Unmukt Chand: the concessions that India grants its success stories

Unmukt Chand, image courtesy: ibtimes.co.in

A few months ago, the Unmukt Chand story played out in the national media. The gist of the story is that Unmukt led the Indian U-19 cricket team to victory, but due to poor attendance (less than 33% required for sports quota at Delhi University colleges) was prevented from attending the university's exams for progression to next year. Eventually, media debates, celebrity pressure, and the government pressurized the university to make an exception for this new hero.

I find several things troubling with this episode.

1. A university, the specific college concerned, and the student's particular professors must be allowed to decide whether a student complies with the laid down policies. In this case, the sports quota attendance requirement of the university appears to have been 33%, which the student didn't meet. Let's not forget that the college itself is normally allowed to set a higher bar on university requirements, and further the professor for any particular course/paper can set an even higher bar. All this depends on the program the student is taking, etc. An outsider is not going to be able to adjudicate matters of violations of these policies, nor should they. The media forgot all about his, but instead created an image for the university and the college of being cruel to the heroic student.
2. What if the Indian team had not won, but lost badly in the world cup. Would the same exception (and pressures leading up to it) have been applied? In a matter such as this, the outcome of the student's participation itself should have no bearing on the policy. I'm sure there are so many other students who represent their colleges, states, or countries, in sports that aren't as glamorized as cricket. 
3. The government's response was most pathetic. See this report in CNN-IBN, quoting union minister of education Kapil Sibal. The exact quote was:

"...there should be a provision under university regulations where such emergency powers can be used in special cases in national interest."

This, I find most troubling. Again, something that the government itself should have no business interfering in. The academic policies of any college of university should be its own. Taking a straightjacketed approach of setting one-size-fits all policies across a state or country is exactly what has led to mediocrity being the standard. And Kapil Sibal has be useless in reversing or arresting this approach.

What, pray, is the "national interest" here, I ask, Mr. Sibal? Would you have played savior for a student that was not as successful? What do you see as a possible policy of the education ministry regarding these "special cases"?
I see this as being roughly "If there is potential for good PR for the government, go ahead and break the college's established rules."

Lastly, about the college and university policies in effect..
Now, beyond the 33% attendance rule for sports quota students (which by the way appears very reasonable), I don't know much about the way Delhi University or St. Stephen's College deals with these kinds of situations. It seems like more proactive mentoring of students, especially ones that are expected to be absent from lectures for the most part of the semester, is in order.

At least in the US, universities have a more continual assessment approach that does not necessarily put an entire academic year on the line for a student because of attendance across-the-board. Here are suggestions (these being already tried and tested in the developed world, not revolutionary) for our colleges to follow:

1. Allow students to meet each particular course/paper's requirements set by the professor of that course, including attendance. At the discretion of the professor, the student may be allowed to do, say, a term paper, instead of writing the exam, for which the professor can set a high standard.
2. Get rid of the year-by-year approach. If a student does not meet the requirements for a particular course/paper, allow him to take the course again next year. Why stop a student, summarily, from adjusting his course load according to his other activities? This, by the way, can give a student the ability to graduate ahead of time or a semester later, which should not have a "graduated to 2nd year" implication, just overall progression towards the required credit hours required for the program the student is in.

I understand that giving too much freedom to professors in India (where we have a lot of substandard professors) isn't a great idea, and we have a good reason for having standardized subjective exams at the university level. Still, a phased approach of qualifying colleges based on integrity levels and audits, should be used to move to a more flexible college education model. This is the kind of policy decision Mr. Sibal's ministry should be making..

I hope Unmukt Chand or his supporters don't get peeved by this article. Nothing against his accomplishment, but he sure has received special treatment.