Over at The Conversation, Vishwesha Guttal, a colleage in the Centre for Ecological Sciences, has a piece on Indian higher ed with a specific reference to the recent UGC directive to IISc on its FYUP. An excerpt:
India has adopted the UK’s model of three-year BSc program for more than 50 years, but the quality of most of the programs is abysmal. A paper prepared jointly by three Indian science academies in 2008 identified various limitations of the present system that focuses on quantity of information rather than the quality of education. The report argued for a four-year program with an emphasis on flexibility in curriculum, choice of subjects and research experience. They also recommended allowing students to switch between science and engineering.
India’s requirement as a large and diverse country cannot and should not rely on a failed mode of higher education uniformly imposed across the entire country. Experiments to improve education must be encouraged, especially if the premier institutes of the country are taking the lead. We can only know what works best if we attempt a variety of approaches.
2 Comments:
Can't see what the fuss is about: Three years of rubbish is certainly better than four years of rubbish.
While I would not put it as sacredfig has, duration of the course is less important than improving curriculum and testing methods. Teaching methods must change dramatically. Universities must let go of politics. Until all that happens, universities and their affiliated colleges can never impart education -- higher or any other kind. Most people whose opinions I have read are talking about IITs and IISc. These institutions cater to a miniscule percentage of students-- the vast majority graduate from state universities.
Post a Comment