Ahead of counselling every year, Anna University uploads the pass percentage of its affiliated colleges. The process was introduced following a court verdict a decade ago in an attempt to enable aspirants to choose colleges.
This year, in a departure from the norm, the university published a list based on the cut-off of candidates admitted under the open category to the computer science and engineering (CSE) programme from 2017 to till 2021.
For several hours on Friday, the list was off the university’s website. Sources said an error in the calculation of the cut-off of a college forced them to rework the list.
The new method has confused the faculty members of the affiliated colleges who wondered whether such a list would be prepared for all subjects. The principal of a self-financing college said, “The university has to explain what scientific method it has followed. Also, like cut-off mark, they have to publish the values for other parameters such as infrastructure and faculty. It is important to provide the input as accreditation is based on outcome.”
Another issue the faculty members have raised is not considering the way in which candidates belonging the BC, the MBC and the SCs and the STs choose a college. “Ranking cannot be based on only one parameter. The cut-off mark is not a metric to use for ranking,” said another professor.
E. Balagurusamy, former Vice-Chancellor, said, “There should be multiple criteria such as faculty strength, qualification and infrastructure and pass percentage. CSE is a temporary phenomena. You cannot ignore core branches. Ranking cannot be made on the basis of the demand for a course. You should also take the quality and number of the faculty and the ranking under NAAC [the National Assessment and Accreditation Council] and NBA [the National Board of Accreditation]. It is wrong on the part of Anna University to base ranking on the demand for a subject. Such a process would only open up opportunity for political intervention.”
“If at all the university wishes to rank colleges based on the demand for a subject, it should do so for every one of them. The university could put out data of course-wise faculty strength in the colleges for aspirants to make an informed decision,” he said.
As for the details of deficient colleges, he suggested that the list be uploaded on the website.
Even constituent colleges do not have sufficient faculty or the required infrastructure. The previous Vice-Chancellor, M.K. Surappa, had reduced the intake in several constituent colleges for two years citing deficiencies.
A former university official said the constituent colleges were run by the university, instead of the government. This put a strain on its funds.
A university faculty member pointed out that the university followed a process of moderation of 30 marks for mathematics for the first-year students. “It is too high. Even with the process, only 38% of the students have passed. Without moderation, it would have been 25%,” he said.
