Trivialising higher education

Four-year undergraduate programme

Shivaji Sarkar

It is indeed strange. The US is contemplating reverting to three-year degree courses in its universities to cut costs in a recession-hit economy. On the other hand, in a worse economic situation in India, the centrally-funded Delhi University is trying to impose a four-year degree and that too without adequate preparation or debate.

Strangely, the Delhi University has never tried to explain the rationale for jumping into a four-year undergraduate programme that would cost its 2.5 lakh students a minimum of an additional Rs 1 lakh each and a delay in their entry to jobs by another year. It merely states it wants to create a compatible system with the US as the three-year degree is not recognized. This is blatant untruth. World ken at Education Services recognised the three-year bachelors programme way back in 2006.

The DU also does not take into account the additional cost on the nation for extending the duration. The faculty cost would increase by almost 30 per cent and an equal amount on additional infrastructure at the University and its colleges. It would rob the nation of a few thousand crore rupees for no constructive purpose!

Clearly, it is an expensive, dangerous and unwanted experiment that the students must be spared. The increased cost would be finally heaped on the students as additional teaching cost. It may only benefit the mafia, which is now entering the education business, but at a great public cost.

This apart, what the DU wants to teach is also beyond the comprehension of many experts. Some, including Jayati Ghosh, Professor at the elite Jawaharlal Nehru University, have questioned the bulldozing of the decision ie the only one taken at the academic council meeting. The curriculum, which so far remains vague, does not explain how it would make the students more employable, as per its stated objective.

What the Delhi University is doing, which may force other universities to follow the pattern, is virtually creating an impractical syllabus. Its value is doubtful and delivery suspect. The main change is this: from July this year, the four-year undergraduate programme will have no more BAs or B Scs. Instead, multiple degrees will be offered within a single stream: Associate Baccalaureate (after 2 years), Baccalaureate (3 years), and Baccalaureate with Honours (4 years). Nobody has explained why there has to be this nomenclature.

There would be 11 foundation courses, regardless of their previous training or choice of subject. All students will be forced to take these courses, which will occupy most of their time in the first two years. Is it not a sheer waste of time and money? Worse, these courses include two courses on "Language, Literature and Creativity" (one in English, the other in Hindi or another Modern Indian Language), "Information Technology," "Business, Entrepreneurship and Management," "Governance and Citizenship," "Psychology, Communication and Life Skills," "Geographic and Socio-economic Diversity," "Science and Life," "History, Culture and Civilisation," "Building Mathematical Ability" and "Environment and Public Health." Can anybody explain the rationale?

As per their orientation, most of the students would have acquired these basics in their studies up to Class 12. Why does the DU want to waste two more years on repetition? Is it not a way to trivialise higher education, whose purpose apart from imparting knowledge is to create yearning to learn more? Instead, the DU is trying to smother that process.

These courses will have to be pitched at a level that can be understood by all with a basic school qualification. But why force these on all. And who will teach them, given that even the outlines of these courses have still not been made public and are unknown to the college teachers themselves?

The students have been given the option to opt out after two years with the half-baked or no additional knowledge with an "Associate Baccalaurate" degree. Appears good! But what worth these would be? Who would recognise their degree or rather a non-degree? Does that not again substantiate the argument that the bachelor's degree can be condensed into two years?

Undeniably, the four-year programme reduces students' choice. It offers 20 courses in supposed major discipline, six in minor discipline and five "skill-based courses that enable employability" called Application and six devoted to "cultural activities". The only choice given is in terms of major and minor disciplines. What precisely is the aim--turn students into thinking persons or disoriented citizens?

Families are finding it difficult to fund education for their children. It has become the most exploitative business, where even pre-schooling costs a minimum of Rs 5,000 to 10,000 a month. Higher education is going beyond the reach of many, landing them in a debt trap.

Indeed, the cost of education is soaring. It is no more the democratic right of an average citizen, raising the question whether Indians really have right to education? The right is meaningless if education is beyond affordable limits. In addition, a divide is being created, wherein a new super class is emerging which is forced to pay hefty fees, even upto Rs 10 lakh or more for an MBA degree though it may not yield a job that may earn them Rs 1 lakh a year.

India is not a loner in this world. The US also is facing similar problem. With college costs and student loan debt continuing to soar in America, there is a clamour for getting a bachelor's degree in three years. Canadians too get their degrees in three years, not four as is often propagated.

Importantly, the Americans are considering this express lane as ideal for a recession-hit nation. They are even considering reducing their medical education to three years. The reason given is that it would be of great financial help to cash-strapped parents and students. Thus, the California, Minnesota and Ohio university systems are considering implementing three-year degrees, and a handful of private colleges already offer or are set to offer these.

Indeed, it is time for India to look at how it could go back to its original two-year graduation programme. The country need not follow the US commercial education model, but can set a better example. It must guard against changing the education system that is apparently going to add neither knowledge nor skill nor yearning without a nationwide debate.

� INFA