Society

The Four-Year Itch

A vice-chancellor’s ‘American’ brainchild stirs up opposition

Advertisement

The Four-Year Itch
info_icon

Out with the Empire, here come the Americans. A summer of discontent awaits students looking to join Delhi University, one of the oldest in the country, as it hurtles towards a ‘course correction’—from the current three-year degree course to one that takes four years. It’s a move that has left teachers baffled, for they say the plan was hurriedly conceived and they were not consulted the way they should have been. After all, the old format, with all its shortcomings, has served reasonably well for decades. In some ways, the new format is an acknowledgement of the American four-year undergrad course over the legacy of the British raj.

Advertisement

But what does an extra year mean for students and teachers? Is it just a ploy to ease passage for the foreign university providers’ bill, currently facing opposition in Parliament, by creating an exemplar? Is the university, which currently faces an acute shortage of teachers, equipped to handle more courses, not to mention an additional year? What does the additional year have in store for students? Is the curriculum for the new format a hasty marriage between the honours courses and the general courses? Will the new format clash with the existing one, and if so, for how long? Finally, the most important question: how well will the course equip students for further study or employment?

Advertisement

Teachers opposed to vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh’s grand idea point to several lapses in the design and conception of the course. What hurts them is the singular haste with which the administration has pushed ahead. “It was around the third week of December that the academic council passed the curriculum without seeking the views of colleges and teachers,” says Nayanjot Lahiri, a professor at the university’s history department. “The faculties have the status of statutory bodies. The administration need not have accepted their views but there’s been a massive breakdown of trust, it seems, for they didn’t even think it necessary to seek the faculties’ views.” As for students, there’ll be some heartburn as they ready for an extra year on campus while students in other states make do with less. There’s also the matter of more expenses—tuition and hostel fees, textbooks, stationery.

From the look of it, the newly des­igned course weighs against both teachers and students. Students have to clear 11 foundation courses in the first two years, and then attend to the discipline they will be awarded a degree in, plus a minor (ancillary) discipline. All courses will earn marks and credits that go towards awarding the degree.

The foundation course is cross-disciplinary and purports to cover math, creativity, history, literature and civilisation. Students also have to clear five application-oriented papers, six cultural activities courses, and two meant to “integrate mind, body and heart”. In all, some 50 courses over four years, in the hope that the benefits of a well-rounded education might accrue from this.

Advertisement

“But,” asks Apoorvanand of the university’s Hindi dep­artment, “who is going to teach the courses? Who is fra­ming these courses and which department will run them?” No answers there. What is known is that students have the option of leaving after two, three or four years of study, with different qualifying deg­rees awarded at the completion of these years. And here the confusion begins. What does a student do after three years? Does he become eligible for a PG course? And after two years? Does he become—as the administration, without thought, suggested—become a primary school teacher? Says Abha Dev Habib, who teaches physics at Miranda House, “Delhi University is a central university and it is a matter of grave concern that the new curriculum will create dropouts at different levels.”

Advertisement

Another confusion is over how students from different higher-secondary streams will handle the new format? If a student has opted for humanities at the plus-two level, he will be forced to und­ergo a collegiate science-math drill in the foundation course that might not be at a level he can handle. The same fate awaits science-streamers, who will have to take on literature and history. Many teachers say even they have no idea of the changes they (and the students) will have to handle, for they’ve been given no time to examine the new curriculum.

But how did this idea of a course overhaul come to be? The move gathered steam at the academic congress held last year, a brainwave of the vice-chancellor, who invited guests to speak on the virtues of a new curriculum. A four-year format was suggested, a task force was set up, and the ayes had it: the format was deemed to have been passed by a resolution. Teachers were taken by surprise, for the work on the rehaul started in September 2012 and went full throttle. Finally, at a hastily called emergency academic council meeting, held on a restricted holiday (December 24), the proposal for the overhaul was passed. The agenda pap­ers of the meeting were made available to council members only two days bef­ore the meeting. Says Satish Despande, who teaches at the Delhi School of Economics and dissented at the meeting, “Not a single public document has been distributed for the rationale beh­ind introducing the four-year course. So, all we are saying is, tell us why.”

Advertisement

A mail sent to the vice-chancellor went unheeded. Most teachers say it’s the hurry with which the proposal was pushed through that raises doubts on the intention and motive behind the move to overhaul: some wonder if the university is being used as a lab for commercialising education, in line with the Twelfth Plan document.

A website, 4yrdu.com started by tea­chers and students, spells out the dangers in the new format. There is also a ‘Save DU Campaign’ with slogans such as ‘Chaar din ki chaandni, phir andheri raat.’ The V-C’s grand plan is clearly gathering more opposition than endor­sement. Krishna Kumar, former ncert director, says, “I have found the university a bit bewildering. It is hard to believe the central library doesn’t have a chief librarian and that more than 3,000 teaching posts are vacant. With such glaring shortcomings, we can’t dream of global status just because we are copying the semester and credit system of the US.” And, one might ask, will we do it with a course someone described as “part vocational, part remedial, part honours, part New Age, part fluffy pedagogy, part mass education”.

Pros

  • The four-year system is in response to the poor state of higher education across India
  • The 4-year degree course is aimed at giving students a deeper understanding of the subject they major in
  • The new format, with its foundational course, encourages cross-disciplinary study
  • Exit options give those who need to work a better chance

***

Cons

  • DU alone will have a 4-year format, while the rest of the country continues to follow the 10+2+3+2 system
  • Merging basic and honours degrees into one hybrid neither allows the rigorous training honours courses used to offer nor takes a broad, integrated approach to the subject
  • To create cross-disciplinary foundation courses without staff or infrastructure will prove counterproductive
  • Exit options will encourage dropping out, especially among weaker groups

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement