Dear Professionals, My case is very match to sunny josephs. I have applied under RTI for the copy of my evaluated answer sheet of Paper-III of NET June 2011 within stipulated period. But UGC has not replied me so far. And after the waiting period of one month I am going for appeal. I want to mention that during the last three or four attempts I have got 80+ marks in paper III and I was very much expected to qualify in the June 2011 but this time I was very disappointed and I got very less marks. Should I assume myself as dull candidate? Does there luck matter? I also agree with Mr. sunny. On 1/25/12, Sunny Joseph <sannyjoseph@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear library professionals,
Thanking for your active discussion about the change of UGC-NET Examination from descriptive to objective type. Descriptive examination is ideal for measuring the candidates knowledge and thinking but practically dull. The main problem lies in the evaluation of the descriptive paper. A person with good writing speed and legible hand really matters. You know paper valuation is the most boring part in teachers' profession. I really tell it from my experience of valuing hundreds of answer papers recently. Many teachers also agree with this contention. The valuation of the descriptive paper is highly subjective, that is, mark varies with persons who values the papers. UGC doesn't allow revaluation. Also they have no provision for providing copies of evaluated answer papers to examinees. Hence, we can not be certain that all those who pass paper III are highly knowledgeable and those who fail in the paper are dull. Here luck really matters, ratherthan knowledge. I already stated that paper valuation is a boring thing to human beings and the mood of the evaluator really matters. In this context, I would like to share my experience with UGC-NET. I appeared four times. In the three exams I cleared Paper I & II. In all the exams paper II was cleared with scores 84, 76, 70, 78. and 80 was the maximum score in Paper III. In the last exam June 2010, really prepared well and answered well. Not even a single question was unanswered in paper III and word limit was also achieved. The result was announced in 8/10/2010 and I was failed. On the next day, I wrote to UGC for getting revaluation of my paper III and requested photocopy of the answer sheets and requested for preserving my answer sheets for three months as I am approaching the Court if needed.Getting no reply from UGC, I filed a writ petition in Kerala High Court against UGC on 2/11/2011. (W.P(C)No.33350/2010). Without counsel, I presented myself in the Court and obtained a direction(oral) to UGC to hand over copies of my answer papers within three weeks. After three weeks, UGC saught futher extension and this time they informed the Court that my answer paper was destroyed as my request was not received by UGC within the time limit of 30 days. I assured the Court that the letter to UGC was sent by speed post and I would produce the evidence. Later I produced the receipt of the letter by UGC and requested action against the erring officials and now they are really trapped. That is, UGC has something to hide.
In another letter under RTI act, UGC informed that there is no model answer scripts given to evaluators. that is, the evaluation is fully subjective and no scope for revaluation!!! In the recent resolution in which UGC makes confession about the subjective evaluation of Paper III and decides for changing to Objective type. It is a most welcome decision to people like me.
SUNNY JOSEPH, LIBRARIAN GOVT. INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY IN EDUCATION, THRISSUR-KERALA. PH.9446735414 sannyjoseph@yahoo.co.in
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
-- Simerjit Kaur Librarian, Rayat Bahra Inst. of Engg. & Nano-Tech., Hoshiarpur (Punjab) 146104 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.