Feedback proves FYUP is an anti-student ‘Reform’

Press Report: A summary of student feedback on FYUP
Feedback proves FYUP is an anti-student ‘Reform’

As the discredited Four-Year Undergraduate Programme completes a semester since it was made operational in Delhi University, the DUTA wishes to put the students’ feedback on it before the media and the public at large. At the outset, the DUTA questions the DU Administration’s silence over the feedback it collected from students on the FYUP. Students fearlessly expressed their honest opinion against the FYUP in a hope to pressurize the DU Administration to get relief. Hence, it became inconvenient for the Administration to reveal the contents of this feedback and the exercise was abandoned. To allow the academic community, media and public open access to this feedback, would have exposed the Administration’s premature and arrogant decision to celebrate the FYUP in the University’s scheduled cultural festival Antardhwani to large scale ridicule.

As the scope of the feedback questionnaire issued by the University was limited, Miranda House Staff Association, as part of the struggle against FYUP, designed a feedback to study students’ response on various aspects of FYUP including the much-hyped issues of employability and practical value-addition. The SRCC Staff Association also adopted this feedback form to study response of their students. The DUTA shares the response of the students from SRCC and MH alongside the University feedback received from the FYUP-enrolled students in St. Stephen’s College. These three colleges are not representative of Delhi University as such, and the present exercise may in no way be deemed to be complete. The DUTA will continue to receive and compile feedback from other colleges and upload them on its website from time to time. The following summary of feedback is based on the total sample-size of 930 responses out of which, 570 students belong to Miranda House, 212 students are enrolled in St. Stephen’s College and 148 students are from SRCC.

Employability and Practical Knowledge: In his response to a parliamentary question on the desirability of the FYUP, the Union Minister of Human Resources MM Pallam Raju had confidently asserted that the new programme has been designed to enhance students’ practical knowledge and employability. The University VC has repeatedly claimed that the Foundation Courses are the real value-addition in this regard as they are primarily project-based and emphasize practical-learning rather than bookish knowledge. While the University questionnaire did not ask the students to respond to these claims, the MH questionnaire put straight questions to students to express their opinion on the usefulness of project-work and the professional skill component in these courses. 59% of students in Miranda House rejected the claim of Employability, while 36% remained unclear as to how the FCs would help them become more employable. In SRCC, 47% rejected the claim outright while 49% remained unclear. Regarding the usefulness and practical component of the projects in these courses, 61% Miranda House students disagreed while 31% remained unsure. Comparably, 48% students in SRCC saw no merit in the FC projects while 43% remained unsure.

Foundation Courses: In their assessment of the overall quality of the FCs, 88% Miranda House students felt that the FCs were a rehash of content already taught in school, while 73% students in SRCC agreed with them. 86% students of Miranda House found no use for the FCs, while 89% SRCC students agreed with them. In the remarks to the University questionnaire, nearly 90% of students from St. Stephen’s College also concurred that the FCs are a monumental “waste of time.” As a result, 90% students from Miranda House, 86% students from SRCC felt that the large number of compulsory FCs had skewed the balance of the FYUP.

Discipline-based Courses: Every student has been enrolled in a specific major Discipline (DC-I) to pursue the Honours degree under the FYUP. However, the feedback reveals that most students are unhappy with the complete lack of focus on DC-I courses and feel that the design of the FYUP does not help them in their preparation for Higher Studies. 96% students in Miranda House and 95 % students in SRCC have replied that DC-I courses have not been given adequate focus and that students have very little time to study and prepare for them. An overwhelming majority of students from St. Stephen’s College have also complained about the little time being given to the DC-I courses, in their general remarks to the University questionnaire.

Choice between FYUP and the earlier 3-Year Programme: Nearly all students feel that the FYUP is failing to make productive use of their time. As a result, 91% students in Miranda House would prefer to revert back to the 3-Year Programme while 90% students in SRCC have rejected the FYUP in favour of the 3-Year Programme. A comparable number of students in St. Stephen’s college have also demanded a roll-back of the FYUP. The general refrain seems to be that the subsequent batches of undergraduates in DU should not be subjected to the same suffering and that some relief should be given to the current batch under the FYUP by drastically reducing the number of FCs or doing away with them entirely.

Evaluation and Examination Reform: Very few students have shown confidence in the mode of evaluation in the FYUP. The complete lack of anonymity and confidentiality in the examinations as well as the disproportionately high weightage given to Internal Assessment (55 out of 75 marks in FCs) through projects, oral presentations and classroom discussions make the students feel insecure and vulnerable to prejudice. On the other hand, students enrolled through sports and extra-curricular activities feel cheated as their participation in Internal Assessment schedules is always uncertain, owing to various competitions and tournaments in which they are required to represent their respective colleges. While their 55 marks are thus jeopardized, the University has decided to award them compensation in the range of 1-8 marks, depending on the levels at which they have performed. This is generally felt to be too low to qualify as a fair reprieve. Hence, the University’s claim to be promoting sports and extra-curricular activities has also been rejected as bogus. The University’s decision to discontinue Revaluation in the DC-I courses has also irked most students who feel that it is patently unfair of the University to rely blindly upon a pattern of end-semester evaluation wherein three different teachers are being made to evaluate three distinct sections of the answer-scripts. The students feel that there has been an overall lack of considerate behavior on the part of the University in designing the pattern of evaluation in the FYUP.

Sports and Extra-curricular Facilities: Students are extremely disappointed at the hypocrisy and insensitivity of the University Administration in relation to the facilities for Sports and Extra-curricular activities. While the University Sports Complex was renovated during the Commonwealth Games, the sportspersons enrolled in the colleges of the University have been denied access to the facilities. Students have questioned the University’s motive in this regard while demanding that the Sports Complex should be made accessible to all bonafide students of the University, free of cost. Students have also lamented the absence of any general facility for extra-curricular activities like theatre, debating, music, photography and the fine arts in the University. Students have to rely on expensive private equipment and limited access to facilities in colleges to be able to pursue these activities with any modicum of seriousness. The punishing time-tables and schedule of courses also make it impossible for students to devote adequate time to their hobbies and passions.

Enormous Increase in Cost of Education: From the data received from students in Miranda House and SRCC, the FYUP has put a huge cost-burden on them, especially those who have come from outside the city and have to bear an additional living cost that substantially supplements the high-fees in colleges. On an average, such students are being required to spend anything between 15,000 to 25,000 rupees a month. This clearly shows that the additional fourth year will be unaffordable for most students coming from middle and low-income families.

No UGC Review: The UGC had constituted a Monitoring Committee on the FYUP which was supposed to have been headed by Prof. Mrinal Miri. This Monitoring Committee seems to have been confined to the paper as it has not enquired about any of the practical aspects of this programme. It has not created any feedback mechanism whereby students, parents and teachers may express their concerns and grievances regarding the FYUP. Hence, the DUTA is forced to question the intentions of the UGC and expose its promises regarding the FYUP as utterly hollow.

While the University Administration refuses to take any responsibility for the numerous blunders it has committed in hastily green lighting the FYUP, the DUTA has resolved to programmatically work towards its roll-back. To mitigate the suffering of the current batch of FYUP students, the DUTA demands an immediate and drastic reduction in the number of Foundation Courses and a moving up of Discipline I and II courses so that the current first year batch of students can complete their Honours degree in three years. Applied Courses, to which other job-oriented programmes and internships can be added, should be moved to the fourth year, which should be optional. DUTA also demands the removal of exit-points so that the majority of these students are encouraged to complete their honours degrees.  For subsequent batches, the DUTA demands a shift back to the Three-Year Degree Programme in annual mode, with the retention of the B.A., B.Com. and B.Sc. Programme degrees.