Common entrance test for central varsities: plan, criticism

 

The Central Universities Common Entrance Test (CUCET) was launched in 2010, a year after 12 new central universities had been set up under the Central Universities Act, 2009.

From the 2022-23 academic session, a common entrance test is likely to be implemented across central universities in India for admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate courses, marking a departure from the current predominant pattern of screening based on class 12 marks.

On November 26, the University Grants Commission (UGC) wrote to the vice-chancellors of the 45 central universities that “after detailed deliberations, it was resolved that the Common Entrance Test for UG and PG may be conducted for Central Universities from the academic session 2022-23 through National Testing Agency (NTA)”.

Answer to soaring cut-offs?

The push for a common entrance test comes at a time when unrealistic cutoffs for admission to premier institutions like Delhi University have underlined the need for alternatives. While the UGC hopes it will create a level playing field, critics fear it will encourage the coaching industry further.

The genesis

The Central Universities Common Entrance Test (CUCET) was launched in 2010, a year after 12 new central universities had been set up under the Central Universities Act, 2009. In the year of its rollout, seven new central universities adopted CUCET. Over the years, the list grew, and this year 12 central universities, from Assam to Kerala, held CUCET with the assistance of the NTA, which functions under the Ministry of Education.

The UGC has been keen on bringing more central universities under the ambit of the CUCET ever since the National Education Policy, 2020 advocated this.. Last December, the UGC set up a seven-member committee under R P Tiwari , Vice-Chancellor of Central University of Punjab, to prepare a plan to implement CUCET from 2021-22. The committee’s report gave the proposal the go-ahead, but the UGC had to shelve the plan due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The latest push came on November 22, when the UGC held a meeting with the vice-chancellors of 45 central universities, following which the letter was sent.

What changes

The test will cover sciences, humanities, languages, arts, and vocational subjects, and is likely to be held at least twice every year.

CURRENT PATTERN: At present, the CUCET papers consist of two segments. Part A tests a candidate’s language, general awareness, mathematical aptitude, and analytical skills, while Part B evaluates domain knowledge. Both papers contain multiple choice questions (MCQs). For admission to MBA, LLB and MCA courses offered by some universities, there is one paper comprising 100 MCQs covering English, reasoning, numerical ability, general awareness and analytical skills.

The test does not have under its ambit engineering and medical courses that are offered by some of these central universities. These will not be included in the new pattern either.

AFTER EXPANSION: Although the UGC has not yet announced the pattern of the exams once it is expanded, the report of the Tiwari committee holds some clues. It says the test for the undergraduate level would be in two parts. Section A will be a common aptitude test carrying 50 questions, while Section B will be a “domain specific test” comprising 30 questions each from a chosen combinations of subjects. The committee also recommended that to begin with, a minimum 50% of a candidate’s CUCET score should be factored in during admissions to undergraduate courses. It will be a computer-based test.

The CUCET might also be called Common Universities Entrance Test (CUET) in its proposed new avatar.

The Tiwari committee has also recommended that existing policies regarding quotas, subject combinations, preferences etc that govern a particular university will remain applicable even after the rollout of a common test.

The rationale

The NEP, 2020 envisages that a common entrances will test the conceptual understanding and ability to apply knowledge, and will aim to eliminate the need for taking coaching for these exams. The flexibility of the NTA testing services will enable most universities to use these common entrance exams “rather than having hundreds of universities each devising their own entrance exams”, which will reduce the burden on the entire education system, it says.

Criticism

Not everyone has welcomed the idea of an overarching common entrance test, though.

Disha Nawani, Professor, School of Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (Mumbai), agreed that the existing board-exam based screening is leading to unrealistic cut-offs, but felt a common entrance will not be an improvement. “Children come from very different socio-economic backgrounds and to expect them to sit together and tackle a centrally-set paper will not be fair. Eventually it will boil down to mastering the techniques to crack it which coaching institutes offer. As long as we continue to focus on modes of assessment instead of learning, this will be a continuation of the unjust system,” Nawani said.

Abha Dev Habib, associate professor (Physics) at Miranda House in Delhi, and Ayesha Kidwai, professor at JNU’s Centre for Linguistics and former president of its teachers’ association, called the proposal an affront to the autonomy of universities. “Many universities offer highly specialised as well as multidisciplinary courses. And using the NET score for admission to PhD programmes is a terrible move. It has no academic rationale and will not promote equality,” Kidwai said.

Source: Indian Express, 2/12/21

Quote of the Day December 1, 2021

 

“It's been my observation that most people get ahead during the time that others waste.”
Henry Ford

“मैंने देखा है कि ज्यादातर लोग उस समय आगे निकल जाते हैं जब दूसरे समय को बरबाद कर रहे होते हैं।”
हेनरी फ़ोर्ड

Current Affairs-December 1, 2021

 

INDIA

• Home Ministry extends COVID-19 guidelines till Dec 31
• Centre extends ‘Har Ghar Dastak’ door-to-door vaccination campaign till December 31
• Uttarakhand govt scraps Char Dham Devasthanam Management Board law; was aimed at bringing the Char Dham of Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri and Yamunotri and 49 other temples under its purview
• Telugu lyricist Sirivennela Seetharama Sastry dies in Hyderabad at 66

Economy & corporate

• GDP growth in July-September quarter of 2021-22 at 8.4%: Govt.
• Eight core sectors’ output grows to 7.5% in October
• S&P Global Ratings keeps India’s economic growth forecast in 2021-22 unchanged at 9.5%
• Central government debt is estimated at about 62% of GDP for 2021-22

World

• G7 health ministers call for urgent action to combat spread of Omicron Covid-19 strain
• Two minority members added to Sri Lanka’s Heritage Task Force for Eastern Province
• Renowned scholar of Bangladesh Professor Rafiqul Islam dies in Dhaka at 87
• Day of Remembrance for all Victims of Chemical Warfare observed on Nov 30
• Indian-origin Parag Agrawal appointed new CEO of Twitter

Football

• Ballon d’Or awards presented in Paris
• Lionel Messi of Argentina and French club Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) wins men’s Ballon d’Or award
• Alexia Putellas, captaining Barcelona to a treble-winning season, won the women’s Ballon d’Or
• 19-year-old Pedri (Pedro Gonzalez Lopez) of Barcelona won the Kopa Trophy for the best player aged under-21
• Paris Saint-Germain’s Gianluigi Donnarumma won the Yashin Trophy for the best goalkeeper
• Best Striker of the Year award won by Robert Lewandowski of Poland and Bayern Munich
• Best Club of the Year award went to EPL club Chelsea

World AIDS Day: December 1

 Every year the World AIDS Day is celebrated on December 1. The day is being celebrated since 1988. It is celebrated to create awareness against the spread of HIV infection. It is one of the 11 official Global Public Health campaigns of World Health Organisation. The Other 10 campaigns are as follows

• World Blood Donor Day
• World Health Day
• World Immunization Week
• World No Tobacco Day
• World Tuberculosis Day
• World Malaria day
• World antimicrobial awareness week
• World Hepatitis Day
• World Patient Safety Day
• World Chagas Disease Day

Theme of World AIDS Day

This year the World AIDS Day is celebrated under the following theme

Ending Inequalities

AIDS awareness week

Every year the last week of November is celebrated as AIDS awareness week. The first AIDS Awareness Week was celebrated in 1984 in San Francisco.

AIDS in India

According to the National AIDS Control Organisation, around 2.14 million people live with AIDS in India as of 2017. India is home to the third largest population of persons with AIDS in the world after South Africa and Nigeria as of 2018. However, the prevalence rate of AIDS in India is lesser than that of many other countries. In 2016, the prevalence rate of AIDS was at 0.3% in India. This was the 80th highest in the world.

India fights the disease through antiretroviral drugs and education programmes.

National AIDS Control Organisation

It was established in 1992 under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It takes leadership in controlling AIDS in India. It conducts estimates of the disease once in every 2 years along with National Institute of Medical statistics and Indian Council of Medical Research. The first such Estimation in India was done in 1998 and the last was done in 2017.

NACO has increased its number of centres providing free antiretroviral treatment from 54 to 91. The number of AIDS patients in the country have increased largely in 2020 due to COVID-19. The government programmes implemented to reduce AIDS in the country have come to halt due to COVID-19 crisis.

How do birds make their nests?

 

Birds are really intelligent animals. They use their intelligence, along with their beaks and feet, to find the most clever ways to make nests with whatever materials are available.

The first thing to know is not all birds make nests. For example, emperor penguin fathers carry their precious egg on their feet (to keep it off the frozen ground). Some birds, such as cuckoos, will lay their eggs in someone else’s nests. Others lay them on the ground among leaves or pebbles, or on cliffs with very little protection.

For the birds that do build nests, there is one main goal: to keep their eggs and chicks safe. Many birds also make their nests in tree hollows, including parrots. That’s just one reason it’s important to not cut trees down!

Meanwhile, kookaburras use their powerful beaks to burrow into termite nests and make a cosy nest inside. And the cute spotted pardelote will dig little burrows in the side of earth banks — with a safe and cosy spot for its eggs at the end of the tunnel.

Some birds, such as brush turkeys, spend months building huge mounds on the ground which can heat up from the inside. The male turkey makes sure the ground is exactly the right temperature inside the mound, and then lets the female lay the eggs inside. He’ll take big mouthfuls of dirt surrounding the eggs to check it’s not too hot or cold.

Birds construct many different types of nests. There are floating nests, cups, domes, pendulums and basket-shaped nests. They can be made out of sticks, twigs, leaves, grasses, mosses or even mud.

Magpie-larks (also called ‘peewees’), apostlebirds and choughs make mud bowl nests that look like terracotta plant pots. To do this, they gather mud and grasses in their beaks and shake it around to mix it with their saliva. They can then attach it to a branch and build upwards until the nest is complete. In fact, bird saliva is a really strong and sticky material to build nests with.

Birds will often mix saliva and mud to make a type of glue. And some swiftlets make their nests entirely out of solidified saliva. People will even eat these nests in bird’s nest soup!

Willie wagtails use another type of glue – sticky spiderwebs. They sew grasses together using spider webs and the webs help keep the nests strong against wind and water, too. They have to perfect the technique of gathering the spiderweb though, otherwise it can get tangled in their feathers.

Magpies and crows, both common visitors to our gardens, are also clever nest builders. Not only can they expertly layer their sticks into a bowl, but they also use many human-made materials in their nests. You might find them using fabric, string or a wire to hold a nest together. Some birds such as red kites have even been seen decorating their nests with human rubbish.

And Australian babblers line the inside of their nests with a thick wall of kangaroo poo, followed by soft fluff, to keep their chicks warm. To actually weave the nests, birds will usually create a base by layering sticks or twigs in the place they want it. Then they use their beaks and feet to weave a chosen materials through, to hold the sticks in place. They can pull strips of material with their beaks over and under, just like weaving a rug. They can even tie knots!

Nests can take a really long time to make, so they’re often reused year after year. Weaver birds are so good at weaving, they can build complex nests that cover entire trees and have several chambers. To summarise, birds are really intelligent animals. They use their intelligence, along with their beaks and feet, to find the most clever ways to make nests with whatever materials are available. And they get better at this by learning from others, such as their parents or peers.

Written by Kiara L’Herpiniere

Source: Indian Express, 26/11/21

Is nuclear energy good for the climate?

 Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it’s a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?

The latest figures on global carbon dioxide emissions call into question the world’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis. CO2 emissions are set to soar 4.9% in 2021, compared with the previous year, according to a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), a group of scientists that track emissions.

In 2020, emissions dropped 5.4% due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns. Most observers expected a rebound this year — but not to such an extent. The energy sector continues to be the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with a share of 40% — and rising.

But what about nuclear? Supporters of the controversial energy source say it’s a climate-friendly way to generate electricity. At the very least, it’s something we could use until we’re able to develop comprehensive alternatives. In recent weeks, particularly during the COP26 climate summit, advocates have been creating a stir online with statements like “if you’re against nuclear energy, you’re against climate protection” and “nuclear energy is about to make a comeback.” But is there anything to it?

Is nuclear power a zero-emissions energy source?

No. Nuclear energy is also responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, no energy source is completely free of emissions, but more on that later.

When it comes to nuclear, uranium extraction, transport and processing produces emissions. The long and complex construction process of nuclear power plants also releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned sites. And, last but not least, nuclear waste also has to be transported and stored under strict conditions — here, too, emissions must be taken into account.

And yet, interest groups claim nuclear energy is emission-free. Among them is Austrian consulting firm ENCO. In late 2020, it released a study prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy that looked favorably at the possible future role of nuclear in the Netherlands.

“The main factors for its choice were reliability and security of supply, with no CO2 emission,” it read. ENCO was founded by experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it regularly works with stakeholders in the nuclear sector, so it’s not entirely free of vested interests.

At COP26, environmental initiative Scientists for Future (S4F) presented a paper on nuclear energy and the climate. The group came to a very different conclusion. “Taking into account the current overall energy system, nuclear energy is by no means CO2 neutral,” they said.

Ben Wealer of the Technical University of Berlin, one of the report’s authors, told DW that proponents of nuclear energy “fail to take into account many factors,” including those sources of emissions outlined above. All the studies reviewed by DW said the same thing: Nuclear power is not emissions-free.

How much CO2 does nuclear power produce?

Results vary significantly, depending on whether we only consider the process of electricity generation, or take into account the entire life cycle of a nuclear power plant. A report released in 2014 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, estimated a range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

It’s long been assumed that nuclear plants generate an average of 66 grams of CO2/kWh — though Wealer believes the actual figure is much higher. New power plants, for example, generate more CO2 during construction than those built in previous decades, due to stricter safety regulations.

Studies that include the entire life cycle of nuclear power plants, from uranium extraction to nuclear waste storage, are rare, with some researchers pointing out that data is still lacking. In one life cycle study, the Netherlands-based World Information Service on Energy (WISE) calculated that nuclear plants produce 117 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. It should be noted, however, that WISE is an anti-nuclear group, so is not entirely unbiased.

However, other studies have come up with similar results when considering entire life cycles. Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere / Energy Program at California’s Stanford University, calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables.

How climate-friendly is nuclear compared to other energies?

If the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant is included in the calculation, nuclear energy certainly comes out ahead of fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. But the picture is drastically different when compared with renewable energy.

According to new but still unpublished data from the state-run German Environment Agency (UBA) as well as the WISE figures, nuclear power releases 3.5 times more CO2 per kilowatt-hour than photovoltaic solar panel systems. Compared with onshore wind power, that figure jumps to 13 times more CO2. When up against electricity from hydropower installations, nuclear generates 29 times more carbon.

Could we rely on nuclear energy to help stop global warming?

Around the world, nuclear energy representatives, as well as some politicians, have called for the expansion of atomic power. In Germany, for example, the right-wing populist AfD party has backed nuclear power plants, calling them “modern and clean.” The AfD has called for a return to the energy source, which Germany has pledged to phase out completely by the end of 2022.

Other countries have also supported plans to build new nuclear plants, arguing that the energy sector will be even more damaging for the climate without it. But Wealer from Berlin’s Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

“The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically,” he said. “In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available.”

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

“Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build,” he said. “When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant.”

He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. “And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won’t be able to make a significant contribution,” added Schneider.

“Nuclear power is not being considered at the current time as one of the key global solutions to climate change,” said Antony Froggatt, deputy director of the environment and society program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House in London.

He said a combination of excessive costs, environmental consequences and lack of public support were all arguments against nuclear power.

Nuclear funding could go toward renewables

Due to the high costs associated with nuclear energy, it also blocks important financial resources that could instead be used to develop renewable energy, said Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear expert and activist with environment NGO Greenpeace in the Netherlands. Those renewables would provide more energy that is both faster and cheaper than nuclear, he said.

“Every dollar invested in nuclear energy is therefore a dollar diverted from true urgent climate action. In that sense, nuclear power is not climate-friendly,” he said.

In addition, nuclear energy itself has been affected by climate change. During the world’s increasingly hot summers, several nuclear power plants have already had to be temporarily shut down or taken off the grid. Power plants depend on nearby water sources to cool their reactors, and with many rivers drying up, those sources of water are no longer guaranteed.

The much vaunted “renaissance of nuclear power” is anything but when all the facts are taken into consideration, Mycle Schneider told DW. He said the nuclear industry has been shrinking for years.

“In the last 20 years, 95 nuclear power plants have gone online and 98 have been shut down. If you take China out of the equation, the number of nuclear power plants has shrunk by 50 reactors in the last two decades,” Schneider added. “The nuclear industry is not thriving.”

Written by Joscha Weber

Source: Indian Express, 1/12/21

With India’s demographic transition, come challenges

 

Sonalde Desai, Debasis Barik write: The demographic dividend is smaller, but will last longer due to regional variation in the onset of fertility decline. As southern states struggle with the growing burden of supporting the elderly, northern states will supply the workforce needed for growth.

Success brings its challenges. The first challenge is accepting the win, the second is to learn to live with it. Recent results from National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5) suggest that we are entering an era where we will have to tackle these challenges. NFHS-5 places the total fertility rate (TFR) at 2.0. With two parents having two children, we have reached a replacement level of fertility. Due to many young people, the population will continue to grow, but the replacement level fertility is a significant milestone in India’s demographic history. This decline is spread evenly across the country, with 29 states and UTs having a TFR of 1.9 or less, with seven below 1.6. All southern states have a TFR of 1.7-1.8, similar to that of Sweden. Even states that have not reached replacement fertility — Bihar and Uttar Pradesh — seem to be headed in that direction. Between 2015-16 and 2019-20, UP’s TFR has declined from 2.7 to 2.4, while Bihar’s TFR has declined from 3.4 to 3.0. Part of the original coterie of lagging states, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan both have achieved TFRs of 2.0.

This success, however, brings its challenge. As fertility declines, the proportion of the older population grows, and societies face the challenge of supporting an ageing population with a shrinking workforce. This challenge is greater for leaders at the beginning of the demographic transition — Kerala and Tamil Nadu. According to the National Statistical Office, while the proportion of population greater than age 60 was 8.6 per cent for India as a whole in 2011, it was 12.6 per cent for Kerala and 10.4 per cent for Tamil Nadu, projected to increase further to 20.9 per cent and 18.2 per cent respectively by 2031. Interestingly, these are also among the more prosperous states in India, whose economic activities increasingly rely on migrant labour from other states. With a paucity of data on migration, it is not easy to estimate the dependence on migrant workers, but the Covid crisis and mass return migration of interstate workers suggest that many industries such as auto parts manufacturing and construction in southern states rely on semi-skilled migrants, often transported under contractual arrangements, from northern and eastern states, particularly Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Odisha.

With ageing states increasingly relying on a workforce from relatively younger states to maintain their economic prosperity, it may be time for us to change our mindset about critical dimensions of India’s federalism. Concern with population growth and a desire to not reward non-performing states have shaped inter-state relations in India over the past decades, shaping the allocation of political power and central resources devolved to states.

While the Indian constitution mandates allocation of Lok Sabha seats across states in proportion to their population via the Delimitation Commission, the Emergency-era 42nd amendment froze seat allocation to the population share of states in the 1971 Census. This freeze, originally expected to end in 2001, was further extended until after the 2031 Census by the 84th amendment. This has led to a much greater population per constituency in northern states than in southern states. In 2011, Uttar Pradesh had an average of 25 lakh persons per constituency, while Tamil Nadu had 18.5 lakh.

The division of central allocation to states is another area where population concerns have dominated equity considerations. Much of the Centre-state revenue sharing occurs through recommendations of various Finance Commissions. The sixth to fourteenth Finance Commissions allocated resources between states using the 1971 population shares of various states. The Fifteenth Finance commission used Census data from 2011, but it also added the criteria of demographic performance, rewarding states with lower TFR.

In view of sustained fertility decline in all states and the overall attainment of replacement level fertility nationally, should a focus on demographic performance continue to trump principles of equity? The answer depends on our view of India’s demographic future. Does India want to pursue China’s route of sharply lower fertility, with a large number of families stopping at one child, or are we content with moderately below replacement fertility of about 1.7-1.8? If the latter, we are well-positioned to head in this direction. Little needs to be done beyond improving the quality of family planning services for couples already desirous of small families.

In our opinion, trying to aim for a very low fertility of TFR below 1.5 will be a mistake. As China’s experience shows, while very low fertility provides a temporary demographic dividend with a reduced number of dependents to workers, the increased burden of caring for the elderly may become overwhelming over the long term. India is fortunate that its demographic dividend may be smaller, but is likely to last for a more extended period due to regional variation in the onset of the fertility decline. As southern states struggle with the growing burden of supporting the elderly, northern states will supply the workforce needed for economic growth. The increasing pace of migration may help shore up economic expansion in the south with its shrinking workforce augmented by workers from other states.

If we choose to follow this path of moderate fertility decline coupled with inter-state sharing of demographic dividend, there is little justification for continuing to punish states that entered the demographic transition later. The Sixteenth Finance Commission and the next Delimitation Commission must be freed from the burden of managing the demographic transition, focused on carrying out their tasks in the best interests of Indian federalism.

Written by Sonalde Desai , Debasis Barik 

Source: Indian Express, 1/12/21