Problems and consequences of revisiting Semester System by TU: Republica Feb-03, 2014

Why the haste?      by PROF DR VIKASH RAJ SATYAL

Tribhuvan University is revisiting the semester system, and this attempt is being criticized from many quarters. Students unions are protesting that it would be highly expensive, and that TU has not done proper homework and taken relevant stakeholders into confidence. Meanwhile, TU claims this new system will improve education quality. 

Certainly, semester system engages students throughout the session. It is assumed that with presentations and group discussions in semester system, students will learn better. However, semester system has serious drawbacks too. It is expensive. Back in 1971, it was supported in Nepal by the World Bank; donors may not support it this time. Students and their guardians will ultimately have to foot the bills. 

TU is a national institution; more than 80 percent of all Nepali students aspiring for higher education are enrolled in TU, most of them poor.
In the first phase, TU proposes to implement this system only at Kirtipur Campus and only at the Masters’ level. This makes sense as higher education is inherently more expensive, and the small territory can be managed efficiently. However, there are many other TU affiliated colleges that run Master’s programs, and TU’s next step would undoubtedly be implementing the system in those colleges. In 1979, after eight years of experimenting with semester system, TU had declared it unsuccessful and gone back to the annual system. How do we know it will not fail this time? Have we evaluated previous failure? Have we communicated them to stakeholders?

The protest of student unions may be self serving, as they see their role minimized in the semester system. But when they say that there has not been adequate debate, they have a point. Also, their concerns about high costs are valid. At a time the government is advocating ‘education for all’, this new system is too expensive. Currently, TU charges Rs 16,000 annually for Masters’ program in Humanities, which will be raised to Rs 80,000 annually in the semester system. Similarly, it proposes yearly fees of Rs 50,000 in MBBS where it currently charges Rs 9,000.

The argument that this system will improve quality of education is again questionable. TU argues that in semester system, class size can be reduced (to 30-40). Why cannot it reduce class size in the annual system? It claims quality of education can be achieved through presentation, group discussions in class, etc. Why cannot effective teaching methods like power-points, handouts, interaction, application oriented techniques be used in the current system?

Some Bachelors’ students have not given annual exams after 17 months of study, and some examinees have not received results after 11 months of their exams. These are administrative failures. How can such negligence be magically corrected in semester system? Education experts believe such negligence occur due to the staff’s politicization. In semester system, the administrators need to be twice as efficient. How can the TU’s lethargic existing system respond to this need? Raising education fee and pouring money is not the solution.

In the last decade, inefficient teachers and staffs have entered TU through political backdoor. They have no intention of teaching. Why is TU unable to take action against its staff and teachers who are openly running private colleges or holding senior posts in such institutions?
It is true that the quality of students in TU is degrading, and is lower than in some private universities. It is also true that semester system has been found effective in many universities, in Nepal and abroad. However, in the case of TU, revisiting a failed system without proper analysis of previous failure is likely to backfire.

If raising fees is TU’s sole objective, it can do so with the annual system, through open debate, especially with students. If TU thinks increased income will free it from government intervention, it is right. However, this cannot be its sole intention. Dr Govinda KC’s recent fast has exposed the mindset of high officers at TU and made public their greed for money and power.

In annual system, the prescribed textbooks by foreign writers are seldom used in class. Teachers use their own books, which are mostly ugly copies. There is no scope for sound understanding from such books. Also, examination questions measure student capacity to mug. If the questions are aimed at testing students’ analytical capacity, the quality of students can be improved even now. But the examination board is overrun by people whose interest is not quality. The same is true of the syllabus monitoring body. How can semester system curb such practices?

The most dangerous aspect of the semester system is the 40 percent marks for class assessment. This score is likely to be manipulated by students or teachers. In the current annual system, practical examinations are conducted by colleges in the Science departments. Student unions every year threaten HoDs to give students no less than 40 marks (out of 50). This has caused physical destruction in many colleges. The arson at the Central Department of English and Economics at Kirtipur happened for similar reasons. How can TU assure this will not happen with 40 marks in the hands of teachers? It was one of the major reasons the semester system failed last time, and the risk is higher today. In contrast, the centralized examination structure in the annual system prevents such dangerous interference.

TU should not hurry to revisit a system that failed once. First, it needs to publish a whitepaper about what problems it wants to solve and how, what it wishes to achieve, what its plans of expansion to regional level are, and how the extra income will be used. Discussion about these topics should be held among different stakeholders. It is not advisable to leap into this risky experiment without preparation.