By falling in line with NEP 2020 and particularly its advocacy of multi-disciplinary education, AICTE has diluted the importance of physics and maths, the building blocks of engineering education, writes R. Natarajan

In its approval process handbook 2021-22 released in early March, the Delhi-based All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), established in 1987 by Parliament to licence and supervise all technical education institutions countrywide, has made class XII physics and mathematics optional subjects for admission into undergraduate engineering courses. The rationale of this revolutionary departure from conventional wisdom and universal practice, is that it is in consonance with the objectives of the new National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

For the past several decades, admission into India’s 3,415 engineering colleges including the globally famous IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology) was dependent on class XII students’ aggregate scores in physics, mathematics and either chemistry, biotechnology/biology or an elective technical vocation subject with PCM (physics, chemistry and maths) being the most common combination.

Under the changed rules, maths and physics are listed among 12 optional subjects — physics, mathematics, chemistry, computer science, electronics, information technology, biology, informatics practice, technical vocational subject, agriculture, biotechnology, engineering graphics, business studies, entrepreneurship — from which class XII students can choose any three. The rationale for this change advanced by Dr. Anil Sahasrabuddhe, chairman of AICTE, is that NEP 2020 encourages multi-disciplinary undergraduate education. “After 15 years of school education, an undergrad engineering student can go for undergrad studies across disciplines… A new window has been created where students who have not taken physics and maths in school can enter engineering education,” says Sahasrabuddhe.

Following criticism of this radical departure from convention and past practice, AICTE spokespersons have suggested bridge courses for students who have not written physics and maths exams in class XII, thereby tacitly acknowledging that deep knowledge of these subjects is critical for the study of engineering in higher education.

There were good reasons why physics and maths were made compulsory courses within the undergrad curriculum and others were offered as co-curricular courses and extra-curricular experiences. The plain truth widely acknowledged for decades is that physics and maths are the building blocks of all engineering and technology study programmes. That’s why best universities worldwide mandate the study of physics and mathematics for four or more semesters and also offer them as electives. These subjects cannot be mastered through self-learning or bridge courses.

This assertion is endorsed by Dr.V.K.Saraswat, former director-general of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and currently a full-time member of Niti Aayog, the Central government public policy thinktank. According to Saraswat this proposal will prove to be “disastrous” and “further deteriorate” standards of engineering education.

Bridge courses are by definition remedial programmes and it’s highly unlikely that in a short duration of three-four weeks, a student will become sufficiently competent in mathematics and physics to avail the full benefit of a four-year engineering undergrad programme. Admittedly in the US and some Western countries, undergrad engineering programmes offer flexibility to students to choose from a wide range of electives. But the Indian economy is at a stage when depth in core traditional engineering subjects is more important for engineers than knowledge of liberal and fine arts.

It is submitted that by falling in line with the objectives of NEP 2020 and particularly its advocacy of multidisciplinary undergrad education, AICTE has diluted the importance of vital subjects and disciplines in favour of multi- and inter-disciplinary studies, and liberal arts over rigorous STEM education. For instance, NEP 2020 recommends that the IITs should be transformed into multi-disciplinary universities ignoring the reality that most IITs are already multi-disciplinary institutions with faculties of the humanities and social sciences, economics, languages, etc. NEP 2020 also downplays the importance of specialised higher education institutions —technical, medical, legal universities — overlooking that specialisation confers depth, while generalisation leads to breadth without depth.

Moreover, NEP 2020 is too India-centric and ignores global standards and trends. There are some systemic flaws too, such as prescribing accreditation as the basis for regulation. Accreditation is awarded after two batches have graduated, demonstrating the qualitative performance of academic systems and processes of higher education institutions. In sum, AICTE’s anxiety to make substantive changes in time-tested curriculums, systems and processes to realise the objectives of NEP 2020 is ill-advised and deserves further debate.

(Dr. R. Natarajan is former director of IIT-Madras and former chairman of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)

Also read: 

NEP 2020: Higher Education | Towards a More Holistic Education

NEP 2020: Higher Education | Institutional Restructuring and Consolidation