Problems with the Curriculum at IIT Delhi
Written by Raghu // August 22, 2010 // Science & Technology // 26 Comments
Here is the Yashpal Committee report.
Here are VKT’s comments.
In his comments VKT addressed the dichotomy that haunts every part of India. There are people who go to expensive “English-medium” high schools (like I did) who have a perspective on their careers and ambitions. But at the same time India abounds with students who do not get access to good schools. Their language abilities are also limited. But many of these not-so-good students come to IITs – the hallmark of technical education in India and a world-brand.
So the professors in IITs are faced with a dilemma. Their best students can perform miracles if properly stimulated and challenged. But pursuing such a vision can be almost lethal for the career of the not-so-good students, who will lag behind and fail classes if the material is too advanced. Contradictory though it might seem, this problem is not insoluble. In this post I make an observation that can help the situation. Let me begin.
I have come to a conclusion in my discussions with several friends about education in India that our major problem lies in the fact that we expect everyone to be super-intelligent and extra-smart. Emphasis is always laid on constant perseverance to reach that ultimate level of academic achievement. The person who comes second in class is not as good as the person who comes first.
This means that our system is catered to only the best amongst us. The average student’s self respect is compromised so many times in his high-school life that he loses confidence in himself, his talents and his abilities. No doubt, the best of our people are comparable to the best in the entire world, but that leaves out a huge chunk of our population. This is the main reason why India lags behind the developed world in infrastructure, education, health care and almost everything that is a necessary ingredient of a modern life.
This attitude dominates the culture in IITs as well. The average student by this time has taken recourse to unfair means in order to survive in this harsh system and has lost all his academic integrity. The tale just continues. In an attempt to achieve a motley mix of including everyone and yet maintaining a “high” standard, IITs are inviting a catastrophe.
Our freshman physics course in IIT Delhi (that is supposed to be taken by all students) was taught out of the Electrodynamics textbook by D.J. Griffiths. Here at MIT, a course of that level is taught to Physics majors in their 3rd/4th year. Our freshman math courses covered analysis and algebra of the level that makes up a major chunk of the average MIT Math major’s undergrad curriculum. The freshman chemistry course in MIT dealt with stuff we had covered in preparation for the JEE. Yes, the smart guys triumph – but majority of the people either fail or start disliking learning itself.
Here is where we start seeing the solution. There are people at MIT who are also superior to the average level. They have already tackled with that physics, that analysis and that algebra. But they have the option of not doing those courses. They have enough freedom in course choice and flexibility in the degree structure that they can pass out of classes that are compulsory. The system caters to the average person but leaves enough space for the smart people to develop their full potential.
If IITs develop enough flexibility in the curriculum and give enough choices to their students, their is no reason why we should be faced with a problem like we do. That of course has to be accompanied by a down-tuning in the level of our courses. The general curriculum should provide a quality education to the average student at a level he can understand.
I think that some professors in IITs would inevitably regret a “loss of pride” in down-tuning the course level, but that is their problem and insignificant for the society.
26 Comments on "Problems with the Curriculum at IIT Delhi"
Raghu,
From what I can understand of VKT’s use of two streams of students, he is talking of two streams of students across the entire undergraduate education body, not within the IITs. It is interesting that you argue that there are two distinct streams of students within the IITs. I would envision more of a continuous gradient given the nature of the JEE and the fact that even the students who generally scrape through the JEE have fairly strong educations, at least in the parts of the syllabus that are covered in the JEE. (There may be a cultural divide between urban/cosmopolitan students and students hailing from more rural areas, as well as two streams in the general level of English usage — but these are different from what you’re saying).
Is it the case that reservations/quotas for SC/ST students are responsible for creating this second stream of students? Or does the second stream arise from students getting in through the general category as well?
Your example of the approach used at MIT is interesting and I can relate to it. At the University of Chicago, there are several levels of “freshman calculus” (see http://www.math.uchicago.edu/undergraduate/incoming.shtml ) based on performance in a placement test and also taking into account how they did on AP calculus if they took it. The placement is flexible — students can change to a higher or lower level if they so choose and can survive the course. Such a structure might be suitable for the IITs as well.
Another related problem is that students have to choose their engineering branch early on. In my time, allocations of the engineering branch was done at the time of admission based on the JEE rank. I don’t know if it is still done this way, but having students choose their branch at a later stage in life (end of first year) might be a better idea. Yet another related problem is the strict hierarchical ranking (in students’ and their parents’ minds) of engineering branches, so students are desperate to get into the “best” branches regardless of their aptitudes and interests.
I do think that there is continuous spectrum with the general category as well. The reservation just make it so much more worse.
Yes, I do think that declaring majors after you have spent time at college is very beneficial. However, I see a hitch to implement this in India.
For that, however, it is important that the number of seats in every department be not limited to 50 or 60. Otherwise, in the first year, people will just study blindly like crazy to get the best GPA, so that at the end of the year they could get into CS or EE.
But this is a paradoxical situation because if the number of seats in not fixed, then almost everyone will flock to CS. This is also true at MIT where about 40-50% of the incoming 1000 freshmen do CS or EE. In India, that 50% could be 99%.
Most Indian students in high school (even Americans for that matter) do not know what they are interested in. Thus, apart from an interest on the behalf of the student, there have to be other incentives for fields other than CS or EE.
This, and a general recognition that life is not just academics.
I AM SUPPORTING YOUR OPINION SIR.
Raghu,
your points are very interesting and I agree with most (if not all) of what you are saying.
I have myself seen many of my extremely capable batch mates lose interest in learning, just because the climate at IIT was a bit too harsh, and they couldn’t take it.
I think a revision in the IIT curriculum and making it more flexible is necessary as it will give students more options to chose from and hence make their thinking broader, thus not dissuading them from the goal of learning itself.
Fortunately, the process of such revision has already started and there have been some structural changes in the curriculum. We hope such changes will benefit and improve the performance of IIT undergraduate students.
I am not familiar with the IITs, so the point I’m making is more general. I agree with you that the education system, in general, must not be pitched at a level that acts as a barrier to average students. But I think a select class of top-notch institutions must act as exceptions to that rule. And I think they can do so effectively only by focussing consciously on their best students, because it is more or less accepted that an institution that does that is more likely to produce highly accomplished students than institutions that don’t (although it typically has a higher drop out rate, and a greater degree of general student dissatisfaction). So the question is – is it worth it, and must we accept the cost of alienating the average student in those select institutions?
There is no doubt that the function of the education system in general is to cater to the majority of its constituents. Nor is there any doubt that there are significant benefits to the system, and to its country, from actively promoting excellence. It is also clear that the two goals, at times, conflict, if applied in the same institution. I think it is to balance these competing objectives that the latter is pursued only at top quality institutions, which are usually few in number, and very selective about who they accept.
I think there are three main benefits in actively pursuing excellence at such institutions. For the system itself to grow, it is necessary in the long term for it to produce experts who are world-class – this adds to the reputation of the system, and has pragmatic benefits of turning it into better research centres, thereby attracting more talent etc. Secondly, there is the obvious benefit to the nation’s reputation. Thirdly, the nation’s most vital institutions are likely to be staffed by people who graduated from such systems, and are in a position to advance the goals of those institutions more effectively than counterparts from other colleges. For example, I believe eight of the nine Justices of the US Supreme Court graduated from either Harvard or Yale Law School, and a majority of the UK Supreme Court Justices from Cambridge or Oxford. This is commonly cited as a lack-of-diversity concern, but it is no coincidence that countries with robust selection mechanisms end up picking candidates from certain educational institutions. Again, not so coincidentally, the drop out rate at these top, Ivy League schools is higher than in other institutions. But this approach ensures that both objectives find a place in the education system.
I would say the same as I said to Anirudh’s comment.
I am not saying that IITs should cease to promote excellence. There is a difference between providing opportunities for leadership and excellence, and asking *every*one to conform to those lofty standards.
MIT is, very surely, an institution for excellence. I have no regrets in saying that many of the undergrads are average or below average here. The *requirements* are not stringent, or are atleast, much lower than what they are at IITs. But, at the same time, there are ample opportunities for ambitious and advanced students (and there are a lot of them) to do and explore whatever they want and at whatever level they want.
I agree with Subramanian’s comment that building confidence to succeed is very important. You can only absorb so much from classes and other people, most quality researchers, for example, learn most things on their own. The system needs to help them find that confidence.
Raghu-
I think you have made an excellent and important point. That Indian academic institutions are insensitive. (Of course this is just an ad-hoc response not a strucured essay covering all points of weakness in Indian education).
I think they are insensitive in 2 ways, both of which you have pointed out in your essay:
a. Crude Labelling
This form of insensitivity is just the simple down right crude labelling that goes on in most Indian colleges – into studs and the rest. The worst aspect of it is that more often than not there is no institutional mechanism by which the so called laggers are counseled and made to understand that their feelings of inadequacy are not justified. Instead, it is a more a dog eat dog world where there is little empathy and any false notions of inadequacy a young student might have are often reinforced by constant references to CGPA/extra curriculars/placements/ admissions etc. This form of simplistic categorisation is all the more cruel in a country as diverse as India where students are drawn from different backgrounds and are bound to be different and such labelling is more often than not ill-concealed casteism. And once these notions are embedded when a person is young, it is hard to grow out of them.
b. Privileging and Prioritising forms of intelligence/aptitudes:
I think this second point is more important and feeds into the first. In India we often privilege certain very limited forms intelligence. For instance speed of mathematical calculation, memorization and verbal virtuosity. We under-recognize certain other equally important qualities like conceptual thinking, artistic expression and wide reading. This is cruel to many young students who may not be appropriately gifted. This also shows why- while we produce so many inteeligent engineers, we have not been been able to produce innovators who develop new products and ideas, which clearly requires a more rounded personality.
I don’t think you advise a general dumbing down of the syllabus as Niranjan fears. Instead, tailor it to individual preferences – this will avoid both the insensitivities I have described above. The academic path will become less homogenous and the academic environment less noxiously competitive and students will be able to utilize the different strengths they possess.
Surely, we should learn something from the likes of MIT and Stanford given the sheer number of Nobel laureates and innovators that they have produced – definitely what their students learn in the third year need not be taught to our freshers. And surely we cannot claim to have devised better ways of educating our students than the universities that produce the best innovators and scientists in the world. I think the most crucial input they give and any good university worth its name should give their students is the sense of confidence that they can succeed – which is the most important ingredient in success – and that unfortunately is what we end up killing in a vast majority of our students. It is simply criminal to kill the self confidence of so many bright young Indians.
I think one thing we do need to seriously consider is building universities which are multi-disciplinary. Centres of excellence in specific subjects is good, but coming from one myself, I know how it can really warp your worldview and ways of thinking. Inter-disciplinary universities, rather than specialised islands of excellence I think should be the way forward, the positive experience of the latter notwithstanding.
While, at a general level, I agree that the standard of education should be such that even the average student is able to cope up, I believe that institutions of excellence should be an exception to this rule.
Down-tuning in the level of courses could prove to be a disincentive to those who are above that level and may prevent such students from stretching themselves to the maximum. Why would a person capable of achieving X strive to achieve X when he gets the same amount of reward for achieving (X-Y) (which he can achieve in much lesser amount of time)?
Infact the more average students, in order to meet the high standards set by others in the University may push themselves to the maximum as well. The problem of students adopting unfair means is an easy problem to solve and has been tackled effectively by a number of Universities.
However, the idea of there being enough flexibility for a student to choose the subjects he/she wants to pursue is a very good one. I also agree with Arghya’s opinion that Universities must be inter-disciplinary. I understand that the IIT’s have started offering courses on subjects such as finance, accounts and economics.
Just to compare: MIT is, very surely, an institution for excellence. I have no regrets in saying that many of the undergrads are average or below average here. The *requirements* are not stringent. But, at the same time, there are ample opportunities for ambitious and advanced students (and there are a lot of them) to do and explore whatever they want and at whatever level they want.
You cannot groom excellence by forcing people to learn. Thus, I believe that in *any* institution, the requirements for a degree should be focused on the average student.
Also, a system can stretch only very few people to their maximum. I do not agree that a typical average student would motivate himself to push himself to the maximum in the IIT system (in fact, from my experience in IIT Delhi, this is most certainly true). Most people, in a harsh system, would simply give up. I agree that leadership and excellence are very important, and we need space for grooming them in our universities, but hard compulsory courses are not the way to do it.
Yes, being interdisciplinary is very important, and I agree totally with it.
Came across your internet site via yahoo the other day and absolutely like it. Keep up this fantastic work.
Dear Raghu,
I came across your post today.
You said: “Our freshman physics course in IIT Delhi (that is supposed to be taken by all students) was taught out of the Electrodynamics textbook by D.J. Griffiths.”
I have a few questions for you that bear on and probe further the factual contents of what you indicate above. I shall be blunt in formulating my questions, but please also know that the intent is neither to be offensive nor to be skeptic.
Who taught this course? What portion from Griffiths was covered? to what depth? What percentage of the chapter-end questions in Griffiths were the students expected to solve on their own? Was the difficulty of questions actually on the quizzes and tests/exams comparable to the chapter-end questions/problems in Griffiths? And, what was the weightage assigned to electrodynamics in this overall freshman physics experience? Finally, to the best of your knowledge, does the practice still continue at IIT Delhi?
Thanks in advance for sharing the facts.
Sincerely,
–Ajit
The course is taught by different professors each year. It is offered in both semesters. It is called PHL 110.
The first half of the book was covered. In considerable depth. There was no expectations as to how many questions you were expected to solve.
The problems were probably at the same level, though I do not remember exactly now. There is also a component of the course that deals with optics and another component that deals with quantum mechanics.
This is (or used to be) a 4 unit course (like many others).
But my main point is not the specifics of a course. There are other examples. MAL 111 (Analysis) and MAL 124 (Algebra), CYL110 (Thermo + Kinetics + Quantum chemistry). For contrast, MIT freshman physics courses are taught out of Freedman and Young.
Thank you for clarifications w.r.t. electrodynamics. One is in order from my side, too! By some mistake (call it the slip of the *mind*), I read “Griffiths,” wrote “Griffiths,” but mentally, was referring to “Jackson.” Now, Jackson for a freshman course would have been too amazing. Even with Griffiths, it still is a bit much, but I guess it might be OK if the student is not burdened on the problem solutions side.
And then, two further points: (i) IITs (like MIT, and now-a-days also COEP—my UG college) use relative grading
(ii) Students are smart enough to have already downloaded solution manuals for any book (LOL)
However, on the more serious side, the reason my tone was critical is also the following.
Firstly, I have found, over three decades, that IITians (i.e. students, esp. UG ones) almost always as a rule exaggerate the quality of their educational/environmental inputs. Secondly, I also have found that IIT professors themselves often (though not always) seem to carry this idea that the tougher a material they can throw at students, the better the pedagogy. This trait is also found with professors in many US universities, even at the UG level, but most prominently, at the PG level.
It is a trait I hated as a student, and continue to hate even today. I have done so even at the risk of putting my professional teaching career in jeopardy. I mean it. Recently, when I was asked what book I would use to teach FEM to UG students, I flatly replied: primarily Logan, to be supplemented with Cook. The expected answer was: Zienkiewicz. I could see the interviewer’s face betray a mild form of rebuke (which he did not express). (He came from an IIT.) Since you are not likely to know about FEM, let me give you an approximate parallel—and I emphasize it’s approximate. What I said I would use was: Resnick & Halliday. The expected answer was: Feynman, plus portions from Landau and Lipfshitz (not as a reference, but as a direct text-book).
None of what I say is meant to invalidate the point that, as far UG studies goes, IIT education could, possibly, be better than that at MIT. But it’s a different point from what book to have as texts. Indeed, I could argue that some of my UG education at COEP was better than that at IIT. (I did argue thus, fairly successfully, with someone decades ago—with a topper at an IIT who now teaches there.)
Since I find myself a bit in the “recollection” mode, let me share a bit more. (You won’t have the context in which to put my comment here, but please bear with me.) I have never seen any UG course in Metallurgy directly prescribe the ASM Metals Handbook as the primary text. (Even back then, it came in 10+ volumes, with each volume being thousands of pages long). But then, the expectations kept of the student were different. And so was the preceding sequence. Our sequence began gradually, with standard texts in II and III year. Then, in the IV year, we were directly thrown at the Handbooks. The expectation was not that the student could digest all of that material—which was a condensation of the practical art of engineering. The expectation was: the student should know how to read through that voluminous material, understand and absorb certain basic threads of reasoning, and then exhibit similar reasoning process to a new case study at the time of examination. (There also were questions on principles, about 50% weightage.) Even if the student’s final answer turned out to be incorrect, but the reasoning was good, he would be given good marks. (We had absolute marks, not directly relative grades. (You could make a case that absolute marks also have a component of relativization, but the point is it is indirect.)) The reason for giving good marks in such a case was this: In methods engineering, we were told, you can expect to have a budget of lakhs of rupees and at least a few months before you finalize your design. That’s ample time for you to correct your not-so-good design decisions—provided you have what it takes to analyze a complex situation, on your own.
In the final analysis, it is not really the material that you refer to that matters, not the prescribed text, but what you get out of it—and how.
And, for the student to get maximum possible out of his limited time at the college/institute/university, the teacher has to ensure, that there is a proper hierarchical development of the subject matter, supplying the appropriate context, explanations, implications, entailments, applications at each step. At this last count, I find that most of the revered texts have left me unsatisfied to some or great degree. For learning for the first time, it is better, I have found, to rely on the more common-sense based books like Resnick & Halliday rather than on the much revered Feynman—no matter what the IIT/MIT professors pick out. On that line, the choice of Griffiths is intermediate, but Jackson would have been despicable (for a freshman course).
Just one more, and final point! (The light you have finally begun to see is emphatically not an oncoming train.)
I happen to have to learn a lot of new material that never was a part of my formal education. So, I sense this shortcoming of the modern text very acutely. Namely, that they are too long. An average modern American text is at least 500 pages long, and 800 pages long texts is increasingly becoming the norm. Yet, most texts invariably fall short on all of these counts: proper hierarchical development (e.g. covering work and energy before momentum conservation), explanation (esp. supplying a brief historical context) and completeness count. You have to consult at least 2–3 books before you get the logically complete picture anyway. If so, I wonder, why write at such a length? Why can’t we have texts that are just 200 pages long, at the most 300 pages? Such texts have been written, but infrequently.
Let me leave it at that. You have to get out of the tunnel too! I guess the most important point I wanted to make was that prescribing tougher or more advanced texts for a course does not imply anything whatsoever towards the state of the student’s knowledge at the end of the course. On the other hand, the choice almost always generates poor pedagogy all in all. Though I didn’t touch on it, given the lack of hierarchically well-ordered texts, a much better methodology seems to be that of the (n+1)th course: You get to *really* know the n-th course only when you do the (n+1)th course. Given the popularity of this observation (which implies the spiral view of knowledge), to try to subject students at an unrealistic height right at the n-th course seems bad pedagogy.
Raghu,
I am currently a sophomore at IITD of BTech, Industrial Enggineering Programme.
I wanted to bring it in your attention that in Jan-Feb 2011, there will take place ‘Decennial Curriculum Revision Of IITD’ that happened lastly happened in 2001.
So, I request you to please suggest the steps that IITD-Admin can take to bring positive changes in the ‘System And Culture’ of IITD.
Your points shall be considered by the Student Affairs Council of IITD.
thank you.
Raghu,
I am not much familier with IIT……. I complete B-Tech in electronics from CUSAT university….. In our syllabus nearly 50 papers are there…….. for 4 years ……………… and assignments …. series tests…. all makes student a machine….
I think same think happens in IIT…………
PROCESS OF LEARNING DO NOT TAKES PLACE AFTER JEE…………
” STOP STUDYING START LEARNING”…………..
I THINK ELECTRONICS & COMM. BRANCH NEED ONLY 6 THEORY PAPERS
1 BASIC ELECTRONICS , ELECTRONICS CIRCUITS
2 NETWORK THEORY
3 DIGITAL ELECTRONICS+ CONCEPT OF MICROPROCESSOR
4 SIGNAL AND SYSTEMS
5 COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND……….
6 ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS….
ASSIGNMENT , SERIES EXAMS…….APPLIED THEORY PAPERS CAN ADD AS
BONUS PAPERS…………NO….PASS MARK …….THEN STUDENTS CAN CONCENTRATE ON LEARNING……….
PUTTING MORE TIME IN LABORATORY IS IMPORTANT
In first year studying about all branches of engineering do not help………………………………………
INSTEAD OF THAT……….
2 PAPERS …..
1 HISTORY OF SCIENCE & ENGINEERING(OVERVIEW OF EVERY BRANCH)
2TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION
WE can add BASIC ELECTRONICS & NETWORK THEORY IN FIRST YEAR………..
……….WORK SHOP IS COMPLETE WASTE…………… INSTEAD OF THAT STUDENT FAMILIER WITH MAIN PARTS OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENTS LIKE T.V. ,RADIO , ………….. for electronics student………………………
change the syllabus STOP STUDYING START LEARNING…………
Raghu.
I agree with the points put up by you, and appreciate your Choice of looking forward to MIT as well.
As for now, i’ll be appearing for JEE 2013, but am myself aware of the pitiable condition Of IITs, and am not sure whether it would be a good option for me.
My ambition is to do research in Physics ( preferrably Space Research), but am not sure whether the IIT would be able to get me there or not.
even if they do so, i know that i would start off my career at a level which is in no way comparable to the standard of Institutes Like MiT.
Can you guide me to the correct way?
I really desire to join MIT, and am ready to work even harder for it, but then again i know its not easy to Affrod a million dollar for education in abroad. Isnt there a way out?
I could not refrain from commenting. Exceptionally ԝell written!
Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google, and found that it’s really informative.
I am going to watch out for brussels. I will be grateful if
you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your writing.
Cheers!
There’s definately a lot to find out about this issue.
I really like all of the points you made.
Our independent escorts service is the service of unbeatable beauty and discretion a differencehigh profile call girls escorts indore. Our clients believes on us just because of the excellent services provide by us with 100% satisfaction. We also serve the Elite class society people where maturity is must. Our high profile escorts will truly cares about you and your satisfaction You must also ensure that the photos of the girls that you see online are recent and genuine. Our escorts are truly one of a kind each one is educated, a good conversationalist, sophisticated and charming, so you are not embarrassed to go out with them to a dinner.
I high profile independent escort in , Independent Escort always waiting for you. so please come fast and make me feel comfortable by taking care of the body from you own hands and please grab me tightly so that i can also feel the hardness and warmth which is found only in some of the handsome man which are very much hard to find and to find that particular love and man hood
Smart escorts in Indore, and simply smart escorts in Indore can forever be retrieve at your service! We have the most amazing collection of gorgeous Escorts available for incall and outcall service. And not only they are picturesque and friendly � they are open minded and want to give their clients full pleasure.
I high profile call girls escorts Indore, Independent Escort always remain free for you. so please come fast and make me feel comfortable by taking care of the body from you own hands and please hold me tightly so that i can also feel the hardness and warmth which is found only in some of the real man which are very much hard to find and to find that particular love and man hood
Trackbacks for this post