Taking lessons

Coming soon to all Indian universities: the controversial Delhi University academic system that was scrapped

The Universities Grants Commission’s proposal on choice-based credit system is similar to Delhi University’s Four-Year Undergraduate Programme.

India’s statutory body for higher education, the Universities Grants Commission, last week initiated a shakeup in varsities across the country by proposing that they follow a semester pattern in curriculum instead of yearly examinations and adopt grades instead of numerical percentages in marksheets. In a letter to vice-chancellors, the commission asked all 400 universities to “quickly initiate action” to “expedite” the change that “will provide wider options to students” from the coming academic year.

Unintentional though, the commission’s vigorous promotion carried a strong current of irony. Last year, it had forced the University of Delhi to scrap its Four-Year Undergraduate Programme, which bore a marked resemblance to the change the UGC is now championing.

Here is a look at some of the commonalities between the two systems:

Credit-Based Course Structure
FYUP: In this system, courses were split into Foundation Courses (common to students across streams), Discipline Courses I (major courses related to the degree), and Discipline Courses II (minor or applied courses chosen by students).

UGC Guidelines: Here too, the courses will be divided into compulsory Foundation Courses (relating directly to the subject of study) and Elective Courses (allowing for interdisciplinary studies).

FYUP: A grading system was created in Delhi University with an in-built conversion mechanism.

UGC Guidelines: Grade points, ranging from O (Outstanding) to P (Pass), will be derived from the marks achieved in examinations.

Multiple Exit Points
FYUP: It allowed multiple exit points from the course, so a student could get a diploma after finishing two years of the programme, a bachelor’s degree after three years, or an honours degree after four years.

UGC Guidelines: As part of the National Skill Qualifications framework, all community colleges and those institutions providing Bachelors of Vocational Studies programmes need to provide multiple exit points to students pursuing vocational skill-based courses, such as retail management and business accounting. A student can get a certificate after six months of the programme, a diploma after a year, an advanced diploma after two years, and a B.Voc degree after three years.

Replay of old protests

While some are hailing the UGC’s proposal as a significant shift in higher education structure, many Delhi University teachers are not too enthused. The teachers had last year joined Delhi University’s students in protesting against the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme, calling it “ill conceived”. They feel the same way about UGC’s suggestions today.

“It is unfortunate that the UGC has not learned any lessons from Delhi University’s horrific experience with FYUP,” said Abha Dev Habib, a professor of physics at Miranda House College and a member of Delhi University’s executive council body. “The UGC guidelines are similar to the FYUP course structure in many ways and so now we are required to deal with them again.”

Habib said the UGC did not collect enough feedback from students or teachers before forming its guidelines to standardise education across states. “Different states teach differently,” Habib asserted. “Their grading patterns are separate, so a standard system can’t be imposed in a flash.”

Apart from the system’s hurried implementation, there are concerns among students about admissions based on grade points. They point out that the grades could be interpreted varyingly since the UGC has allowed varsities to “adopt and adapt” its guidelines as they deem fit.

“A university might choose to interpret a grade, say A+, differently for an applicant from a Tier-II university,” said Vishal Manve, a graduate from the University of Mumbai who is currently applying for postgraduate courses. “We would have no recourse since grades signify a range of marks instead of specific percentages, which make it clear if the applicant fits the eligibility criteria or not.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.