FYUP-
the Myth and the Reality
It is a pity that a major debate on FYUP is not attempted on
its academic worth but is used only to
settle scores politically. It is in keeping with the present trend of packaging
everything into politics instead of looking at issues on a comparative analysis
of their merits and demerits. The controversy that has erupted over FYUP is
divided on political lines and steers clear of discussing its advantages over
the conventional three year degree programmes. Students under the banner of
different political parties have raised their voices demanding a roll back of
the FYUP without giving one single reason for making such a demand. Burning
effigies, shouting slogans and even assaulting teachers who are pro FYUP are exciting
for them especially when the TV crews are in large numbers to beam live the
agitation through their channels. I have not seen any single argument against
FYUP except that the programme has to be
rolled back in the interest of the students. There is no one among the protesting
students group to put the finger on its
drawback except that there will be a wait of one more year to get their first
degree and that means delay in starting to
earn alongside incurring additional
expenditure on university fees, and for the hostellers, on boarding and lodging
for an extra year. The students have not bothered to educate themselves on the
possible plusses of FYUP but indulge in a blanket negation of the course as
unsuited for them. The teachers who protest against it are angry because they
were not consulted in structuring the course and are upset that the University
thrust a half baked syllabus for the Foundation course without any input from
their side. Here also these teachers do not debate the crux of the issue- “why
and why not FYUP.” Even those who are on the side of FYUP do not indulge in a
reasoned debate on its merits.
The political parties love to fish in troubled waters
especially if the yield on the vote banks is likely to be high. The pre
election campaign dubbed the FYUP as the Congress brainchild that has to be
dumped for that reason alone. With Delhi elections a few months away, the BJP, AAP
and the Congress outrival each other in their blind opposition to FYUP sensing
that a majority of the stakeholders are against it. If academics fail to debate
issues on merit, how can we expect the political parties not to turn a rational
issue on its head and make it emotive? The BJP spokesman pontificates that “We
have been continuously opposing the four year course because I think the three
year course is something that serves the university students better.” But “how”
is a question that is neither raised nor answered. AAP is on record that it
will abolish FYUP- though no reason has been given for its animus. Congress that
had remained silent when FYUP was introduced has realized its mistake of
remaining silent and in its bid to regain its lost ground has allowed its youth
wing to protest against FYUP. In fact, the Ministry of HRD must have recommended the DU Vice-Chancellor for
Padma Shri for his innovative reforms and has now dumped him for the very same reason. But none of them
has one single rational argument as to why three year course is better than the
four year course. Media men and women, anchors on TV channels and the same select
group of intellectuals invited for discussion end up with a cacophony of voices
that makes reason and FYUP the leading casualty.
So what is FYUP and
why has DU ‘thrust’ it on unwilling teachers and students? FYUP is an extension
of undergraduate course for a fourth
year in order to provide time and
intellectual space for the students to get exposed to a wide array of disciplines
other than the one in which he seeks to major. Gone are the days when students
studied stand-alone disciplines to the total ignorance of all other areas of
knowledge. A student of humanities knew
nothing about new trends in science and technology and a student of science
hardly knew sociology or economics or literature. Unless a scientist
understands society and human social
behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization,
institutions, and development of human
society, his contribution to science will be a self contained
effort with no relevance to society as a whole. When Physics and Philosophy are
coming closer, it is unfortunate that students of Humanities do not have the
basic knowledge of quantum physics or the Higgs particle also known as God’s
particle. The Foundation courses are meant to fill this lacuna in higher
education and qualitatively improve learning. Also the Discipline II course
introduced at the FYUP is meant to provide students an opportunity to pursue in
depth a second discipline other than the one he seeks to major in. The FYUP
provides for the option to leave at the end of three years with a BA degree or study
for one more year to get a Honours degree. So the three year degree is a part
of the FYUP and why all this fuss?
Quality of higher education is assured
in two ways through FYUP: (1) a holistic, inter disciplinary approach to
learning (2) Those who pursue four years have the distinct advantage of
studying in depth two disciplines and going for higher research in any one of
them. The Masters programme is reduced
from two to one year—where the level and intensity of lectures will be high and
students will be asked to do more self learning and write a dissertation as a
part of examination requirement. This will be a qualitative high for University
education.
What is urgently required is
restructuring of the Foundation courses to provide holistic and interesting
learning for the students. I had
suggested in a number of my writings that seminal books on each discipline can
be prescribed and eminent professors within the colleges and outside of the
colleges can be requested to lecture on them to make students understand the
different and yet linked strands of various disciplines. To discard FYUP because
of the current poorly structured Foundation course is a retrograde step.
As for the peripheral issues raised by
sloganeering students and political parties about an additional year that would
deprive the three year degree holder of prospective employment, less said the
better. The current degree holders even after their Masters degree have
obtained no employable skills as the degrees are degrees by rote and not
degrees of learning. For the other
objection about fees for the additional year, DU’s charges are 18/ per
month that amounts to 216/ for a year.
If boarding, lodging and other charges are taken into account it must be remembered
that whether the student is back home or stays in a hostel or PG accommodation,
the difference will not be that enormous.
DU charges are pittance compared to private universities who advertise their
tie- ups with foreign universities ( subtly hinting that Indian degrees are
inferior). If DU is ambitious to introduce daring reforms for qualitative improvement,
is it too much to ask for additional expenditure of an affordable sum?
Let there be an academic debate on
the advantages/ disadvantages of FYUP. To discard it without a rational debate is
to discard something valuable in the eagerness to get political mileage out of
it. Instead of packaging politics into academics , we in India are packaging
academics into politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment