Higher education should be holistic and ensure a healthy and pragmatic mix of information, knowledge, and skills. | Photo Credit: Getty Images / iStockphoto
Ccurriculum revision is a welcome phenomenon. Both universities and colleges must revise and, if necessary, restructure their curriculum every two or three years. It is important to keep up with the latest trends and challenges in each domain so that academic programs and courses do not become obsolete. But some questions need to be answered. How often should the curriculum be revised? Should the revision be peripheral or substantial? Who decides what and how much to revise? And for what reason?
Not all questions are equally important. But about the decision maker needs attention. In higher education institutions (HEIs), curriculum design and revision is initiated and supervised by individual departments and the institution’s Academic Council at a higher level. The presence of external subject experts, alumni, and ‘industry’ representatives on the Board of Studies, which plans and periodically reviews the curriculum, is mandatory in almost all institutions. External subject experts ensure that the curriculum is updated and in line with the best in the field. Alumnus provide feedback on what went well and what needs to be revised. Industry representatives commented on whether the curriculum made students work-ready.
Conflicting opinions
But there are conflicting opinions about who made the changes and on what basis. While one group argues that industry should play a key role in designing and revisiting the curriculum for all programs between institutions, the other shows that curriculum revision and restructuring is the prerogative of education, not technocrats and that industry experts cannot dictate curriculum restructuring.
These days, there is a fierce battle between educators and industry partners over who should have the final say on curriculum revision. The latter claims that a high percentage of graduates are not ready for the industry because the curriculum is not geared to meet job requirements. His perspective is that the main task of HEIs is to make students market-ready and employable. Education, on the other hand, argue that, while they are willing to provide advice to ensure graduates are certified job-ready, the curriculum cannot be designed and restructured only on the basis of market demand and employment prospects.
If technocrats are allowed to have the final say in curriculum design and restructuring, what will be the consequences? One is the cold load of Humanities and Liberal Studies. If all our programs and courses are aligned with market needs, placements will definitely increase. Institutions can boast of placement records and this will definitely increase the demand and the institution will go up several levels of accreditation.
Beyond the project
However, higher education has another important mandate: to make students into better human beings who are competent and responsible citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to order that the restructuring of the curriculum is not hijacked by non-academics.
Recently in a meeting of the Board of Studies in English, held to restructure the curriculum for MA English Studies, a technocrat wanted the program to be reoriented to include skill-based courses like Journalism, Advertising, Visual Communication, Translation, and Theatre. Arts and demands that conventional courses like Shakespeare, Linguistics and Phonetics, and Comparative Literature be replaced by employment-oriented courses. A similar scene played out in the History department where representatives of ‘industry’ replaced almost half of the traditional courses with those related to tourism and hospitality arguing that students should be ready for work.
The situation will be different in Engineering and Technology, which must constantly strive to stay relevant and help graduates secure employment. Even there, the basics should not be forgotten and a dose of liberal education should be injected into the curriculum.
While input from industry and the market must be taken into account in the design and restructuring of curricula, educators and technocrats are not only focused on jobs and salaries. Higher education should empower students with strong critical and emotional, digital and ecological thinking skills. In the pursuit of gainful employment, a liberal education should not be neglected. Ultimately, what is needed is a holistic education, which will ensure a healthy and pragmatic mix of information, knowledge, and skills.
The author is Professor, School of English and Foreign Languages, Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed University), Gandhigram. Email: josephdorairaj@gmail.com