This post was written a few years ago but I did not post it since I am beginning to feel like one of those old fogies who keep saying the same thing every time you meet them. However, even at the risk of sounding boring, I shall keep saying it till someone realises undergrads are not all in IIXs and that the science in university affiliated colleges is purposeless.
A friend has sent me a questionaire regarding an article on higher education in science.
There are many discussions on higher education in sciences in India.
http://www.ias.ac.in/academy/misc_docs/sci_edu-insa_ias.pdf
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/104/02/0163.pdf
In none of these is a serious discussion of what a student does with a science degree other than do an MSc and PhD. Is producing more Chemistry profs the purpose of the life of a Chemistry Professor? Are we in the cloning business?
After the study of chemistry / physics / whatever, a few of the students must be ready (and encouraged) to take on an MSc and PhD.*
But what of the others? What should they do with their BSc in Chemistry or Physics or Microbiology?
If we believe that a person must get a PhD in Chemistry in order to teach a few hundred people Chemistry so that they in turn teach a few hundreds each, I shudder at the thought.
So why is there never a mention of how a post school science degree enables a person to get a good job in a science-related field? In fact does it enable? In what way is the BSc curriculum doing this? Or is it? Do they know what jobs are available to them? Are they trained for any such job?
They are trained to pass the university examination.
The university has no real incentive to change the syllabus or exam pattern, except to show the NAAC that it has.
The university has a Board of Studies which calls for a meeting of a representative section of the college teachers once in 3 or 5 years. At the meeting, some thinking BoS chairman proposes an innovative syllabus. The teachers specially from the mofussil areas are outraged. They insist their students cannot learn these new things....perhaps they cannot teach these topics..... and veto the additions. So syllabus revision is simply a rearranging of syllabus.... put topic x in paper III instead of paper II and so on. The minutes of the meeting are filed and the NAAC inspection shows there has been a syllabus revision once in 3 years. The file looks good, NAAC gives an A grade, everyone is happy.
Except the recruiters. Industry HRDs are finding it very difficult to employ these science students since even those with MSc or PhD are not competent.
My case is for a two track BSc .. one for those who are interested in science but not passionate enough for the long haul of academic research and another for those few who show desire and aptitude for research. Those who teach the general track do not need a PhD-- they just need to be competent in teaching, while the other set of teachers must be involved seriously in research...not just get a distance mode PhD for Rs 100,000.
This prerequisite of a PhD for teaching even in an undergrad college is making an industry out of churning PhDs "as one researcher who has studied doctoral-education trends puts it, is that you can “grow PhDs like mushrooms”."
* The govt target is 30,000 PhDs by 2020.
A friend has sent me a questionaire regarding an article on higher education in science.
There are many discussions on higher education in sciences in India.
http://www.ias.ac.in/academy/misc_docs/sci_edu-insa_ias.pdf
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/104/02/0163.pdf
In none of these is a serious discussion of what a student does with a science degree other than do an MSc and PhD. Is producing more Chemistry profs the purpose of the life of a Chemistry Professor? Are we in the cloning business?
After the study of chemistry / physics / whatever, a few of the students must be ready (and encouraged) to take on an MSc and PhD.*
But what of the others? What should they do with their BSc in Chemistry or Physics or Microbiology?
If we believe that a person must get a PhD in Chemistry in order to teach a few hundred people Chemistry so that they in turn teach a few hundreds each, I shudder at the thought.
So why is there never a mention of how a post school science degree enables a person to get a good job in a science-related field? In fact does it enable? In what way is the BSc curriculum doing this? Or is it? Do they know what jobs are available to them? Are they trained for any such job?
They are trained to pass the university examination.
The university has no real incentive to change the syllabus or exam pattern, except to show the NAAC that it has.
The university has a Board of Studies which calls for a meeting of a representative section of the college teachers once in 3 or 5 years. At the meeting, some thinking BoS chairman proposes an innovative syllabus. The teachers specially from the mofussil areas are outraged. They insist their students cannot learn these new things....perhaps they cannot teach these topics..... and veto the additions. So syllabus revision is simply a rearranging of syllabus.... put topic x in paper III instead of paper II and so on. The minutes of the meeting are filed and the NAAC inspection shows there has been a syllabus revision once in 3 years. The file looks good, NAAC gives an A grade, everyone is happy.
Except the recruiters. Industry HRDs are finding it very difficult to employ these science students since even those with MSc or PhD are not competent.
My case is for a two track BSc .. one for those who are interested in science but not passionate enough for the long haul of academic research and another for those few who show desire and aptitude for research. Those who teach the general track do not need a PhD-- they just need to be competent in teaching, while the other set of teachers must be involved seriously in research...not just get a distance mode PhD for Rs 100,000.
This prerequisite of a PhD for teaching even in an undergrad college is making an industry out of churning PhDs "as one researcher who has studied doctoral-education trends puts it, is that you can “grow PhDs like mushrooms”."
* The govt target is 30,000 PhDs by 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment