Recently, there has been much introspection at N1 about its undergraduate programme. The first two batches of our undergraduate programme have done very well and most have got into prestigious PhD programmes all over the world.
While there is much appreciation of this fact, it is also felt that in the current course structure, the performance of students in the first two years has not been up to the mark.
Naturally, some are questioning whether our current process of admitting students, in the quest to fill up the number of seats specified by MHRD, is compromising on the quality of students. This question assumes special importance in the current national debate concerning the IIT entrance exams.
The other question that people are asking is whether the current course structure of our undergraduate programme is the best structure to provide a strong foundation to our students in the sciences? Is this system optimal from the point of view of the students? Has this system been fair to the students that we do get? Can we make our programme more accessible to our students without diluting our courses and without compromising on the objectives of our institute?
In the current system, students take a broad variety of courses in the sciences in the first two years and choose a major subject in the third year (though they also continue to study interdisciplinary courses). Thus, in the first two years, the students have to learn enough about different sciences to be able to develop a broad perspective in science and make an informed choice of their major. The primary challenges in this system are
a) the jump from class twelfth to the first year of this programme. Since each discipline is only represented by one course per semester for the first four semesters, a lot of material needs to be covered to prepare the students for the intensive courses that they take in the third year. Many students are unable to handle the pressure at this early stage. For example, students who opted for Biology in 11th and 12th now have a hard time keeping up with their peers in their first year Mathematics course (and vice versa).
b) Once a student decides to major in a subject A in the third year, she again has to make a big jump from what she studied in A in the first two years and the advanced material that she sees now in the third year. Does one course of A each semester in the first four semesters adequately prepare the student to make an informed decision about choosing A as a major and then undertake five intensive courses of A each semester in the third year? Keeping this in mind, when instructors try to ensure that students in the first two years have the necessary pre-requisites for year 3 by following a challenging course syllabus, many students experience burn-out.
There was some serious rethinking about these matters from the course-structure point of view rather than the quality-of-student point of view and various remedies were suggested. Somewhere between the extreme of narrowing down a student to one subject in the first year itself and that of making all courses "gentle" was found the right balance. Basically, the incline from one year to another has been made more gradual.
As per the new structure, which has now been approved by the senate,
a) Just as before, students will take one course per semester in each of the sciences in the first year.
b) In the second year, students will now choose three sciences of their interest and take three courses per semester in each of the chosen subjects. These courses will be more rigorous than the first year courses.
c) In the third year, the student will choose a major from among the three subjects chosen in the second year.
The new structure has generated enthusiasm among many faculty members. We feel that it gives us more space to introduce the most fundamental aspects of our fields in the first two years in a way that students have enough time to follow and digest what is being taught to them.
Each department now has the fundamental task of redesigning the first year course and introducing appropriate new courses in the second year. The next couple of weeks will be spent doing this as the new plan will be put into action in the coming semester.
I would like to hear from readers about the undergraduate course structures at their institutes in the initial years and their thoughts about it, either as a student or instructor (or both).
While there is much appreciation of this fact, it is also felt that in the current course structure, the performance of students in the first two years has not been up to the mark.
Naturally, some are questioning whether our current process of admitting students, in the quest to fill up the number of seats specified by MHRD, is compromising on the quality of students. This question assumes special importance in the current national debate concerning the IIT entrance exams.
The other question that people are asking is whether the current course structure of our undergraduate programme is the best structure to provide a strong foundation to our students in the sciences? Is this system optimal from the point of view of the students? Has this system been fair to the students that we do get? Can we make our programme more accessible to our students without diluting our courses and without compromising on the objectives of our institute?
In the current system, students take a broad variety of courses in the sciences in the first two years and choose a major subject in the third year (though they also continue to study interdisciplinary courses). Thus, in the first two years, the students have to learn enough about different sciences to be able to develop a broad perspective in science and make an informed choice of their major. The primary challenges in this system are
a) the jump from class twelfth to the first year of this programme. Since each discipline is only represented by one course per semester for the first four semesters, a lot of material needs to be covered to prepare the students for the intensive courses that they take in the third year. Many students are unable to handle the pressure at this early stage. For example, students who opted for Biology in 11th and 12th now have a hard time keeping up with their peers in their first year Mathematics course (and vice versa).
b) Once a student decides to major in a subject A in the third year, she again has to make a big jump from what she studied in A in the first two years and the advanced material that she sees now in the third year. Does one course of A each semester in the first four semesters adequately prepare the student to make an informed decision about choosing A as a major and then undertake five intensive courses of A each semester in the third year? Keeping this in mind, when instructors try to ensure that students in the first two years have the necessary pre-requisites for year 3 by following a challenging course syllabus, many students experience burn-out.
There was some serious rethinking about these matters from the course-structure point of view rather than the quality-of-student point of view and various remedies were suggested. Somewhere between the extreme of narrowing down a student to one subject in the first year itself and that of making all courses "gentle" was found the right balance. Basically, the incline from one year to another has been made more gradual.
As per the new structure, which has now been approved by the senate,
a) Just as before, students will take one course per semester in each of the sciences in the first year.
b) In the second year, students will now choose three sciences of their interest and take three courses per semester in each of the chosen subjects. These courses will be more rigorous than the first year courses.
c) In the third year, the student will choose a major from among the three subjects chosen in the second year.
The new structure has generated enthusiasm among many faculty members. We feel that it gives us more space to introduce the most fundamental aspects of our fields in the first two years in a way that students have enough time to follow and digest what is being taught to them.
Each department now has the fundamental task of redesigning the first year course and introducing appropriate new courses in the second year. The next couple of weeks will be spent doing this as the new plan will be put into action in the coming semester.
I would like to hear from readers about the undergraduate course structures at their institutes in the initial years and their thoughts about it, either as a student or instructor (or both).
7 comments:
To handle the problem of biology and mathematics, one possible solution is to have differential courses for students without adequate background. There could be two biology courses, one which offers 2 lectures a week, and the other which offers 5 lectures a week. Same for Maths. Students who come from Maths background in 12th class do 2-lecture maths course and 5-lecture biology course. Students who come from Biology background in 12th class may do 3-lecture biology course, and 5-lecture maths course. After 1st semester, hopefully, both have reached the same level of understanding of both maths and biology. (And those who have done both Biology and Maths in 12th, may do 2-lecture bio, 2-lecture maths courses, and an additional humanities or any breadth course.)
Hello NPNI,
I believe this is a refreshing approach. Whereas Indian Institutions have been mostly making noises about the "quality of intake", no one seems to be thinking about how to inspire students and help them attain the next level. We keep complaining that the students are not interested, but lets at least make the system interesting in the interest of the interested student :)
I believe your institution can take the lead on this and others can follow.
HS
"The first two batches of our undergraduate programme have done very well and most have got into prestigious PhD programmes all over the world."
I fail to understand why this is such a prevalent attitude in the Indian institutions i.e. to be a factory to churn out 'world-class' students to go and do research in 'world-class' institutions 'all over the world' (read: outside India). Why should we take great pride in the fact that we export all these precious gems that we nurture and polish. It is scary since young faculty (such as yourself) are not thinking otherwise. Was the aim of the N1s not to create a world-class research and teaching environment in India? Should our measure of success then not be that our bright young minds are retained here to do all the great work that we want to do and achieve? One might argue that it is good for the students to go out and get the 'exposure' - but I argue that we should probably rise up so much that the students will be far better served to stay back in such an environment. I dont see this happening unless the attitude and approach is bottom up!!
@Anonymous, I think having students go for PhD is a much better indicator of quality than the number of lakhs students earn after their graduation. When the whole society keeps talking about money all the time, to talk about students going for higher studies is extremely important. And the day, the society (and Government) allows as much freedom and gives as much budget that a typical good university outside India is allowed, we can talk about how many of those students do PhD in India versus abroad.
Dear New Professor in India,
Criticism is sometimes sharp. Sometimes it comes under the cloak of being overtly negative. My only request to you is not to censor it. Since you are a professor in a government institute and hence the government itself, you will come across as having curtailed freedom of expression. Freedom, that the luminaries of the Indian system, seem to believe can only be bought with government money. Let a healthy dialogue prevail. And sometimes, a healthy dialogue is a personal attack, since it attacks a personal opinion, not a systemic one.
Please dont delete my previous comments. If you so wish, I will tone it down.
Best regards!
Hi Anonymous,
Blogs are avenues for public discussion and I do not like to remove any comments. However, I had to remove your comment because towards the end, you made a personal attack on another commenter, which was unwarranted.
Post a Comment