more holistic understanding of an educator’s role beyond publication counts and citation metrics.
The criticism that the emphasis on Indian knowledge systems perpetuates exclusivity is unsubstantiated and ignores the inclusive intent behind the policy. The regulation does not privilege one philosophical tradition over others but encourages a more comprehensive engagement with India’s diverse intellectual heritage.
The recalibration of faculty assessment and selection mechanisms are not a departure from fairness but an alignment with the evolving ethos of higher education, where quality is measured in quantifiable increments in an ecosystem that values integrity, diversity, and academic excellence.
Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, chairman, UGC and former vice-chancellor, JNU. The views expressed are personal
