O
ur universities are changing. Never
has the pace of change been this
fast, nor the protests this loud. On
the rare occasion that the media
take notice, the discussion usually focusses
on whether or not due procedure has been
followed. Given our authoritarian power
structures, it is as important to ask whether
adequate thought has gone into the initiation
of the changes.
Teachers of the University of Delhi are
especially familiar with changes; the recent
spate began with the introduction of the semester
system in undergraduate teaching in
2011. Although there are certain serious logistical
issues involved, there is nothing inherently
wrong with teaching in a semester
mode. What is problematic is when the introduction
of the system is done in a manner
in which little attention is paid to the content
of semester courses. Unfortunately, these
courses were created by snipping the existing
annual courses in half, sometimes badly.
Why? There was no time to reflect on curricular
or pedagogic issues.
An impact across India
More recently, we saw even more radical
changes with the introduction of the fouryear
undergraduate programme (FYUP) in
the University of Delhi. There is nothing inherently
good or bad about a four-year BA
programme. A great deal hinges on the quality
of the courses that form the programme.
Of course, questions can be asked about
whether a single university in the country
can move to a four-year system and the implications
of an additional year’s education in
a country where many students find it difficult
to pay even the highly subsidised fees.
Anyhow, the programme was introduced in
2013, again without adequate time to think
seriously about curricular or pedagogic issues.
And then, in the summer of 2014, it was
just as suddenly withdrawn.
The University of Delhi is still reeling under
the impact of all these changes, but what
is now on the cards is something even more
worrying; something that will affect not one
but all Indian universities. A communiqué
from the University Grants Commission
(UGC) dated November 14, 2014, gives certain
directives that were apparently discussed
at a retreat of the vice chancellors of
Central universities on September 12 and 13,
2014; these were subsequently approved by
the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
The directives require that all universities
follow a Choice Based Credit
System (CBCS) from 2015 onwards. We are
told that the aim is to provide choice to students
within an institution as well as “seamless
mobility across institutions” in India and
abroad by adopting a “cafeteria approach”.
These guidelines are apparently supposed to
apply to all undergraduate and postgraduate
level degree, diploma and certificate programmes
being run by Central, State and
deemed universities in India. Once again:
such sweeping change, so little thought.
Affecting autonomy
There would have been no problem if the
new system only involved giving students
grades instead of marks. However, it gives an
all-India scale of conversion of marks into
grades which does not take into account the
fact that there are radical differences between
the “standard” in different colleges
and universities. But even this is only a small
part of a larger package that has very serious
implications for the autonomy of universities
and the quality of university education
across the country.
All universities are to have a uniform
structure of syllabi. There will be “core”
courses, “compulsory foundation” courses,
and “elective foundation courses” that “are
value-based and are aimed at man-making
education”. This seems to be the FYUP in a
new three-year, all-India garb. In the new
system, in at least half of the core courses, the
assessment will be based on examinations in
which external examiners will set and mark
the papers. The new system will also have an
impact on PhD programmes. Theses must be
evaluated by external as well as internal examiners.
In the University of Delhi, while
undergraduate examination papers are currently
marked by teachers from across the
university, postgraduate assessment is done
within the departments. In the History Department,
we currently have three external
examiners for PhD theses. The new diktat is
set to change all this.
No say in courses
It gets worse. It is now clear that the new
system also aims at introducing uniform syllabi
across universities in the country. The
website of the UGC displays model undergraduate
syllabi for various subjects, from
which only minimal deviation will be permitted.
It does not specify where these syllabi
have come from. The History syllabus on the
UGC website happens to be the syllabus of
the University of Delhi, with a mishmash of
elements drawn from the old FYUP syllabus.
This is the “chosen one” which will presumably
be imposed on universities all over the
country.
This is not in the least bit flattering. In
normal times, the process of syllabus revision
in our University has involved wideranging
consultation and discussion among
all the teachers involved. It takes time —
sometimes too much — but it is worth it. For
example, the MA History syllabus was revised
a few years ago, and the History Department
has recently initiated a revision of its
BA syllabi, because teachers are convinced
that these syllabi need to be changed and
improved. Now it seems that we need not
bother. Our old courses, with which we are
dissatisfied, will continue and will be imposed
not only on us, but on other universities
in the country. In the best universities in
the world, postgraduate courses represent
cutting-edge approaches and research, and
are tailored to the research expertise of its
teachers. The uniqueness of the profiles of
departments and universities rests, to a great
extent, on this. But this will no longer be
possible, will not be allowed, in our universities.
We teachers will no longer have a role in
designing the courses that we teach.
The changes that are envisaged in the new
system are much more far-reaching in scope
and scale than the recently jettisoned FYUP.
But in both cases, we see an attempt to bring
about radical change in a hasty manner without
adequate thought about the rationale and
logistics, and even less time devoted to what
matters the most — the actual content of
courses. Many universities have already fallen
in line and have embraced the Choice
Based Credit System, and others will no
doubt follow suit. Instead of uniform excellence,
the result will be uniform mediocrity
and a lowering of the academic standards of
our best institutions. Given the enormous
logistical problems involved in introducing
too much change too fast, it could also involve
a break down of our university system.
European parallel
A few months ago, while in IIT Gandhinagar
(Ahmedabad), I met a Portuguese professor.
In the course of our conversation, he told
me that ever since the initiation of the Bologna
Process, academic standards had declined
and teaching was becoming increasingly
meaningless. He talked about the lack of recognition
given to solid academic work, teachers
scrambling to collect “points” for
promotion, and random students walking in
and out of his classes. I recognised with shock
the very changes that successive governments
have been trying to introduce in our
own universities. The university as cafeteria
came alive. Were we simply dealing with a
case of copycat “reforms”? In that professor’s
expression of demoralisation, I recognised
the feeling of despair that many Indian university
teachers who have served their institutions
for many decades currently feel.
Some of the talented younger teachers are
moving to private universities, but this is not
an option that many senior teachers, with
strong ties of commitment to their institutions,
would like to consider.
There is much that is wrong and rigid
about our universities, much that needs to be
improved, and it is very difficult to bring
about meaningful change. So it is easy to
present those who are initiating the recent
changes as impatient visionaries trying to
reform a decrepit system. And it is easy to
dismiss the protesters as a group of disgruntled
old fogeys who don’t want to keep pace
with the times. A cynical view that has been
doing the rounds for some time in university
circles is that the so-called “reforms” are a
part of a government strategy to destroy the
Central universities so that private universities
can flourish. One may not buy this argument,
but there is just too much evidence to
show that nobody in the higher echelons of
power is thinking seriously about the quality
of higher education. Otherwise, it should
have been obvious that what is important is
not the canteen (suitably Indianising the potent
metaphor) but the food that it serves.
The fate of our universities is too important
to be left to the whims of individual
mandarins, ministers or vice chancellors. It
is time that an Education Commission consisting
of experienced and respected academics
and educationists was set up to take
stock of the state of our universities and to
seriously deliberate on what needs to be done
to improve the quality of education that they
impart. But is anyone listening and does anyone
care?
(Upinder Singh is Professor, Department
of History, University of Delhi.)
