The Programme of Action for implementation of the National Policy on Educa­tion outlines certain short-term and long-term measures for examination reforms. These measures also emphasise the lace of continuous institutional evaluation, introduction of grading system, efforts at improving the conduct of examination by universities which have a large number of affiliated colleges, etc.

 Among the long-term measures proposed are development of an alternate system of evaluation in place of the existing external examinations, estab­lishment of some universities functioning purely as examining bodies, im­plementation of major academic reforms like flexibility in combination of subjects, modular structure, provision for accumulation of credits, redesigning of courses, decentralisation in the evaluation process, etc.

 These measures were extensively discussed in the joint meeting of the Coor­dinators of Examination Reform Units and the members of the UGC Im­plementation Committee on Examination Reform held on March 23, 1988 in the UGC office, New Delhi. The Committee noted that most of these measures were covered under the “plan of action ” drawn by the UGC for the purpose.

 As regards the progress of Implementation of the Examination Reform Programme, it is noted that the programme had not failed entirely. In fact, it had succeeded well and got institutionalised in ink, IIMs, and the unitary university departments. Many of the concepts such as, objective and short- answer type questions had been widely accepted and incorporated into the examinations held at the university, state and national levels. However, the programme did not have the expected success in the affiliating universities; and the causes for the failure being as follows:

1. 1.  The universities selected by the Commission at the time of launching this programme introduced various measures of reforms without adequate planning and preparation and motivating the teachers for the purpose.
   2. The examination system prevailing in the universities is of century old and so deep rooted that the changes proposed did not get the favourable response from the teaching community in general.
   3. The employing agencies including the Union Public Service Commission insisted on the marks secured by the students in their examinations, as a result the grading system, introduced in some universities in place of marking system, was given up subsequently.
   4. The centralised nature of functions of the affiliating universities basically contradicts the ‘decentralised nature’ of the semester system.
   5. The present system of centralised university examination is convenient and beneficial to all the students, teachers and universities. Broadly, the students need to study only before the examinations, the teachers get examination remunerations and have not to face direct pressures or accountability, and the universities rely heavily on the examination revenue.

 To sum up, the following hurdles are encountered in the implementation of the exam reforms:

1. 1.  Inherent resistance to change by teachers, students and unscrupulous elements who use unfair means.
   2. Lack of information among teachers and educational administrators regarding subjectivity, unreliability and lack of validity of present examina­tions.
   3. Vested interests, i.e. economic benefits received by the teachers, and . university interests of existing exam machinery.
   4. Lack of suitable and successful models in the affiliating universities.
      
   5. Inadequate training of teachers.