A Crisis in the Canon: Reflecting on UGC NET English Literature – June 27, 2025

This year’s UGC NET English Literature exam didn’t just challenge students — it disoriented them. It raised a painful question: Is this still an English Literature paper?

Instead of rewarding literary knowledge, deep reading, and critical thinking, the exam tested endurance, memorization, and guesswork. The overwhelming consensus? This wasn't the exam we prepared for.

1. Chronology Took Center Stage — And Hijacked the Paper

Instead of critical thought or literary interpretation, students were bombarded with questions like : "Arrange these works by obscure authors in the order of publication.”

It wasn’t analysis — it was a parade of random facts. The paper felt like a timeline guessing game, not a literature exam.

2. Too Tough to Read, Too Long to Solve

The paper was draining to even read, let alone solve. Dense passages, unclear phrasing, and obscure references meant that reading itself became exhausting.

And if you tried to apply logic and literary reasoning? The questions turned time-consuming — requiring double reading, contextual guesswork, and elimination strategies. In a two-hour paper, that’s a nightmare. Many students couldn’t complete it in time, despite being well-prepared.

3. English Literature Was Replaced by Social Science

A significant part of the paper tested Sociology, Education, Psychology, Linguistics, Philosophy — without relating them back to literature. English Literature, the very subject of the paper, was barely recognizable.

4. A History Quiz in Disguise

It felt like an Indian History and Education Policy exam, not English Literature. From colonial education acts to national commissions, the questions were more suitable for Paper 1 or a UPSC test.

5. Canonical Authors? Barely There.

Shakespeare, Woolf, Keats, Rushdie, Toni Morrison, Eliot — missing or marginal. Instead, we had obscure authors, and again, questions about their chronology, not content. It was like being tested on a secret syllabus.

6. Unknown Quotes from Unknown Writers

Some questions quoted lines with no attribution and asked students to identify the writer. The problem? These authors aren’t in the syllabus, not in university texts, and not even in major anthologies.

7. No Syllabus, No Direction

The UGC still doesn’t offer a clear, updated syllabus. Students were forced to prepare everything — from Anglo-Saxon texts to posthumanism — hoping they’d guess right. This scattershot approach is neither efficient nor fair.

8. Literary Theories Were Missing

No deep engagement with Postcolonialism, Feminist Theory, Structuralism, Marxism, or Ecocriticism — the core frameworks of modern literary studies. The theoretical foundation was ignored in favor of shallow data points.

9. Digital System + Design Flaws

The online interface was clunky, and with the passage-heavy format, scrolling took time. Even the MCQs were packed with redundant information, leaving students racing against the clock, not the content.

10. Difficulty ≠ Disorientation

Yes, the exam should be tough — but not directionless. The randomness of the paper meant that guesswork replaced preparation, and smart students who studied for months felt like their effort was thrown into a void.

❌ Final Word: Literature Deserves Better

Literature isn’t just a chronology of dates and dead authors. It’s a living discipline — of thought, voice, and imagination. This exam made many students feel like outsiders to their own subject.

📢 What Must Change:

• ✅ Clearly defined and public syllabus
• ✅ Balance between canonical and contemporary voices
• ✅ Literary reasoning > rote memorization
• ✅ Reduced focus on irrelevant chronology
• ✅ Fair, accessible texts and authors
• ✅ Better-designed digital interface
• ✅ Time-conscious question structure

June 27, 2025 will be remembered not just for being hard — but for being unjust. And in that, we must raise our voices. Because literature must challenge, but never alienate.

What are your thoughts on this? Comment below