Should engineering colleges change their scheme of backlog from year back to back papers?

This question is a little ambiguously worded. It is not very clear as to what is being asked here. However, I would like to answer on my interpretation of the question. As per my understanding, I would like to rephrase this question as: Whether engineering colleges should retake exams in which a student has failed instead of the student going through the course again and wasting his/her one year to take the paper again? Well, this is a very serious issue that I am sure is debated in the examination office of all universities. Each option here has its own pros and cons. The opinion may vary from person to person based on their views and principles. Talking about the year back, there are a variety of reasons why colleges prefer this. One of them is the convenience of managing the exam and records. It is easier to plan for the back papers along with the regular examinations as it saves planning, and allotting dedicated resources for back papers. This saves invigilation cost, test center cost, time, energy and resources. However, the bigger picture says that this is done so that the student can fill the gaps in his/her understanding by attending the lectures again and build knowledge on a strong foundation and crystal clear concepts. This makes more sense and is crucial for the making of an intelligent professional. However, the fact that this wastes one's one year in cases when it is not really required, is a cause for concern. For final year students, this is even more appalling as this poses a problem in placements and higher studies. The solution I would say is a mid way. There should be marks and number of subjects criteria to decide whether the student has to take a year back or take just the back papers. For example, If the student gets a back in more than 50% of the number of subjects by a margin of more than 10-15 marks, then the student has to take a year back, else he/she can attempt the back papers once again within 1-2 months. This I think is a fair criterion for a win-win at both ends.

2 Upvotes 2 Upvotes 0 Downvotes 2 Comments

• • Report Abuse
• Comment

I think that scheme of backlog for a year back or paperback depends on the particular student and his condition. Suppose for a fourth-year guy opting for higher studies. What happens if he has a year back? His admission chances for the next year are completely wasted. But if he has paper back then he can easily clear that exam and be eligible for the same session admission. Why waste the precious time of a student? Also, this type of governance is easy for the college authorities as they can easily document his progress in papers and a whole semester or year. If a guy is already in a disputable condition, and he fails to acquire certain scoring or if he is scoring badly in all the subjects then the option of year back makes sense, but just that guy fails by some marks, and he is made to study the semester again or year again, I think that it is not justified. I hope that institutes become serious about the students future and make the necessary changes that are in favour of both student and university. Hope my opinion helps.

0 Upvotes 0 Upvotes 0 Downvotes

• • Report Abuse
• Comment