Instead of looking back can we move ahead?

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.

Can't we think of suggesting a prescription to the University that would effectively address these alongwith other major problems that would eventually provide an immediate and much needed respite to the teachers and students or we would just like to insist only on a ‘rollback’?