Just as, a mindless step taken without
proper thinking and discussion is a wrong move, ‘rollback’ can never be
accepted as a progressive move either. And a rollback to what? Do we mean a
rollback to the Semester System? We must not forget that though DUTA could
never come out with any unanimous opinion about FYUP, it is on record to have opposed
to the Semester System. Are we just choosing the lesser evil or we want to
match with the ego of our University Authorities? As expected and as warned by
us the examination system could not look for cover when it attempted to organize
the very first Semester Examinations. The examination system that had nearly
collapsed initially with the introduction of the Semester system is now showing
a slow but sure improvement year by year and semester by semester. What would
have been appreciated by all was if the examination process was computerized first
and we were made comfortable with the new system before adopting the Semester
System. One of the major apprehensions would have had been taken care of if we
would have been shown first that it is possible to publish an error-free result
within a month of the completion of examinations before thinking of moving
towards Semesterisation.
As only we face the students directly,
teachers concern have always remained about the standards that we are supposed
to deliver to the students. A compromise in this puts us off. With the introduction of FYUP we feel that we have been forced to
compromise further on the quality of product that we are expected to meet. This
time, and unlike Semesterisation when we were only expected to adopt a
bi-annual examination system, FYUP dares to change the way we look at the education in
India. This change that required a change in attitude and purpose of teaching should
have not been done in hurried manner. The more time that we would have given
for its preparation the better we could have been placed right now. Forget
about convincing the teachers as to what is the correct approach towards
education, teachers are still looking for reasons to teach students in a manner
that is required in FYUP. Why on earth we need to teach ‘mathematical ability’
to the students of B.Sc.(H)Maths ---- or why do we need to teach basic history
to the students of B.A.(H) History ---- teachers do not have any clue. Teachers
are only searching for the missing UK connection in the FC papers. I must admit
that while teaching a few of the FC papers I personally do see some positives
in interacting with students of varied background but I am still learning to utilize
this opportunity for mutual benefit in the absence of any pre-identified
purpose behind this adopted methodology.
However is there a way ahead or
only another fall behind? Disasters can never be rolled back. It will leave scars on the students' future who were subjected to study FYUP. Let us not make another mistake of doing something
without analyzing the present situation. Can we think of listing the deficiencies
that exist in the current FYUP structure and syllabi? Let us first allow the list to be
as exhaustive as possible? If the list does not have infinite items then can we
try identifying some of them as major drawbacks? To list a few of these as examples
I place the following points.
- No value addition despite consumption of an additional year.
- · Undue and unjustified importance attributed to the Foundation Courses.
- · Less attention given to the respective discipline papers.
