Who should have the final say on curriculum revision?

Higher education must be holistic and ensure a healthy and pragmatic mix of information, knowledge and skills. | Photo credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

VSCurriculum revision is a welcome phenomenon. Universities and colleges should review and, if necessary, restructure their curricula every two to three years. It is essential to keep abreast of the latest trends and challenges in each field so that university 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 should be revised and to what extent? And with what logic?

Not all issues are equally important. But the one that concerns decision-makers deserves to be taken into account. In higher education institutions (HEIs), the design and revision of curricula is initiated and overseen by the various departments and by the Academic Council of the institution at a higher level. The presence of external experts, an alumnus and an industry representative in the Council of Studies, which develops and periodically reviews the curriculum, is mandatory in almost all institutions. External experts ensure that the curriculum is up to date and is at par with the best in the field. The alumnus gives his opinion on what is good and what needs to be revised. Industry representatives give their opinion on whether the curriculum prepares students for employment.

Conflicting opinions

However, there are differing views as to who is behind these changes and on what basis. While one group argues that industry must play a key role in designing and revising the curricula of all institutions, the other stresses that curriculum review and restructuring is the prerogative of educationalists, not technocrats, and that industry experts cannot dictate curriculum restructuring.

In recent times, educators and their industry counterparts have been engaged in a fierce battle over who should have the final say in curriculum revision. The latter argue that a high percentage of graduates are not industry-ready because the curriculum is not aligned with the demands of the job market. According to them, the primary task of higher education institutions is to prepare students for the job market and employment. Educators, on the other hand, argue that while they are willing to accept suggestions to ensure that graduates are certified as employable, curricula cannot be designed and restructured solely based on market demand and employment prospects.

If technocrats are allowed to have the final say in designing and restructuring programs, what will be the consequences? One is the abandonment of humanities and liberal studies. If all our programs and courses are aligned with the needs of the market, placement will certainly improve. Institutions can boast of placement records, which will certainly increase demand and institutions will move up a notch in terms of accreditation.

Beyond jobs

But higher education has another important mission: to transform students into better human beings, capable of becoming responsible and autonomous citizens. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the restructuring of programs is not hijacked by non-academics.

Recently, at a meeting of the English Studies Council, which was convened to restructure the Master of Arts in English Studies program, a technocrat wanted the program to be reoriented to include skills-oriented courses like journalism, advertising, visual communication, translation and theatre arts and demanded that conventional courses like Shakespeare, linguistics and phonetics and comparative literature be replaced with job-oriented courses. A similar scene played out in the history department, where the representative of the “industry” replaced almost half of the traditional courses with courses related to tourism and hospitality, arguing that students needed to be prepared for employment.

The situation will obviously be different in engineering and technology fields, which must constantly reinvent themselves to remain relevant and help their graduates land stable jobs. Even in these fields, we must not forget the fundamentals and inject a dose of liberal education into the curriculum.

While industry and market inputs must be taken into account while designing and restructuring curricula, educators and technocrats must not focus only on jobs and salaries. Higher education must equip students with critical thinking skills and a strong emotional, digital and ecological quotient. In the quest for gainful employment, liberal education must not be sidelined. Ultimately, what we need is a holistic education, which will ensure a healthy and pragmatic mix of information, knowledge and skills.

The author is a professor at the School of English and Foreign Languages, Gandhigram Rural Institute (a reputed university), Gandhigram. Email: [email protected]