Is a GDP expenditure of less than 4% enough for the growth and development of the research sector in India? This is a major question. However, I think another critical question is whether the funds allocated for research are being utilized properly. Is there any major corruption or favoritism occurring in top institutions? Are these institutions utilizing funds for research growth, or for personal benefit?

There are many questions to consider when evaluating research growth and development for the benefit of the Indian population. As an individual who has failed many times to secure a proper position, I have observed certain shortcomings. The following are some excuses and instances where institutions have failed in their attempts to deliver on their objectives.

It starts with excuses. Government institutions are already satisfied with the existing eligibility criteria for PhD positions in Indian institutions. To be eligible, you must have a Master’s degree in a relevant subject with a minimum of 55%, along with a UGC NET qualification, or a CSIR NET qualification for those with a science background.

However, the reality is that you will likely never be enrolled as an Assistant Professor without either personal influence or a PhD combined with experience. Even research projects are often reserved for specific students favored by the Principal Investigator. While this may sound like an excuse, it makes me wonder: how can academic performance be the only vital measure of intelligence or aptitude?

India has more than 58 central universities and over 400 state universities that offer psychology-based courses. Consequently, many students suffer from stress and a lack of opportunities after completion. I believe psychology can influence every field of science as well as industry. It prioritizes human-based values and cultural norms, and it is essential for fostering an effective, healthy environment.

Now, most research positions require proficiency in programming languages in their advertisements. However, do any institutions provide proper training to their students? If they do, why doesn’t everyone enroll in these workshops or training sessions to learn new research skills?

The answer lies in a lack of curiosity, and even when curiosity prevails, there is a severe suppression of questioning. Think for a moment: if I have a question and want to learn something, and I ask someone who responds calmly, generously, and in a moderate tone, I will definitely feel encouraged to ask more. After engaging in such questioning, I will naturally learn how to ask the right questions.

Remember, I am simply identifying these issues and am not criticising any specific person or institution. However, the increasing involvement of private institutions is becoming a matter of concern. Educational institutions should prioritize high-quality academics over high-paying fees; yet, people are forced to pay huge amounts to private entities for better education. I have personally observed that private institutions often favor appearance over content. At the same time, they are more effectively equipped with influential digital tools and various useful software.

Now, the question is how institutions fail in their attempts to accomplish their objectives. Many institutions are influenced by favoritism, senior professors, politicians, and other influential research scholars. I understand that some individuals can bring brilliant students or acquaintances into an institution. However, does this fulfill the objective of nurturing a scientific temperament?

Are you only capable of identifying brilliance through personal connections? Does this not negatively impact the scientific journey of the institution? Furthermore, does this help in improving the institution’s ranking and position at a national or international level? Finally, what message does this convey to those who truly want to contribute to society and their own people?

Think ….

Think….

Think….

If people identify these issues or find them irrelevant, why don’t they demand a more transparent and meaningful scrutiny of intellect?

Provide the response in the comment section.