Before getting into what I want to say, links to a few interesting articles about higher education in India and the FYUP mess created by UGC. (For those who do not know, FYUP stands for Four Year Undergraduate Program and UGC is the University Grants Commission, the primary regulator of university education in India)
- Columbia University professor Arvind Panagaria has some advice for the new Indian government on higher ed reforms.
- Pratap Bhanu Mehta cautions the government/UGC.
- Vikram Kapur of Shiv Nadar University at Firstpost.
- Vishwesha Guttal from IISc, Bangalore has this to say about the mess that UGC is hell-bent on creating there.
- A write up in the journal Nature on the same topic.
- An anonymous doctoral student has this to say.
- A position paper from October 2008 brought out by the Indian Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy and National Academy of Sciences, India on "Restructuring post-school science teaching programs"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last couple of months, folks at UGC seem to have suddenly woken up to their duty as the watchdogs of university education in India. They first forced the Delhi University to close down its much controversial FYUP leaving thousands of students' future uncertain. Our Parliament was then informed that notices had been sent to Symbiosis University, Shiv Nadar University and Indian Institute of Science to shutdown their respective FYUP. I do not know what happened to the first two institutions. But, since IISc is a major player among the Indian science's elites, there was lots of grief and wailing that the government had dared question the high priests of Indian science. The result is a face saving compromise where the IISc gets to keep its program with a modified name and an option for the students to exit after 3 years, if they wish to. Now this leaves one wondering if the UGC couldn't have been similarly considerate towards Delhi University since their FYUP already had exit options at different stages. My point, of course, is larger than the DU or IISc. I think UGC was right in blocking FYUP in a affiliating university like DU and wrong in doing so with stand alone institutions like the other three. Hopefully what I am posting below will convince you about my stand.
It is well accepted by now, and you will see this point made many times in the links above, that the higher education system in India as it exists today is a relic of our colonial past. The system was designed to produce clerks and bureaucrats to serve the British administration. It probably served its purpose well at that time and possibly even during the early days after the independence, but is terribly lacking in being able to serve the needs of a developing country in an ever changing, competitive world. There is no doubt that the system needs to be reformed to meet the challenges of the day. But what is the right system to adopt? Should we look at the various models around the world and borrow one of them? This approach is a definite case for failure since the university systems in the different countries,especially in the western developed ones, have evolved through many years to suit their particular local needs. We need to develop one most suited to us. To get to the best possible solution, we need to experiment with the various models before finding out what works best for us. And these experiments need to be done under settings which would allow the best chance to succeed and provide us with the best possible data. And that is why such experiments are best done is stand alone universities (such as IISc) which have the maximum resources and the least number of possible variables. This is also the reason why a large university such as DU with its hundreds of affiliated colleges which fall in a wide range in terms of quality of resources (both physical and intellectual) is a bad setting to initiate such experiments. These affiliating universities serve thousands of students in any academic year and in most cases happen to be the only degree awarding institution in an entire district leaving the students without any other choice. As often happens with anything new and drastically different from the existing, the general public's first reaction tends to be to resist the change, especially so if the said change requires the investment of an entire year of your life's prime. But the same set of people will be more than eager to accept the change if there is enough evidence that an extra year's investment is going to exponentially increase their employability. After all for most people, the only purpose of a college degree is to help them make a decent living. So, as I see it, the FYUP controversy is at the core a result of communication problem between the academics and the taxpayers who support their academic adventures.
Since there is a wide consensus in the academic community that the Indian university education needs to be reformed to suit the present times, the only question is about how it should be done. Is FYUP the ideal remedy? At this point it would be useful that you have had a look at the position paper prepared by the 3 Indian science academies (link #7 above) to be able to appreciate what I am trying to say below. There are many write ups in the intertubes highlighting the inconsistencies in the stated objectives and proposed curriculum of the DU's FYUP. So, I won't dwell into that here. What I am writing here is mostly considering the position paper linked above (and hoping that the design of FYUP at institutes such as IISc is based on this paper). I do not wish to argue about the stated objectives and outcomes of the proposed changes to the collegiate education. I am in complete agreement that the system needs to be revamped and that the said changes are ultimately going to benefit the students, and the country in general. What I want to do is to look at whether the same objectives and benefits cannot be achieved by slightly tinkering with the existing system, rather than wholesale changes.
Two objectives that the proponents of FYUP argue will be achieved by the reform are inculcation of a scientific temper and interdisciplinary training. The first of these is aimed at invigorating and replenishing the extremely poor human resource currently available for academic research in the country. And since research output of a country is directly related to its economic progress, this is indeed a very valid objective for the higher ed system to aim for. But then the question is, will that be sufficient to attract, and more importantly retain, research talent? Is this even the first necessary step in that direction? For example, will a talented student who is capable of earning a well paying job in a non-research setting (because of the interdisciplinary training of FYUP) continue to pursue academic research if s/he is subjected to mental (and sometimes physical and sexual) harassment by his/her supervisor? Will such a person even join for a PhD after knowing that their stipend will just about suffice for their survival, has very little chance of being increased and will regularly be paid after a 6 month delay? I think there are more fundamental structural and attitudinal changes that are required to boost the country's research output. In my opinion, the reason there is an overall poor scientific temper in the country and the reason very few take to research as a career is not because of how science is taught in undergraduate courses. It is because of the way science is taught in the schools, boring and without any hands on experimental work. And by the time kids are through highschool, their minds are mostly made up on what career to choose. If a person is not inclined to take up a research career at the end of highschool, that is not very likely to happen after getting a bachelor's degree. So the science in schools needs to be fixed first before getting on to meddling with universities.
An important proposal in the FYUP position paper is the introduction of a research component in the UG courses by dedicating 1-2 semesters to project work resulting in a dissertation. This is indeed a very good suggestion provided there is a provision for students to directly pursue PhD without having to have a Master's degree as a qualification. A suggestion to this effect is also made in the position paper. One of the advantages of having such a system, the position paper goes on to say, is that it will make taking up a research career more attractive by reducing the time period leading up to a faculty position by one year. Anyone who has any interest in taking up a faculty position in India would know that the recruitment advertisement of every university/institute includes a requirement for the candidate to have at least a few years of postdoctoral experience; greater the competition, longer is the experience required for a candidate to qualify. And so, I don't think this one year's concession is going to help anyone decide in favour of a research career.
It is well accepted by now, and you will see this point made many times in the links above, that the higher education system in India as it exists today is a relic of our colonial past. The system was designed to produce clerks and bureaucrats to serve the British administration. It probably served its purpose well at that time and possibly even during the early days after the independence, but is terribly lacking in being able to serve the needs of a developing country in an ever changing, competitive world. There is no doubt that the system needs to be reformed to meet the challenges of the day. But what is the right system to adopt? Should we look at the various models around the world and borrow one of them? This approach is a definite case for failure since the university systems in the different countries,especially in the western developed ones, have evolved through many years to suit their particular local needs. We need to develop one most suited to us. To get to the best possible solution, we need to experiment with the various models before finding out what works best for us. And these experiments need to be done under settings which would allow the best chance to succeed and provide us with the best possible data. And that is why such experiments are best done is stand alone universities (such as IISc) which have the maximum resources and the least number of possible variables. This is also the reason why a large university such as DU with its hundreds of affiliated colleges which fall in a wide range in terms of quality of resources (both physical and intellectual) is a bad setting to initiate such experiments. These affiliating universities serve thousands of students in any academic year and in most cases happen to be the only degree awarding institution in an entire district leaving the students without any other choice. As often happens with anything new and drastically different from the existing, the general public's first reaction tends to be to resist the change, especially so if the said change requires the investment of an entire year of your life's prime. But the same set of people will be more than eager to accept the change if there is enough evidence that an extra year's investment is going to exponentially increase their employability. After all for most people, the only purpose of a college degree is to help them make a decent living. So, as I see it, the FYUP controversy is at the core a result of communication problem between the academics and the taxpayers who support their academic adventures.
Since there is a wide consensus in the academic community that the Indian university education needs to be reformed to suit the present times, the only question is about how it should be done. Is FYUP the ideal remedy? At this point it would be useful that you have had a look at the position paper prepared by the 3 Indian science academies (link #7 above) to be able to appreciate what I am trying to say below. There are many write ups in the intertubes highlighting the inconsistencies in the stated objectives and proposed curriculum of the DU's FYUP. So, I won't dwell into that here. What I am writing here is mostly considering the position paper linked above (and hoping that the design of FYUP at institutes such as IISc is based on this paper). I do not wish to argue about the stated objectives and outcomes of the proposed changes to the collegiate education. I am in complete agreement that the system needs to be revamped and that the said changes are ultimately going to benefit the students, and the country in general. What I want to do is to look at whether the same objectives and benefits cannot be achieved by slightly tinkering with the existing system, rather than wholesale changes.
Two objectives that the proponents of FYUP argue will be achieved by the reform are inculcation of a scientific temper and interdisciplinary training. The first of these is aimed at invigorating and replenishing the extremely poor human resource currently available for academic research in the country. And since research output of a country is directly related to its economic progress, this is indeed a very valid objective for the higher ed system to aim for. But then the question is, will that be sufficient to attract, and more importantly retain, research talent? Is this even the first necessary step in that direction? For example, will a talented student who is capable of earning a well paying job in a non-research setting (because of the interdisciplinary training of FYUP) continue to pursue academic research if s/he is subjected to mental (and sometimes physical and sexual) harassment by his/her supervisor? Will such a person even join for a PhD after knowing that their stipend will just about suffice for their survival, has very little chance of being increased and will regularly be paid after a 6 month delay? I think there are more fundamental structural and attitudinal changes that are required to boost the country's research output. In my opinion, the reason there is an overall poor scientific temper in the country and the reason very few take to research as a career is not because of how science is taught in undergraduate courses. It is because of the way science is taught in the schools, boring and without any hands on experimental work. And by the time kids are through highschool, their minds are mostly made up on what career to choose. If a person is not inclined to take up a research career at the end of highschool, that is not very likely to happen after getting a bachelor's degree. So the science in schools needs to be fixed first before getting on to meddling with universities.
An important proposal in the FYUP position paper is the introduction of a research component in the UG courses by dedicating 1-2 semesters to project work resulting in a dissertation. This is indeed a very good suggestion provided there is a provision for students to directly pursue PhD without having to have a Master's degree as a qualification. A suggestion to this effect is also made in the position paper. One of the advantages of having such a system, the position paper goes on to say, is that it will make taking up a research career more attractive by reducing the time period leading up to a faculty position by one year. Anyone who has any interest in taking up a faculty position in India would know that the recruitment advertisement of every university/institute includes a requirement for the candidate to have at least a few years of postdoctoral experience; greater the competition, longer is the experience required for a candidate to qualify. And so, I don't think this one year's concession is going to help anyone decide in favour of a research career.
Also, this suggestion to have a research component in UG courses will work out only in non-affiliating institutions such as IISc which have a well established research infrastructure. Among the affiliating universities, in most cases, the UG courses are conducted by the affiliated colleges and only postgraduate courses are conducted in the university campus. Except for a handful of quality colleges affiliated to each university, most others tend to be substandard, conducting their affairs with inadequate staff and facilities. Such places hardly tend to conduct even basic practical classes with standard experiments properly. I can cite my own example in this regard. I did my UG degree at the only government degree college in our city. Since it was the only government college in our city for boys (there was a separate college exclusively for girls and ours was a co-ed), it had the best possible UG faculty and gave admission to the top students who wanted to pursue a non-professional degree. All through my 3 years in the college, there was not a single restroom for the male students and there was only one such facility for all the girl students of the entire college. Since the college did not have funds to even construct toilets for the students, its understandable that there was not enough money to pay for the lecturers. To deal with this, teaching staff in most departments was contract faculty and there were very few permanent staff. (Some information to appreciate how indifferently paid these contract faculty were. After MSc, I went back to work in my UG college as a contract lecturer for an year. My salary was Rs.7000 a month and was only paid to me as a lump sum at the end of my appointment. Subsequently, when I joined for PhD my stipend was some Rs. 8000 odd + HRA). This was the scenario at a public college and you can imagine what the situation might be in private affiliated colleges. Now imagine mandating such colleges to organise original research projects for their students for an entire semester; how practical do you think that is going to be. If they can't build toilets for students, will they be able to purchase the instruments, chemicals and other facilities that such a project will require? Do temporary lecturers, who are paid pittance have any motivation to develop research programs in these colleges?
One solution to this could be to ask the students to carry out their project work in established labs outside their colleges, in universities and research institutes. I can relate another experience from my life in response to such a suggestion. I did my MSc at a private engineering college. As it usually happens at such places, we barely had the facilities to complete our prescribed lab courses and there was no research program of any kind in the college. So doing the project, mandated in the MSc course, on campus was out of question. So most of us had to look elsewhere. Those who had a relative who knew someone who mattered, got to do projects in a university or a private company for free. And those who did not have any connections, had to pay a university lab or a private company for the chemicals or more to let them do their projects (of course, not surprisingly no one reimbursed this expense, not to mention the lodging and eating expenses incurred during the project period). I can foresee something similar happening to students of most affiliated colleges if a project is mandated in their course, adding greater financial burden on to an already high education bill. Moreover, I don't even think this approach is actually required to inculcate a scientific aptitude among UG students. Why not, instead, make the basic lab course and practical examinations more creative.
Another interesting proposal of the FYUP is the interdisciplinary nature of the course. There is no arguing with the claim that interdisciplinary training is going to make students more employable. But the question is, does it need to be over a four year period or can the same objective be achieved by restructuring the present three year course. To start with, I do not think science students should be forced to take courses in history or some other humanities nonsense. Most of what's important for them to know as Indian citizens is covered as part of the social studies courses taught in the schools. No new purpose is served by repeating those lessons, unless of course the idea is to leave the door ajar to facilitate political propaganda. Also the foundation/interdisciplinary courses could be limited to the first two semesters and planned in such a way as to facilitate incremental addition to the knowledge of a particular subject that students had acquired in high school. At the end of first year, students should be allowed complete freedom to choose any combination of major and minor subjects that they wish to study for the last two years without limiting the options to pre-determined combinations as is the practise at present. These measures along with not enforcing a compulsory project work would facilitate achieving all the proposed objectives of the FYUP in 3 years. Project work could be mandated as part of the PG courses which will be pursued by a far fewer students. Curriculum of the PG courses should be synchronized with the UG course so as to prevent overlaps and be designed to cover advanced aspects of the major subject that were left out of the UG curriculum.
What we need in India is to find solutions that not only address the deficiencies in our university system but are also implementable. Many times experts in our country end up adopting what has worked elsewhere and often come up with solutions that are appealing on paper but seldom succeed in solving our problems. Just having the heart in the right place is not enough. There must be an ear to the ground too.
