Representation by six elected Academic Council (AC) member of #DelhiUniversity to DU VC on #CBCS (Choice Based Credit System) that is being imposed by #UGC / #MHRD. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dinesh Singh, Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi. 20 January 2015 Dear Prof. Singh, This has reference to the letter from the MHRD (D.O. No.20-104/2014-Desk U dated 14.11.2015) seeking implementation of a Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) from the academic year 2015-16 in accordance with a certain Guidelines formulated by the UGC. The said letter and Guidelines along with the information that the Vice-Chancellor has already constituted a Committee on the subject on 28.11.2014 in pursuance of the MHRD letter have been placed in the agenda for the meeting of the Academic Council (AC) scheduled for 21.1.2014 as reporting items. The MHRD letter refers to some detailed discussion on subject of the development of national credit transfer framework during the Retreat of Vice-Chancellors of Central Universities on 12-13 September 2014. The letter states that UGC Guidelines have been formulated to enhance efficiency and excellence in higher education and to mitigate the problems of students on migration from one institution to the other and hopes that the CSBS will ensure seamless mobility of students across higher educational institutions in the country as well as abroad. The item in the agenda for the AC meeting leaves out the terms of reference of the Committee constituted within two weeks of the receipt of the MHRD letter. A notification regarding the constitution of the Committee dated 3.12.2014 sets out two tasks before thissmallsized,seven-memberCommittee: (i) creation of a discussion paper on key issues such as curriculum revision required, examination and assessment systems and credit equivalence and (ii) give implementation guidelines for introducing CSBS in the University of Delhi. As is evident from the terms of reference for the Committee and the text of the UGC guidelines, all aspects of the academic programmes, both undergraduate and postgraduate, ranging from formulation of courses to the examination and assessment system are involved. Consideration of such a proposal would require rigorous examination of the issues involved, critical scrutiny of the implications and consequences of the proposed restructuring and appreciation as well as fulfilment of the prerequisites of any new structure that is found to be academically desirable. Hurried implementation of drastic restructuring without rigorous academic scrutiny will fail the responsibility that the University has towards students who are to be admitted to the academic programme offered by it as well as improvement in standards in the long run. The timeframe desired by the MHRDfor the introduction of CBCS in 2015-16 does not permit an honest and responsible engagement with the UGC proposals and should, therefore, be set aside. It is the duty of the University to bring to the notice of the Government and the UGC that serious decisions affecting the future of young people cannot be and should not be taken in undue haste. The University of Delhi has been already subjected to three rounds of reforms since 2002-03 when continuous internal assessment system proposed by the DUTA became the basis of reforms initiated by the Academic Council, one after the other, without due and diligent review of the problems with and the outcome of the earlier rounds. Any agency is free to suggest reforms but none can refuse to take into consideration issues that emerge from deliberation. The University’s task is to allow for frank deliberation and then take the appropriate decision as to whether and in what form to implement it or on what grounds and considerations it finds it not appropriate to accept the proposal. The University of Delhi is one of the premier universities in the country and is also a large university with the advantage of possessing the expertise of thousands of teachers in one city under the same institutional structure. Statutorily provided bodies such as the various Faculties, Committees of Courses in the Departments, the Staff Councils as well as forums such as subject general bodies, each consisting of teachers of a subject, whether appointed in a college or a university department have in the past provided the platform for wide-ranging discussion for scrutiny and fine-tuning of academic proposals. We are of the firm opinion that the proposals be sent out for deliberation in these bodies and on the basis of the written arguments, opinions and suggestions emanating from these forums, seminars and workshops on the basis of written and publicly circulated drafts be held. After required revisions, the documents be made available for feedback from all so that the Academic Council will be in a position to take a considered decision and to offer arguments in defense of the same. Acceptance or rejection of any reform proposals without rigorous examination will be arbitrary and irresponsible. The Vice-Chancellor anyway should not take upon himself the task of judging any academic proposal. Even the Academic Council has to base its decisions on reasonable grounds and after considering and responding to the various opinions and arguments. In fact, the Statutes and Ordinances provide for the AC referring such matters to the Faculties and the Faculties basing their proposals on the basis of the recommendations by the Committees of Courses. This University became a premier university through extending these processes of consultations and critical scrutiny to the subject general bodies, whose recommendations were the bases of the decisions taken by the Committees of Courses. Given that even the best designed system can be a disaster unless an audit of requisite infrastructure, number of teachers and teachers with desired expertise are ensured. It is required, therefore, that a review of the working of the recent reforms such as the internal assessment system, the semester system and the FYUP along with a thorough audit of the infrastructural situation as well as estimation of requirements be done along with the debate on the UGC guidelines on CBCS. Extant instances on circumspection and caution underline the need to undertake such a rigorous scrutiny of infrastructure and comprehensive review of the impact of semesterization. While, on the one hand, the MP State Education Department has recently suggested rollback of the semester system in UG courses, due to widespread concerns of deterioration in teaching-learning, the standing-committee of all Vice-Chancellors in state universities in MP have decided to defer the implementation of the CBCS. As per a TOI Report (14 Jan, 2015), the Calcutta University VC has also expressed criticism. He has reportedly said: “The credit system will benefit students but we dont have the capacity to introduce it for undergrads…we have 3,00,000 undergraduate students, the student-teacher ratio is very poor and we need infrastructure and much more support from government.” We specifically wish to remind you that many a times the extent and nature of course revision has been constrained by available infrastructure and a rigid norm for creation of new teaching posts, specifically in colleges. In fact some Honours courses in the annual system provided for many optional papers. But students’ choice was limited and the colleges provided options on the basis of available expertise. The consequences of the proposed system, which emphasises electives as part of a “cafeteria” approach, without any change in the rigid norms regarding creation of teaching posts would be to keep a large section of teachers in short term contractual appointment in view of the variable workload in various subjects. This may be good for efficiency and conducive to private business but inimical to promotion of excellence. We have no problem with provisions for mobility inside and outside the country for those who can afford but we must seriously examine the system suggested to facilitate the mobility so that excellence and standard of education available to most are not compromised. In fact, magic formulae may do more harm than good. One should evaluate whether the mobility options available in the country hindered by the absence of a grading and credit transfer system suggested by the UGC or the fact that most institutions are starved of adequate class room, laboratories, libraries, affordable hostels and have abysmal teacher-students ratio. The University will do a service to the country if it carries out a thorough study of what ails higher education in India. Many colleges in the countries have one to three teachers in a department teaching undergraduate (pass and honours) courses, postgraduate courses and guiding research. Such constraints would render any borrowed popular lingo such as learner centricity and cafeteria approach a farce. In the interest of higher education in the country and the future of the University of Delhi, we urge you not to postpone any decision on the matter till a thoroughgoing discussion tapping the rich and large pool of expertise in the University. A premier university will fail its responsibility if it shirks from its duty to consider all aspects and present its view without fear. Thanking you, Sd/- Amitava Chakravarty Mridua Arora NikhilJain Renu Bala Rudrashish Chakraborty Sujeet Kumar
Posted on: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 02:15:05 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015