tell me please sir what was the write answer of 1st question of paper 1
On 7/3/13, Shireen Irani <[email protected]> wrote: > thanx a lot for posting this. i have always been disgusted with the > question framing practices for the net exam, and this really takes the > cake. truely shameful for academitians to do this for such a > prestigious exam. > thank god i am free from giving it. > > On 7/3/13, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: >> Many of us appeared for NET held on Sunday gone by. >> Now as we felt shocked at many questions during the exam, our views >> has been echoed in an editorial in The Indian Express. >> Hope better sense prevail among question-papers preparers next time. >> http://www.indianexpress.com/news/epic-fail/1136803/0 >> The UGC's test for entry-level university teachers reveals sexist and >> condescending assumptions >> >> The University Grants Commission has made some outrageous errors of >> judgement in framing its examination for teacher aptitude in the >> National Eligibility Test (NET). One of the multiple choice questions >> asked: "At the primary school stage, most teachers should be women >> because". This is a patently disputable assumption, and the choices >> provided were all problematic, steeped in sexist stereotypes. The idea >> that women teach children better than men is probably drawn from the >> observation that, in many homes, it is a woman's responsibility to >> provide early nurturing, to teach a child how to learn, and introduce >> elementary ideas. This is not because women are especially talented at >> it, but because men seldom take it up with enthusiasm. That women >> "know basic content better than men" is equally condescending. The >> unspoken extension would be, women teach children better with basics, >> so that men can take over at the higher, more evolved levels? Another >> choice, "can deal with children with love and affection", is also >> about freezing gender roles, where women share and care and love, >> while men compete and prod each other to greater achievement. It is a >> crass reduction of human personality into two types. The most >> appalling suggestion, of course, was that women make better primary >> school teachers because they "are available on lower salaries". Even >> if it was the wrong answer, it is incredible that it was even >> articulated as an option by the body that regulates and oversees >> higher education in India. >> >> The NET was devised as an attempt to standardise measures of quality >> for entry-level teaching staff. It is no surprise that this aim has >> been undercut — the aptitude test speaks for itself. The questions are >> clearly open to subjective interpretation. Several of the answer >> options provided could be credibly argued in an essay, but they may or >> may not be what the test-setters had in mind. Some of the analogies >> are bewildering — for instance, "bee-honey, cow-milk, teacher-?" The >> options are: intelligence, marks, lessons, wisdom. The test reflects >> the unexamined prejudices of those who drafted it. >> >> These bloopers are particularly egregious because they come from such >> a powerful source. As a regulator of higher education, the UGC has >> given itself the mandate to control curricula, to manage appointments, >> to direct the flow of funds. It is alarming that this kind of dotty >> thinking and illogic can pass among those who confidently dictate to >> universities. >> >> >> -- >> Avinash Shahi >> MPhil Research Scholar >> Centre for the Study of Law and Governance >> Jawaharlal Nehru University >> New Delhi India >> >> Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility >> of >> mobile phones / Tabs on: >> http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> >> To unsubscribe send a message to >> [email protected] >> with the subject unsubscribe. >> >> To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, >> please >> visit the list home page at >> http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in >> >> >> Disclaimer: >> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of >> the >> person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; >> >> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the >> mails >> sent through this mailing list.. >> > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of > mobile phones / Tabs on: > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > [email protected] > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please > visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
