By Nimisha Jain:
The system of revaluation and rechecking forms a vital part of an institute’s examination procedure. Its implementation and proper conduction demands not just special attention but advancements which make it much more student-friendly. But it appears that Delhi University’s Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Dinesh Singh, has a mismatch of opinion with this general notion. Because that could be the only reason why the university’s revaluation system is so inappropriate in terms of becoming an aiding tool for the students during the times of unexpected poor results. The troubles of higher pricing for applying and delay in the results were already the disappointing factors of the system. Adding to the glory of this is the notion of scrapping the system of revaluation as a whole in the coming academic sessions.
As per the university’s criterion, submission of an application for revaluation entails a student to pay a fee of Rs. 1000 per paper and the same for rechecking is Rs. 750 per paper. These inflated fee figures encourage the discouragement among students to ask for any sort of reconsideration in the valuation of their examination papers. The higher fee infers a higher risk, and higher risk infers lower participation in the advantage-taking of the very system. The trend of deterrence among students worsens when they consider asking more than one paper for reconsideration. Most of the time, a student experiences bad fate in more than one subject and so is willing to file an application for revaluation of multiple subjects. To a dismay the higher costs, and so the greater risks, deter him/her from doing so and thus land him into a predicament of choosing just one subject (the one with a higher scope of improvement) to experience the opportunity of reviewing. In this manner, the system instead of turning out as a helping hand proves to be a disappointment source.
Apart from the bloated fee structure, what augments to the dismay is the poor functioning of the system. The applications are supposed to be answered with reconsidered marks after fifteen days of their receipt. This is what the university states. But the laid down rules often get conflicted by the practicality. Students have to wait for almost half a semester to become certain about the previous semester’s results. This postponement exacerbates the situation for those who have to re-appear for the examination as the delay in confirmation of score confines their world to the area of dilemma. They remain unconfirmed as to whether they have passed or not and thus are compelled to divide time and attention to both the semesters, even if they are pretty sure about having passed the previous one. Thus, the system proves to be much time-consuming and therefore, inefficient. It’s due to this that many students consider this facility as unserviceable in a real sense and often accept the unsatisfactory scores without attempting for any further improvement.
With the prevalence of the poor system of revaluation and rechecking, on one hand teachers and students are demanding transparency and efficiency and on the other the university’s Vice Chancellor, Mr. Dinesh Singh, is considering to get away with the system. He mentioned that it’s pretty time-consuming as well as costly to review large number of answer sheets and therefore does no good. Also, to combat the possibilities of all sorts of errors while evaluation of examination papers; he came up with other suggestions. He emphasized on evaluation of a single answer sheet by 3-4 teachers, believing that this would not only ensure precision in checking but also provide uniformity in marking. In that sense any chance of improper evaluation could be avoided and no burden of time and money wastage would have to be dealt with.
However, the system of revaluation and rechecking is unique in nature and it appears that no such substitute, as what suggested by Mr. Dinesh Singh, can supplant it. The new method of evaluation can definitely enhance accuracy, but this in no way can replicate the advantage of the system. Revaluation provides not only an opportunity for a student to better his/her marks, but a prospect to convince his/her conscience of how he/she has performed (bad or good). It provides the student a chance to break the fences of uncertainty and dilemma and reassess the valuation of his/her performance and the related expectations. In this manner, the facility of revaluation means a lot more than merely a source of improving the result.
Also, to the new system of evaluation, the university’s teachers have expressed their denial. They feel that it would be very time consuming and in some ways inefficient if 3-4 teachers are indulged in the correction of a single paper. A greater burden would have to be born in terms of money and labour, without proving a cure to the students’ expectations of higher marks.
The solution to any problem is considered effective, only if it addresses all the aspects of the problem. In the same way, the system of revaluation and rechecking could be made what it deserves, that’s more student friendly, by working on the aspects such of greater transparency, punctuality and accessibility in terms of its costs. Doing away with it would in no way contribute to the solution but in fact would be considered as leaving the problem unattended.