Who should have the last word on curriculum revision?

Who should have the last word on curriculum revision?

Curriculum revision is a welcome phenomenon. Both universities and colleges must revise and, if necessary, restructure their curriculum every two or three years. It is essential to keep abreast of the latest trends and challenges in every domain so that academic programmes and courses do not become obsolete. But a few questions need to be answered. How often should the curriculum be revised? Should the revision be peripheral or substantial? Who decides what and how much should be revised? And with what rationale?

Not all questions are equally important. But the one about decision-makers warrants attention. In higher education institutes (HEIs), curriculum design and revision is initiated and overseen by individual departments and the institution’s Academic Council at a higher level. The presence of external subject experts, an alumnus, and an ‘industry’ representative in the Board of Studies, which frames and revisits the curriculum periodically, is mandated in almost all institutions. External subject experts ensure that the curriculum is updated and is on a par with the best in the field. The alumnus gives feedback in terms of what is good and what needs to be revised. Industry representatives comment on whether the curriculum makes students job-ready.

However there are conflicting opinions on who engineers the changes and on what basis. While one group argues that the industry should play a key role in designing and revisiting the curriculum for all programmes across institutions, the other points out that curriculum revision and restructuring is the prerogative of educationists, not technocrats and that industry experts cannot dictate curriculum restructuring.

In recent times there has been an acrimonious battle between educationists and their industry counterparts on who should have the last word on curriculum revision. The latter claim that a high percentage of graduates are not industry ready because the curriculum is not geared to meet job requirements. Their perspective is that the primary job of HEIs is to make students market-ready and employable. Educationists, on the other hand, argue that, while they are willing to accommodate suggestions to ensure the graduates are certified job-ready, curriculum cannot be designed and restructured solely on the basis of market demand and prospects of employment.

If technocrats are allowed to have the last word on the design and restructuring of curriculum, what would be the ramifications? One is the cold shouldering of the Humanities and Liberal Studies. If all our programmes and courses are aligned with market needs, placement would certainly improve. Institutions can boast of placement records and this will certainly enhance the demand and institutions will go up a few notches in terms of accreditation.

But higher education has another important mandate: to transform students into better human beings who will be empowered and responsible citizens. Therefore, it needs to be ensured that curriculum restructuring is not hijacked by non-academicians.

Recently in a meeting of the Board of Studies in English, which was convened to restructure the curriculum for M.A. English Studies, a technocrat wanted the programme to be reoriented to include skill-based courses like Journalism, Advertisements, Visual Communication, Translation, and Theatre Arts and demanded that conventional courses like Shakespeare, Linguistics and Phonetics, and Comparative Literature be replaced with employment-oriented courses. A similar scene played out in the department of History where the ‘industry’ representative replaced almost half the traditional courses with those related to tourism and hospitality with the argument that students should be made job ready.