Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) - aim, intent and the method

(Published in the June 7, 2015 issue of Organiser and can be visited through the following link http://organiser.org/Encyc/2015/6/13/1331814.aspx )

Higher education in India has been traditionally designed to produce academic thinkers primarily. In fact, academicians are still being produced by the present education system as individuals having a deep understanding of their subjects. However, we have collectively failed to realise that this education system does not have a copyright of producing thinkers. A degree has no relation with the amount of thinking or the extent of analysis one is capable of indulging into. We are confused between the sense of literacy and the importance of experience. We are yet to acknowledge the difference between a bookish knowledge and the confidence gained in a working environment, between a source of information and a source of wisdom. In our society, a skilled worker is invariably rated as poorer to pure-thinkers. An executor is often rated lower to an administrator. Advice of a doctor and an engineer on any other field other than their own profession never get the importance as compared to the degree-holding academic thinkers. We want the academic thinkers to rule this society. With this absurdity, we have been used to giving undue importance to the marks that we score in examinations as we use those marks to measure our overall 'value' in the society. In this system, failures opt for skills and winners enjoy a skill-free life and often keep a skill-demeaning attitude.

In view of the above, if one is asking for allowing choices in a course; allowing flexibility in the span period and place; making provision for inter-disciplinary approach; introducing innovative methods and advance technology in teaching; asking each student to complete, write and present some hands-on project during any course; giving options for skill-learning courses; maintaining some commonality in the structure and contents of those courses that are identified by identical names; bringing some highly desirable changes in our evaluation schemes, I have absolutely no reasons to oppose CBCS (Choice Based Credit System). Strangely, what is hard to accept is when it is asserted that these features can only come integrated with a semester structure. It becomes even difficult to digest when we are made to believe that these features can only come at the cost of having floating workloads for the teachers. And the most important of all, it is most stupid to imagine that these features can be introduced in any hurried manner as it has been witnessed in the recent years.

Let me address some of these issues over here. Semester system is good - beyond doubt. But it can work only where we have a one-teacher one-examination paper structure. Even IITs would fail to deliver if all of them decide to have identical examination papers in their semester examinations. Delhi University, where a paper is taught at 30 odd colleges or more and students are expected to get identical examination paper to solve, the semester system will fail to deliver the desired result. Further, let no one fool us in believing that with the same infrastructure and human resources we will ever be able to offer more choices than what we are providing the students right now. With the present constraints of manpower and infrastructure, we can only allow exchanges - allowing a choice to one student only at the cost of a choice of another student.

If we want all the features of CBCS to get embedded into the undergraduate courses in Delhi University, the first thing that we must decide uncompromisingly is to go back to the annual mode. An honest internal evaluation of the students in an annual duration, combined with their true-assessment through external evaluators in their final examinations can be used to Grade them perfectly. I would advocate for an hindrance free three years of such a scheme without failing them or holding them back in any year. They should then be allowed to 'improve' their grades and alternately allowed to even opt for around six to eight additional papers to claim a degree in their own choice of subject if they happen to clear their original degree requirements. Let time be no constraint for those interested students who after completing their History(Honours) would like to appear for additional six to eight papers of mathematics to claim a degree to pursue a career in mathematics. A choice and mobility can this way be introduced meaningfully. Further, in the annual system, summer vacations would be purposefully utilized by the students as they can be asked to do summer projects either at their parent institute or depending on the availability any other place of their choice to give them skill-training, academic-training or research-training as per their own inclination.

Many attempts have been already wasted in Delhi University, let us prepare this university first before attempting any meaningful transition. Let us decide on the contents of the syllabus in so much advance that the university is able to conduct a year of continuous refresher courses before implementation. Ensuring adequate preparedness is what makes a distinction between a meaningful transition and a failed experimentation.

LET THE SENSE PREVAIL

When all the University will have similar syllabus and courses then why on earth there will be a need for the seamless movement of the students from one institution to another? Having provision for such a movement is therefore simply erroneous and stupid. I would only conclude that the credit-scheme that are being lauded as a feature that will facilitate movements across the institutions are not meant for this at all but it is only to allow students to give extended time to accumulate credits to qualify for a degree. It seems, it is meant only to help failing students to complete the requirement for the degree at their own convenience, pace and duration. If it means that Universities should have a liberal policy towards the concept of strict 'span periods', I would gladly advocate in favour of this.

Secondly, even if the question of desirability is set aside for a while, all those features that are being sought to be introduced in the higher education through CBCS, I can challenge, will work in a far more meaningful manner if the format is kept annual in the context of Delhi University where there are more than handful colleges running such courses. Isn't it stupid to allow students to hop in and out from any course twice in a year and five times in a three year-course?

And lastly, apart from 'suggesting' model syllabus and model courses at a centralized web-site, UGC can also provide an exhaustive list of all the courses being run in this country along with their detailed syllabus. Our education is already a victim of forced teaching - parents expect the teachers to forcibly teach students, students themselves chose courses that are forced by their peers and societal pressures and these are often get decided by the marks only, that they eventually achieve in their qualifying exams. 

When there is an urgent need for this country to switch on to interest-driven mode of study, these forced strategies are going to yield undesirable results that will never help India to become a developed nation. It's time that we remove all hurdles of age and financial requirements for all those who are really interested in learning specific skills, a particular subject or show interest to become independent professionals.

Cafeteria vs Kitchenette approach

Let us not avoid discussion any more. We have suffered enough for keeping this approach. Sheer criticism devoid of any vision to carry out the much needed reforms, gives a false impression that we are not serious about the very idea of reforms.

But are they serious? I have a serious doubt in this regard as a preliminary analysis would suggest that at least two years of preparation must precede a change in the structure, content and intent of a magnitude such as those proposed in the CBCS. This period must be utilized for improving the infrastructure required for such an implementation along with holding a continuous series of refresher courses throughout the period to make any shift of this scale of its intended worth.

But do we need such reforms in the name of allowing the students to have a cafeteria approach in studies? 

I would rather advocate for a kitchenette approach instead of the much talked about cafeteria approach. A cafeteria requires the user to pay for each optional toppings and this restricts the choice whereas the kitchenette approach allows you to choose from whatever is made available to the user.

Why do we need a change? 

In this new era only those would be able to survive as 'learned' who would learn how to unlearn and relearn with ease. A new educational policy must focus on encouraging self-study instead of the present forced-study approach in our country. With this in mind, stress on online studies must be given its due importance within the courses. The colonial era concept of having a "fixed span period" must be done away with to give everyone a chance to acquire a degree in a discipline of one's own choice. The age bar for admission and a span period to accumulate the required credits will have no meaning if one is to be given a choice to keep on accumulating credits "at one's own pace" to finally become eligible for a degree. We have enough of this forced concept of studies. Forced by parents, forced by peers, forced by teachers and forced by examinations! It is now known that those students who take admissions under 'working professionals' category wherein the admission itself is earned by them out of their choices are seen to be far more motivated than the others. And a motivated students can learn at a much faster speed and in a more meaningful manner. And for them who want to learn a subject - our examinations work as a spirit dampener. Understanding becomes a casualty in our examinations - thanks to the undue importance to the marks that we have become so used to now. Knowing well that we can only group students under a handful of categories (such as - extraordinary, good, above-average, average, below average, poor and worthless) our system makes them waste their useful energy and time to get exhausted in a process of rote-learning to acquire a rank within a category.

Come on - let us lead the change - otherwise they would succeed in their design to paint us wrongly as a group that is always opposed to the reforms.