Reservation-category Indian faculty match general category peers in teaching, research despite fewer PhDs: Study

The study compared faculty recruited under India’s caste-based reservation policies with general-category faculty. Reservation-category faculty had lower average qualifications and seniority, but those differences did not produce weaker teaching or research performance. This matters because academic credentials are often treated as a direct sign of classroom quality.

The clearest teaching result came from colleges where students were randomly assigned to faculty. Students taught by reservation-category faculty performed marginally better in immediate course examinations, scoring 1.44 percentile points more on average. The study also found no meaningful differences in standardised test scores, attendance, dropout rates, or graduation rates.

The evidence suggests that PhDs, experience, and rank alone do not determine teaching effectiveness. The study examined research and other academic responsibilities too, and found no poorer overall performance. However, the authors called for research in other settings, and the working paper has not been peer-reviewed by NBER.

Reservation-category faculty are teachers recruited through India’s reservation system, which sets aside opportunities for specified caste groups in public institutions and employment. General-category faculty are those recruited outside these reserved categories. The labels describe recruitment categories, not a separate teaching qualification or academic standard.

In this study, about 14% of reservation-category faculty held PhDs, compared with 21% of general-category faculty. Reservation-category faculty were also more likely to be assistant professors and had less average teaching experience. These differences made the comparison important: the researchers tested whether lower observable qualifications translated into weaker classroom results.

They did not. Students taught by reservation-category faculty scored 1.44 percentile points higher in immediate course examinations, while longer-term outcomes showed no meaningful differences. The article focuses on caste-category recruitment and does not identify every group included within the reservation categories. The findings therefore concern the study’s defined categories, not individual ability.

The research drew on data from 50 engineering and technology colleges across India. The sample included 2,710 faculty members and 20,239 students, mainly in computer science and electrical engineering departments. This breadth allowed the researchers to compare faculty categories across different types of institutions rather than relying on one campus.

Eight elite institutions were randomly selected from IITs, NITs, IIITs, and other colleges ranked among the top 100 in the NIRF. The other 42 colleges were non-elite institutions, selected with weighting by size. In 12 colleges, students were randomly assigned to faculty members, creating a stronger test of teaching performance.

Data came from surveys conducted between October and December 2017 and between January and March 2019. Response rates were about 95% for both surveys. The project was funded by AICTE. Standardised course content and centrally graded examinations made comparisons more reliable.

In the study’s random-assignment analysis, students taught by reservation-category faculty performed slightly better in their immediate course examinations. Their average result was 1.44 percentile points higher than that of students taught by general-category faculty. A percentile-point difference compares students’ positions within the performance distribution.

Random assignment made this comparison more credible. Students were allocated to faculty rather than choosing instructors based on ability, background, or preference. The colleges also used standardised course content and centrally graded end-semester examinations. Together, these features reduced the chance that different students or grading practices explained the result.

The finding does not mean reservation-category faculty produced dramatically higher scores. The difference was marginal, and the researchers found no meaningful long-term differences in standardised test scores, attendance, dropout rates, or graduation rates. The authors said further research is needed in other settings, and the paper remains a non-peer-reviewed working paper.

The study found that the short-term examination advantage did not develop into clear long-term differences. Students taught by reservation-category faculty and general-category faculty had no meaningful differences in standardised test scores, attendance, dropout rates, or graduation rates. This suggests the immediate 1.44-point percentile gap was modest rather than a broad change in educational trajectories.

For example, reservation-category faculty produced slightly better immediate course examination results in the random-assignment analysis. Yet students in the two groups were later similar on outcomes that capture persistence and completion. The researchers could therefore distinguish a small course-level result from wider academic progress.

The provided article text does not report findings about students’ postgraduate plans. It would be inaccurate to say those plans increased, decreased, or remained unchanged. The authors did call for further research in other settings, so the reported evidence supports comparable longer-term outcomes on the measures listed, but not conclusions about every possible future plan.

Randomly assigning students to faculty members helps separate teaching quality from student differences. Without it, stronger or weaker students might cluster with particular instructors, or students might choose faculty based on reputation. Any resulting score gap could then reflect the students rather than the teaching.

The researchers used this design in 12 colleges. Because students were assigned rather than self-selected, reservation-category and general-category faculty could be compared using groups that were less likely to differ systematically. Standardised course content and centrally graded end-semester examinations added another safeguard. The same academic material and common grading process made results more comparable.

This approach supported the finding that reservation-category faculty did not provide poorer teaching despite lower average qualifications and experience. Students taught by them scored 1.44 percentile points higher in immediate course examinations. Random assignment cannot answer every question about faculty performance, but it reduced two major sources of bias: student composition and faculty selection.

Affirmative action means policies designed to improve access for groups that have faced structural disadvantage or exclusion. India uses caste-based reservations in education and public employment to increase representation for specified caste communities. In this article, the policy is the basis for distinguishing reservation-category faculty from general-category faculty.

The study asks whether recruitment through these policies is associated with weaker academic performance. Reservation-category faculty had fewer PhDs, less experience, and fewer senior positions on average. Yet students taught by them scored 1.44 percentile points higher in immediate course examinations, and longer-term outcomes were broadly similar. The comparison therefore tests assumptions about credentials and merit.

The article says the findings come amid debate over caste representation and discrimination at premier institutions such as the IITs. It reports that 4,804 of 12,498 sanctioned teaching posts across 23 IITs were vacant, although only nine provided category-specific vacancy data. The study offers evidence about performance, but its authors say other settings require further research.