With the Delhi University accepting to honour the directive of the University Grants Commission on shifting from four year degree course to three years, the controversy may have ended at that university. But the issue is unlikely to be buried. For a country that is keen to pattern its education with countries of USA and Europe to integrate the economy with the global economy the issue is likely to come alive earlier than later. While the countries of the west have accepted our engineering degrees as equivalent to theirs because of its four year duration, it is time that our other degrees too become internationally acceptable. There is no way that our degrees will be globally acceptable as long as we do not switch over to the four year degree pattern as in the west.
In spite of assertions that the Bangalore University’s four year course is different than the Delhi University one, there are not many who agree with it. If one has to examine the course structure there are more similarities between the two programmes than differences. The four year degree programme that is initiated by the Bangalore University like that of Delhi provides a diploma after two years, a degree after three years and honours degree after four years.
Students are to complete their masters after a year’s study. Students could opt out either after two years with a diploma or three years with a degree or four with honours. In many ways it is a laudable decision.
The fears of the aided teaching community that exit option would reduce student numbers in the third year and that would affect teaching hours and as a result their interests would not be looked into is to view the issue in a narrow framework. What needs to be stressed is the freedom of adults to study or not to. Why compel young people to study if they desire to work after two years? Not that many would opt out. And if some of them desire to return to study after two or three years of work they are likely to come with more seriousness and may better contribute to the learning process in the campus.
That does not mean that I am making a case for a four year degree programme at the Bangalore University. The introduction of the course in isolation without the other universities in the state and the country adopting it is likely to cause problems for the students who pass out from the Bangalore University.
Insufficient seats
Bangalore University has students from across the country and even from outside the country. Where are these students to go for their one year post-graduate studies after four years of study here? Bangalore University will have insufficient seats. Other Universities are unlikely to accept them given the fact the post-graduate degrees are of two years. Will the introduction of the four year degree course in the Bangalore University cause problems to students desirous of pursuing PG programmes outside the University?
The other issue however is the concern of lack of participation in evolving the programme. In a democracy the university instead of imposing from above should evolve it from below so that the programme includes the wisdom of all. Without participation of all stake-holders with regard to structure, pedagogy and content of the courses, the programme may end up the same as of present three year programme with an additional year. It is here that the University has to learn to link education with the needs of larger society and industry. The reality however is different.
Teachers are yet to know the reasons for the introduction of the four year programme. The institutions have not been consulted. All of them would need 25 per cent more infrastructure if they have to add another year to the present programme. Students have not been made aware of the benefits of the four years. When courses and programmes are introduced without sufficient debates and discussions, a tame programme that is offered will be routinely delivered without the spirit of innovation and creativity. Industry and various social actors have not been made a party. The syllabus is yet to be ready.
There is no doubt that higher education needs to change. When individual vice-chancellors decide to change to tune education to the global pattern without looking at the national pattern of education, changes can create chaos for the students. On the other hand given the deep interests that have invaded the education sector it is no easy to change things. The need is to publicly debate issues by discussing concerns on education in the country and evolve a relevant education that caters to the needs of life, society and industry. Any change that is initiated by individuals or a single university without reference to the larger picture is likely to have adverse impacts.