In response to the views expressed in the letter titled “Importance of academic performance indicator” dated 21 September by another fellow aspirant I would like to re-explain my views.
Nowhere in my earlier letter have I said that Academic performance indicator (API) is not to be taken into account. API should be considered at the interview level but only after one clears a simple written test on the subject in which he/she has done their post graduation and the field in which he/she is pursuing his/her research or may have already obtained their doctorate degree.
As research scholar one should be confident that he/she will definitely score better than the so called plausible future “quantitative” service providers in any screening process.
It is true that the more certificates one hold the more credibility an institute, he serves in, gets as well as funds from UGC and other organizations. But to hypothesize that those candidates who have only qualified NET or SLET won’t improve upon their credentials is a misnomer. Even after being recruited one must continue with their research work and those without research experience may join a PhD course, as there are provision, even in RGU, that certain weightage is given for in-service Assistant Professor for admission into PhD.
If one goes by the result of the last recruitment exercise they will find that the commission does not necessarily look into the API since many selected candidates do not have any research background.
It does not mean that the candidates selected in the last recruitment drive are undeserving or unworthy. They can, as i have said earlier, gain research experience in the coming years by enrolling for PhD.
My concern is regarding the conduct of only interview for the post of Assistant Professor especially when the candidate to vacancy ratio is so large and when preliminary screening test is conducted for every other post by the commission.
The other area where I am wrongly interpreted by my fellow aspirant is that according to me, the APPSC interview board is nepotistic. I have made no such claim. Nepotism and having a value-free interaction is two very different thing.
Nepotism is using ones power to help their own relatives or acquaintances while being value free means that there is no pre-conceived notions of who is more suitable which is by nature ingrained in the subconscious mind of the interviewer.
Some one might be intellectually better but others may have better oratory skills. The interviewer might weigh them differently. I stand for the conduct of written exam before interview because such value-free (not nepotism) interview is hard to conduct and as a research scholar you should know that (which I am assuming you are).
With this, I hope that I was able to put across my views well enough to all other aspirants.