The New NAAC SSR is replete with a large number of flaws and deficiencies. Some of the glaring ones are as under:
Comment:
SSR is significantly devoid of any scale that would help institutes know what numbers would qualify institutes score a given percentage marks. For example, in the above two cases, it is completely left to a guesswork. Hence, the key idea is to get as big a number and hope for the best that it suffices.
The above criteria have been handed down to affiliated colleges as well who have no control whatsoever in syllabus revision/introducing new courses, but can be severely penalized for the failure on the part of the affiliating university in revising the university syllabus of various programs.
Comment:
There are a number of criteria as above which guarantee 100% marks. It is almost given that in current times, any private university or autonomous institute will have all courses directed towards the above said enablement, leave one odd course, for example, perhaps values/ethics which do also to a degree, resonate on life-skills and employability. What is the fun of designing a criterion that lends itself scoring 100% marks by at least every private university and college?
Unfairly, the same criteria have been forced upon the affiliated colleges who have no control over designing the curriculum but can be penalized for the failings on the part of its affiliating government university.
Similarly, in yet another criterion requiring elective courses, nearly all programs in private universities/colleges, run elective courses (ngot sure of health programs), and here too, you end up scoring 100% marks.
Comment:
A university or college can't be penalized if none differently-abled student turns up for Admission. Institutes may advertise as a friendly campus for differently-abled/provide reservation, but surely can't go hunting for them, or wish young people to become differently-abled for institutes to score high on NAAC.
Comment:
Institutes in NCR Delhi might succeed in getting full marks as faculty from all over the country reside here for superior opportunities. But institutes of other States/cities where diverse population is meager, can't be penalized. It is against equity and fair play. Moreover, to attract faculty from other States to relocate to lesser preferred destinations simply to enhance diversity and not the intellectual wealth (which may be present inclusively within the State itself) is perhaps quite an impracticable expectation. If it was for eminent researchers, it could still be understood.
Comment:
Unfair to penalize institutes. Government policies are not within the control of an institute?
Comment:
We wonder how an institute can score optimum marks in two separate criterions mentioned above at the same time. For example, if 95% students studying for engineering or PGDM go for jobs and don't opt for higher education or the vice versa. The framing of criteria is therefore, flawed.
Comment:
How practical is to expect an institute to lead a focused sports activity of students to attain national and internal achievements only, unless it is a predominantly sports college/university with its vision leading to create national and international level players? Ideally, it should have been State level, at best.
Comment:
How unfair? The most important governance criterion gets just 2 marks.
Comment:
Other than professional programs under AICTE, some universities, such as University of Lucknow, allows its affiliated institutes running degree programs to add a program, only if the institute is NAAC accredited. Therefore, why should an institute, applying for the first time (Cycle-1) be evaluated on this criterion if the same doesn’t apply to it? If a Cycle-1 institute fills-in ‘NA’, it would lose all 10 marks.
Comment:
What happens to these 20 marks if an affiliating university has failed on its part to implement above deliverables? Why should an affiliated college be judged/evaluated on this criterion, once none of the above deliverable is in its hands? How will these marks be offset?
Comment:
The formula requires total number of ‘students admitted’ whereas DVV Data-element Sheet for Quantitative Matrix requires a conflicting data of ‘applications received’. NAAC should reconcile this immediately.
Comment:
What if none or only one/two differently-abled students apply for the admission in a particular institute? An institute in normal circumstances might happily welcome a differently-abled student or at best, market its credentials as 'friendly' institute, but perhaps can't be penalized if no differently-abled student turns up for Admission.
Comment:
Institutes in NCR Delhi might succeed in getting full marks as people from all over the country reside here for superior opportunities. But institutes of other States/cities where diverse population is meagre, can't be penalized. It is against equity and fair play. Moreover, to attract faculty from other States to relocate to lesser preferred destinations simple to enhance diversity and not the intellectual wealth (which may be present inclusively within the State itself) is perhaps quite an impracticable expectation even from the well-funded private institutes.
Comment:
It is unfair to evaluate institutes for the government scholarships. Government policies are not within the control of an institute.
Comment:
We wonder how an institute can score good marks in both. For example, if 95% students studying for engineering or PGDM go for jobs and don't opt for higher education or the vice versa. The framing of criteria is therefore, faulty.
Comment:
How correct or practical is to expect an institute to lead a focused sports activity of students to attain national and internal achievements only, unless it is a predominantly sports college with its vision leading to create national and international level players? Ideally, it should have been State level, at best.
Comment:
An institute applying for the first time for NAAC (Cycle-1) could well have a quality assurance body by any name that steers its quality and necessarily NOT, the IQAC which is supposed to be formed after the NAAC Cycle-1 for monitoring, the rest of 4 cycles. IQAC is well defined by NAAC itself. If that be so, why an institute be penalized for input being sought specifically on IQAC? The question should have included the presence of any other quality body of the institute in the event of institute applying for the first time.
Comment:
How unfair? The most important governance criterion gets just 2 marks. There are half dozen questions on ethics which carry just one mark.