The UGC wants the Universities to implement Choice-based Credit System. In their guidelines, they clearly state Choice-based Credit System provides a "Cafeteria" approach to education. In one swoop they have turned education into something completely irrelevant. The guideline is absolutely vague- a bureaucrat's vision. So let us go through it:
1. The student will learn at their own pace.
What does this mean? Can a student graduate in four years instead of three? Or maybe graduate in two years instead of three? Will all these students be considered on par?The document is silent on these aspects.
2. There are going to be three kinds of courses- Core, Elective, and Foundation. Students have to take core courses every semester for certain credits and then choose their electives. The foundation courses are mandatory.
This smacks of the Four Year Undergraduate program that was rolled back from DU last year. Why was FYUP rolled back if the same thing was going to implemented this year in a different guise? Further, do all the Universities and Colleges in the country have adequate faculty who can offer core and electives? Take a college where a department has only 1 teacher- I came across this case when I was conducting the refresher course at the Academic staff college earlier this year. This teacher has to teach all the subjects to all the students and also do the laboratory practicals with all the students. Where does she/he have time to design an elective course? Or is it that the same course will be offered as core subject to some students and elective to others? What would be the class strength under this scenario? How is the teacher supposed to grade them?
3. The foundation course will be of two kinds-Compulsory and Elective. Compulsory foundation course is going to lead to knowledge enhancement and is mandatory for all students. Elective foundation course are value-based and aimed at man-making education.
I give up! What does man-making education mean?
4. Finally, though this is not stated in the guidelines explicitly, one of the advantages of CBCS is that students can transfer credits to another University or take credits in another University/college- essentially offering student mobility.
However, here is the caveat. In the same breath the UGC/HRD wants us to standardize all the course so that at least all the Central Universities offer the same courses. If they do, then what is the need for student mobility?
If I am not mistaken, this entire approach is taken from the way American Education is designed. What our decision making members forget is that the American Education is a 4 year program. At the beginning the student does not declare his/her major subject. For the first two years they take a variety of subjects- what in a sense would be the foundation courses suggested by UGC. The 101 courses but at a level higher than what they would have learnt in High School. At the end of the second year they declare their major and, if they want, minor subjects. The next two years they spend acquiring knowledge in these subjects. The system offers great flexibility because the student has time to figure out what they are interested in. A relative of mine started University with the aim of become a doctor (they have to do 4 year Undergraduate program before applying to Med School), found that it was music that moved him, and ended up becoming a musician. That is the flexibility and greatness of the system. It is not all hunky-dory but it does offer you time to figure out your mojo.
Now what we do is to, of course, take the best practices of the best Universities in the world and then make a kichidi out of it so that it becomes incomprehensible, impractical and doomed for failure.
1. The student will learn at their own pace.
What does this mean? Can a student graduate in four years instead of three? Or maybe graduate in two years instead of three? Will all these students be considered on par?The document is silent on these aspects.
2. There are going to be three kinds of courses- Core, Elective, and Foundation. Students have to take core courses every semester for certain credits and then choose their electives. The foundation courses are mandatory.
This smacks of the Four Year Undergraduate program that was rolled back from DU last year. Why was FYUP rolled back if the same thing was going to implemented this year in a different guise? Further, do all the Universities and Colleges in the country have adequate faculty who can offer core and electives? Take a college where a department has only 1 teacher- I came across this case when I was conducting the refresher course at the Academic staff college earlier this year. This teacher has to teach all the subjects to all the students and also do the laboratory practicals with all the students. Where does she/he have time to design an elective course? Or is it that the same course will be offered as core subject to some students and elective to others? What would be the class strength under this scenario? How is the teacher supposed to grade them?
3. The foundation course will be of two kinds-Compulsory and Elective. Compulsory foundation course is going to lead to knowledge enhancement and is mandatory for all students. Elective foundation course are value-based and aimed at man-making education.
I give up! What does man-making education mean?
4. Finally, though this is not stated in the guidelines explicitly, one of the advantages of CBCS is that students can transfer credits to another University or take credits in another University/college- essentially offering student mobility.
However, here is the caveat. In the same breath the UGC/HRD wants us to standardize all the course so that at least all the Central Universities offer the same courses. If they do, then what is the need for student mobility?
If I am not mistaken, this entire approach is taken from the way American Education is designed. What our decision making members forget is that the American Education is a 4 year program. At the beginning the student does not declare his/her major subject. For the first two years they take a variety of subjects- what in a sense would be the foundation courses suggested by UGC. The 101 courses but at a level higher than what they would have learnt in High School. At the end of the second year they declare their major and, if they want, minor subjects. The next two years they spend acquiring knowledge in these subjects. The system offers great flexibility because the student has time to figure out what they are interested in. A relative of mine started University with the aim of become a doctor (they have to do 4 year Undergraduate program before applying to Med School), found that it was music that moved him, and ended up becoming a musician. That is the flexibility and greatness of the system. It is not all hunky-dory but it does offer you time to figure out your mojo.
Now what we do is to, of course, take the best practices of the best Universities in the world and then make a kichidi out of it so that it becomes incomprehensible, impractical and doomed for failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment