SW)T analysis of Choice Based Credit System

                 

                                                            SWOT analysis of CBCS

                                                                                                      

UGC has issued a new directive to the universities to change to the “cafeteria” type of Choice based Credit System. The broad guidelines have been sent, giving some flexibility to the universities to design the courses within the ambit of CBCS. This involves a double change- from the annual system to semester mode and within that semester mode, introduction of courses that the student can choose to earn credits. If a SWOT analysis is made, it will objectively enable academics and students to arrive at the difference in the worth, feasibility and enhanced teaching-learning output between the prevailing system vis-à-vis Choice Based Credit system. It is axiomatic to primarily arrive at this analysis before compelling universities to follow what UGC in its wisdom has devised. Let us remember that change for the sake of change cannot by itself make a course correction for the betterment of our Higher Education standards. If HE in this country is showing signs of attrition and decline, merely changing the system without any change in the infrastructure of the universities cannot arrest that downward slope. Further UGC in isolation has visualized a policy change and sent the directive to the universities to implement it without consulting those very academics who have to carry out the schemes that the UGC administrators seemed to have plucked out of air and thrown them down at the universities. The writer seeks the indulgence of the readers even if the language used here seems critical acquiring inadvertently a tone of pejoration. The intention is not to discard the CBCS but caution the policy makers(changers) to hasten slowly. It is not long since a good programme like the FYUP was abandoned at the insistence of the Delhi University Teachers’ association, backed by political expediency. The reason was the undue haste in thrusting a programme on teachers and students alike without adequate preparation. It is a well known fact that one of the weaknesses of academics(barring a few who are genuine scholars) is to listen to their own voice and their own reasoning to the extent of drowning all other voices and to claim that they have spoken the last hundred words on any topic of a debatable nature. Had the authorities taken pains to involve the teachers’ association (not just a few teachers) and made them feel a sense of ownership of the programme, FYUP would have been a trendsetter in Indian Higher Education. The SWOT analysis was not done before it was introduced as a fait accompli.

SWOT analysis of the CBCS:

The strength of CBCS lies in the provision given to the students for a wider choice to study disciplines other than the one they opt for their major and also the choice to secure credits both at the required minimum and their preferred maximum i.e. they can opt for 120 credits to get a first  degree or go  up to 150 credits and similarly stay at the required 80 or opt for 100 to get a Masters degree. This is, inter alia, an enabling measure to free the course duration from the present three years (for B.A) and two years (for M.A) to a more flexible stretch to complete the required number of credits.

The introduction of a compulsory Foundation course and a variety of Elective courses in addition to the Core course, mandated for the particular discipline the student opts for his/her major will provide for enhanced knowledge of disciplines other than the chosen one. This will release the students from the restricted microgroove of studying just one discipline and give them an exposure to other disciplines to provide for a holistic and enhanced learning. A knowledge of sociology and economics will be useful for a student of science to relate his studies to the economic and sociological issues- the absence of which has led to stand alone science disciplines today without any regard to their far reaching effects beyond the confines of laboratory on the development of Man and Society.  In the same way, a student of Humanities cannot ignore the latest research and trends in Science to lead to the social positioning and management of all scientific researches. The Environmental Sciences and the Earth Sciences have a major role to play in Human Geography and Cultural Studies. These added Elective and Foundation Courses are based on the meeting point of pure theoretic consideration and the practical enforcement of new directions in sciences as well as in socio-economic sciences.

So the question is where lies the weakness in the implementation of such a worthwhile scheme as envisaged in CBCS? The main weakness is in this “Ready, get set, go” implementation -in the hurry to introduce it at once without adequate preparation. The present structure of courses in major disciplines is designed for a study of three years(six semesters)  in their pure, unalloyed form. Barring a couple of subsidiary courses where a mere pass is a part of the eligibility requirement for a degree, the student has to do an intensive study of the chosen discipline for all the three years.  With the addition of Elective and Foundation courses, there has to be a new structure that accommodates them along with the Mains without any dilution of the content. This demands a balance among the three courses to enable the students to gain credits (it is said that a credit is equivalent to one hour of lecture or two hours of practicals or tutorials per week for 16 weeks of a semester). This new structure should also provide necessary link between the Mains and the Elective and Foundation courses. It is said in the UGC document that a Commerce student should not opt for a course in Urdu or Sanskrit( this is baffling as it goes against the very concept of CBCS). All that one understands is the need for inter-disciplinary studies where the study of the Mains is a composite of the diverse courses offered by the Electives and the Foundation courses. This involves intense consultation among the faculties of all departments (Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences and Commerce) to decide what and what not should be included in the three distinct courses that make them relevant and linked to each other. To re-design the course structure that gives adequate weightage to everyone of the three courses is not a fly-by-night undertaking. Since the student has the choice to opt for the courses of his choice, the time-table or the schedule of classes has to be such that there is no overlapping of the classes as s/he cannot be in two classes at the same time.  The permutation and combination exercise this involves has to satisfy course requirements, class schedule and students’ options.

Yet another factor is staff shortage and staff inadequacy. Will the colleges be given the autonomy to increase staff strength to accommodate these new courses?  Given the archaic rule of 18 classes per week for a faculty member, the addition of elective and Foundation courses will need more faculty members. The question arises how many of our teachers are trained in inter-disciplinary approach to studies? More than 90% have come from the traditional stand-alone training in one single discipline. Unless teachers are given specialized training for at least three months, teachers will deliver their age-old lectures without making it relevant to the new scheme that aims at enhancement and spread of knowledge.

The CBCS in the West enables students to transfer their credits from one institution to another. Here the implementation is within individual colleges. It is impossible to anticipate how many would opt for one course and if there are more, can the college have the right to shut the door on them on ‘first come first ‘basis? This virtually means CBCS does not give the right of choice to the student as per his/her aptitude and potential.  Inter mobility among colleges/universities has not been factored in when the validity of CBCS hinges on facile transfer of credits to other institutions.  As for intra-mobility, has any thought been bestowed on the number of students to be admitted for the courses of their choice? Again the weakness stems from the fact that the infrastructural capacity and the number of classrooms available cannot admit beyond thirty per course. In the aborted FYUP programme last year one college had the discomfiture of 150 students (with and without language skills) seeking admission to the course on Media and Journalism. It will be much more in number under the present CBCS and how and who can limit the number when the choice to select the courses becomes the right of the students? 

What are the opportunities CBCS can exploit to its advantage? What are the threats that could cause trouble to CBCS? Colleges can seek more funds for development of infrastructure and for additional faculty to meet the increased number of courses and students.  Introduction of CBCS calls for a systemic change in the mode of lecturing and tutoring. A large number of students seeking a particular Elective course cannot be accommodated in a single classroom. Lecture Theatres have to be built with multimedia projectors, headphones and table microphones have to be installed on the desks so that there can be interaction between the student and the lecturer. The present system of 12 Lectures and six tutorials per faculty member has to be revised so that more emphasis is given to Tutorials for small groups The revised structure will have to be lectures limited to 6 per semester for each course(18L)+ 3P/T for Main course(6P/T)as one P/T is equal to 2 credits +  4P/T for Elective and Foundation course(8P/T). This structural change cannot happen in the next two months before the new session starts as per the diktat of the UGC.

As for the threats, CBCS will not be operational until every student is given an opportunity to exercise his/her choice to earn credits in courses that s/he prefers. CBCS will collapse under the weight of courses and the increased number of students. In the absence of adequate number of qualified faculty to teach in the inter disciplinary mode, CBCS will turn into choiceless choice for students.

CBCS need not be and should not be abandoned. What is needed is to work out all the details, iron out discrepancies in the system, train faculty in the inter-disciplinary mode, develop infrastructure in the institutions and then offer the choice to the students. Let us remember that haste is waste and a good mechanism to improve quality of higher education may go waste if UGC holds a deadline to start the programme like a Damocles sword over the universities. Artificial ripening is no answer. One year delay is not going to paralyze Indian Higher Education and reduce it to total decline.  Oivd’s injunction: “At times it is folly to hasten; at other times, to delay. The wise do everything in its proper time.” is most appropriate in these challenging times .