Outlook – July 28, 2019

SKILL DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY

SPECIAL

74 OUTLOOK 29 July 2019

For example, a privately -

funded university focused on

skill development will find it

difficult to spend resources

on conventional research,

obtain grants from govern-

ment institutions or seek

international fellowships for

faculty. They require faculty

members with PhDs in skills

such as creating curricula

that enhance employability

of the underprivileged on a

mass scale and ensure that

students qualify in national

and international

examinations.

In contrast to traditional

universities, skill universi-

ties often better adhere to

NAAC’s core value of pro-

moting national develop-

ment by “serving the cause of

social justice, ensuring

equity and increasing access

to higher education” through

their offerings to marginal-

ised students. Unfortunately,

the indicators for different

criteria and their weightage

in their present form do not

do justice to such special

institutions. Instead of hav-

ing a one-type-fits-all

approach, NAAC and the

National Institute Ranking

Framework (NIRF) can alter

their accreditation process

for universities promulgat-

ing applied and action learn-

ing. This is in line with the

draft NEP, where research

institutions and teaching

universities are classified

separately.

There are special-category

universities like skill univer-

sities, culture universities,

Sanskrit universities, etc.

Currently, there are seven

skill universities in India and

more will be set up in the

coming years. These institu-

tions should not be assessed

on the same criteria. Two of

the existing criteria—teach-

ing, learning and evaluation

(200 points); and research,

innovation and extension

(250 points)—should be reor-

iented and recast for such

institutions.

The parameters of grading

universities cater to those in

urban areas. There are uni-

versities located in difficult

geographies and remote

regions and their context is

different. Hence, these need

different treatment to ensure

equity, which converges with

NAAC’s own provisions

regarding regional relevance

of the institute.

The accreditation process

should create multiple cate-

gories depending on the kind

of the institution. These

include teaching universities,

teaching major and research

minor universities, research

major and teaching minor

universities, research univer-

sities and special-category

universities.

The criteria of ‘research,

innovation and entrepre-

neurship’ is tilted towards

publications, references and

patents. The grading criteria

treat institutions uniformly,

irrespective of year of estab-

lishment, category and fund-

ing. These need to be recast

to identify problems of the

community surrounding the

institutions and working out

solutions. The grade points

under this category should

be assessed differently for

universities opting for com-

munity-oriented applied and

action research. Livelihood

and productivity should also

be incorporated into the cat-

egory of ‘teaching, learning

and evaluation’.

While some might say that

maintaining uniformity in

grade points for research

publications is essential, the

counter argument is that

despite 25 per cent of the

points being assigned to pub-

lications, these have not

shown any tangible benefits

to communities or the coun-

try. Research must be

encouraged, but it should not

be an imposition on all.

T

HE education ecosys-

tem and delivery mech-

anism has not changed

much over the years.

The worst collateral damage

is human productivity and

competency. With more

than seven billion people on

the planet and a dwindling

resource base, the human

race is fighting against time

for its own existence. There

are reports that civilisation

could collapse by 2050.

Worse, large corporations

are not creating jobs and

artificial intelligence and

automation pose a serious

threat to existing jobs. The

only solution to jobless

growth is to create nano-,

mini- and micro-enterpris-

es and entrepreneurs.

In this endeavour, the

accreditation process must

redefine institutions and

encourage them to nurture

citizens who can think and

act productively. Education

must be linked not only to

employability, but also to

entrepreneurship, which

will only be possible by con-

verging and linking teaching,

training and productivity.

The current system of

superficial, short-term

internships cannot achieve

this goal.

I propose that universities

create an ecosystem within

their campus and surround-

ing communities which pro-

vides a combination of

on-the-job training,

hands-on knowledge and

experiential learning.

Research reports by

Washington Accord coun-

tries and the British Council

have emphasised the signifi-

cance of social-enter prise

initiatives in higher-educa-

tion institutions. The grad-

ing criteria must recognise

applied-learning initiatives

as alternatives to conven-

tional research and learning.

Entrepreneurship must

be a formal criteria and

a minimum of 100 points

should be assigned to it.

Only then can our educa-

tion system respond to

needs of a rapidly evolving

technology- and knowl-

edge-driven society. O

University grading criteria must

recognise applied-learning

initiatives as alternatives to

conventional research