Choice-based credit system: the hidden perils
K.Elango
The choice-based credit system (CBCS) flaunted as a panacea for the ills of the current system of higher education by the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education (TANCHE), unfortunately, has the hidden potential to eat into the very vitals of the teaching-learning processes. While at the national level the UGC is employing all its persuasive skills to grant autonomy to as many colleges as possible (although it is yet to achieve its initial target of 500 autonomous co
lleges) to promote innovative but relevant and meaningful courses, the higher education body at the State level is imposing the CBCS to ensure uniformity in all the affiliated arts and science colleges. Paradoxically, the State which spearheads the movement for more autonomy to States throttles the autonomy enjoyed by the higher educational institutions.
Assuming that the CBCS is a viable alternative pattern, worthy of being implemented uniformly in all the colleges, even a casual glance at its blueprint throws up several severe loopholes, the most glaring one being the choice, seemingly offered to learners. Among its five-part structural design (part I Tamil/Other Languages, part II English, part III Core Subjects, Allied Subjects and Project/Electives, part IV Tamil optional to those who have not studied Tamil, Skill based Subjects, Environmental Studies and Value Education and part V Extension Activities) the only part where the choice is ever mentioned is under part III, wherein the choice is either a project or three electives. However, even here at its implementational level, almost all the colleges in the State quoting lack of adequate staff and infrastructural facilities offer the minimally required number of three electives, hence, the semblance of choice is not translated into reality.
Lack of flexibility
When not much of choice is offered, even by chance when choice is offered, it is rather imposed. In brief, it is not choice-based but choice-imposed. So, why title it choice-based? Another critical element of the blueprint is the credit system. The credits for each course are predetermined, contrary to the spirit of the system from which we have cloned the idea. In American universities, each teacher enjoys a great deal of autonomy to design the courses and to determine the credits each course deserves, whereas in our context, besides having the credits rigidly fixed, teachers absolutely have no freedom to evolve courses based on their experiences and expertise.
Apportioning of credits is also a cause for concern. Instead of the major thrust on the area of specialisation, the non-core courses collectively carry the major chunk of the credits, the ratio being 60:80. It inevitably gives an impression that the tertiary level of education is no more than an extension of high school education. The credit system as practised in the west offers flexibility allowing learners to earn the required credits to obtain their degree in a lesser or more than the stipulated time of three years of undergraduate programme. When such flexibility is not brought into the system, why call it a credit based system?
With the system already revealing the chinks in its armour, the higher-ups in their quick fix attempt have suggested the college cluster system. Colleges in our country do not even have the culture of letting other college students into their campuses, fearing their disruptive behaviour. How then could such a suggestion be implemented? Common sense cautions that uniformity in any form kills creativity and maims the minds. So, higher education should seek multiplicity rather than uniformity, to create a knowledge-based society to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Historical evidences warn us against any tightly structured top-down approach which is bound to meet its premature death as it generates resistance at all levels. A pragmatic approach to produce near desired results would be — now that it is implemented — to grant autonomy to each institution percolating to every individual teacher who could exercise his creative freedom to design and experiment with various pedagogical practices. Such an exercise alone would make higher education flourish and transform our country into a hub of quality education.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
