<p>More often than not, their degrees do not serve any concrete purpose or make a difference to their lives or the society they live in, because only a fraction of them pursue higher studies or take up jobs related to their degree. The rest of them rest on their laurels. The University Graduate Commission (UGC), having observed this unswerving trend, came up with a palpable solution about five years ago. It decided to make the undergraduate course more purposeful and universal. A core committee brainstormed on the issue and came up with the answers.<br /><br />The UGC zeroed in on three subjects — Basic Computer Applications, Environmental Studies and the Constitution of India. The Commission stipulated that undergraduate students from all streams have to attend classes for the three compulsory subjects over a stipulated time frame, and clear papers by the end of the respective semesters. <br /><br />Since the educational advisors were aware of the exacting nature of the heavy syllabus, they decided not to burden the students with more responsibilities. They wanted students to be familiar with the rudiments of the aforementioned subjects. Hence, they decided that the marks obtained in the said subjects would not be counted towards the aggregate total or affect the ranking of the students. As a further measure to wipe out any nagging doubts, they also earmarked the subjects to be graded as against marking them. Nevertheless, they insisted that students have to clear the paper to obtain their degree, in the hope that graduates could be subtly reminded of the requirements of the future which lay ahead of them. <br /><br />They thought that if every graduate, no matter from which stream he/she passed out of was equipped with some basic knowledge of three important subjects, they would add value to society. Eventually, their contribution would make a commendable difference to their country and the world at large.<br /><br />Accordingly, a syllabus was prepared. Though various universities abhorred the idea of taking up the extra workload, they agreed to carry out the dictum because they could see the rationale behind this move. So the well-meaning decision descended on all budding graduates even on those pursuing professional courses.<br /><br />The “compulsory subjects” which were welcomed with zeal soon lost its enthusiasm once it moved out of the boardroom. Managements and colleges found that it was too much to handle when they got into translating the project into reality.<br /><br />The timetable of the course has to allot two “precious” class hours to these subjects every week. Besides, suitable faculty had to be found to teach these subjects in the classroom. This can prove to be a formidable task because lecturers find it demeaning to handle subjects which do not have academic weightage. <br /><br />When the lecturers handling these subjects were consulted on the issue, they consented to reveal the ground reality of the situation on conditions of strict anonymity. Just about everyone said that the classroom discipline was akin to that of our noisy Parliament sessions. Even the best of students paid little attention in class, leaving the teacher helpless and frustrated. <br /><br />Some colleges have tried to circumvent this problem by allotting the last 10 or 12 days of the semester for a quick and effective overview of the subject. The students are given notes, model question papers and are told to concentrate on 60 to 75 per cent of the syllabus to clear the paper successfully. While this method helps to overcome discipline issues, the purpose of initiating a thought process and stimulating discussions is lost. <br /><br />Some colleges experimented with the teaching methodology and arranged field trips, making students analyse case studies and asking them to come up with presentations and exhibitions to get them involved in the subjects. Though the idea sounds worthwhile and practical, the unfortunate truth is that not many students took up these activities earnestly for the simple reason that the “marks do not count”.<br /><br />It is interesting to note that idealistic academicians and educators are forever vetoing the idea of exams. For they think that “the process of education interferes with learning.” Yet when a body like the UGC has come up with a sound and sensible idea to step up learning and awareness, they have been steadily axing down the idea with their “don’t care” attitude. The message is clear, if students refuse to take the sugar- coated pill to cure the ills of society, they will simply have to pass examinations!<br /></p>
<p>More often than not, their degrees do not serve any concrete purpose or make a difference to their lives or the society they live in, because only a fraction of them pursue higher studies or take up jobs related to their degree. The rest of them rest on their laurels. The University Graduate Commission (UGC), having observed this unswerving trend, came up with a palpable solution about five years ago. It decided to make the undergraduate course more purposeful and universal. A core committee brainstormed on the issue and came up with the answers.<br /><br />The UGC zeroed in on three subjects — Basic Computer Applications, Environmental Studies and the Constitution of India. The Commission stipulated that undergraduate students from all streams have to attend classes for the three compulsory subjects over a stipulated time frame, and clear papers by the end of the respective semesters. <br /><br />Since the educational advisors were aware of the exacting nature of the heavy syllabus, they decided not to burden the students with more responsibilities. They wanted students to be familiar with the rudiments of the aforementioned subjects. Hence, they decided that the marks obtained in the said subjects would not be counted towards the aggregate total or affect the ranking of the students. As a further measure to wipe out any nagging doubts, they also earmarked the subjects to be graded as against marking them. Nevertheless, they insisted that students have to clear the paper to obtain their degree, in the hope that graduates could be subtly reminded of the requirements of the future which lay ahead of them. <br /><br />They thought that if every graduate, no matter from which stream he/she passed out of was equipped with some basic knowledge of three important subjects, they would add value to society. Eventually, their contribution would make a commendable difference to their country and the world at large.<br /><br />Accordingly, a syllabus was prepared. Though various universities abhorred the idea of taking up the extra workload, they agreed to carry out the dictum because they could see the rationale behind this move. So the well-meaning decision descended on all budding graduates even on those pursuing professional courses.<br /><br />The “compulsory subjects” which were welcomed with zeal soon lost its enthusiasm once it moved out of the boardroom. Managements and colleges found that it was too much to handle when they got into translating the project into reality.<br /><br />The timetable of the course has to allot two “precious” class hours to these subjects every week. Besides, suitable faculty had to be found to teach these subjects in the classroom. This can prove to be a formidable task because lecturers find it demeaning to handle subjects which do not have academic weightage. <br /><br />When the lecturers handling these subjects were consulted on the issue, they consented to reveal the ground reality of the situation on conditions of strict anonymity. Just about everyone said that the classroom discipline was akin to that of our noisy Parliament sessions. Even the best of students paid little attention in class, leaving the teacher helpless and frustrated. <br /><br />Some colleges have tried to circumvent this problem by allotting the last 10 or 12 days of the semester for a quick and effective overview of the subject. The students are given notes, model question papers and are told to concentrate on 60 to 75 per cent of the syllabus to clear the paper successfully. While this method helps to overcome discipline issues, the purpose of initiating a thought process and stimulating discussions is lost. <br /><br />Some colleges experimented with the teaching methodology and arranged field trips, making students analyse case studies and asking them to come up with presentations and exhibitions to get them involved in the subjects. Though the idea sounds worthwhile and practical, the unfortunate truth is that not many students took up these activities earnestly for the simple reason that the “marks do not count”.<br /><br />It is interesting to note that idealistic academicians and educators are forever vetoing the idea of exams. For they think that “the process of education interferes with learning.” Yet when a body like the UGC has come up with a sound and sensible idea to step up learning and awareness, they have been steadily axing down the idea with their “don’t care” attitude. The message is clear, if students refuse to take the sugar- coated pill to cure the ills of society, they will simply have to pass examinations!<br /></p>
