Disclaimer: This meet took place on the evening of March 22, 2021, a day before BITSians received a mail from the Vice-Chancellor regarding the decision to delay the reopening of the campuses. The Vice-Chancellor’s email arrived on the morning of March 23, 2021. Information presented in this article has been relayed by the Acting Council and has not been confirmed by the administration.
Contents:
The Acting Council (AC) held a meeting with the General Body Members (GBM) on March 22, 2021. The meeting began with the AC informing the attendees about recent developments, after which there was a Q&A session. The issues that were considered for discussion were the reopening of campus, malpractice and remote proctoring, grading issues, PS-l for the 2019 batch, communication issues with the AC, students’ mental health, and grievances about the fee structure.
Campus Reopening:
‘BITS Pilani will be the first college in India to bulk buy vaccines for its students once private access is allowed by the government.’
The AC talked about the numerous meets they have had with the Chief Warden and called them ‘quite fruitful’. In these meetings, they had been informed that of the 120 students of the 2017 batch who are currently on campus, two tested positive for COVID-19 and were asymptomatic. The Chief Warden was reported to have said that ‘the batch of students was following all necessary protocols, like wearing masks and sanitising regularly’, reiterating that the administration planned to open the campus in a phased manner as safely as they can. The AC had also been informed about the Campus Reopening Committee which comprises the SWD heads, Chief Wardens, and some other officials from all three campuses. Student representation in this committee is being pushed for by the AC.
Currently, all campuses plan to open simultaneously. There is reportedly a ‘difference of opinion’ between members of the committee from different campuses, with Pilani campus representatives pushing for calling students and the Hyderabad and Goa campus representatives being against reopening. In the Q&A session, it was remarked that reopening all campuses simultaneously did not make much sense. The AC said that they had brought up this issue with the Chief Warden, stating that different states have different situations and rules. However, the Chief Warden had reportedly ‘dodged the questions and answered vaguely’. He had assured the AC that the campus would reopen next semester.
The AC also revealed that the Institute has entered into an agreement with a Jaipur-based testing agency, resulting in increased RT-PCR testing on campus. Furthermore, SU bus and train services are being considered to bring back students on campus with strict rules and guidelines to ensure minimum contact. The Chief Warden was reported to have said, ‘BITS Pilani will be the first college in India to bulk buy vaccines for its students once private access is allowed by the government.’
When asked about the reasons for not reopening campus, the Chief Warden had reportedly given differing answers. He cited ‘medical reasons’ as the primary reason but later called it a ‘tertiary reason’ by saying that Pilani had enough medical facilities, and disturbance in continuous evaluations was the primary reason for not calling students on campus between the semesters. More recently, he has been reported to have said that not calling students back on campus was a measure of caution. The Chief Warden reportedly also said that if any person on campus turned out to be symptomatic and tested positive, they would have to be treated at Birla Sarvajanik Hospital in Pilani, as they could not be transported to Delhi or Jaipur due to the state’s travel restrictions.
When asked about the reopening of campus for dual degree students from the 2017 batch, the AC said that although no proper timeline has been conveyed yet, they are optimistic that it will happen soon. An attendee claimed that students could have been called on the campus at the beginning of the semester; the situation was better then. The Chief Warden had, however, claimed to the AC that doing so may have resulted in a situation similar to those in Manipal and Thapar, which have now been declared containment zones. He also said that they had converted the campus into a bio-bubble, with the mess workers and redi workers staying in VK Bhawan. The AC clarified that this measure had only been present during the initial lockdown period and it is not currently being enforced. Another attendee cited the example of IIT Guwahati, where the campus has reopened for all students and only a few cases have been reported. The AC responded that it had raised this issue with the administration, who have taken note.
The AC commented that since the students of the 2017 batch who have returned to campus are following the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) diligently, the administration may consider reopening the campus for junior batches. Currently, three hostels—Bhagirath, Ashok, and Meera—are being used for quarantining students. Two to three rooms are open in each wing and a ‘a particular washroom has been allotted to each and every student [sic]’. However, these measures might not be enough when more people are on campus. The AC is currently in the middle of drafting a set of SOPs that they plan to put forward for such a situation. A request was made to compile an open document on the BITS Conclave Facebook page so that everyone could enter suggestions for the same.
When asked about their efforts to get concrete answers during the meetings with the Chief Warden and the AUGSD, the AC responded that despite reiterating the questions regarding the reopening of campus, they continue to receive vague responses. When questioned further, the Chief Warden reportedly retorted by saying that the people in higher positions have the actual answers, leading to what the AC called a ‘blame game’ being played between the authorities.
Malpractice and Proctoring:
‘Profs keep saying “It’s been a year, figure out your Internet.” It’s been a year, figure out your exams.’
The AC informed the GBM that they had managed to organise a meeting with the AUGSD Dean to talk about the malpractice and high averages plaguing the online semester. Some reforms to Merit-cum-Need scholarships were also discussed, as inflated averages have affected the grades of honest and hardworking students. Regarding lab courses, the Institute plans to have non-evaluative lab sessions for people who wish to have hands-on practice, especially Civil Engineering and Pharmacy students. The AUGSD was said to be pushing for a higher number of evaluative components to counter malpractice. The AC suggested more personalised assignments, group projects, and fewer MCQ tests. Issues regarding professors demanding compulsory attendance were taken up. When pushed for offline comprehensive exams for the 2020 batch, the AUGSD had reasoned that students cannot be forced to write their exams on campus. If some of them choose to stay at home, malpractice will continue. Having special exam centres for comprehensive exams, similar to BITSAT, was discussed. However, with BITSAT being a one-day endeavour while comprehensive examinations being spread over a longer period, inaccessibility of centres to students was cited as the major problem to implement this plan.
Regarding the allotment of BE degrees to the dual degree students of the 2020 batch, the AC’s 2020 batch representative suggested that a specialised set of tests—apart from the usual continuous evaluation—take place on campus specifically to allot BE degrees. However, this suggestion was said to be unfair for the students who worked hard for the regular evaluative tests. Increasing the weightage of the second semester GPA in the cut-offs was also suggested.
Another attendee listed the problems associated with online classes. ‘Profs keep saying “It’s been a year, figure out your internet.” It’s been a year, figure out your exams,’ he remarked. According to him, students are often not given adequate information regarding future tests and classes. He also suggested allotting student groups, Teaching Assistants, or other professors who are more adept with technology to help professors with online platforms. The AC promised to raise this issue to the AUGSD in their next meeting. The attendee also brought up the issue of surprise tests and the reluctance of some professors to share lecture recordings and slides. There have also been communication issues between professors and students. He cited an example where a professor had announced that a component of an exam would be closed book two hours before the exam. He spoke about the redundancy of closed book examinations in an online semester and suggested that this format be excluded from online evaluative components. In response to professors not providing lecture recordings, one of the members of the AC commented, ‘probably an ego thing for them, to be honest.’ The AC, however, promised to raise these issues with the AUGSD.
Another issue discussed was the usage of remote proctoring software. Despite receiving ‘negative reviews’ on websites, Mettl was adopted for conducting examinations. Even though Mettl had been decided upon long ago by the Institute, professors and students were kept in the dark about it until a week before examinations were to begin. The AC stated that the SU had managed to push back on PEXA and prevent it from being applied for proctoring exams. However, for Mettl, they could only convince the AUGSD to appoint Teaching Assistants and BITS professors as proctors instead of external proctors, thus addressing the privacy concern and coming to a compromise. No information was shared with the company as well. However, they did mention, ‘exclusivity of the information was a major factor and we weren’t involved, the professors weren’t involved. [sic]’ Questions about the standards of evaluative papers were also raised, with students pointing out that in many cases questions were ‘simply lifted off from Chegg [sic]’; the AC promised to look into the matter. A student of the 2020 batch suggested that it would be fairer to call people back to campus and then conduct only mid-semester and comprehensive examinations instead of multiple tests. The AC said that they were pushing for the same.
The AUGSD had reportedly stated that they cannot do anything about the malpractice in evaluative components, and had asked students for suggestions to tackle the same. A suggestion calling for the reduction of the weightage of the online semesters had reportedly been dismissed by the AUGSD as some students who have genuinely worked hard for their CGPA would be unfairly disadvantaged.
Responding to a question about whether a bachelor’s degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) would be offered to the dual degree students from the 2020 batch, the AC said that it has been discussed with the AUGSD and they will soon have more information. A first-year student suggested that more group assignments for the 2020 batch will facilitate interaction among peers. The AC agreed to bring it up in future meetings with the concerned authorities. When asked about including more group assignments in evaluative components of other batches, the AUGSD had reportedly countered that the averages of such components are generally extremely high, which may exacerbate the MGPA problem.
Grading:
The issue of stringent grading was also raised. An attendee pointed out how the low MGPAs at BITS compared to other engineering institutes have hampered placements and the admission of BITSians into management schools and foreign universities. The attendee also claimed that there seemed to be a large disparity of grades across the three campuses. According to them, this further hampers PS allotments, since the process includes students across all campuses. The AC replied that they have brought this to the AUGSD’s attention and they are looking into it.
The AUGSD had reportedly informed the AC that inflated averages during online courses would also be dealt with, although details had not been provided. The AUGSD did not seem to have found a valid reason to increase the overall MGPA, thus contradicting themselves. The MGPA was reportedly higher before, but many recruiters had allegedly complained against it as they felt that the grades of the students were not commensurate with their skills. While some members of the AC claimed that it was not necessary for professors to follow the guidelines set by AUGSD, others claimed that the AUGSD did not accept increased grades.
The question of why the 2020 batch has a higher MGPA than the senior batches’ was also raised. The AC retorted that they have been pushing for increasing the MGPA of every batch. However, no answer was given as to what the Institute will do about the skewed grading, which might lead to disparity during placements. Companies favour students with higher CGPAs, which will disadvantage dual degree students of the 2019 batch who will have their placement season with single degree students of the 2020 batch.
Another student asked for information about the grading system and MGPAs in all three campuses. He reasoned that the administration should recognise that students of the Pilani campus are at a disadvantage due to lower MGPAs compared to the other two campuses. This point had also reportedly been raised in the last meeting between the AC and the AUGSD—however, there has been no follow-up since. The AC replied that they would convey the issue of low MGPAs to the Senate as well as the AUGSD.
Practice School:
Practice School reforms were discussed, as students will not get hands-on experience in an online PS, while paying the same fees as for an offline PS. The AC relayed details of their conversation with the AUGSD on this topic. Initially, the AC had demanded delinking PS-I and PS-II; this was said to be impossible as companies are unlikely to agree. It was suggested that delinking could be done only for this year and experience in off-campus internships could be used as eligibility criteria for PS-II. A reduction in fees of an online PS was also demanded as the costs borne by the companies and the Institute are down to a minimum. Problems like students with lower CGPAs ending up with ‘better’ PS stations were discussed and the AC had demanded that the PS allocation algorithm be made accessible to the students. To ensure more transparency in such issues and help students make informed decisions, the AC had demanded that a student team be instituted in the PS Division.
When asked about the status of PS-I, the AUGSD revealed that they are planning for it to be conducted online. However, the decision faced unequivocal opposition by the GBM.
When asked why the placement statistics had not been released for three semesters, the AC said that they will get in contact with the Placement Unit as soon as possible and ask them about the same.
AC:
The AC stressed on acquiring ‘leverage’ to demand a reduction in fees or ‘a B at average’.
Complaints were raised regarding the efficacy of the AC. An attendee claimed that many students had not been informed about the GBM meeting, while others received mails regarding the meet only two hours before. The AC responded that mails cannot be sent to the students without first sending them to the administration. Also, a student cannot send a mail to more than two thousand recipients at once.
The AC stressed on acquiring ‘leverage’ to demand a reduction in fees or ‘a B at average’. Boycott of classes and fees was talked about but a lack of unity while carrying this out in an organised manner was figured to be a major problem. The AC requested suggestions from the GBM regarding the same. The AC mentioned that there was a lack of adequate response from the administration as their mails often got ‘seenzoned’.
An attendee remarked, ‘The main demotivating tool that has been used in this campus since I have set foot in it is giving the example of a protest that happened many years ago.’ The AC responded, ‘A failed protest is worse than no protest’ and claimed that the 2018 fee hike protest had been held after the comprehensive examinations. According to them, it had failed because students had had to go back home and they stated that ‘online protests do not work’.
A student brought forward the lack of communication between the AC and the GBM, particularly as no information has been conveyed about their meetings with the Chief Warden or the AUGSD. The AC replied that whenever it receives information, it tries to disseminate it as soon as possible ‘through Google Docs and social media channels’. However, they agreed that there was a lack of a proper medium to convey this information and agreed to work on it. They also mentioned that they will consider making Slack channels where students from all three campuses will be able to access information about the proceedings of the administration.
Miscellaneous:
The negative impact of increased screen time and lack of social interaction on students’ mental health was also brought up. One student stated that the ‘trust for MPower is low among the students’, to which the AC replied that they would try to encourage more students to utilise it.
Grievances regarding the obscurity behind the fee structure were raised. Students had been made to pay the original amount—comprising hostel and common room charges as well as lab, FD-1, FD-2, and FD-3 charges—without waiver. The AC said that they had mailed the authorities regarding this concern but have received no response so far.