COSMETIC CHANGES?
Does Delhi University really need to introduce more B- tech courses? Shobhit Mahajan, Professor of Physics at DU, plays devil’s advocate.
“THE MANY OVERLOOKED CHANGES BEING INTRODUCED AT DELHI UNIVERSITY WILL HAVE CRUCIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STUDENTS”
The last few years have seen the introduction of some very profound changes to the academic framework of the University of Delhi. The introduction of the semester system has been the most widely reported of these. But there are many other changes which have been overlooked, though they entail far more crucial consequences for the university. The introduction of a 4 year undergraduate programme, the introduction of a BTech in Innovation and the setting up of a meta- university are two changes worth taking notice of.
To appreciate what these seemingly innocuous ( and in some cases mildly amusing) initiatives mean for the nature of the University, it is important to understand the evolution of the existing structures. The University was an institution which imparted academic instruction in disciplines which can loosely be termed as liberal arts. This was a term which started off as denoting the 7 classical fields which were supposed to be essential learning for any informed citizen. In modern times however, this term has come to have more exclusionary rather than inclusionary connotations. Liberal Arts education is now seen as everything excluding professional, technical and vocational education.
Initially, there were a few constituent colleges together with faculties or departments. Undergraduate education for the sciences was primarily done in the departments while humanities and social science courses were held at the colleges. This underwent a change in the seventies when because of the numbers, undergraduate education was shifted to colleges while post graduate teaching remained the preserve of departments.
Intertingly enough, the professional courses were totally segregated from the University, though nominally, being the degree giving institution, the University remained in control. Thus, for instance, the Delhi College of Engineering and University College of Medical Sciences were first rate institutions, essentially autonomous in practice. The University exercised de jure rather than de facto control. The two faculties of Law and Management did exist within the University but here too their relatively autonomous nature was respected.
This model, of segregating professional and liberal arts education served the University well. Of course there were serious issues with the three year, annual, decentralized- instruction/ centralized examination model. But these problems were mostly practical in nature and there were no compelling theoretical reasons to shift. Until now.
Although the 4 year, BTech program in Innovation has attracted attention, it is pertinent to note that this is not the first ‘ innovative’ program being run within the University. About 4 years ago in DU introduced the 3- year Mtech programs- in Nanoscience & technology, Nuclear Science & Engineering and in Analytical Chemistry. The official reason for introducing these courses was surprisingly similar to the rationale now being given for the BTech courses. The logic goes as follows - our regular programs are not training employable people. We need to make our students employable and hence we need industry specific programs.
Very lofty ideals - except the reality turns out to be somewhat not so obliging. The students graduating from the Nuclear Science program have mostly got absorbed in the atomic energy establishment in India, something that they could also have done with a Masters in Physics. Maybe the students have got a slight head start- but that does not affect the employability argument. The Nanoscience graduates are not even that lucky- not a single one of them has got a job. And the students have essentially wasted an extra year as compared to a regular Masters in Physics.
Before introducing the new B- Tech
courses it would have been prudent for the University to reflect on the MTech experience. To ask, for instance, why the industry doesn’t think much of these degrees, despite their being offered by a leading University.
Although there could be several reasons for the placement fiasco, one important reason I think is that the industry is not necessarily looking for narrowly defined skill sets. Instead, they are looking for students who are exposed to the relevant subject but more importantly, are trained to think, to collaborate and be analytical. Giving “innovative” names to courses might make it attractive for the students, but is not an alternative to real, rigorous content. And taking innovation in nomenclature to a new height is the delicious oxymoron of a BTech in Humanities which is being proposed.
There is merit in thinking of creative ways in which undergraduate education in particular can be made more collaborative and can train students to think and be innovative. However, it is important to realize the constraints which the sheer size of the University of Delhi imposes on fancy innovations which might work with a unitary campus like Princeton or indeed even JNU.
Thus any improvements at Delhi University has to be done wisely, incrementally and with a lot of discussion, consensus building and thinking. Pilot projects which are reviewed and modified are possibly the way to go. Instead what we have been seeing are a lot of illthought out, hurriedly introduced initiatives leading predictably to complete chaos amongst staff and students. The future of the many students who are literally being made the guinea pigs in these experiments in change is unfortunately not being considered at all, just like when it came to the M- tech courses.
In 1990, the Indian management guru C. K. Prahalad introduced the concept of core competence for companies. The fundamental insight was that successful companies are those which stick to what they do best and continuously improve that creatively. In other words, stick to the knitting but keep improving on the stitches. Perhaps someone should remind the senior administration at the University of Delhi of this age- old, grandmotherly wisdom.
“THE FUTURE OF THE MANY STUDENTS WHO ARE LITERALLY BEING MADE GUINEA PIGS IN THESE EXPERIMENTS IS UNFORTUNATELY NOT BEING CONSIDERED AT ALL.”