Subscribe to LIS Links Free Alert

Latest Activity

UGC NET: 6% of the total candidates who appear in the UGC-NET examination will be declared qualified

University Grants Commission New Delhi – 110 002

Date: 14-07-2017 Public Notice

University Grants Commission wishes to clarify that earlier qualifying criteria for UGC-NET Exam involved qualifying top 15% of those candidates in each subject and category, who obtained the minimum required marks in paper-I, paper-II & paper-III according to the category of the candidates. Subsequent to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, University Grants Commission had revised the procedure and criteria of qualifying candidates and as such it has been decided that 6% of the total candidates who appear in the UGC-NET examination will be declared qualified. The qualifying percentage out of appeared candidates in the previous 4 UGC-NET examinations is given below:

Examination - Qualifying percentage out of Appeared

June 2015 UGC-NET : 4.83%

December 2015 UGC-NET : 4.96%

July 2016 UGC-NET : 4.08%

January 2017 UGC-NET : 3.99%

Future UGC-NET (With revised qualifying criteria): 6.00%

As such the number of candidates who would qualify in the future NET Examinations is likely to increase. Head, NET Bureau.

Official Notification

Views: 1116

Reply to This

Replies to This Forum

Sir

I think the revised criteria of UGC would benefit many students who are struggling to get a pass

good decision of UGC. because lots of candidates have passed UGC NET exam due to objective mode.while they can not get a good job opportunity in higher education.

The decision of setting up of a fixed percentage of successful examinees seems flat & arbitrary to me. Of course the UGC will be able to estimate the total "Qualified" candidates as soon as the examination is completed but, I am afraid, it may dilute the very process of examination!

First the questions mostly became objective. The process, by which one can hardly pic up proper candidates for teaching or to do research!! Now if it become mandatory to declare a certain percentage of candidates blindfold as "qualified" seems a sheer simplification of the process of assessment.

I well understand.that my statement may seem sort of 'Negative' to many young aspirants, but I am confident that from their experience of good & specially the 'no good' teachers, they will understand my perception. LIS is after all a professional course and with days competition getting tougher and complex. Never-the-less, sometimes there exist gaps between pedagogy and market demand and simply there won't be any scope of mandatory employment in recruitment process and during this fierce competitiveness, only the proper candidates will get chance. During such process "NET Qualified" may not be a viable criterion. Last Month, I was in a committee where written examination was conducted for 02 Asst.Library & Information Officer in an organization and four senior professionals were requested to prepare 5 questions to assess "Clarity of vision & knowledge and conception of the candidates" Ultimately the final question paper comprising of total 5 (out of 8 optional) questions of 10 marks each and there was just one Full objective type question (1/2 marks each for 20 questions out of 30 multiple choices) and rest were descriptive requiring IDEALLY NOT MORE THAN TEN SENTENCES OR 125 WORDS.Out of 73 examinees only 23 candidates attended five questions & just 6 candidates were able to write answers to Five Questions in Full. I can not remember exactly, but there were not less than 17 Ph.Ds and almost equal number of M.Phils. Out of the 6 candidates who answered all five questions in full, were two Ph.Ds, just one M.Phil, two M.Libs & one with just BLIS. Interestingly, the very young BLIS candidate was the first choice of the authority!! One M.Phil candidate was the second person to get the job!! While if this is the scenario, the court decision seems to be too simplistic!!

Siddhartha S. Ray, Calcutta

RSS

© 2017   Created by Badan Barman.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service