I
The Choice
Based Credit System is underway in the “prestigious” University of Delhi and
when I use the term underway, it is in the sense that it is going through both
theoretical and implementation phase, i.e. it has already been implemented
without the necessary theoretical base. What is the Choice Based Credit System
and what is its use in Delhi University which had been doing comfortably well
in the semester system just after the immediate roll-back of the Four Year
Undergraduate program? Why does the university confuse itself with the third
year in the revised FYUP program, the second year in the classic (not so
classic) semester system and the first year batch in the newly introduced CBCS
program? It does not take a trained psychoanalyst to come to the conclusion
that the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) and the University
Grants Commission (UGC) along with the Delhi University officials in general
and the vice chancellor in particular (whose stay in DU is rather short-lived,
mind you) is in dire need of an educational reform, almost to the point of anxiety.
Here another question arises that why only the rulers of the university (and
the educational policy of the state) are in need of such radical reforms while
the student and teacher community has whole-heartedly dissented against the
former educational reform in the form of the FYUP. So far as the case presents
itself, the mere introduction of the CBCS (let alone its implementation, which
I will address later in depth) has rendered all prior structures, i.e. the
revised FYUP, the semester system and the CBCS into one entangled loop which
hangs over the neck of the entire student population of Delhi University and
will result in its slow and torturous death is nothing is done soon. These
couple of years will most probably go down in the history as the worst years of
DU. The university has reduced itself to the point of being a mere political
playground where games are played at the cost of the common students’ future.
If one thinks of this statement as exaggerated or superfluous, let me remind
him or her of the anti-FYUP struggle which attracted so much political
attention that the parties contesting for the Delhi State elections had to
address the issue in their election manifesto. Since we are not looking at
another state election for some years, the students have to gauge themselves to
a political struggle that would bring Delhi Government to a standstill. I will
address this point in detail in the later part of my essay.
The Choice
Based Credit System is both fresh and apparently nothing new in theory. In
fact, the grading system has been working well in certain other universities
like JNU, IIT, NIT and some state
universities as well as private universities but only because the grading
system had been present in these universities since thee past. The problem with
appropriating a grading system like the one they have in IIT or NIT posits a
problem because DU does not just offer sciences or commerce courses. It also
offers arts courses where a percentage of 60 is much reputed. Now, if we
appropriate this 60 in the ten-point cumulative grade point average given by
the UGC, it comes to a measly grade of B which is just “above average”. It is no
problem, or maybe little problem for science, mathematics and commerce courses
but the CGPA system fails in its implication on humanities courses. If sixty
percent makes a student merely average, how will he ever, in the current scheme
of things prove himself or herself to be very good (i.e. eighty percent, which
is out of scope for the marking scheme of humanities courses) or outstanding
(ninety to hundred)? So if it is applied in DU as it is, the humanities student
will always be just above average or in the rarest cases, good (even though the
student is actually outstanding for his/her own course), and the student of
sciences or mathematics will, on an average basis always be a very good or even
an outstanding student respectfully proven so by the grading system.
Both in its
principle as well as its implementation, the grade point system is highly
flawed. In JNU, the grade point average works on the basis, and on the premise
that it only (or vastly since there is a science as well as a mathematics
course) caters to a population pursuing a liberal arts degree. The science
(microbiology) and the mathematics (operations research) courses offered by JNU
appropriates to the CGPA system by the virtue of them being masters’ courses.
It means that the amount of work done corresponds more to practical and
research work as well as laboratory tutorials is much more than the final
paper. That is not the case in the undergraduate science courses in DU where
there already exists an infrastructural problem relating to lab facilities in
almost each and every college.
Having
briefly discussed one evaluative aspect of the CBCS, we move on to the crux of
the matter of which there are two, namely the “credit” and the “choice”,
The choice theoretically relates to the American major/minor model and it is
indeed its worthless mimic and so the DU officials and the UGC shamelessly try
to pass it off as original inventions by merely changing the name of the “minor
choice” to “open elective”. What basically happens in the American model is
that you can either choose to indulge in a minor course, while doing your
discipline honors or do a supportive paper, or credit that links to your
discipline course. The problem with its implementation in DU is that it follows
a British model of education, much like Universities such as Oxford and
Cambridge where there are different colleges following the same syllabus. In
the British system, there is no mobility and the student is to do his or her
course in his or her college. He enters as a student of, say for the example of
Oxford University, Balliol College or Exeter College and stays in the college
to complete his or her college degree. The chosen subject is then taught in
depth and with great attention to the idea of pursuing the chosen discipline
further academically. On the other hand, a student getting into Harvard
University is appointed to a school or a centre but owing to the nature of the
university, the student can apply for courses, or certain paper outside of his
or her discipline in other centers or schools. This is not possible in DU, as
it not possible in Oxford or Cambridge because the colleges are not enclosed
but are scattered all over the city, and because the college is specifically
responsible for a degree and cannot afford to take on itself the burden of
furnishing options. This problem is even more exaggerated in Du where the
necessary faculty is already lacking. Furthermore, the DU syllabus for the
honors course has been diluted from the earlier 18-20 papers to just 14 honors
papers simply to accommodate the so-called choices. This is not the case even
in the American credit system because the very idea of compromising a
discipline paper for optional papers is ludicrous, even more so as the students
do not get the choice to elect more papers for the discipline courses. It is
like robbing Peter to pay Paul as the CBCS, instead of giving the rightful
extra credit to the student for taking the effort to choose an open elective or
‘discipline specific elective’, the program only creates the illusion of doing
so while it robs the student of his or her credits that are already designated
to the student for his or her honors course. So theoretically, the choice is
one of no-choice and on top of that it is against the very choice of the honors
course that the student takes when he or she joins the college. There is also
the fact to be considered that there will be no added gradation of the opted
choices and no provision to change the course or do a dual-major that are the
prime characteristics of the American credit system. This is because the
university is not equipped to handle such arbitration in terms of giving out a
degree.
The practical
implications of such a theory, that is already exposed to be a farce is even
more farcical because the student is not allowed by DU to take a “discipline
specific elective” till his or her fifth semester! In the classic
semester system that was/is prevalent in DU (and we hope that it will be), the
discipline specific optional papers are given as choices in the third semester
itself! So, instead of providing more choices than the semester system, the
CBCS takes away the choice of a student to study his or her discipline deeply
till the fifth semester and the average student is compelled to take the
mediocre generic electives. The real purpose of the generic course is hidden in
its very name. The word “generic” seeks, in this case to
create a uniformity of ideas or give way to education means applicable to an
entire class or group. In this fashion, instead of doing the noble job of
cultivating new ideas, the generic elective course seeks to breed
conventionality or conformity in students. This opposes the very purpose of the
university. The term “choice” therefore does not apply in
the true sense and hence can be replaced by what I think more appropriate, i.e.
“ordered
directive” as the individual colleges of DU hold the right and hence
the “order”
over the choices.
The second
problem with the choice in the CBCS is that of practice. In the generic
elective courses, many new inter-disciplinary papers have been introduced along
with many core elective papers as well. The core elective papers are discipline
centered papers like Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, economics, English, etc. The problem
here again is the philosophical “choice of no-choice” or rather the
economic inflation of choice. To put it in simple terms, a student of
economics, commerce sciences or English will seldom take courses such as Hindi,
Urdu or Punjabi and will choose correlative disciplines like economics or
English over the former. This will inevitably lead to a crunch of choices
wherein on the one hand the introduction of some choices will be futile and on
the other hand, some choices will have a massive subscription that would
disrupt the proper student-teacher ratio required o hold a functional class
properly. The manifestation of this choice of no-choice will be in the form of
discrimination in the allotment of choices by the college based on meritocracy
and marks of the twelfth grade, which should not be a factor in the taking up
of choices in the college, and it is certainly a practical fault of the CBCS
which outright reveals its false promises.
Another
problem lies in the papers newly introduced such as Global Politics and the UN
(which in my view is a neo-imperialist celebration of the US hegemony worldwide
under the guide of the UN) and academic writing. The interesting and
controversial thing in the introduction of both these papers is that even
though they need an inter-disciplinary approach, only one department will be
responsible for the implementation of these papers. A paper such as Global
Politics and the UN requires not just a political understanding of
international relations (which is already taught to students of economics,
political science, sociology and history in one form or another in the present
semester system) but also a knowledge of nation-state sociology as well as the
historical and economic development of nations into global powers. A mere
Department of Political Science would be highly unequipped to teach such an
emphatic (supposedly emphatic) paper. The same goes for academic writing which
is headed by the Department of English. Academic writing is a practice of not
only the humanities students but also of the science and mathematics students.
English Department might be able to cope, in case of research based writing and
analysis, with literariness of the research paper since academic writing deals
with the technique of writing a thesis or a research paper. An average
professor of English literature is trained in analysis by means of social
theories that apply exclusively to literary texts, literary theory, so to say.
How will the professor then apply his analytical skills to society for teaching
academic writing to students of sociology and economics, let alone to the
students of physics, chemistry and mathematics who demand a mathematical proof
rather than argumentative ones to substantiate their theses? Hence the notion
of choice is flawed in every sense of its implementation.
The second
aspect of the CBCS is the issue of the “credit” system for which the UGC has
the following definition for a credit:
“A
unit by which the course is measured. It determines the number of hours of
instruction per-week. One credit is equivalent to one hour of teaching
(lectures or tutorial) or two hours of practical work/field work per week.”
It should be
noted right from the start that no university or college all over the world
equates credit to the amount of hours spent in a class because the very meaning
of it would be absurd. It would mean to earn, say two credits, one needs to
attend two classes irrespective of the student’s academic output. The UGC
guidelines remark that “the credit based semester system provides flexibility
in designing curriculum and assigning credits based on the course content and
the hour of teaching” but all it actually does is to confuse the teachers about
the system of evaluation and how to “grade” the students. The UGC is in
such a hurry to implement the CBCS in DU that it concedes in its own guidelines
in the following manner:
“Presently the performance
of the students is reported using the conventional system of marks secured in
the examinations or grades or both. The conversion from marks to letter grades
and the letter grades used vary widely across the HEIs in the country. This
creates difficulty for the academia (in the guidelines it is misspelled as ‘acadamia’!)
and the employers to understand and infer the performance of the students
graduating from different universities and colleges based on grades.”
First of
all, it concedes to the fact that the erstwhile percentage based evaluation was
working fine and the problems only arose when certain universities (mostly
ambitious universities like IITs, NITs and the private universities) turned to
grading system feeling a colonial fetish towards the grading system of the New
West. In the same tone, the UGC also concedes that students are to be made
commodities of the market and sold as intellectual prostitutes when it talks
about the difficulty for the “employers” (i.e. the capitalists) to
weigh the graduates with a uniform scale similar to the ones used by the whites
to evaluate the colored slaves. It can be said of the CBCS that it provides a “cafeteria”
approach, though the cafeteria approach is not for the students to enjoy under
this system but the capitalist employers for whom the mark sheets will serve as
menu and the student will be the main course.
Another
draconian implementation of the credit system will be dissolution of the honors
papers by an alarming 25% (which we discussed in figures earlier) to facilitate
the introduction of the inter-disciplinary papers. The introduction of the
additional papers comes from the UGC as a part and parcel of the grading
system. If the grading system were to be implemented without the credit system,
it would be unwise considering the disparity between the average scores of the
sciences and humanities students, but to add the burden of the “so-called
optional papers” as instigators to the credit system seems to be the
sum of all evils and an absolutely foolish act. With the increase in the
optional papers, there will obviously be an increase in evaluations and with
the coming of the grade system, the pattern will be that of the CCE or
continuous evaluation meaning that the student would have to prepare
assignments in order to gain the credits for each week. This would mean the
students would have sixteen weeks to make fifteen assignments and thus all the
promises of the UGC about the CBCS being a flexible course will go down the
gutter and will only seem a distant dream. However, being exposed to this fact,
the DU administration and the UGC will lessen the rate of assignments and
consign themselves to the previous definition of credit as mentioned in the UGC
guidelines which maintains the misconception that the number of hours spent in
a class will constitute the number of credits earned by a student. If that will
be the case, then there is another pitfall that the UGC and the DU
administration will have to encounter, i.e. the issue of passing the students
based on written examinations. The current CBCS program has a 50-50
internal-external evaluation pattern. So if the student attends most of his
classes and earns forty credits out of fifty, and he earns just twenty in his
written examinations, he gets an overall score of seventy which is “very
good” according to the CGPA, but the fact remains that he or she has
failed in the written examination according to the rules of the university. In
his way, through the introduction of the CBCS, we see the crumbling down of an
entire evaluation system, instead of a “fairness in assessment” for which
the UGC has mandated its guidelines (a concession again!).
II
In the
struggle against CBCS that is to come, one should be reminded of the anti-FYUP
struggle in order to draw parallels between both the student movements in order
to triumph over CBCS in the same way that the students triumphed over the FYUP.
Comparing the nature of the program of FYUP and CBCS, one can say that the FYUP
was a lesser oppressive course than the CBCS because under FYUP, a student at
least had an extra year to cope with the additional papers. Therefore, in the
process of the roll-back of the FYUP program, the foundation courses and other
additional courses were fully repealed. In the struggle against CBCS, our
demand should be the roll-back of the generic elective and other optional
papers that are made compulsory to the students and hence are an assault to the
discipline courses that we are supposed to study. So, if the critique is much
less the same, our manner of approach towards the CBCS and our general
sentiment for it must also be the same, or maybe even more radical because the
students are not even provided additional time like in the FYUP.
The main
concern to grasp for the students who were against FYUP was the loss of a year.
The CBCS program boasts of its completion in the regular three year semester
system but we are already aware enough to make an educated opinion from our
given premises about the critique of the CBCS program that three years will
simply not be enough to complete such a vast course (not that the students
should feel the need to complete the course, as they will be studying lesser
discipline papers than students from other state universities).
Since much of
what is to come under the guise of the CBCS is kept in the dark, the teachers
as well as the students should force the institutions and its respective
administrations to make a stand on CBCS so that much of our criticism would be
realized and we would be able to cite practical references. The students, in
this case, if we are successful in making the stance of the administration
about the CBCS clear, would be agitated and will begin to be disillusioned as
the course reveals its true nature. The students should be ready to resist the
impingement of the administration upon their lives in ways such as
extra-classes, more assignments than the students are able to do, no room for
extra-curricular activities etc y boycotting classes on a mass basis, talking
openly about the dictatorial and abusive nature of the CBCS with other
students, talking to the college union about the oppressions meted out on the
first-year students and joining any protest on a university scale against CBCS.
In any and
all cases, whether the agitation regarding CBCS is personal or propagated
through the medium of protest should be to repeal all the optional courses for
all three years, to shift the assessment system back to the ratio of 75-25
written and internal respectively, to shift from the credit system to the
classic semester system and finally to shift the grading system to the
percentage system. These are materialistic, achievable goals which when
realized together form the most proper alternative to the CBCS program. In the
present situation therefore, when we have realized both the immediate and the
upcoming affects of the draconian program that is the CBCS, it is time for us
students to take matters from the hands of the powers that be (state machinery,
the UGC, DU administration, etc.) into our own hands. The time has made
immediate extreme and radical measures not only important but also inevitable.
It is times like these when the true intellect of students is put to test;
intellect that is not only theoretical but also practical and providing the
necessary force for the revolutionary transformation of society. For us
students, the battle starts right at our very workplace, the university. DU has
been passively passed around as a space of sensationalism, philistinism and
glamour and it is about time that the University of Delhi builds itself up
again as the centre of movements that lead to nation-wide discourses where
students decide how the courses are to be formulated and taught and not a bunch
of aged stalwarts (lackeys of the capitalists) sitting in the cabinet and
ministry. Student majority from the first year up to the third year should be
at the forefront of this struggle and prove to the world that it is the people
who decide how the system should work as opposed to the system imposing its
state ideology on the masses (which is the case with the UGC and MHRD regarding
the CBCS program). The struggle will be harder this time as there is no state
election in which the bourgeois parties such as the BJP, Congress, AAP and
others can raise the issue for their opportunistic gains. Politically, the
student movement has to come to so strong a point that its consolidated force
will shake the foundations of the AAP government in Delhi and they will be
forced to intervene and repeal the CBCS (which is a policy of the central BJP
government), since the state government reserves the right to intervene in any
prime decision taken by the University of Delhi. We should remember that the
tactics we employ, strikes, protests, referendum, signature petition, etc. are
exercises to test the strength of our democracy and broaden it. Protests are
means of direct engagement of the masses into the formulation of governmental
policies and hence are the most democratic means of public involvement. One
should not shy away from resorting to these tactics or participating in such
events because only by being a part of the greater whole can one experience and
become an expression of social consciousness, and through the process, a social
being. If the current structure represses our movement with police action and
student union corruption (such as the corruption of the ABVP-led DUSU that is
responsible for bringing the CBCS in DU!) we shall reject such structures in
order to create a new one. The student community has to be uncompromising in
its demand because we are drawing the last straw. Education is central to
culture and society and a resignation to opportunist, market-oriented and
dictatorial regime would mean that the larger society would very well be going
in the same totalitarian de-humanizing prostitution of labor. If we, as the
youth of the nation, do not take our stance now, then history will never
forgive us. We need to do all we can to resist such an apocalyptic future and
pay all in- body and soul for the will to fight and fight to win!
No comments:
Post a Comment