It appears that the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) has redesigned the undergraduate curriculum providing for the replacement of the existing three-year three-major programmes with four-year single-major honours programmes. Yesterday’s newspapers carried the APSCHE Chairman’s press release about the restructuring. Details are not available yet, but the decision in favour of the single-major pattern seems to be based on the idea that the choice-based credit system (CBCS) the new curriculum seeks to introduce can work better within a single-major framework.
Each system has its merits, but, in my opinion, at the undergraduate level, a curriculum of a general nature covering a broad spectrum of different disciplines can serve the interests of students better. The three-major system is ideally suited to this purpose. Giving it up in favour of the single-major system may not, therefore, be a good idea. Incidentally, the single-major pattern is not something new to the higher education system in states like Andhra Pradesh: it had been in practice until the three-major system, a broad-based one, replaced it a few decades ago.
Why am I in favour of a broad-based curriculum at the undergraduate level?
In India, the undergraduate
course is not a terminal programme: in a majority of cases, the students join a
postgraduate course. At the postgraduate
level, a product of the single-major system has almost no choice of disciplines
because of their narrow specialization at the undergraduate level. In other words, they are ineligible for any
discipline other than the one they have studied at the undergraduate level. Their choice at the college-entry level
should, therefore, be a mature and informed one. Otherwise, it will be much more punishing
than the "original sin".
Considering that the undergraduate stage is a maturation point rather
than a saturation point, it stands to reason that the undergraduate should be
given the opportunity to explore multiple disciplines before s/he is mature
enough to decide on a subject for in-depth study at the postgraduate level. But it is not clear yet whether the honours programmes the APSCHE is introducing are
designed to be terminal or non-terminal ones.
There is another reason – a
more compelling one. Competitive
examinations for appointment to the Central civil services, and national-level
tests for academic selection for fellowships and grants are comprehensive in
nature. A graduate from a multi-major
system is certainly better equipped to take these tests than a graduate from
the single-major system. The poor
performance of graduates from Tamil Nadu on these tests, in particular, the
Civil Services Examinations, should be attributed, among other things, to their
narrow specialization at the undergraduate level.
There is, however, an
interesting aspect to the single-major pattern of states like Tamil Nadu where
I studied for all my degrees, including my PhD.
It includes two allied or ancillary subjects. This indicates a faint recognition of the
need to enrich an undergraduate programme by incorporating related disciplines
into it. But the inclusion of related
disciplines does not serve the purpose of enrichment because they are not equal
in status to the main subject.
When there is need to make
even postgraduate education broad-based, reintroducing the single-major system
will be a retrograde step. What is,
however, urgently needed is the strengthening of the system by introducing more
useful combinations. The Chairman’s announcement says that the new system will
be multi-disciplinary. I do hope it addresses the need for undergraduate
courses being broad-based.
