Selection to Academic Positions in the University

University of Jaffna,

4^th December 2013.

To: The Vice Chancellor, members of the Council and well–wishers of the University,

Selection to Academic Positions in the University

Selection to academic positions is the task of mainly senior academics holding administrative responsibilities: the university community and the public rightly expect that this obligation is discharged conscientiously. Regrettably, we are more and more troubled by justifications from these same senior academics for overlooking candidates with superior certified academic performances, in favour of those with inferior records. The reasons frequently given – the selected candidate performed “superbly” in the interview or the candidate’s presentation was “superb” – point to the selectors trying to cover up something seriously amiss that troubles them. Current selections will determine the academic standing of the University, and its intellectual environment, for many years to come. It is now time to refresh our minds on the criteria for selection to academic positions.

The major criterion for selection to an academic post is academic excellence. This is because University is the highest seat for learning and its teachers do not teach from text books alone. They should continually update their knowledge and prepare their students accordingly. They should capture new outcomes in their research fields and apply them in their own work. A person who had absorbed what was taught over four years and applied it well in answering questions regularly set at examinations should be most suitable for the purposes given. Hence as the first category for selection to the post of Lecturer (Probationary), the UGC has specified a First or Second Class (Upper Division) specialization in the relevant subject. Other categories are considered only when candidates in the first category are not available. When selections are made from other categories, the Council must justify it to the UGC.

UGC circular 935 states that “If the Selection Committee is not satisfied with the performance of candidate/candidates, but otherwise well qualified, such candidate/candidates be appointed as Temporary Lecturer/Lecturers for a period of one year and at the end of such period of such period they may be appointed as Lecturer (Probationary) having subjected to another interview and presentation”.

The Circular makes it clear that the certified record is the decisive criterion for selection. The presentation and interview are only to ensure that the selected candidate will not be a disaster as a teacher. It further makes it practically mandatory that the candidate having the best certified record be appointed in a temporary capacity, when there is some doubt about his capacity to teach and interviewed a year later. That makes plain the weight placed on qualification as opposed to presentation.

A Special Degree candidate has been tested in 120 credits using some 50 end-of-semester question papers (and numerous in-course assessments) by several tens of examiners. Each answer script has been marked twice by experienced examiners. The candidate had spent several hundred hours answering question papers in the examination hall. A first class is awarded based on this performance. In the selection board the Head of the Department is, in most cases, is an expert in the subject.

Is it that easy for such a board to reject the result obtained in the above manner and stamp a candidate as being unsuitable on the basis of a few questions fielded inadequately by the candidate during a brief interview lasting a few minutes?

To put it in another way: Whom should a board select to an academic post? A brilliant fresh graduate who did not do well in the presentation or one with an inferior record with better presentation skills?

We must further keep in mind that many years of war and migration have lowered the kind of exposure where students would pick up better English and present themselves more attractively. Under these circumstances it is incumbent on us to give students who have worked hard to overcome some of their handicaps and perform well during their four years at the University, their due opportunity to rise further. 

Selection on subjective criteria such as interview and performance easily becomes the means of abuse to favour those with superior connections and influence at the expense of persons from humbler backgrounds who have shown superiorability.

Once this abuse takes root, the character of the University suffers, as those selected become increasingly beholden to those in authority. 

JUSTA