Not cleared first term’s CGPA? Lose full year’s fee of 8.5 lakh

IN­JUS­TICE TAPMI, Ma­ni­pal, also re­quires stu­dents to dis­con­tinue stud­ies and ap­ply for ad­mis­sion again next year af­ter pay­ing an ad­di­tional amount of 2 lakh

Hindustan Times (Delhi) - HT Education - - Front Page - Jee­van Prakash Sharma

Stu­dents j o i n i n g TA Pa i Man­age­ment In­sti­tute (TAPMI), Ma­ni­pal, for post­grad­u­ate diplo­mas in man­age­ment in 2015, were in for a sur­prise when they re­ceived the in­sti­tute’s post­grad­u­ate diploma in man­age­ment (PGDM) hand­book. It said fail­ure to se­cure 4.4 CGPA (Cu­mu­la­tive Grade Points Av­er­age, the av­er­age of grade points scored in all sub­jects) in the first term would mean can­cel­la­tion of their ad­mis­sion.

The stan­dard prac­tice in in­sti­tutes is to eval­u­ate stu­dents’ per­for­mance on the ba­sis of three terms spread through­out the year. Those fail­ing to get the re­quired CGPA in their year-end score have to be read­mit­ted in a new batch.

Stu­dents al­lege that TAPMI made the hand­book avail­able to them only af­ter they took ad­mis­sion and paid the full year’s fee of ₹ 8.5 lakh. More trou­ble was in store for those who couldn’t score 4.4 CGPA in the first term as TAPMI asked them not only to with­draw from the in­sti­tute but also to re­peat the course next year or lose the full first year’s fee of ₹ 8.5 lakh. Those want­ing to re­peat the first term were asked to pay an ad­di­tional amount of ₹ 2 lakh. Sur­pris­ingly, th­ese de­tails were not men­tioned in the hand­book.

Stu­dents from older TAPMI batches have sim­i­lar com­plaints. “I had scored close to 4.4 CGPA in the first term but the in­sti­tute asked me to ei­ther re­peat the full year or leave. My CGPA scores were low be­cause I was not well and missed one of the lec­tures. The in­sti­tute en­forces 100% at­ten­dance, an­other fac­tor which de­ter­mines the CGPA. I opted to leave the in­sti­tute and join an­other in 2015. The in­sti­tute did not re­turn the full year’s fee of ₹ 8.5 lakh to me,” says a stu­dent who had joined TAPMI in 2014. One of the (ap­prox­i­mately) 10 stu­dents who had not cleared the first se­mes­ter in 2014 said he had “paid the ad­di­tional amount of ₹ 2 lakh for read­mis­sion in 2015.”

When con­tacted, RC Natara­jan, di­rec­tor, TAPMI, ad­mit­ted that all stu­dents fail­ing to score 4.4 CGPA have to dis­con­tinue their stud­ies and the full year’s fee is not re­turned to them. How­ever, he con­tra­dicted the stu­dents’ state­ment about be­ing in­formed about the CGPA rule only af­ter se­cur­ing ad­mis­sion at TAPMI. “This is brought to the knowl­edge of the stu­dents and their par­ents at the time of ad­mis­sion. Our rules are in con­so­nance with the pre­vail­ing prac­tice in other pres­ti­gious man­age­ment in­sti­tutes. Af­ter know­ing th­ese rules when stu­dents opt to join our in­sti­tute, they im­pliedly and ex­pressly agree to abide by the same,” he said.

Asked why the in­for­ma­tion was not avail­able on the TAPMI web­site, Natara­jan’s re­sponse was: “Not ev­ery as­pect is put on the web­site.” The in­sti­tute’s web­site, sur­pris­ingly, in­forms stu­dents that “At the end of the first year, a stu­dent who doesn’t meet the min­i­mum stan­dard is asked to with­draw from the pro­gramme.”

Natara­jan also re­fused to share data on the num­ber of stu­dents fail­ing to score 4.4 CGPA in the first se­mes­ter, say­ing, “The num­ber of stu­dents fail­ing in dif­fer­ent terms is not a mat­ter to be dis­closed to pub­lic. Only the reg­u­la­tory body or the court has the au­thor­ity to seek it (in­for­ma­tion) for clearly spelt-out pur­poses.”

Man­age­ment ex­perts con­tra­dict Natara­jan’s claim that all pres­ti­gious in­sti­tutes eval­u­ate stu­dents in the first se­mes­ter.

“I am in favour of full au­ton­omy to PGDM in­sti­tutes, how­ever it shouldn’t put stu­dents at a dis­ad­van­tage,” says Bakul Dho­lakia, for­mer di­rec­tor, IIM Ahmed­abad.

Pri­tam Singh, for mer d i r e c t o r, IIM L u c k n ow, s ay s ask­ing stu­dents to with­draw af­ter a term is “ex­tremely un­rea­son­able and de­void of to­tal hu­man con­sid­er­a­tion. It’s based on the con­cept of prof­i­teer­ing.” Asked if PGDM in­sti­tutes are mis­us­ing the au­ton­omy granted by Supreme Court in 2011, Hari­vansh Chaturvedi, di­rec­tor, Birla In­sti­tute of Man­age­ment Tech­nol­ogy, says, “Out of 450 PGDM in­sti­tutes, if some are mak­ing mis­takes, I will call it aber­ra­tion rather than a preva­lent norm.” “When AICTE re­ceived a lot of com­plaints from stu­dents, it is­sued a cir­cu­lar in 2010 to reg­u­late ad­mis­sion pro­cesses, course du­ra­tion, fee, etc but some PGDM schools chal­lenged it in the SC in 2011 and the apex court stayed it by an in­terim or­der. Ev­ery year the case comes up for hear­ing and SC ex­tends its in­terim or­der for the next year,” says SS Man­tha, for­mer AICTE chair­man.

I LLUSTRATION: AB­HI­MANYU SINHA

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.