Opinion St Stephen’s must not insist on admissions interviews

Valson Thampu writes: The introduction of the Common University Entrance Test has rendered irrelevant the old rationale for interviews

Interviews are notoriously vulnerable to subjective considerations, besides being weighed in favour of candidates from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds.

Valson Thampu

April 22, 2022 09:18 AM IST First published on: Apr 22, 2022 at 04:01 AM IST

The path of confrontation that St Stephen’s College has adopted towards Delhi University in respect to conducting undergraduate admissions is avoidable. It betrays an unthinking adherence to antiquated privileges.

It is well-known that St Stephen’s attaches much value to interviews as a partial tool for selecting candidates. The main rationale for this, till recently, was that candidates seeking admission to it came from different boards that varied widely, even wildly, in standards. Marks awarded by them did not reflect merit reliably. With the introduction of the common university entrance test (CUET), this concern has become irrelevant.

Express Opinion | With CUET will come more pressure, not less

Interviews are notoriously vulnerable to subjective considerations, besides being weighed in favour of candidates from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. It is unnecessary here to enumerate the diverse ways in which this admission tool can be abused. Across the nine batches of admissions I conducted as the principal of the college, I had to be particularly alert to these patterns and possibilities. Convinced in the end that I could not be alert and all-seeing enough to avert abuses, I reduced the weightage of interviews from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. The college has been the gainer in the process.

It will be particularly unfortunate if the college insists on the right to conduct interviews on the basis of minority rights. The scope of Article 30(1), as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited to the right to fill 50 per cent of the seats with candidates, based on inter se merit, from the minority community concerned. It is true, of course, that the apex court allowed St Stephen’s in 1991 to have its own admission procedure. In doing so, it took into account the national catchment of the college — a consideration that has become infructuous with the introduction of CUET. The maximum extent to which the scope of minority rights can be stretched in the present context is to base the selection of Christian candidates on the basis also of interviews. I doubt if that will make any beneficial difference to the academic stature of the college.

St Stephen’s must have due regard for the fact that a climate of disapproval is intensifying against minority rights nationally. For good reasons too. These rights are widely misused. The managements of Christian institutions, barring rare exceptions, view them as milch cows. The more prestigious an institution, the more readily it lends itself to covetousness and corruption. My ordeal as the 12th principal of the college started in 2008 with the CNI bishop in Delhi, the ex-officio chairman of the governing body of the college, demanding 20 per cent of the seats be “allocated” to him. When I resisted, he became indignant. I had to fight a prolonged and bitter battle for preserving my freedom to serve the college with integrity.

I was keen to have an objective idea of the extent to which interviews can be used to tilt the balance in favour of the candidates favoured, and against those who, consequently, are excluded. I asked Poonam Kalra of the economics department to conduct a statistical study. The findings were astounding. When candidates who scored, say, 97 per cent or above in the Class XII examinations are interviewed, the award of just one extra mark in interviews — often half a mark will do — is enough to push up a comparatively undeserving candidate to the detriment of a more meritorious one. Then imagine the devastation that 15 per cent weightage for interviews can mean.

In case St Stephen’s is allowed to retain interviews in the selection process, the following conditions should be prescribed. One, the weightage for interviews should not exceed 5 per cent. Two, the ratio of seats to candidates called for interviews should not exceed 1:3 for humanities courses and 1:6 for science courses. Three, the interviews should be videographed and rejected candidates should have access to the same, should they wish to. This could ensure, to an extent, that favoured candidates are not treated with kid gloves. Four, interviews should apply strictly to the admission of the minority candidates.

Once the college accepts CUET as the merit basis for admissions, it is wrong to insist on interviews.

The only consideration at work here is that of privilege. It is inappropriate to regard minority rights in the light of privilege. Every privilege corrupts. Corruption alienates. Exercising minority educational rights with exemplary transparency and unimpeachable integrity should be deemed the bottom-line duty of minority educational institutions, including St Stephen’s. Seen in that light, CUET is a blessing in disguise. It should not be diluted in any way.

This column first appeared in the print edition on April 22, 2022 under the title ‘Don’t dilute CUET’. The writer was principal of St Stephen’s College, Delhi