Lessons from DU’s faux pas

This week, students of Delhi University troop back to their colleges after a long and eventful summer break. The four year undergraduate programme, inaugurated with much fanfare only last year has been rolled back, and the University, virtually split down the middle over the circumstances surrounding its birth and equally dramatic demise. The FYUP, flagged off in the 2013-14 session, was reportedly the brainchild of DU vice chancellor Dinesh Singh.

The framing of the form and content of this ‘reform’ would surely have benefited from detailed discussions with key stakeholders like the students, teachers and parents on board. A large number of teachers expressed their dismay at being sidelined in such a critical exercise and voiced their misgivings about both the academic content and the practical difficulties in implementation. 

Like thousands of other parents, I too followed the developments through the media and discussions with friends and colleagues in DU and was filled with foreboding at the manner in which such a radical overhaul of the existing system was undertaken in such a short span of time. What were the course contents? What were the readings? Where would science and commerce colleges get faculty to teach philosophy and psychology?

The vice chancellor stated in media interviews that DU graduates were unemployable given the current state of their education and must, therefore, be given generous doses of interdisciplinary and application-based inputs that would make them more job-worthy. Compulsory Foundation Courses (11 of them) dealing with a wide and rather frenetically put together range of topics ranging from quantitative methods to history and culture and ‘applied courses’ were introduced supposedly to cover this lacuna in their education. Unfortunately, rather than upgrading students’ capacities, it was pointed out by many that these courses, in fact, resulted in dumbing down the curriculum, and were regarded as a complete waste of time. The good news was the introduction of ‘minor’ subjects, or ‘Discipline 2,’which would have enabled students to engage with cognate disciplines or even diametrically different ones.
In order to accommodate this rather confusing mélange of courses, an additional year, the much maligned ‘FY’ in the UP was thrown into the mix, to the delight of those affluent and well-heeled kids wanting an additional year of ‘time-pass’ at the best hang-out zone in town and the dismay of those battling with financial, family and other constraints while trying to study and struggle in the city. This ‘American-style’ model was seen as a good launch pad for the select few planning higher studies in the US as it gave them the opportunity to complete the mandatory 16 years of higher education. Several commentators opined that it was elitist in its very conception and rife with glaring shortcomings, both in terms of academic content and requisite infrastructure. Nonetheless, it saw the light of the day and the ‘autonomy’ of the university to chart its own course was upheld. 

Scarcely a year later, FYUP has come to a sudden end. The change in the political dispensation saw an intensification of protests by teacher and student organisations urging that the programme be reviewed and revoked. As a final nail in the coffin, the regulator of higher education in the country, the University Grants Commission declared the course invalid and ordered DU to roll it back and revert to the earlier three-year programme. It even issued a public notice advising students, parents and the general public that the FYUP was not in consonance with the National Policy on Education which envisaged the 10+2+3 structure and that DU had not followed the procedure prescribed under its own Act. Students enrolled in the programme, particularly in the four-year BTech and Management Studies courses were left wondering what would become of their courses and their future marketability. Adding to the air of chaos and confusion was the delay in the new cycle of admissions for the current academic session, which saw ‘cut-offs’ going through the roof despite the uncertainty that prevailed, clearly indicating that DU still is one of the most desirable academic addresses in the country. 

The controversy has not ended with the rollback and the restitution of the three-year degree. The contents of the courses in the remaining four semesters have also led to dissent and dissatisfaction amongst teachers who claim that they have once again been left out of the process. Academic rigour, unfortunately, has become the biggest casualty in the entire episode.
Needless to say, the worst sufferers are the thousands of hapless students who have no clarity about what they are going to study over the next two years. As a parent of a young man from the ‘Batch of ‘13” I am deeply disturbed at the ongoing developments. At the same time, the heated TV debates in which proponents and opponents trade jibes and accusations has done little to calm the troubled waters and invoke confidence in students and their worried parents. Media reports of the resistance of teachers to change are equally irresponsible and mindless. One leading daily carried a story about teachers not wanting a change in the system because they want to use their old lecture notes!
A university, at the end of the day, is a space where teachers and students meet to learn from each other in an atmosphere that fosters mutual debate, discussion and respect for difference. There is absolutely no doubt that higher education in India is in need of revision, reworking, revitalising. The only way this can be achieved is through a democratic consensus taking on board all stakeholders. If the birth and death of the FYUP has succeeded in reminding us of this, it will have justified its brief existence.
The writer teaches at IGNOU, New Delhi.
Views expressed in this article are personal.his week, students of Delhi University troop back to their colleges after a long and eventful summer break. The four year undergraduate programme, inaugurated with much fanfare only last year has been rolled back, and the University, virtually split down the middle over the circumstances surrounding its birth and equally dramatic demise. The FYUP, flagged off in the 2013-14 session, was reportedly the brainchild of DU vice chancellor Dinesh Singh. The framing of the form and content of this ‘reform’ would surely have benefited from detailed discussions with key stakeholders like the students, teachers and parents on board. A large number of teachers expressed their dismay at being sidelined in such a critical exercise and voiced their misgivings about both the academic content and the practical difficulties in implementation. 

Like thousands of other parents, I too followed the developments through the media and discussions with friends and colleagues in DU and was filled with foreboding at the manner in which such a radical overhaul of the existing system was undertaken in such a short span of time. What were the course contents? What were the readings? Where would science and commerce colleges get faculty to teach philosophy and psychology?

The vice chancellor stated in media interviews that DU graduates were unemployable given the current state of their education and must, therefore, be given generous doses of interdisciplinary and application-based inputs that would make them more job-worthy. Compulsory Foundation Courses (11 of them) dealing with a wide and rather frenetically put together range of topics ranging from quantitative methods to history and culture and ‘applied courses’ were introduced supposedly to cover this lacuna in their education. Unfortunately, rather than upgrading students’ capacities, it was pointed out by many that these courses, in fact, resulted in dumbing down the curriculum, and were regarded as a complete waste of time. The good news was the introduction of ‘minor’ subjects, or ‘Discipline 2,’which would have enabled students to engage with cognate disciplines or even diametrically different ones.
In order to accommodate this rather confusing mélange of courses, an additional year, the much maligned ‘FY’ in the UP was thrown into the mix, to the delight of those affluent and well-heeled kids wanting an additional year of ‘time-pass’ at the best hang-out zone in town and the dismay of those battling with financial, family and other constraints while trying to study and struggle in the city. This ‘American-style’ model was seen as a good launch pad for the select few planning higher studies in the US as it gave them the opportunity to complete the mandatory 16 years of higher education. Several commentators opined that it was elitist in its very conception and rife with glaring shortcomings, both in terms of academic content and requisite infrastructure. Nonetheless, it saw the light of the day and the ‘autonomy’ of the university to chart its own course was upheld. 

Scarcely a year later, FYUP has come to a sudden end. The change in the political dispensation saw an intensification of protests by teacher and student organisations urging that the programme be reviewed and revoked. As a final nail in the coffin, the regulator of higher education in the country, the University Grants Commission declared the course invalid and ordered DU to roll it back and revert to the earlier three-year programme. It even issued a public notice advising students, parents and the general public that the FYUP was not in consonance with the National Policy on Education which envisaged the 10+2+3 structure and that DU had not followed the procedure prescribed under its own Act. Students enrolled in the programme, particularly in the four-year BTech and Management Studies courses were left wondering what would become of their courses and their future marketability. Adding to the air of chaos and confusion was the delay in the new cycle of admissions for the current academic session, which saw ‘cut-offs’ going through the roof despite the uncertainty that prevailed, clearly indicating that DU still is one of the most desirable academic addresses in the country. 

The controversy has not ended with the rollback and the restitution of the three-year degree. The contents of the courses in the remaining four semesters have also led to dissent and dissatisfaction amongst teachers who claim that they have once again been left out of the process. Academic rigour, unfortunately, has become the biggest casualty in the entire episode.
Needless to say, the worst sufferers are the thousands of hapless students who have no clarity about what they are going to study over the next two years. As a parent of a young man from the ‘Batch of ‘13” I am deeply disturbed at the ongoing developments. At the same time, the heated TV debates in which proponents and opponents trade jibes and accusations has done little to calm the troubled waters and invoke confidence in students and their worried parents. Media reports of the resistance of teachers to change are equally irresponsible and mindless. One leading daily carried a story about teachers not wanting a change in the system because they want to use their old lecture notes!

A university, at the end of the day, is a space where teachers and students meet to learn from each other in an atmosphere that fosters mutual debate, discussion and respect for difference. There is absolutely no doubt that higher education in India is in need of revision, reworking, revitalising. The only way this can be achieved is through a democratic consensus taking on board all stakeholders. If the birth and death of the FYUP has succeeded in reminding us of this, it will have justified its brief existence.

The writer teaches at IGNOU, New Delhi.Views expressed in this article are personal.