Delhi University’s tryst with the four-year degree programme is nigh, and it is somewhat surprising to see the tepid response the issue has received in the public sphere. Within the university, there has been much churning over the new programme, with various critiques being put out by teachers. Sadly, while Delhi University (DU) elicits public attention during the admission season (wherein news worthiness is seen in all manner of narratives that cover the entire breadth of the newspaper, including the entertainment section), at other times, it remains under the public radar.

Soon, it will be admission time. People lining DU in their sights will realise the mess the university is in. My friends in the university have developed well thought-out positions against the four-year system. The current piece is an attempt to push some of these articulations in the public domain in the hope that the seriousness and profound implications of these changes are processed and thought through by thinking members of society. If not philanthropy, at least the immediate impact these changes will have on students seeking admission to DU, ought to stir their (and their parents’) conscience.

The hurry with which syllabi are being framed has troubled many teachers who have been charged with the responsibility of being part of the drafting committee. They have been awestruck by the cavalier manner in which the process has been rushed through, without departmental General Body Meetings, wider consultations and the engagement of the larger body of stakeholders who teach in colleges, frame question papers and help conduct examinations. True, there are teachers who are helping with the drafting, and many heads of departments are on board. What is troubling is the impossible deadlines that are driving their efforts. A new syllabus must never be rushed through; across the world, such an overhaul would take anything from three to six years, not rushed through in six months — with most of the hard work yet to be completed, when there are fewer than three months from the intended inauguration of the system.

The so-called ‘foundation courses’ that every student will have to do are simple school-level modules, or have to do with ‘mind body and heart’ type courses. Discipline 1 courses will be the replacement for honours. Discipline 2 will accompany D1 courses, but all D2 modules will be from one subject alone. There will be exits after two and three (diploma and baccalaureate) years, apart from the four-year exit (with an honours degree).

The elite colleges will have more fourth-year students than colleges at the periphery. With the abolishment of the non-honours disciplines (in commerce, science and the arts), disadvantaged students who had some hope of entering a top university like DU, will now be excluded. Have Delhi’s political class even thought about the impending exclusion of Delhi’s rural constituency from its top universityIJ Colleges at the periphery will see most students opting out after two years to look for jobs, whereas ‘top’ colleges will see most students continuing through the four year programme. Top ‘honours’ for the rich, and quiet exit for the poor with a humble diplomaIJ

There are many many anomalies that remain unresolved; here is one to get the reader thinking. Suppose you choose Math as your D1 and exit after three years with a baccalaureate, you would have taken 14 papers in Math but would be ineligible to sit for the MSc Math exam. Now, suppose you choose English as your D1 and Math as your D2, complete four years to take your honours in English, and wish to write your MSc entrance for your D2 subject — ie, Math — you’d be eligible to. Sounds good and progressive and interdisciplinary, except for one thing. If you took Math as D2, you’d have taken just six papers in Math over four years. So someone with 14 papers in Math can’t have a go at MSc, but someone with six papers can. This is what trying to do big things like academic reform in a hurry and with the lower rungs of the competence pyramid can result in. I hope the remedy for this is not simply to allow the baccalaureate for do an MA, because, in that case why would anyone study an extra year and enrol as a junior of a former classmateIJ