Becoming a research organisation could be the solution to many of the structural issues plaguing Arts College
For the last 100 years, academic life in Arts College has revolved around teaching post-graduate students. Those students were our main product. The University would serve as a portal / gateway to the students’ futures. And their achievements — while in college as well as later in life — served to sustain the idea of teaching as the raison d’etre of the college.
It is probably still the same, but a shift in the relationship is becoming evident. Students often voice the opinion that quality has fallen; see the classroom as a place for socialising; and learn from the Internet as and when needed. Let us closely examine the meaning and implications of each of these.
In informal conversations, students often express the view that quality of teaching is somehow not what they had heard of / expected. The only way to assess this is by way of a thorough appraisal of performance as it is supposedly done in the private corporate sector. In its absence, it can mean that teachers are not really doing a good job; or, that teachers are doing better than their previous generation but are being judged by a different standard; or, that students are totally off the mark in their opinion.
Leaving out the last possibility as quite implausible, the first two possibilities are real and need to be addressed. For the first, we definitely need a periodic and systematic performance appraisal. As for the second: most of what is taught in PG classes is basics / fundamentals, with an occasional round-up of second-level knowledge. Tertiary level knowledge is rarely touched. Given this state of affairs and in today’s borderless world of information and analysis, this is clearly not enough to impress the students.
Second, the classroom as a social place makes its entry in full glory on the day of Internal tests. Students who are supposed to spend most of their days together in the classroom or thereabouts, actually come, meet and greet their fellow students as they would at a grand reception. As if the day is for fun and good personal relations with everyone. They don’t seem to care much for the questions asked in the test. On regular days too, the vibe is the same but on a smaller scale. Clearly, the academic part has become secondary.
Not much needs to be told about the emergence of the Internet and the smartphone as a rival source of knowledge. The smartphone is the first, the most accessible and often the last, source of information. Teachers versus the Internet is a lost game. That has been everyone’s experience, not just of our students.
So, what do these three trends mean for us and our College? For me, these point to a loss of autonomy in the generation and sharing of knowledge. Because, there has been a reconfiguration of our relationship with knowledge. Today, as things stand, “knowledge” is generated in, say, America and is accessible through the Internet, whether it is to us — the teachers — or to the students. It means a teacher’s relationship with knowledge is the same as that of the students. In other words, teachers and students are all in the same boat. And this is what needs to change.
We need to become a place where knowledge is generated, and generated with love, care and commitment to the society around us. We can take inspiration from the way Centre for Policy Research (CPR) or the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) or others have been working.
We should devise a scheme which puts research as our primary work and moves teaching to the second priority. This would lead to a more productive use of our time and energy, given the low turnout and low interest seen in the classrooms. Classes can be moved to the afternoons. Students will definitely benefit from the time we spend on research work in the mornings. It could lead to a revival of interest among students and of the University as a thriving place.
For the last 100 years, academic life in Arts College has revolved around teaching post-graduate students. Those students were our main product. The University would serve as a portal / gateway to the students’ futures. And their achievements — while in college as well as later in life — served to sustain the idea of teaching as the raison d’etre of the college.
It is probably still the same, but a shift in the relationship is becoming evident. Students often voice the opinion that quality has fallen; see the classroom as a place for socialising; and learn from the Internet as and when needed. Let us closely examine the meaning and implications of each of these.
In informal conversations, students often express the view that quality of teaching is somehow not what they had heard of / expected. The only way to assess this is by way of a thorough appraisal of performance as it is supposedly done in the private corporate sector. In its absence, it can mean that teachers are not really doing a good job; or, that teachers are doing better than their previous generation but are being judged by a different standard; or, that students are totally off the mark in their opinion.
Leaving out the last possibility as quite implausible, the first two possibilities are real and need to be addressed. For the first, we definitely need a periodic and systematic performance appraisal. As for the second: most of what is taught in PG classes is basics / fundamentals, with an occasional round-up of second-level knowledge. Tertiary level knowledge is rarely touched. Given this state of affairs and in today’s borderless world of information and analysis, this is clearly not enough to impress the students.
Second, the classroom as a social place makes its entry in full glory on the day of Internal tests. Students who are supposed to spend most of their days together in the classroom or thereabouts, actually come, meet and greet their fellow students as they would at a grand reception. As if the day is for fun and good personal relations with everyone. They don’t seem to care much for the questions asked in the test. On regular days too, the vibe is the same but on a smaller scale. Clearly, the academic part has become secondary.
Not much needs to be told about the emergence of the Internet and the smartphone as a rival source of knowledge. The smartphone is the first, the most accessible and often the last, source of information. Teachers versus the Internet is a lost game. That has been everyone’s experience, not just of our students.
So, what do these three trends mean for us and our College? For me, these point to a loss of autonomy in the generation and sharing of knowledge. Because, there has been a reconfiguration of our relationship with knowledge. Today, as things stand, “knowledge” is generated in, say, America and is accessible through the Internet, whether it is to us — the teachers — or to the students. It means a teacher’s relationship with knowledge is the same as that of the students. In other words, teachers and students are all in the same boat. And this is what needs to change.
We need to become a place where knowledge is generated, and generated with love, care and commitment to the society around us. We can take inspiration from the way Centre for Policy Research (CPR) or the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) or others have been working.
We should devise a scheme which puts research as our primary work and moves teaching to the second priority. This would lead to a more productive use of our time and energy, given the low turnout and low interest seen in the classrooms. Classes can be moved to the afternoons. Students will definitely benefit from the time we spend on research work in the mornings. It could lead to a revival of interest among students and of the University as a thriving place.