Admission process of DU turns into a Blind Game in the CUET era

 CUET (Common University Entrance Test), conducted by the NTA (National Testing Agency), follows a transparent mechanism for testing and evaluating candidates seeking admission to undergraduate and postgraduate programs at Central Universities. However, the process that follows after the results are announced is completely non-transparent.

Before 2022, Delhi University followed a cut-off-based admission process that was entirely transparent. Anyone familiar with the publicly declared cut-off percentages could easily advise an aspirant on their chances of admission. In the new system, however, it is no longer possible to provide such guidance with any degree of confidence. The only suggestion that can be offered is to wait for the computer to generate a "favorable" outcome. In fact, there seems to be a widespread sense of uncertainty about how the process works. The most common response from a responsible authority is that everything is handled by a computer algorithm, which takes into account the candidate’s initial preferences entered at the time of form submission. This leaves little room for discussion or appeals, as the algorithm’s functioning is not disclosed publicly. As a result, successful candidates credit their "luck," while others are left confused and disheartened, unsure of what went wrong.

Compare this with the earlier scenario when the cut-off-based admission process was in place. At that time, reasonable advice could be offered based on previous years’ cut-off percentages and the last announced cut-off for the current year. In contrast, the introduction of CUET, essentially a Class XII-level re-exam, has added unnecessary complexity to the admission process.

The CBSE conducts examinations for nearly 800 subjects (source), while Delhi University offers around 550 undergraduate programs. Over the years, a well-accepted mapping between school subjects and university courses had naturally evolved. Unfortunately, CUET attempted to dismantle this framework in a single stroke. As expected, the system is still struggling to adapt to the resulting disruption.

CUET has since continued to revise its format each year, acknowledging the challenges that have kept on popping up by such an abrupt shift. There was no compelling reason to completely discard a well-functioning and widely accepted system that had taken decades to develop. It is true that the complete transparency of the earlier cut-off-based system was occasionally exploited by certain vested interests, who used to help their students by somehow giving high marks to them through generous marking. In 2022, such attempts crossed all reasonable limits when a particular board awarded 100 percent marks to an unreasonably large number of students. This single act subverted the DU admission process, as students from that board unrestrictedly dominated the admissions that year.

The response from university officials, however, was far from appropriate. The only necessary step was to rationalize the marks awarded by different boards. This could have been achieved using AI-based methods to analyze the marks secured by the students' across various boards. Alternatively, a single-paper common test assessing 'intelligence' or aptitude could have been conducted and used as a benchmark to normalize board marks.

With rationalization in place, the cut-off-based system could have continued as before. Such a straightforward solution would have ensured fair and proportionate representation of successful candidates from different boards, maintaining the same balance that existed at the applicant stage. On the other hand, the current admission process is, quite inexplicably, allowing over-admission in some colleges while leaving many others struggling to fill seats. Repeated delays in the announcement of CUET results, year after year, have only added to the overall confusion and lack of transparency. I have been writing to the DU authorities on this issue in the hope of a suitable action. Failing to see an appropriate response I have asked DU to provide the data of last year admission (through an RTI dated June 24, 2025) to ascertain and get convinced that my apprehensions are invalid. 

Teachers poised to reclaim DUTA in 2021

The coming Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA) elections are going to be very crucial. Historically, DUTA had come into reckoning after it got the second promotion of readership for the college teachers in eighties as a result of a long strike that continued for more than 80 days. This success also helped University teachers in getting promoted to the post of Professors on a large scale. Some 'conservative educationists' used to run these promoted Professors down by branding them as DUTA Professors. But DUTA has been claiming its glory since then as they could successfully facilitate indiscriminating promotions on a large scale, realized by both the University and College teachers. DUTA became known in the entire country on posting this particular achievement. DUTA activists drew recognition when they ensured that promotions were not denied to almost anyone. Even today, DUTA draws its strength from this anecdotal success story. In the last more than two decades however, DUTA movement could not repeat even a fraction of such a success.

Although DUTA has no such success story since then, it did try to repeat its glorious performance during the struggles against semesterization that ended in failure and FYUPization (Four Year Undergraduate Program) that culminated in a delayed success but this success was far from being as impressive. DUTA’s activism continued in the last two decades but the successes more often than not, used to be on a limited scale. Recently, to save itself from becoming irrelevant, DUTA have indulged into some issues that rarely bothered teachers of DU on a large scale and were more political in nature and substance. DUTA has also been playing around with priorities of issues for reasons driven more by politics than welfare of teachers. Hesitance in picking up the issues of continuing apathy of ad-hoc teachers and then against the insensitive attitude of Delhi Government in granting funds for salaries in their colleges has opened the eyes of the entire teaching community. When teachers were passing through the darkest phase of no promotions, no appointments and no salaries, DUTA kept itself increasingly engaged in other issues that demanded lesser attention than these. The size of such mistaken priorities grew in abundance especially since 2014. Intolerance towards the government that came at the center in 2014, never made DUTA believe in the UGC regulations 2018. DUTA kept on looking for only negatives of the document with a sense of disbelief and mistrust, although there were very few for their discomfort.

Come 2021, and the scenario changed for good this year. The success story of promotions witnessed by the teachers in the era of eighties has got repeated in 2021. In its earlier version, teachers got promoted to the post of Readers, and this time they got promoted to the posts of Associate Professors and Professors in a similar way. That DUTA is finding it difficult to claim this achievement, lies in the fact that they never let the teachers believe in the positive aspects of the UGC Regulations. NDTF (National Democratic Teachers Front), a right wing teachers organization, displayed exemplary confidence in the UGC Regulations 2018 and kept on projecting its unbelievable provisions as realizable when others claimed them to be unrealistic and unrealizable. This confidence of NDTF and its current presidential candidate Prof. A. K. Bhagi that led this dream come true has made them emerge as the real hero in this entire dream-like sequence that is running for almost a year till now. There may have been some failures, but the successes are so enormous that failures have been rendered as aberrations rather than rule. And this has changed the scenario. This has generated a lot of hope and positivity in the teaching community. With NDTF claiming to support ‘regularization’ of working adhoc teachers after running the success show on promotion story, their promises have ignited many hopes to realistic levels. Teachers seems to be in a clear mood to take a plunge, to give their hope a chance and thereby to reclaim the old glory of DUTA. Writing is on the wall and after more than two decades of absence, time is destined to give NDTF its well-deserved and well-earned chance to show its mettle and resolve in fulfilling their promises and hopes. 

Disappointment at the Counting Centre of Academic Council elections of DU

I sat through the AC counting this time. I had memories of this complex counting process when I had contested for AC elections in 1996 and 1998. This extremely mathematical and highly scientific process takes around three complete days and the University hosts this important event by offering breakfasts, lunches and regular snack breaks to the staff, the candidates and their selected supporters. The entire event is managed like a festival and candidates and their supporters go through several emotional and sentimental highs and lows during this three-day counting process. It resembles like a three-day cricket test. The counting officers close the process in the evening daily irrespective of the heightened interest that eventually gets built up during the entire day of counting. Candidates lose their sleep in between the days and come early at the counting centre to discover the destiny locked in the ballots. Counting of preferential voting has the potential to throw surprises just like one expects it in the slog-overs of a cricket match. Distribution of surplus votes combined with the process of elimination has scripted many excited stories over the years and that keeps the excitement alive within each one of those who attend this event. On the other hand, the process is too tiring. It emotionally exhausts some of those candidates who unfortunately fail to make it in the end.

However, I was completely disappointed to witness that in this age of computers, this painstaking counting process is being followed in exactly the same way as it was done in 1996 and even before that. University seems to have refused to modernize the event in order to simplify this cumbersome and extremely tiring process. One may think of making an attempt to replace the ballot-box voting system by customized EVM machines especially designed to serve our purpose. Understandably, this switch over would require a sustained effort with a clear vision by those who matter as this would require the University to engage a hardware developing company. However, even pending this, I see absolutely no reason for not using a computer at least for the purpose of calculations. One can easily use Microsoft Excel Sheets to eliminate the time that is unnecessarily spent in calculating votes of each candidate after each round of passing on the ballots from the tray of one candidate to another. Additionally, this would also ensure that there would be no errors in the calculations. When one can do these calculations with a click of the mouse it was disappointing to see the counting officers working almost manually. An Excel Sheet showing a row for each of the candidates would require only an entry to be done for the number of ballots that one received in a particular round and the value of those votes along with the updated votes of the candidate would show itself almost instantaneously in another column. A large screen display inside and outside the counting center can be provided to make the process as transparent and as efficient as possible. Candidates will then not be required to note down the entries of each round as these data can be uploaded on the university website in the end so that everyone would be able to inspect and verify these.

The manner, in which the counting is executed, unfortunately provides ample scope for mistakes and lapses. To plug these, one must switch to automated processes. Voting through OMR sheets could be one such option that should be explored as this can ensure zero mistakes in reading the preferences. At present this is done completely manually and I am sure that such a process has a ‘real’ chance of throwing up different counts if it is repeated to verify the entries. This would also be much easier and less costlier than thinking of developing customized EVM machines.

It only underlines the inertia with which this University refuses to modernize itself and this particular case works only as a sample. I can list out several such instances where use of computers and LAN-WAN networks, that are already otherwise available with the university, can simplify processes that are still being done manually. Nobody can deny that such a switch over from manual to automated processes will not only increase the efficiency but will also encourage the all important transparency in the system that is often seen missing in the college and university administration. For example, I fail to understand why a uniform accounting software is not being implemented in the colleges by the university as this will make auditing of accounts very easy and will eventually help in implementing policies uniformly in the entire university.

Unresolved issues and Inappropriate Celebration

I am amazed at the celebration mode of some DUTA leaders on the news of change in ministry. This news was celebrated as if DUTA has been able to resolve any of the major issues that are concerning and bothering the teachers in general. It is more than clear now that ‘their’ disproportionate sense of achievement would get 'completed' only with the exit of NDA government. The scale and extent of celebration only proved what some of us have often been reiterating in our assessment that DUTA has been derailed from its primary focus. It is lately being used more as a platform for venting out their politically motivated desire and outbursts of opposing and defaming the government at the Centre.

The hard reality is that the present government was greeted by a list of long pending chronic problems that were started and then left unresolved by the UPA government. The problems of unmanageable number of adhoc teachers and the un-implementable nature of API-PBAS scheme both were inherited by this government from the earlier regime.

Yes, the MHRD failed to address these issues effectively and this could be one of the factors that could have led to the change in the ministry. However, it would dishonesty if the efforts made by the MHRD in getting these long-pending problems resolved, are not acknowledged. Although it is true that all the efforts in terms of 3rd, 4th amendments and further clarifications carried out to address the issue were quick like never before but in the final analysis those were proved only to aggravate the problems due to factors that the new minister will face as a challenge. I hope the new minister would be able to take control of the forces working within the system against the government.

Interestingly, even groups active under DUTA can not absolve of from their contribution in getting these two problems to this alarming stage. While AADityans can hardly save themselves from the blame of directly supporting the regimes that created this huge pool of adhoc and un-promoted teachers, DTF also can not wash their hands off from the fact that they did not launch any effective attack despite having DUTA’s functioning under their major control. NDTF, on the other hand, have no such history of helping factors that led towards building up of these problems.

I am a proud NDTF activist who can claim that NDTF, after the present government came into power, actually played a significant role in DUTA to ensure continuation of adhoc teachers in the last few semesters besides getting the permanent appointments started. And after the change of ministry, we will keep our efforts going with a greater hope of resolution of all our problems to the satisfaction of teachers.

Breaking a Myth - Air-conditioning of Campus costs a fortune

It is ‘normally assumed’ that making an entire college building air-conditioned would burden the students with unreasonable increase in fees, but I am afraid – this is only a myth created by those who love to exploit this ‘common sense’ by offering such a justification for the huge fees that they charge from the students. As it might be shocking to know that making all the classrooms & Labs of a college air-conditioned would actually cost less than Rs. 500 per students annually!

I was driven to write this piece when I came two know about the recent turmoil that Hindu College observed when they decided to charge a hefty fees for their newly constructed Girls’ Hostel – many steps more than what Boys are being charged. The justification offered in support of this differential fee structure was that the new structure was proposed to be air-conditioned.

Surprisingly, generally speaking, it is a commonly established and accepted fact that an educational institution that has air-conditioned class rooms can sustain its infrastructure only by charging fees in lacs. I am here to break this myth. I would pick up the case of my college that has around 5000 fees-paying students, around 50 class rooms and approximately 20 labs. To start with, I can assure you that if I dump 150 air-conditioners in my college, the administration will face huge difficulty in finding a place to install all of them (given that the college already has some air-conditioners installed in the office and some computer labs). Now let me place some basic calculations here. It would be perfectly realistic to assume that purchase and installation (including cabling) will cost approximately 50 thousand per AC. Therefore the total cost of installation of these 150 ACs will be 150x50,000=75,00,000. And thus, the cost incurred per student will be a one-time contribution of 75,00,000/5000 = 1500 (Rs.). It is clear that we need only a single contribution of Rs. 1500 per student to ensure air-conditioning of the entire college building. Moreover, if our college decides to do this in a span of three years, we need a contribution of Rs. 500 per student to achieve our target in a time-bound 3-year time.

Now, another greater myth is on the running cost of these ACs. Let me try to break this myth too. On an average, our college can claim to have not more than 180-200 teaching days in a year. And discounting the winter days when ACs are not required, we may need these ACs in the class rooms only for about 150 days and that too from 9 AM to 5 PM (8 hours a day). This generous estimate makes these 150 ACs run for 150x150x8 = 1,80,000 hrs. On an average this would consume 2,70,000 units of energy costing Rs. 25 lac maximum. This, when distributed on the 5000 students would come to 25,00,000/5000 = Rs. 500 per student per annum! Given that colleges are already charging a minimum of Rs. 10 thousand per annum from the students, it is only a lack of vision that has pulled the college administration back from making the campus air-conditioned. On the contrary, colleges have often given an impression that air-conditioning the campus would cost them fortune. Myth have got built up by the incident like Hindu College that proposed to charge about Rs. 1,20,000 per student as compared to Rs. 80,000 per student primarily for air-conditioning. A whooping difference of Rs. 40,000 per students annually is not only ethically unjustified but that also help create the ‘Myth’ that I have pointed out here. When AC can be for all – it is conspiratorially being utilized with a motive to create and maintain a division between an Elitists’ and a supposedly Commoners’ institution.

Let us break this myth and encourage college administrations to think of ways to get the entire campus air-conditioned. One must never forget that air-conditioned class rooms not only can encourage attendance in the classrooms but it would also provide the students the much-required comfortable environment during their tense, hot and anxious examination days. 

Teachers’ struggle needs to stay at peak

During our semester struggle we witnessed massive turn outs of teachers in the DUTA programs and activities. All shades of teachers participated in the united struggle against the proposed system and its contradictions. But, what did we get in response to our activism? Even a supposedly ‘weak’ UPA government functioning at the mercy of left and their likes did not pay any heed to our concerns. The government turned deaf and dumb. The University authorities and the government started acting tougher. Even principals were targeted in order to teach teachers threat-lessons. A series of threatening letters were issued by the registrar of the university. And those threats were not in air as many teachers were served explanation calls. Authorities started spreading terror by issuing show cause notices to the agitating or otherwise teachers, individually. And to add to this, many of the activists even suffered wage cut for a few days. Later, buoyed at the absence of effective opposition to these repressive measures, the government and the university completely ignored teachers’ apathy when they decided to steamroll FYUP in DU. Teachers’ participation became thinner and thinner and reached the stage of mere tokenism.

During the ongoing united struggle of teachers however, the circumstances and events are all different. From the day one, a visible movement in the government was noticed to address our major concerns on Workload and API scores. Although the present government has far more stability in terms of the numbers, assurances started pouring soon after a combined struggle was launched by the teachers. Promises were being made addressing our real concerns. The government undoubtedly appeared responsive this time. What could be the difference? A simple analysis would convince you that this time not only the feedback mechanism was working better but even the opinions received by the government from the feedback sources were respected by them.

Don’t even dare to conclude that teachers could have achieved this response without our united show of strength. We must not make the blunder of feeling complacent about the developments. Instead, I want this analysis to give us the hope, energy and strength this time (that was entirely missing during our earlier struggles) to fight this battle and conclude it on a victorious note. There is a clear chance that our struggle will end on a satisfactory note for the first time after more than a decade of our combined sufferings. We continued to suffer denial of promotional avenues during the entire sixth pay period, we were snatched off the opportunity for holding selection committees for permanent appointments and to top them all even our pension schemes were turned into unnecessary controversies. We were forced to accept the original draconian UGC notification and its two successive amendments earlier. But this time, buoyed by the positive responses from the right quarters, we could think of demanding withdrawal of not merely the third amendment but the original notification itself that can hopefully pave the way to help all sixth pay beneficiaries to get the benefit of promotion scheme that existed during the popular fifth pay scales. However, the analysis will not be complete if I will fail to point out that during our earlier struggles what probably was disheartening to notice was that those who were supposed to convey our concerns to the government were either seen as helpless bunch of teachers or were seen coming out in blatant support of ‘their’ government. Undoubtedly, teachers are visibly hopeful this time only because besides the honest unity in our united struggle even these factors seem to be working in our favour this time.

Let us fight together as always, but let us fight with real hope of victory this time. Because the only way that we can fail now is that if our leadership fails to remain honest and committed to the welfare of the teachers and succumb to their otherwise compelling urge to indulge into unnecessary and divisive political games.

Let us put an end on further exploitation of Adhoc Teachers

It is difficult to remain unmoved and disconnected at the apathy that our adhoc teachers have been facing for the last decade or so. They were ‘used’ to bring about Semesterization in the university; they were later ‘misused’ to steamroll FYUP over here and were ‘abused’ and ‘forced’ to come out in support of FYUP when it was being rolled back; and finally they were completely ‘ignored’ at the time of introducing CBCS. But this is only one side of the story. The darker side of this story is that they were being abused and exploited not only by the immediate college and university authorities but even by those leaders who were supposed to protect them from their misery and agony. Only after the Centre saw the popular Modi government coming into power, some appointments could take place, although the numbers are far from reporting to any satisfactory level. Now it is widely acceptable that there were enough reasons for the then government and their allies to keep these teachers as adhoc teachers just to fulfill their conspiratorially desires and designs.

The recent UGC notification, in a single stroke, quite shockingly has swept the entire floor under their feet. For these ‘technically’ adhoc but arguably more hardworking and sincere teachers, the draconian UGC notification came as more than any shock; it was more than disturbing; much more heartless, unbelievingly mindless and absolutely ruthless. It was shocking too as the government that can easily take credit for getting the permanent appointments started after almost a decade and was instrumental in issuing directives after directives to the universities to fill up all their vacancies sooner than possible time was seen as pushing them off the hook into a deep valley. Till now the adhoc teachers were always somehow lured/forced into avoiding siding with DUTA’s call, but that was not to be true this time. The erroneous workload calculations as given in the draconian UGC gazette notification have left them with no choice but to join DUTA’s call. Unlike earlier DUTA’s calls, adhoc teachers joined us this time and as a consequence we could boycott the evaluation work completely. With the 4500 strong adhoc teachers joining us having no choice, the participation of teachers in the GBM was seen as unprecedented.  Riding on the wave of the panicked adhoc teachers the spontaneous show on the street also recorded a huge turnout of teachers when DUTA gave a call this time. The primary reason for this resounding success of DUTA’s call was the scale at which our adhoc teachers participated in these events as it was clear that with this notification, they were left with nothing more to lose.

But I can sense some insensitive leaders trying again to cook their food on the activism of these young teachers. I am afraid as they might like to keep their cooking pans on the burning emotions of these adhoc teachers to find strength in order to fight their narrow political battles. A section of teachers has already started mixing this problem with other issues that happened in Hyderabad, IIFA, JNU or in Ram Lal Anand college. Some others have started finding fire in the cold smoke that was left after the present government decisively burnt their dynastical aspirations in the last elections. These leaders are probably suffering from selected amnesia as they have failed to admit that the root cause of all these problems have been inherited by the present NDA government and are not their own creation. Conspiring to build up a movement against the central government by keeping the ‘fear’ alive among our young friends would be a complete dishonesty on our part. Let us not push our adhoc teachers again into another blind well after they came out of the one in which they were compelled to stay for a good 7-8 years.

Let us put the issue of Permanent Appointments on the highest priority.  We must not compromise on the issue of workload estimates and procedures. We, who are riding on the wave of an unprecedented spurge in the DUTA activism, must utilize this mandate to completely do away with this politics of exploitation against these teachers. Since the MHRD has been more than clear in her message that the existing workload will not be disturbed at all costs, let us engage her in a meaningful dialogue to stop this politics of exploitation in Delhi University. Instead of deriving strength from the fear of these teachers to build up a movement against the government let us put an end to their exploitation as they have no one but to look at DUTA for this. Yes, API-PBAS is promoting negativity, spurious research and fake publications and we must fight to get a scientific, acceptable and fresh way of promoting hardwork, sincerity and excellence among teachers – but not at the cost of prolonging the apathy of adhoc teachers.

Fire All of Them Summarily

The Arun Nigvekar committee was constituted with a purpose. We are witness to the fact that Delhi University has failed to devise a logical way to implement the promotional scheme proposed and recommended in the sixth pay revision. Teachers of this university have been stranded without promotions for almost the last decade. When it was felt that the provisions of sixth pay recommendations with regard to promotions are primarily encouraging pseudo-research and promoting mushrooming of fake publications, the UGC decided to constitute this committee. When it was established beyond all doubts that the API-PBAS scheme is spelling disaster in the field of higher education, this committee was constituted to suggest ways to arrest the declining standards in research activities as a result of this faulty promotional scheme. When teachers began to feel that in order to secure promotions, they needed to give less importance to their teaching assignments and more to the activities that can lead to score API points, they were forced to engaged in all such activities that promised them to somehow accumulate these points. And the committee came into existence only when it became more than clear that for whatever purpose the API-PBAS system was invented, it had got completely defeated.

The Nigvekar Committee was given the assignment of addressing a specific issue but for some reasons it seems to have lost its direction and purpose completely. Instead of its report opening a debate on the new system of scoring points for promotions, teachers are now being compelled to agitate on the inexplicable increase in their workload as a result of recommendations of this very committee. While proposing the new scheme of scoring points, the Arun Nigvekar Committee appears to have attached an appendix to the document and a few explanations therein that are found to be completely unacceptable from all point of views. The increase in the workload as indicated in the UGC Gazette Notification 2016 is a prescription of disaster for the higher education. No government in its right senses can think of increasing workload almost by fifty percent! With one stroke, no government would have dared to leave almost half of the teaching strength with no choice but to come on the streets. How couldn’t they speculate the damage done by such a notification that is bound to leave teachers with nothing more to lose further? Don’t they understand that sudden loss of job for a sizable lot of teachers will be the direct result of implementation of this draconian notification?          
           Wasn’t that stupid to assume that such a massive increase of workload would not stir up the teaching community? Was that difficult to speculate the unrest that it has caused in the university system? Anyone could have predicted complete unanimity among teachers on issues of bread and butter. Who, on earth, has found the complete boycott of evaluation work as surprising? How could one assume that even after all the adhoc teachers are left with no other option but to agitate, they would keep quite? Was that sane to expect teachers to offer their neck when the gazette exposes the shining sword to axe their livelihood? Tell me who can extract any positive from this third amendment without seeing the writing on the wall?     

         I can smell a rat in this. There is something that is hidden more than what appears exposed in the open. I would refuse to reject the possibility of a game of mischief played by political players to suit their politics. Those who were trying hard to find an issue to mobilize against this government have been awarded the same with this UGC Gazette notification.In fact asking complete withdrawal of this notification would be an incomplete demand to accept even from the government’s perspective. To save the government from further such unnecessary embarrassments, they must investigate how it came to this stage in the first place. There is no alternative – instead of firing half of the teaching community – they must fix up responsibility of this obvious and unpardonable lapse immediately and fire all of them summarily.

Idea of Self-Regulation

The idea of regulation in the Education has been generating enough discussion for a very long period in India. CBSE, UGC, AICTE, NAAC and similar authorities have been created with similar intentions by the government of India. While these institutions have failed to deliver on several fronts one aspect that has caught the largest share of attention in this regard is their concern to regulate the quality and performance of teachers in educational institutions.

Let me not hesitate in accepting a fact that teaching has gradually been evolved as a profession from an era when it was considered primarily as a mission. It is also true that teachers now demand favorable environment to perform from an era when they looked only for an opportunity. And, it will also not be a wrong assertion that teachers earlier used to command greater respect in the society than they do in the recent age. Unfortunately, on the issue of regulation, much of the deliberation takes place on how to regulate performance of teachers while the desired stress to be given on the regulation of management of the educational institution gets entirely overlooked. But here, I am addressing the issue of regulation for the teachers.

There is no denying to the fact that in the modern age when teaching is considered more as a profession one cannot escape from getting it governed through some way of regulation. Teachers must be allowed to ask and demand but they must also be answerable at the same time. Unfortunately, attempts to put some kind of regulation for teaching have invariably been proven to be counterproductive in the final analysis. The mechanism of API scores has been the latest blunder. To force teachers to submit daily reports is another idea that is equally bizarre. The idea of installing bio-metric attendance system and similar attempts of peeping into the classrooms has similar dangers.

In fact, such practices encourage teachers to pay greater attention on responding to these mechanisms of evaluation rather than making greater efforts to improve their basic performance skills. More than offering an environment where poorly performing teachers could find reason to improve themselves these measures serve as spirit dampeners for better performing teachers and even hurt the sentiments of conscientious teachers – and that is hardly affordable. It is probably lesser true for others but, in case of teachers, one must encourage the idea of self-regulation to achieve desired results and improvement. Unfortunately, teachers have shown little interest to put a system of regulation on their own and therefore, out of all the possibilities, the next best option is to get the performance of teachers evaluated by the students themselves. One can think of putting a minimum number on the feedbacks if these are to be picked up for extracting any meaningful statistical inference. One can also put a threshold on the attendance of the students for making them eligible to submit a sensible feedback. But, I see no alternative to this if we teachers would like to have respite from the mindless implementation of continuous counterproductive mechanisms in this regard.

Left - and Their art of provocation

(Published in the August 16, 2015 issue of Organiser and can be visited using this link http://organiser.org//Encyc/2015/8/10/Opinion---%E2%80%98Left%E2%80%99-and-their-Art-of-Provocation.aspx)
I often get amused at the fact that although leftists have always remained in hopeless minority in India but still they manage to influence and occupy the decision making instruments of this country. Fortunately for them, the overwhelming majority in this country is rational, liberal and have always remained against all kinds of victimization. Leftists use the 'politics of victim-hood' to influence this rational and liberal majority. They use different methods and tricks to project themselves as victims. They have mastered the 'act of provocation' and have evolved it into an effective weapon in this regard. Using apparently-patient and cunningly-academic techniques they provoke nationalists and force them in breaking the fine line of socially acceptable behavioral norms. Then they use those incidents to paint the nationalists as hooligans and goons. They efficiently abuse the 'freedom of expression' and stretch the limits of 'human rights' to provoke nationalists to force them in committing legal-lapses. To succeed in their evil designs, they go to any extent to provoke the nationalists forces. They would not hesitate in calling a social and peaceful organization producing nationalists for the country as a terrorists' organization and would also go to the extent of not only blaming an arguably progressive community as repressive and conservative but instead would also project the other community, that needs reforms urgently, as better. To provoke the nationalists they not only never hesitated in creating a hero out of Aurangzeb but also painted the greats like Sikh gurus, Rana Pratap and Shivaji in poor light in the same breath. They would not only ignore an entire carnage incident altogether but keep on reminding us the incidents that took place after that. They would not only ignore the exodus of a particular 'Pandit' community from a state but would also not stop from asking the army to leave the state. They would resort to support a terrorist waiting to be hanged and they can even show that community as communal who is the reason for secularism in our country. They keep on producing and screening films that would project only nationalists as rioters. The list is huge and they have built this up in the last century with the help of British before the independence and the Congress thereafter. The only factor that favored the nationalists till now and was completely underestimated by the leftists was the fact that Indians have always felt a positive influence of religion and our faiths have an overwhelmingly progressive outlook towards our thoughts and beliefs. This striking feature of our religious behavior and spirituality, irrespective of our worshiping styles, did not allow leftists to spread its influence horizontally but with the help of the rulers they have been able to spread their roots deep in our soul wherever they could.

Nationalists however, need to realize now that they are in a position to spread their influence in this country after a very long era and they must now counter this age-old left strategy by refraining from falling into their trap again and again. Nationalists forces have an opportunity to construct a trap for them that would help in exposing the anti-national mindset of the 'left-leaning intellectuals'.

Common course contents - its desirability in higher education

This article was published in the August 7, 2015 issue of the Millennium post  http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=144348 )
Uniformity and diversity are not synonyms to black and white. Talking of uniformity can't be always considered as wrong in any absolute sense. Whereas a desirability to enforce uniforms for school-students is well accepted, similar enforcement in colleges is also considered as avoidable. Recently a move of UGC to enforce a common syllabus in the entire country has generated intense discussions in academics. Traditionally, higher education in India has been following a trend of denouncing any such proposals. One of the prime argument offered in its favour is that nowhere in the world, where institutions are known for their excellence, such uniformity has been imposed. Ironically, while carrying out these comparisons, these arguments conveniently choose to ignore the glaring inequalities between the performances of those institutions with ours. It is no secret that our education sector currently needs to expand its age-old narrow and pure-academic outlook to include many other important and extremely useful aspects of modern education. In addition to this it is also advisable to never overlook the enormity of the exercise that we need to carry out in India in terms of numbers. One also must not forget that nowhere else, countries have been working with these many number of potential students and relatively fewer institutions. In my view, in the context of India, the absence of a common structure and syllabus has been encouraging anarchy and chaos in the mass education sector instead of providing any glimpse of excellence.

                In the name of autonomy, inexplicable and most often undesirable sense of diversity has been encouraged in the higher education. Identical degrees issued by two universities of this country can't ensure anyone that there syllabus would also have some level of commonality. It is strange also because the 'eligibility' to become a teacher in an institution gets decided not by the course contents covered by the applicants but only by the nomenclature of their degrees. I fail to understand that why can't we ensure that if the name of the degrees are identical then at least sixty-seventy percent of the course contents will also be same. On the other hand, if two course-contents do not have sixty-seventy percent common then why shouldn't they be identified by two different names. Further, it is also an undeniable fact that in the name of autonomy and diversity, some institutions are known to have taken its advantage in introducing some anti-national and anti-society studies in some typically designed courses. Is it not a fact that a common test called NET has successfully worked to an acceptable extent in ensuring a minimum standard of the quality of teachers.

                When one has a task of regulating the academic standards of more than many institutions, common structure always helps in fixing a hard lower bound on the academic standards of the educational institutions. In the absence of such a common structure it often becomes impossible to stop the falling standards of a deteriorating institution. Enforcing a common structure and course helps in carrying all the institutions along and also helps in putting brakes on their downslide. An autonomous institution, showing signs of failure, is undeniably designed for a free fall in such a scenario. Autonomy is undoubtedly beneficial but only for those who are showing signs of improvement since a uniform structure would ultimately limit their rise. In a typical Delhi University scenario, we all would agree that if all the colleges of this prestigious University are made autonomous, more than many would fail to survive beyond a decade. We argue therefore in favour of having a common course, a common degree, a common structure for all the colleges of Delhi University to stop those institutions from getting exposed. I also believe that some of the very good performing colleges of Delhi University is well poised to give an incredible show if they are allowed to become autonomous. But it must not be favoured only because the autonomy of these few would force more than many other institutions of the University to follow a downslide. Since we are aiming at mass education, we must not think of doing that too. IITs and IIMs have better performing institutions and therefore any move to implement a common syllabus over there would limit their rise. On a deeper analysis, since the tags of 'IIT' and 'IIM' have recently been extended to additional institutions, this fact may add a new dimension into this discussion as even these entities are now being dragged into mass education. Let us not ignore the glaring fact that a common syllabus of CBSE has helped in maintaining a nationwide minimum standard in the school education sector.

                So the strategy of the regulatory authorities is crucial in these circumstances. They should be able to assess the timing when to provide greater autonomy to an institution. But all those central and state universities who are serving for mass education must be asked to adhere to some level of commonality in the course structure and contents to ensure a minimum standard in education.

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.

Education reforms - Kitchenette vs Cafeteria approach

(The edited version of this was also published in the Organiser that can be visited using the following link
http://organiser.org//Encyc/2015/5/2/Column---Yielding-New-Education-Approach.aspx)

The Cafeteria approach

The academic reforms in the name of CBCS is on the verge of being implemented in the higher education. The new system as proposed by the government will basically need us to review our old single-discipline oriented approach in higher education. It demands, what they call, a cafeteria approach in our education. What is meant thereby is that the new system would encourage a multi-disciplinary approach and it is claimed further that it would give the students the much desired flexibility in terms of choice of the discipline papers. In addition to this, it also boasts of leaving the issues of choosing the span period and the place to acquire education, entirely on the students. While nobody can deny the desirability of these features in our higher education but the feasibility, the state of preparedness of our institutions and other costs in terms of infrastructure and other resources to provide these choices have always remained in doubt. 

Assessment of The Present system

Our present education system follows a strict strait-jacket approach. It has little scope for any flexibility in the choice of papers. The span period to complete a course is also predefined in our institutions that gives very little scope to those who prefer to learn at their own speed. It is due to this that generally Indian students go through a forced-study approach - wherein choices are often forced by the parents, by the peers, by the teachers and many a times even forced by the ease with which marks can be scored therein. The studies here therefore are largely teacher-centric, parent-driven and forced by the societal-preferences. Some major aspects that need to be addressed immediately by any new system are given as under:

1) We need to do away with the concept of having a fixed time frame for acquiring degrees. Those who realise their passion, potential and interest a little late find the doors of learning options closed. Despite our general agreement with the common perception that an interested and motivated student learns much faster, restrictions still rule against this provision in India.

2) In the absence of even a quasi-uniform acceptable standard of a particular degree in this country, it becomes really impossible to compare identical degrees issued from different institutions of India. What adds to this problem is that students find it impossible to use a part of their studies at one place while continuing studies at another place. 

3) We are so used to relate studies only with academics that any deviation from this is considered as a blow on our education system. The higher studies in India aims at producing only academics. Skill-learning are considered sub-standard and are never preferred over academics. There is an urgent need to break this hierarchy and treat academics as only one of the areas for the students to choose from.

4) We need to look at our examination system also urgently. The invention of electronic gadgets have exposed many holes in our university examination system. Moreover our examinations work as a dampener for the spirit of learning. Understanding becomes a casualty in our examinations. 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 make them waste their useful energy, time and ideas to get exhausted in a process of rote-learning just to acquire a rank within a category. 

Past Experience

We must also learn from the failed attempt to implement FYUP ( Four Year Undergraduate Program ) in Delhi University. The tall claims could not be realised as the reforms were carried out in isolation and with inexplicable hurry. An apprehensive Delhi University now has developed an attitude that is hardly conducive to carry out a fresh round of reforms. The lesson must be learnt from this failed exercise that whenever such a change in the system is proposed, its implementation must precede with a series of refresher courses to prepare the teachers and the infrastructure according to the requirement. Although there is an urgent need to attempt reforms, instead of a piece-meal approach we must keep a holistic vision starting right from the primary education. The whole idea of forced-study in India needs to change towards encouraging a self-study attitude in higher education. Primary and secondary education curricula should also be developed so that they complement the student-centric approach in the higher education. However, Keeping in view our own state of affairs, I would suggest that instead of the celebrated cafeteria approach we must explore a kitchenette approach. 

Cafeteria and the Kitchenette approach

The cafeteria approach symbolizes a student-centric approach but at the same time it often means a pocket-centric and in the Indian context a parent-unfriendly approach. The choices in a cafeteria come at a price and playing around with the choices such as even sharing a plate is often discouraged in a cafeteria approach. It also includes paying penalty for any cancelled order and therefore in an honest analysis this cafeteria approach turns out to be primarily a market-friendly approach at all costs.

Instead, India needs a kitchenette approach wherein the government can play a role of provider and the users will have all the options available before them. Depending on their choice they would not only be able to prepare items of their choices but they would additionally be encouraged to explore into the unexplored territories. With raw materials available to them, users of a kitchenette are provided with options that are  not limited by the pocket but only by the availability of food items.

To indulge into this, the government will have to explore ways to provide learning materials free on the internet sites in the form of lecture series of interactive and non-interactive variety, demonstration of experimental procedures, generous discussion on cutting edge technologies, providing scope for developing useful industrial ideas and other job-providing skills. We must create an environment where at least those who have realized their potential or interest are not deprived of an opportunity to acquire the relevant knowledge. The most regressive attitude is that we often relate age of a student with her ability to acquire knowledge. A person who realises that he should have chosen medicine as a field of choice in his late 40s finds his/her dream inexplicably unrealizable. Now that will be an injustice in a kitchenette approach. Whenever one realizes hunger, there must be a scope of preparing food making use of the available items in the kitchenette along with things available with her. Let us think of setting the students free to accumulate credits and once someone successfully acquires the required credits let an appropriate degree be given without any other unnecessary requirements. Let the working experience also provide some credit to a student in this system. Let an electrician start with some credit already in her kitty while attempting a degree in science/technology. Let an electronics equipment-repairing professional, a worker with an experience in building brick/steel/concrete structures, a plumber or a mechanic start with some advantage if they decide to study for a relevant degree. Let a nurse or a person having experience in pathology start with some advantage on the others aspiring to become a doctor. Let skills be treated at par with academics so that the preference for academics is not unjustifiably driven by an expectation for getting respect in our society. Let only the passion and interest rule the choice in this kitchenette approach as while preparing food only taste and quality governs our choice and not the cost of the food items involved.

Even though CBCS is being claimed to have been addressing some of the concerns discussed above, a cautious approach allowing wider consultation and discussions will only help in realizing its aims better.

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.

Let us carry out the Change

It is never wise to reject a system without reasons. We had arguments against the semester system to arrive at a unanimous decision of opposing the same. We had reasoned out the absurdities in the FYUP. Our stands in these cases were never blind and were always based on their detailed analysis. We therefore, must spare ourselves from becoming slaves of our final decisions. Our opposition for FYUP or the CBCS were not because of their nomenclature but because of the objectives behind them. Now, an effort is being made to pull us all into the trap of opposing every change in the name of our well-meaning decisions of opposing these formulations. It often reminds me of the laughable stand of the university wherein they have resorted to notify all kinds of teachers' strikes as illegal not because of the issues at hand but by citing a court order that is arguably quoted completely 'out of context'. Let us remind ourselves that even our existing migration schemes are nothing but our own method of transferring credits from one college to the other. We were also never opposed to another credit transfer scheme wherein we were absolutely comfortable in transferring our Honours students to the respective program courses when they used to get less than a threshold marks. Whereas the DTF has a history of taking an ideological stand irrespective of the stand of DUTA, recently the DU authorities helped them in creating a space and environment wherein all of us were pushed to appear on their side. What helped them was the idiocy with which FYUP was formulated and implemented as these did not confine to the format alone but spilled over even to the contents and the syllabus. Whereas we all can feel the relevance and usefulness of even the foundation courses that have been designed in other institutes such as IISc (Bangalore), in DU they were reduced to jokes because of their compulsory nature, the unreasonable weightage attached with these courses, the standard of the contents and above all the state of unpreparedness with which these were launched. The DU authorities were further exposed defenceless as all these experiments were being carried out in an isolated manner ONLY in this university – thereby defeating the very purpose for which it was championing. The fact that these changes were being implemented without affecting the desired changes in the approach of school-teaching further established beyond doubts that the experiments were badly designed, were ill-thought and hurriedly approached.

Even if we decide to leave all the above arguments aside, does it not make sense in having broad centralized guideline to help different universities to come some kind of an even-level wherein assessment of students from different universities would not remain as difficult as it is now. Just as we have a CBSE syllabus to guide all other boards to keep up with the pace, relevance and some sense of uniformity, is it not time to discuss the same in the area of higher education too? Just as we all were unanimous in opposing the experiments that were carried out in our university it is also a fact that we all are not happy with state of education in this country.

Let us not run away from discussions as there is no other known way to arrive at a consensus. CBCS or a modified FYUP – what would ensure a better performance of any new system of education is our involvement and preparedness that will eventually help us in developing the necessary confidence and conviction – to make any new system deliver.

Indian Education - a fresh approach

The present education system – an assessment

The present Indian education is designed to produce persons with

• Good mathematical skills.
• Good instruction-following capacities.
• Average analytical skills.
• Not so inspiring writing abilities.
• Poor reading habits.
• Hopeless self learning attitudes.
• Poor citizen habits.
• Missing national pride.
• Individualistic outlook.
• Missing concern for the society.
• Flawed attitude towards opposite sex.
• No idea of the law of land.
• No idea of financial discipline.

The system is apparently fighting to survive the pressure of dealing with unmanageable number of candidates right from the beginning. Our education system has become an instrument primarily to provide some mechanical way to shortlist candidates. To select candidates for any avenue, students are therefore judged more on their reproducing abilities and less on their understanding capabilities. Interest in a discipline and passion towards a skill are often sacrificed and the candidates are expected to discover and even generate these qualities within themselves after they get selected.

This has forced our education system to get built up apparently on a flawed premise that an academician or a researcher is suited best for any kind of profession. With this basic premise our education attempts to produce only academicians. And only during this process students keep on shifting to other avenues at some stage or the other out of frustration from the mainstream education to learn skills that are required to earn a living.

Examination side-effects

The education system has got evolved in such a manner that understanding a problem, innovative thinking and failed attempts go hopelessly unevaluated and hence get discouraged in the present system. On the other hand, mere having Information about solutions or an attitude for mindlessly following a beaten path and only successful attempts most often get rewarded in the present system.

That one will be able to get a profession of one's own interest depends completely on the reproducing ability of a person. And the system thus encourages students to fool others through rote-learning. Only rote learners are sure of getting 'success' in this system. In our society, 'Success' is a name given to the event of getting into your choice of profession. Ironically in our country it is another bitter truth that the 'choice' is always guided by the expected financial returns from the profession and not driven by any passion for that profession.

Our education system fails to realize that if someone has understood a topic/concept then that never means that the same person will also be able to reproduce the same. To be able to reproduce the same one needs to waste valuable time in revisiting the same again and again. Unfortunately even those who have not understood can reproduce the same through rote learning. Too much importance on examination-results forces even innovative thinkers and visionaries to waste their time in preparing them for useless reproduction.

Misplaced sense of achievement

Another serious fall out of the present system is that a degree is invariably mistaken as an ultimate achievement and a final license to get (not earn) money. To get into a system that would fetch them a 'financially relevant and socially respectable' job, students often get exhausted while handling the cut-throat competitions and consider their job as already over once they get placed in a desired environment. They then expect the government to start paying him/her for this 'false' sense of achievement.

Our society has an enviable (unreasonably skewed) liking for only a few types of professions. These professions come with a deadly combination of high returns with astonishingly lesser challenges. Beginning from the colonial era these jobs have continued to evolve as offering more and more of these attractive features. People find those select jobs so glamorous and paying that the entire society runs after only those selected few professions. We acquire degrees and percentages only to get hold of one of these jobs. However the anti-climax is that we consider acquiring degrees as the end of the purpose to get education and a government officer's job ('corruption' renders the returns entirely de-linked from any pressure to perform) epitomizes the sense of getting rewarded in return of education.

The main problem of our education system is therefore that our society considers only a handful of the 'jobs' as 'financially relevant and socially respectable' options. This is exactly the reason that our society looks up to getting a job only as a doctor, engineer, manager, officer, administrator, academicians. There is an urgent need to expand this base. Jobs associated with several other kinds of skills should also be made financially relevant and hence socially respectable. In our society the difference between the social status of a pathological technicians, a nurse and a doctor is unreasonably enormous; difference between a construction worker, a labor contractor, a junior engineer and an engineer is unreasonably huge; difference between a car mechanic, a technician and an automobile engineer is too large to be justified; difference between an electrician and an electrical engineer is completely unjustified; difference between a University professor and a school teacher is not understandable; difference between the status of a plumber and a civil engineer is outrageously huge; difference between a hotel waiter and a hotel manager is inexplicably large. This brazen attitude stems from our age-old disrespect towards dignity of work. It is true that this change is not easy to affect but the absence of effort in this direction has already magnified the problem to an extent that an avoidable 'reservation race' has found its relevance in the system.

The way ahead

Let us try to move inch by inch towards a state wherein financial considerations will take a back seat in favor of an inherent interest in a profession. When a student can take up a profession out of his own personal interest in the same and not because the skill can provide an unreasonably better financial status and a respectable lifestyle – then only we will be somewhere near to our destination.

As long as these differences would stay in our society the mad rush to get into those few professions would continue. And as long as the rush would continue the method of examination to shortlist the unmanageably long list of candidates in a blind and mechanical manner will find no alternative. And as long as this examination system will exist no innovation can be nurtured or encouraged in this process.

Education should aim at producing persons with

• Good reading, writing, analyzing and debating abilities.
• Necessary sensibilities.
• Some job fetching skills/attitudes.
• Attitude of a self-learner.
• Concern towards society.
• Knowledge of law of the land.
• Temperament of observing rules.
• Courage to point out deficiency and injustice.
• Having national pride.
• Vision of an innovator.

Conclusion

Education means development and it must be provided to all without exception.

Primary education should aim primarily on building values and personality development,

Secondary education should be utilized to help students identify their interest/inclination and

Higher education should be aimed at building those skills.

To achieve this we need to dump two avoidable misconceptions that obstruct our march towards achieving this:

• We must be realistic and never think of de-linking Higher education from jobs/profession.
• And secondly, we also must stop daydreaming that the government will be able to provide Higher education to all without the help of private investment.

The government should focus on framing policies to encourage private players to help in enlarging the set of 'financially relevant and socially respected' professions by modernizing more and more job-providing avenues/skills.

Scope and Hope

The numbers are so large that there is no other way but to depend heavily on internet-based education. Uploading of skill-training demonstrations by real professionals should be encouraged and must be given utmost priority. Computers and automation by machines should be encouraged in those skills that are hitherto not financially paying to make them financially attractive. Use of automatic machines in furniture industries, washing and cleaning industries, repairing industries, construction industries and waste-management industries can do wonders in making them of some financial worth. Use of computerized approach in hair-designing, jewellery designing and fashion designing can make them attractive too. Besides these, imparting the attitude required on the issues of Sexual Harassment, Gender sensitization, Driving rules, Anti-drug laws, developing a balanced understanding on the other sex, issues of national pride, national concerns on population, poverty and environment should also find desired attention in the nursery and primary education curricula.