Will the new curricular framework ensure that undergraduate courses are broad-based?

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.