Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Suggestions from Edupreneurs

Name : Prof. (Dr.) P J Joseph Designation : President Name of the Institution : Toc H Institute Of Science & Technology, Cochin, Kerala Comment/Suggestion
SOME ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS/OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED U.G.C ACT 1] The proposal that the appointments to key position in the Self Financing Colleges should be as per the methods and procedures of the concerned affiliated University is unfair. Some of the Self Financing Colleges excel the University run colleges because of the liberty they have in the selection of better and more competent teachers. Self Financing Colleges invest money on the purchase of land, construction of buildings and generate funds for the running of the Colleges including the payment of salary. Then they should be given the liberty to choose competent persons to run the institutions to the best of their satisfaction, ofcourse complying with the norms regarding qualifications laid down by the concerned Universities. If the Self Financing Colleges are to follow the same methods and procedures of appointment Universities concerned, the process would be dilatory and quite inconvenient and inefficient. 2] If there is any enquiry pending against any College, that in itself is not a reason for imposing any Penalty on the College [Ref.No.3.1(e)]. An allegation is not a crime unless and until it is proved. 3] Renewal of approval for the admission of PIO or NRI every year is causing unnecessary difficulties. 4] Normally the restricted fees fixed by the concerned bodies are inadequate. The deficiency is met by the higher fees collected from the NRI. If that also is going to be restricted, the running of the college itself would become almost impossible. The fees collected in the NRI quota should always be higher than the fees of other categories; whether they are NRIs or not because that is the fund which compensates the inadequacy of the fees collected from other categories. (Ref.No.13.2b). 5] When qualified teachers/faculty are not available inspite of repeated advertisements, Colleges should be allowed to make use of the service of the best teachers available until they get qualified ones. 6] When an authority prescribes the minimum qualification, they have the responsibility of making the qualified faculty available, when the Trust/Society is not able to get them. 7] Supervisory authority should not always function as an authority to find fault with and punish; but at the same time they should also promote, encourage and patronize the Private Self Financing Colleges, in the larger interest of the nation.

**********************************************************************************

Name :

M. Hoque

Designation: Chancellor Name of the Institution : University Of Science & Technology Comment/Suggestion
Surely Engineering Watch has raised a vital point. Within short notice how it is possible to advice for a very important issue like higher & technical education?" **********************************************************************************

Name :

Nilesh Dhulesia

Designation: Chairman Name of the Institution : Noble Group Of Institution Comment/Suggestion


"We really appreciate the efforts of Engineering Watch towards Higher Technical Education in the country. This is so kind of them that they have requested the concerned authorities to extend the date of seeking suggestions/comments on such an important piece of regulation to evolve a suitable methodology to ensure that existing technical/engineering colleges affiliated to universities do not dilute standards of technical education imparted by them. As an edupreneurs, we really take this matter sincerely and put forward to the association of Engineering colleges, to play the vital role for the same." **********************************************************************************

Name :

Dr. Prabhakar H Waghodekar

Designation: Advisor (Hr), Ibs & Pme (Pg) Name of the Institution : AISSMSS College Of Engineering Comment/Suggestion
The followings are my personal views, as the first impression to the UGC Public Notice of 3/12/2013 (of 145 pages with preliminary part, A,B and C Annexure and 18 Appendices) based on my 42+ years experience in industry plus in T & M education in teaching/research/ administrative/development areas: 1. The UGC Public Notice is dated 3/12/2013 inviting suggestions from public by 9th. Why haste? Haste makes waste. 2. India has many NAAC accredited 5 stars (A+ Grade) universities. How is that not a single university/IIT/IIM appear within the first 300 World's Top Universities? 3. A country over 120 crore population proclaiming the largest scientific and technology trained manpower pool in the world has neither a single noble prize winner nor invaluable contribution worth the name to humanity. 4. UGC is not expected to go for dressing, replacing a few things here and there or adapting earlier academic and the bureaucratic policies. The major challenges are access to education, quality education at affordable cost, trained and certified quality faculty, research and industry association promotion policies in letter and spirit, not to function as a regulatory (police/approval/fund distribution, etc)body but as a public service sector (not as owner), helping and counselling the stakeholders, minimum revenue collection (certainly revenue generation through such means as charging high processing fees, examination fees, re-evaluation fees is not desirable for public investment in education is assuring the future of the country), providing more scholarships, funding to one and all institutes, etc. 5. What is employ-ability of our graduates? Skill development? Vocationalization? In the 21st Century world needs a huge skilled work force of the order of 500 m. Are we ready to grab the opportunity? 6. We are not consistent in our National Education Policy. We believe in total change, break the old and get the new (?). We hardly have a mind set of Kaizen. 7. How do we measure the performance and productivity of universities/institutes? My study shows that actual teaching (theory/Practical) is in the range 10-50%, average publication not even one article/faculty (Key Performance Measures) . World Class Education means downsizing of faculty, increasing student intake, adopting e-learning, mobile learning, MOOC, flipped classrooms, disruptive colleges, charging less fees as CSR, faculty as facilitator or counsellor, research, community and industry oriented, etc.

8. I am of the opinion that Management Education can hardly be considered as a technical stream, the objectives are different. But under AICTE Act it is Technical and Management Education. It always comes to my mind whether Computer Science and Engineering is really a technical program? We cover little bit engineering but stress is on learning several languages, their coding, syntax and handling a few application packages. MCA, IT and CS have their own role to play, no doubt. 9. The norms set up in respect of faculty number; duties, load, infrastructure, etc. need thorough total optimization. Do we need 30-35 hours weekly load for each program? In the age of ICT, for 8 semesters 4 years undergraduate program, there could be 5 theory subjects per semester 2 hours (2 credits) per subject per week, totally 80 credits for a program and 4 practical each of 2 hours (1 credit) per week totally 32-40 credits, grand total credits 120 for a program. 60% courses can be uniform in the country and 40% courses be market driven designed and developed by institute faculty. Quality recruitment of both VC and faculty will assure quality of education. In fact quality starts with faculty recruitment (Critical Success Factor)! How is that while computing faculty load theory and practical are considered of equal weight whereas practical is considered half credit of theory? Whether credit system and Grade system have improved quality of education? Are our practical assessed on continuous basis comprehensively in real sense? Is the quality of our question paper-settings and answer-books evaluations assured? Do we possess zero tolerance and subject the defaulters -individual or organizations- to rigorous sentences in such cases as plagiarism, fake degrees, non-performance or NVA, running non-approved programs, accepting donations, casual approach for submission, question paper setting and answer-books evaluation, etc? Are our primary, secondary, higher secondary and higher education are integrated? Are the projects (readily available on sale!)submitted right from secondary to higher education programs improving quality of education? Is it not the fact that right from 10th standard, our mind set is to send our kids to coaching classes paying lakhs of Rs, stalling teaching in schools and colleges? Population for Higher Education in next five years is expected to shoot exponentially, 25-30% of total population. Today our GER is hardly 13%, advanced countries go for 54-60% GER., India is expecting 2530% GER in next two decade. Most of the States are having Open Universities. UGC needs to re-define their role. Is it reasonable and desirable that these universities offer the same programs offered by traditional universities in the country? Such and similar non-academic operational environment is a big challenge before UGC. I may soon come back to you in case I arrive at something more.

************************************************************************************

Name :

Dr S N Basu

Designation: Director Name of the Institution : Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College Comment/Suggestion
Engineering education throughout india is at present lagging in standard irrespective of govt and private colleges possibly due to following inconveniences generated by AICTE and .also Legacy of the concerned affiliating unversities. I mention some of the followings based on my over 30years' experience in engineering education. 1) The first entry as ASSTprofessor immediate after passing M.E/M.Tech without any teaching/research experience is a very bad decision as very few of them is really capable to teach. . They should be trained for at least 2-3 years in engineering education as a teacher or a researcher. 2) While formulating the course structure by the concerned universities we find the courses contain no linkages between THEORY and LABORATORY classes-----They should go at par. and the laboratory work evaluation should be done on day to day basis. 3) Now a days it is observed that students are lagging in english speaking too much and very a limited nos of students who have passed ISC level from English-medium school can get through placement examinations and can express their engineering knowledge well. so I feel it will be wise if the concerned university includes a subject like " English speaking and soft skill development" in stead of the present course of " English Communication". which will be more effective. 4) In order to elevate the standard and level of output of teaching " MOCK TESTS" are to designed both on Enlish Speaking and soft skill as well as ON TECHNICAL SUBJECTS right from 2nd SEMESTER once in each week as a part of syllabus ----such that students a) will have no eaxm fear b) will be habituated to be examined 3) simultaneously improve their knowledge --- and they will perform well in Placement Examinations. 5) Moreover The university should include " GRAND VIVA" at the end of each semester where all the subject and Lab teachers be present and viva will be conducted on all the subjects taught by the teachers. The HOD should mark both the students Internal assessment as well as the teachers ability to teach the allocated subject to the concerned teacher . UGC should give more emphasis on the course structure as well as the inclusions of the above to affiliate the university itself. I have found that UNIVERSITY is more interested on WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND GRADINGS -----WHICH IS BEING MEANINGLESS ON THE PART OF the STUDENTS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 8SEMESTERS. ************************************************************************************

Name :

Dr Navneet Dabra

Designation: Assistant Professor (Physics) Name of the Institution : Punjab Technical University Comment/Suggestion
Related with the Faculty Norms In reference to the suggestions/comments invited by UGC on Technical education & Professional Education, the following suggestions are being submitted to improve the technical education in India. 1. Problem related with the Faculty norms: In AICTE approval process (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13) the eligibility for the faculty positions for Engineering, Management, Pharmacy, MCA and Applied Arts and Crafts have been diluted and no clear qualification/eligibility conditions have been mentioned for Applied Sciences or Humanities and Science faculty. For Assistant Professor Post: There should been common test (like UGC-CSIR/NET) to evaluate the competence of the applicant applying for the post of assistant professors in technical institutions for Engineering and Applied Science faculty. The candidate with Engineering background need only M.Tech degree to be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor and no clear faculty norms are mentioned for Applied Sciences faculty in the AICTE approval process. You may also consider UGC-CSIR-NET test for Engineering candidates as UGC has introduced the National Eligibility Test for Engineering background also. For Associate Professor and Professor Posts: In AICTE approval process only 5 year experience is required to apply for the post of Associate Professor (Direct Recruitment) in a technical college. Whereas 8 years are required to become eligible for the post of Associate Professor for Basic Science Faculty in UGC approved colleges. Isnt it un-fair and un-justified to take/follow two yardsticks for affecting a selection process to different streams in the same institute providing a harder track to one category to succeed & making other category advantageous which would be bound to make psychological strain and inferior complex in the disadvantageous section to be read as Humanities and Science Stream? So, it is also requested to adopt/follow the uniform norms for faculty recruitment in all the streams at the Associated Professor level too which would not prejudice the interests of any stream and must ensure the equal opportunities, for all working in a Technical Institute. 2. Problem related with the Eligibility of Principal/Director of a Technical Institute:

In present AICTE approval process 2010-11, 2012-13 and so on, it has been mentioned that the only the candidates from engineering background are eligible for the post of Principal/Director of a Technical Institutes. The faculty of Humanities and Science or Applied Science (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) with desired experience has been once again discriminated at this level also due to lack of clarity in the AICTE approval process 2012-13. We fail to understand how the same norms could be interpreted differently by differently people. This confusion has been created by the persons who were responsible for posting Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and their replies on the AICTE official website. The applied sciences are integral part of all engineering branches. The posts of the Professors/Assistant Professors are sectioned in applied sciences on the same pattern as for engineering branches. It is pertinent to mention here that at least 30 to 40% Engineering Colleges approved by AICTE, New Delhi all over the country have persons with Ph.D. in these fields as Principals/Directors. Even in TTTIs/NITs persons with applied science background are eligible and occupying the position of director. To surmount this all the IITs which are the torch bearers of technical education in India have no objection in appointing persons having Ph.Ds in disciplines of Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics as their directors. Obviously some vested interests working in the engineering disciplines want to keep a closed network and do not want to allow the persons from other disciples to enter these institutions lest their monopoly is lost. They are suffering from a fear psychosis. In this world of multi-disciplinary teaching and research raising arbitrary barriers cannot save the system for a long time. We fail to understand how a Professor from the disciplines of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics is lesser competent to head a technical institute as compared to a person from engineering discipline. Dr. Homi J. Bhabha, Professor C. V. Raman, Professor Vikaram Sarabai and Prof. P. C. Ray were from the disciplines of Physics/ Chemistry, but their contributions to technology is no less. Only a shortsighted person can overlook the contributions of these pioneers who were never having any engineering degree. Moreover, by no stretch of imagination persons having engineering degrees are sufficient in number to provide the required manpower to head all the Technical/Engineering Institutes all over the country. Thus, the resolution of this controversy and recognizing the persons available in disciplines like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as eligible for the post of Directors/ Principals of the Engineering/Technical Institutes will serve the purpose on the one hand and give their due place to the well deserving and qualified persons on the other hand. 3. While drafting the final regulations for technical institutes, UGC must take care about all the faculty members teaching to budding engineers. A separate head should be formed for Applied Sciences faculty like Engg. and Technology, Pharmacy and Applied Arts & Craft etc. So that all ambiguities related to faculty teaching in technical institutions have been remove. While drafting the final regulations for technical institutes, UGC must take care about all the faculty members teaching to budding engineers. A separate head should be formed for Applied Sciences faculty like Engg. and Technology, Pharmacy and Applied Arts & Craft etc. So that all ambiguities related to faculty teaching in technical institutions have been remove.