Deconstructing Merit: Dalit Presence in Higher Education

Merit as Just Deserts

This section deals with understanding merit as a system that metes out rewards to an individual in the form of justifying their entry into higher education. The basic premise being that the entry must be deserved or earned by individuals and that it is a reward that has been bestowed on the individual after they have been deemed worthy enough to get into a higher education institution. This is a rather common interpretation of the word but at the same time very problematic since it questions the idea of who deserves an education in the first place.

In the primary data, the insights on this particular aspect of merit was collected by asking three broad questions which would form the overarching framework of understanding the participants’ attitudes towards Dalit presence in higher education. These questions were asked in a more general and open-ended way so that the respondents could answer from a place of objectivity and detachment as against the emotional involvement that is often encountered during a discussion on reservation.

The first question was to ask their opinions about the ideal student that deserves to be in higher education. Such a question would elicit the primary characteristics of an individual who according to the respondents deserve an entry into higher education. To put it simply, this question highlights the traits that deserve to be rewarded with an entry in academia. The second question was to understand if there should be any checks and gateways in order to make sure that only this ‘ideal subject’ should get access to higher education. And finally, the participants’ thoughts were sought on the irregularities and inconsistencies that are often found in these systems that preferably must allow only the deserving students but in reality, also allows other students that might not strictly fit this category. Such an approach clarified their stance on the difference between a deserving and non-deserving student.

It was observed during most sessions that the participants would often start by saying that higher education should be open for everyone and anyone who has an interest and wishes to pursue it must be allowed. However, as the sessions progressed and several admission policies and their problems were discussed, the respondents consistently modified their original stance and narrowed down the criteria of entry. Multiple ideas were put forward and discussed, ranging from everyone should be allowed to only those who are interested, from education only for those who have some level of competency to those who are willing to learn despite their current lack of knowledge. In such a scenario it can be understood that despite the claims of free and unrestrained entry into higher education, the respondents have an internal check to determine the ideal student at a university.

What this means is that there might be a dissonance when people already have an understanding of who deserves to be in higher education and the actual population that they see around them daily. This dissonance comes out as hostility and negativity aimed at those who do not fit into that image of a deserving recipient of higher education. This can explain the numerous accounts of non-Dalits denying Dalits as deserving students worthy of being their equal counterparts in getting an education.

There were several instances where the non-Dalit participants explicitly mentioned that most Dalit students are incompetent on any given standard whether it is academic or extra-curricular performance and as such are not the ideal student population as envisaged by most non-Dalit teachers and students alike. In almost all the cases, a subtle correlation was implied between low academic performance, inability to handle academic rigours and the caste of such students. The problem though is that not only the students but also several faculty members hold such views. As such the students then learn and absorb the views that these faculty members inherently hold and since they hold an authoritative power over students, these views are not only normalized and accepted but are also used in order to constantly undermine the presence of any individual that does not fit the idea of an ideal deserving student. Such a process obviously results in the creation of a hostile space for Dalits and most of the students have reportedly addressed these concerns with Dalit faculty members in order to cope up with such a stressful scenario.

Graded Hierarchy

Assessments are an inherent part of education since it is one of the most important ways to gauge a student’s potential and knowledge retention. The nature of these assessments obviously differs based on the function they serve and the reason they are designed for. To elaborate, entrance examinations are designed to merely check a candidate’s suitability, competency and readiness for a particular course. Such an exam need only check a preliminary knowledge and basic skill set, that is, the minimal amount of familiarity with a subject required to enter a specific field. In contrast, regular university examinations and other assessment methods such as practical and viva voce exams are designed specifically to test an individual’s thorough knowledge of a subject.

Assessments themselves are not the problem, in fact, most students during the data collection stated that examinations are justified as long as they are executed in a just and fair manner. They are also considered to be an efficient method to measure an individual’s progress throughout their course. The participants discussed in detail the numerous complications that considerably reduce their impact. The question of transparency was raised repeatedly since the students get no clarity whatsoever about their university examination results. The marking system is considered unfair by some students. One of them believes that most universities (including their own) places more emphasis on rote learning and encourages theory over practical application. Some respondents said that the university marking system leaves no scope for creativity since the teachers expect answers in a certain way that reflect traditional modes of thinking. According to yet another contributor, ‘a student is more likely to get good result if they fill multiple sheets rather than write innovative and concise answers’.

Both the students and faculty alike seem to have lost faith in current evaluation practices because of widespread episodes of corruption and mismanagement. Events such as paper leaks, mass cheating and other dishonest ways of clearing entrance and other examinations have been a major point of concern. The faulty execution and the fact that such mechanisms are riddled with multiple loopholes have not been lost on students either.

Students would much rather prefer examinations where their knowledge and capabilities are tested in a more creative and accessible manner. One of the faculty members pointed out that in order to counter the advantages of expensive schooling, inclusive entrance examinations must focus on local language and knowledge. Students also forwarded suggestions of making use of aptitude tests and subject expertise instead of using general questions as is the norm in current standardized Indian entrances.

Practices such as a graded hierarchy which are currently used in the evaluation of any kind of assessment seem rather unnecessary and only contribute to added performance anxiety for students. The pressure on the admission systems is immense since they have to maintain a delicate balance between the ever increasing population that wishes to enter higher education and the limited infrastructure which can accommodate only a miniscule number of students. The crucial point to understand is that the assessment practices that are in place are flawed and made even more unjust by the addition of a graded hierarchy. This hierarchy not only reduces an individual to a number or a rank but also places them over each other, wherein the individuals that come on top are rewarded and attributed with all the virtues and qualities and the ones that are below are not considered worthy of getting an education. What it does in reality is that it acts as convenient secular and democratic garb in the name of equal opportunity but it rarely materializes in reality.

The concept of ranking students based on their performance in an examination is increasingly becoming obsolete and outdated since there are better mechanisms in place such as the cumulative grade point average system, which even though ranks individuals in a hierarchy but is not as competitive as other traditional methods such as percentage-based system. This is easier and motivating for students because the ranking is not as rigid and as minutely calculated as it is currently, that is, on a decimal point-based system.

The above discussion somewhat elaborates on the dire situation of assessment practices that are largely used in Indian universities. The stakeholders’ awareness of the fact that such mechanisms are faulty and grossly inefficient make understanding and attributing merit based on such parameters deeply problematic and unfair. What does this entail for Dalits whose academic performance and potential is critiqued based on these flawed systems?

A number of respondents, however, believe that merit can and should have broader connotations. Some of the most recurring ideas that emerged constantly during the primary data collection were that of knowledge, competency and a measure of performance as some other interpretations of merit.

Marks

Most people believe that merit simply translates into marks. Marks for the participants specifically meant cut-off marks (generally discussed in the context of entrance exams) and the percentage result that students get after clearing high school. The university where the study was conducted uses both school results and entrance exam marks for admission to its various courses. Since the respondents are well acquainted with both kinds of marking systems, they had detailed opinions on the same. This section deals specifically with the school result, that is, the percentage-based marking system since this method is the most prevalent one in the concerned university.

Percentage system generally takes into consideration a cumulative score of different subjects taken by the students in her school examinations and the universities are free to set cut-offs at any percentage at their discretion. This autonomy in setting up their own criteria for admissions has led to an elitism in the university space. Entry in the more sought after colleges and courses are checked by keeping much higher percentage cut-offs than for other colleges. The problem of different standards for entry into various colleges and courses within the same university needs to be considered on a priority basis since it is in this context that the reservation debate is always centred.

This metonymic understanding of merit however has led to a rather problematic perception of a ‘deserving’ university student. If marks are to be the sole criteria of determining who would be a better candidate for university education then it immediately marginalizes students with low marks. Such students are considered incompetent and unqualified for pursuing higher education, which principally means expanding one’s incomplete knowledge. As one of the respondents in the interview said, ‘students should be segregated into different institutions based on their marks’. According to them, such a segregation is fair since pooling those who score higher marks and placing them in an elite institution will result in more innovative and creative solutions. These respondents also believe that resource allocation biased in favour of such ‘better’ talent and premier institutions would be completely justified on account of such students being able to reap maximum benefits. However, this idea does not take into consideration that potential, growth and development are independent of marks. Also, it is highly questionable as to how the productivity, efficiency and performance of individuals with higher scores can get affected negatively by studying alongside individuals with lower marks.

Another problem with the percentage-based marking system is the issue of inflated marks. The students as well as the faculty members interviewed cited it as a major detriment to the quality of higher education. Schools and universities mostly inflate marks in order to achieve the desired success rates regarding different policies adopted by them. When the stakeholders are aware that school results might not be such a reliable indicator of an individual’s potential and performance then the question must be raised about its suitability of being a criterion for admission in higher education institutions.

This rather reductionist understanding of the complicated concept of merit becomes the root of hostility and negative attitudes towards Dalits since most of them enter higher education despite attaining lower marks. The stereotypes of lower academic merit and intellectual competence of Dalits partly stem from their past academic performance in school and the fact that they get more opportunities since through reservations. A certain number of seats are blocked for students from reserved categories while the unreserved seats are open to all communities for competition, thereby diminishing the chances for non-Dalit students comparatively.

Cut-Offs

The obsession with cut-off marks can be understood as a need to maintain an objective standard as it appeals to the rationality and objectivity of the individual. They are also preferred over other exhaustive subjective tests because of their predictability. As one respondent narrated that even though cut-offs are highly problematic, they are efficient for the institutions using them as well as can prove to be a better indicator of successful admissions as a student can ascertain their chances by looking at the past cut-offs. This kind of predictability is impossible in subjective assessments. In fact, they are highly unpredictable as the panel cannot give out a universal criterion for selection and every case is considered unique. The idea that cut-offs are somehow more transparent is probably one of the most important reasons that they are so widely used in admission processes.

Cut-offs are not only predictable but they also give the illusion of rewarding only individual competence. To illustrate, a student who qualifies an exam is considered deserving of his/her rank because he/she worked hard for it. In contrast to the subjective assessments where no doubt individual effort and competence is tested it also requires the efforts of several other people directly in the form of recommendation letters, and so on. It is this idea of individual versus cumulative effort that makes the two forms of assessment starkly different. Perhaps it is this misplaced sense of individual efforts that translate into marks giving cut-off system its legitimacy and coin. This individual effort gets translated into a distorted idea of merit; one that takes into stock only the hyper visible individual efforts and not the indirect privileges and entitlements that one naturally possessed and used. Cut-offs narrow down the idea of competence when compared against other subjective assessments since they rely heavily on objective indicators.

The respondents also raised another issue with entrance exams which makes them an unreliable source of assessing an individual’s potential. According to them, there are a number of factors that can negatively affect the performance of a student on the day of the exam. They believed that a student’s knowledge and retention cannot be gauged by their performance on any appointed day. The fact that an individual’s entry into higher education is secured by such a high-stake examination will obviously result in stress and performance anxiety thereby considerably impairing their performance. In such a situation, can cut-offs be a dependable system for assessing an individual’s potential?

Cut-offs also differ from other kinds of admission criteria since they are based on a graded hierarchy. This graded hierarchy does not simply segregate students based on their marks into eligible and ineligible as was the original aim but also gives them a rank. This ranking system produces an elite class of students who score the highest rank within the list of students who have already qualified the exam. The purpose of entrance exams is to choose competent students but what it has translated into is a rigid form of hierarchy where the highest-ranking individuals are automatically considered the best talent worthy of the best institutions. The situation currently is even worse since the hierarchy is drawn and reached at through the decimal system. Generally, the difference between the marks of students is minimal but that does not reflect on the ranks. However, this only intensifies the competition.

Social Value

Since merit is closely related with the idea of excellence and exclusivity, some respondents associate merit directly with institutions. In other words, they are convinced of the elite status of an institution if the cut-off or other admission criteria is notoriously difficult for students. The harder it is to get into such institutions, the stronger their prestige and social value which directly gives not only an elite status both to the institute and its students but also the student population is homogenized and considered the most meritorious of the lot. This homogenization needs to be critiqued because individual qualities and success cannot be projected on an institution to such a large extent. Paradoxically Dalit presence in such elite institutions is heavily criticized since the larger presumption is that they cannot, in their own right, based on their academic merit and performance get entry into such institutions and that their presence must be the result of minority appeasement policies such as reservations.

This elite student population arrived at through entrance results is celebrated to an extent that most resources are allocated to selected institutions at the risk of depriving several other Tier 2 institutions. Such an approach will only lead to small dividends since the limited resources were spent in the service of a minority. This minority will later on have their pick of institutions and employment, therefore, it is not hard to see the reasons for non-Dalit hostility when Dalits get access to the same institutions despite their low academic performance. However, what actually needs to be questioned is this conception of ‘elitism’. In the name of rewarding merit are we not instilling a sense of entitlement in some students at the cost of the majority? More importantly our understanding of ‘merit’ and ‘desert’ is so rigid that once we confer them on students based on their performance in entrance exams, it is taken for granted and never seriously assessed or questioned again.

This elitism functions and manifests itself in a majority of ways as the researcher learned during the fieldwork. The students and faculty members not only have different understandings about the idea but also a completely different set of expectations and opinions when it comes to elite institutions. Most of the students interviewed said that they want to study in such elite colleges. History of institutions, notable alumni, faculty and infrastructure, placements and over-all social reputation and prestige were counted as important characteristics of an elite institution. However, the same batch of students were considerably vague as to how such external factors can predict success for its new batch of students.

An alarming insight that was frequently reiterated was the idea that Dalit presence in premier institutions is undeserved even if they prove to be industrious and hard-working in university or college exams. It is almost as if the over-all performance throughout the course is less important than how the student was first admitted to the course. In one of the focus group discussions, a respondent stated that ‘one of my friends got into ___ college through quota. S/he is intelligent but if you are so intelligent then why do you need to use your quota?’

There is also a rampant belief that such premier institutions are ‘lowering’ their standards in order for Dalits to access them. This belief is based on the assumption that multiple cut-off lists are prepared by these elite colleges for Dalits and other reserved categories while there is only one list for non-reserved seats. However, the fact is that such colleges do not take out as many lists as other Tier 2 colleges and even when they do lower the cut-off for Dalits, the difference is always marginal. This assumption then, is symptomatic of the non-Dalit dismissal of Dalit merit.

Another observation that was noticed was that wherever Dalit academic performance becomes too obvious to ignore, it is generally contained through the reservation versus merit debate. Most non-Dalit respondents are convinced that reservation is anti-merit, which is highly problematic since, first, there is no consensus on what merit actually means in all the sessions that were conducted, and second, the respondents believed that whatever merit may mean, it cannot be adjudicated to people once and for all. So, the fact that Dalits are labelled as unmeritorious even before they have a chance to actually prove their merit reeks of hypocrisy and hostility despite the claims of non-discrimination in modern university spaces.

To take the argument further, even if one were to label individuals prior to their admission, why is it that only Dalits have to constantly prove their merit and in the process continually mollify non-Dalits in order to be accepted (most non-Dalit students have Dalit friends who do not favour reservations precisely because they think that reservations are the root cause of hostility between Dalits and non-Dalits), while for non-Dalits the entitlement of being a meritorious student is automatically assumed. Dalits in academia then not only have to face the rigours of academic performance that is shared with other non-Dalit students but also the added pressure of constantly working against the negative stereotypes ascribed to them (Ghosh, 2006). As the researcher found out, it is easier for Dalits to socialize in a peer setting if they have similar views on reservation as their non-Dalit counterparts.

Resuming the discussion on the subject of elite institutions, the faculty interviewed in this study questions and problematizes the very idea of an elite institution. According to a respondent, the notion of different ratings for colleges within the same university is rather absurd since a university requires every college to follow a uniform standard in terms of its course content and eligibility criteria for students and teachers alike. Several other faculty members emphasized on the need of restructuring and developing institutions that function at subpar level due to severe lack of funds rather than the current trend of allocating all the resources for a selected number of institutions based on their result and performance.

The idea that the student population of these few elite institutions is comprised of meritorious candidates only also needs to be examined thoroughly. On what basis is this elite status attributed to the student? If it is ascribed only on the basis of their academic performance in entrance exams then is the merit claim truly valid for the entire course of their study? If such a claim were true or reliably predictable then what are the components of academic performance taken in consideration? If later academic performance is independent of the kind of institution a student belongs to, then why are institutions celebrated as elite or premier institutions? Is it then simply the case of misunderstanding exclusivity as better quality?

The faculty interviews revealed an interesting insight when a majority of them questioned the idea of elite institutions but wanted only ‘deserving’, ‘intelligent’, ‘interested’ and ‘hard-working’ or in short ‘better’ students in their classes. As one faculty member put it, ‘you don’t want students who will later on leave the course due to academic pressure’. On the one hand teachers are critical of the students’ preoccupation with elite, ‘better quality’ institutions but at the same time even some of the teachers would prefer quality students over quantity.

The social value of merit thus, is an important aspect to consider as values provide for stabilities and uniformities in group interaction. Shared values lead to a more cohesive society, so prioritizing similar values will instil a sense of belonging in a social group. When we prioritize and fetishize merit to a point of excluding other values such as diversity, equity and social justice then this is a warning sign for us as a society (Khaitan, 2008). What has gone wrong in our system is this division of students based on our limited understanding of merit. Merit becomes discriminatory in Indian higher education when it automatically assumes the binary of meritorious and non-meritorious students based on caste.

Subject Knowledge

In the previous section, assessment practices such as university and entrance exams were discussed and analysed. In the present one, alternate practices such as interviews and viva exams will be problematized. The reason for discussing them in separate sections (even though all kinds of assessments can eventually be evaluated on the basis of graded hierarchy and marks) is because after examining the general theory of evaluation practices, one can move forward with discussing alternate forms of assessments and their problems.

Some respondents were of the opinion that merit needs to be understood as subject-specific knowledge and intellectual potential that is needed in order to enrol and succeed in a given field. This interpretation has a wider scope than marks and social value since it takes into account a preliminary knowledge in the subject that a student wishes to pursue. Also, more emphasis on knowledge can make our marks-obsessed education system more accommodating for a larger section of students that currently lose out on the opportunity to pursue courses of their choice because they could not qualify the subject cut-off. One of the respondents mentioned that such an assessment can prove to be a better indicator of a candidate’s suitability to the programme since an individual’s preparation and knowledge is given more consideration than their social and economic status, caste, or other external factors.

Respondents also believe that it is imperative to check a candidate’s prior knowledge since a familiarity with the chosen subject will not only help ease the transition from a general interest in the subject to a thorough expertise but also because it can be a better indicator of individuals more likely to succeed in their respective courses. It sets a minimum intellectual background in order to get admitted to a particular course according to the respondents. This criterion seems fairer to some participants than the percentage grading system because it involves the idea of competency in specific knowledge and skills required to master a particular field. According to them, such a procedure will reduce the random selection (which is not only completely valid but also well-deserved according to the percentage-based system) of students who might be eligible because of their marks but not interested in that specific course, thus ensuring a more suitable student population for every course.

However, any discussion on tests that can assess an individual’s knowledge is mostly delving in vague generalities unless its practical execution and the detailed components of such an assessment are also discussed. The problem of assessing this knowledge becomes complicated when one looks at the currently available alternate forms of evaluations such as interviews, group discussions and viva examinations. The key component of most of the above-mentioned practices apart from knowledge are articulation skills and body language. One can immediately start to understand the numerous problems with such systems since communication, language and other non-verbal skills are acquired competencies (Khora, 2015). To further expand, in order to do well in any interview or group discussion merely possessing subject specific knowledge is not sufficient, one needs a plethora of skills that are more often than not cultivated through an individual’s secondary education. These systems then place candidates that come from underprivileged background at a greater disadvantage already. Under confidence in their own abilities and knowledge is a repercussion that is not hard to imagine for such students.

The problem with a conception of merit that places greater emphasis on knowledge is that it is blindsided by the components that are intrinsically linked with that knowledge. The expression and medium of that knowledge, if not greater, is at least as important. In a country where good quality school education is scarce and limited to the dominant privileged class, making English the medium and language of instruction in our universities essentially marginalizes a large section of the student population.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problems arising specifically out of interpreting merit taking subject knowledge as a criterion. Since language is an inherent part of expressing any kind of knowledge and English being inaccessible to the larger student population; a criterion that is heavily dependent on the expertise and fluency in a foreign language needs to be investigated further. However, steps have been taken in order to fill this lacuna by incorporating regional languages and knowledge systems into mainstream practices even if these efforts have not been sufficient.

One can state that such a problem is common with both Dalit and non-Dalit students and if anything, this should be reason enough to revise reservation policies on economic basis as it would benefit a larger section of students irrespective of their socioeconomic status. This line of thinking is not entirely wrong either. There are however two assertions to counter this statement.

First, a large number of people who are below poverty line actually belong to the reserved castes, so the argument of favouring caste while neglecting their financial status would only make a better case for reserved categories, since these are actually the most ‘financially deprived’ people that non-Dalits often defend (Socioeconomic and caste census 2011). Second, what is rather unfortunately left out of this thought process is the fact that social marginalization is as acute a problem as economic marginalization. The problem is that most students were unsure and sometimes convinced that social marginalization cannot exist independently of economic marginalization.

The most important problems with practices such as interviews and viva exams are individual biases and the importance of non-verbal skills. Articulation and non-verbal skills are acquired competencies and marginalizes students from underprivileged sections of the society. The interview panel despite their best efforts are at the risk of projecting their biases consciously or unconsciously and make decisions based on their internalized value systems and confirmation bias.

The above discussed multiple interpretations of merit get some part of the concept right based on what one chooses to prioritize. However, our current admission policies that work on these incomplete systems naturally fall short when investigated deeply. Once we limit our understanding of a concept, it becomes rigid to the point of not allowing any flexibility in its usage, thereby limiting its function. Merit as understood by people in academia, as can be deducted from the data collected is suffering from this imperfection.

To conclude, this article makes an attempt to challenge the traditional narrative of pinning the cause of Dalit underrepresentation in higher education on the community itself. Such an answer is not acceptable as the reasons based on which this argument rests is deeply problematic. Who decides that certain people are worthy/unworthy of getting education and on what basis? In answering these inescapable questions, the real intentions and will of the people can be uncovered and a path can be forged that actually leads to an inclusive space instead of a mere resolve.