JNU professor tells us why he loathes the practice of ranking universities
According to the National Institution Ranking Framework (NIRF) rankings for 2018, JNU is one of the top universities in the country. But I loathe the very idea of ranking universities. Yes, I am aware of the fact that in this age of social Darwinism and hyper-competitiveness, everything is measured, graded and hierarchised.
I also know that the market-induced neo-liberal era loves "brand consciousness", and even saints, politicians and intellectuals are reduced to the rationale of attractive packaging. We often see the list of "100 most powerful men" or "Top 10 intellectuals of the country". Hence, my pragmatic friends would always interrogate me. They would ask: "What is harm in ranking colleges and universities?"
My reasons for opposing the practice of ranking universities are both philosophic as well as academic. To begin with, I have no hesitation in saying that the rationale of ranking degrades and insults the uniqueness and soul of an individual or an institution. Can you say: Who is superior - Tagore or Einstein?
Can you say that a farmer producing foodgrain that you and I consume is inferior to the prime minister? When we think deeply, we realise that everyone is unique; and the society ought to exist with these symmetrical differences - a poet’s intuition, a scientist’s experiments, a farmer’s hard labour and a prime minister’s statesmanship.
Hierarchy as a state of consciousness is so deeply internalised that we begin to compare and rank. Likewise, every institution is unique. That is the way it should be. When Tagore visualised Santiniketan, IIT or IIM was not in his mind. A modern "tapovan" with art, aesthetics, literature, philosophy was his idea.
However, we love homogenisation and reckless standardisation. We seem to be specialised in destroying the uniqueness of a university. Hence, introduce geology and bio-technology at Santiniketan, and make it like any other university. Introduce engineering and management in JNU, and make it like another IIT. We should oppose this. Let each college/university be allowed to excel in its own way, retain its "swadharma", and function without a sense of "superiority" or "inferiority".
The culture of ranking destroys self-confidence and the possibility of organic growth of a university. Instead, it encourages dishonesty and self-promotion through manufactured data. The ability to work in silence is discouraged. What is emphasised is absolute rush for all sorts of collaborations, projects, research grants and publications. One really doubts whether these "achievements" really contribute meaningfully to the cultivation of meaningful knowledge and the making of a good society.
Why is it that, despite the presence of all "top" universities, the United States of America remains one of the most violent countries in the world? Is it a stupid interrogation? Or is it that in this "stupidity" lies sanity?
Herein lies my second argument. Take an example. I teach at JNU, and many students from the margins of Indian society come here. What should be my primary task? I need to engage with them through sustained interaction and meaningful teaching. I need to take them to a new world of ideas and life-possibilities.
In the process, I may help them to transform their lives. Someone joins a college in Jharkhand; someone becomes a civil servant in Madhya Pradesh; someone starts a voluntary organisation; and they whisper in your ears: "JNU is the best thing that has happened in their lives". Can this contribution of a university be measured?
Can this contribution of a teacher be thrown into dustbin because it cannot be measured? You can measure the teacher-taught ratio. You can measure the number of papers and publications, awards and prizes, departments and project grants, but you cannot measure the soul: the way in our own ways (a Harvard professor may not face the similar challenge) we ought to work to cope with the specific/historic challenges that Indian society has posed before us.
Our challenges, our primary responsibilities are different. Not everything - from Harvard to BHU, from Cambridge to IIC - can be compared through the same scale. This is academically and philosophically erroneous. In fact, there is no "universal" scale at all.
I am not saying that one can remain insulated. Nor am I saying that universities should not learn from one another. Yes, we all ought to grow, learn, evolve and improve.
However, this mutual learning is different from comparison, imitation and resultant ranking. True, many of our universities have become merely factories for distributing degrees and diplomas. True, with demotivated students, teachers, old-fashioned curriculum and vice-chancellors as political appointees, many institutions have decayed.
It is important to rethink the way we see higher education, the vocation of teaching and the pursuit of studentship. And this work has to be accomplished through our distinctively specific academic/historic experiences.
For how long would the Indian middle class imitate Oxford and Princeton? Why is it that we refuse to regain self-confidence, create our own institutions with distinctiveness and historical/civilisational flavour?
If in the name of ranking we keep imitating the standards defined by others, we would never be able to stand on our own feet.