# Essay 5

# Oiling the New: Literature's place within the NEP (Part 1)

> “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” - Abraham Lincoln
> “Teach the children so it will not be necessary to teach the adults.” - also Abraham Lincoln

Time and time again, India's education system has been at the receiving end of many harsh critics. Be it the unapparent virtue of propogating a "slave" mindset from the British days and limiting question-the-authority attitudes in individuals, or be it as systemically apparent as enforcing rote learning and disregarding curiosity, this system has faced it all. To dose out these burning remarks and build the next Indian education system, the NEP has been brought out and proported as the new engine that will drive real change, whatever that means. Perhaps it will satisfy the old critics, perhaps it won't, or perhaps it will instead bring a fresh wave of them (me not being one). But before I dive into the actual title of this essay, the literature aspect, in this Part 1, I will give my comments on my understanding of the driving values of NEP (and not the whole system), which is based from personal experience and is not expert analysis.

Firstly, it's quite interesting for me to note a clear difference in the objective of some education givers and some education receivers.
- The givers state their objective along these lines: We focus on the core academic side of the subject, with which the students should be equipped to think deeper and creatively solve problems of the future. For example, if I teach them just "job-ready" skills like Data Science, they will never be able to learn, appreciate, and apply learnings from subjects such as graph theory and network analysis to more nuanced problems. Hence, I dont teach the "in-demand" superficial trendy skills which always change, I teach the real subject stuff.
- While the receivers simply state their objective along these lines: We need job-ready skills, we are unable to apply any of the classroom matter in the real world. Hence, give us actionable material.
I think both the sides have a fair view point in their own right, and we need to find a balance between the two. If India is benchmarking it's system to those of international standards, it is this balance that needs to be first achieved, and which I think is lacking even in the new draft. Internationally, they have all these skills-based, vocational trainings and diverse exposure for the "job-ready" part, but also have a forensic focus on the fundamentals and concepts of the classroom matter. Below are three examples of the same within which I will nest my further general comments:

a)

- Go to Khan Academy's Grade 11 Physics Oscialltions and Waves lectures. Compare those to that of any type traditionally taught in even the best schools in India, say the IIT lectures on NPTEL. You will see a "zameen-aasmaan ka farakh", a world of difference. Why? Because Sal Khan taught it first the "intuitive way", the conceptual part of the subject, and then slowly increases the technicalities involved, also in an intuitive manner. This helps students "absorb" the subject matter, which I have personally observed to be far more important as it leads to better applied understanding than directly jumping to the actual technical matter involved with the false assumption that it will lead to greater technical prowess, application, and understanding. This intuitive, conceptual, and "absorb approach" needs to be focused more on at least in the initial stages of any foundational teaching, be it when STEM subjects are properly introduced in Grade 9 or be it when they are properly delved into in Grade 11.

- This similar approach is not just for schools but for Universities as well, where the concepts are much more abstract and harder to absorb (especially so in Mathematics). There is this concept of Taylor's approximation that me and my batchmates were just simply unable to grasp, and so resorted once again to Khan Academy. Saw the video, and everything suddenly started making sense. Here's a comment from "Pranav Bisht" on the same video: "I am pursuing MTech in Computer Science from IITK, and yet, this is perhaps the first time, I got to know about the intuition behind Taylor series, i.e. to approximate a function in such a cunning way. This shows how the current education system (in India) forgets to teach students the overall intuition behind topics. Thnx KA!" Well said Pranav. But Sal Khan is for the initiated ones who want to know more, what about those who are just handed the material "as is"? Well, simple rule in Indian Universities, if you cant understand it, you can still score in it. So all you have to do is go to the textbook or notes, see the "method" of taking the question's input, then convert it into a scorable output. There you go, you have "scored" and are now well on your way to becoming an "engineer". Interestingly enough, Asian or Indian students are known to know more maths than their western counterparts. Sure, point taken, but what is "more maths"? Knowing multiplication tables upto 20, or JEE aspirants learning trignometric identities in grade 7 itself? If that's *knowing* more, then yes. But who conceptually *does* more maths? The west seems to have a better conceptual understanding, they appreciate maths and actually apply it in their professional lives. Here, if you ask any run off the mill engineer, they will say maths is useless, or we never use that level of maths. No wonder we are not able to research and innovate, as we are applying/servicing/executing readily available solutions.

- Yet another example, there is a NPTEL course on the topic of IoT, which is delivered by an IIT professor. To be brutally honest, I did not expect such trash course content from literally one of the top 3 universities in India. No proper concepts explained, half the terminology is repetetive across all the course parts, there's hardcore information overload with never ending lists of the tools and technologies used in the field, undigestable bookish/dictionary definitions of all technical terms, no proper flow or connection of the topics jumping from one then back then forward again, 100s of slides for each small subtopic filled with non-conceptual metainformation, and perhaps most importantly, absolutely useless. I cant believe they are teaching the same content in universities. Again, compare this to international standards (like Curtin's IoT course on edX). But hey, this is just one example and this mentality or way of doing things dont propogate forward, right? Wrong. To prove this, open YouTube and explore a variety of channels and videos, be it from subject matter experts or career guidance. Just see how the Indian creators approach things and how the Western creators approach things, you will find enough proof. I literally saw a channel that puts out videos trying to explain careers with completely bookish definitions. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but definitions are only a technical point of reference to be on the same page. To explain careers, you need much broader content, such as an interview with someone to actually get to know what is the actual work in the field.

b)

- My friend's experience at an internationally renowned university has been completely different from my experience at a nationally renowned university. Extending from the previous point, and me coming from an "institute of national importance", I have personally found the higher education systems in India to be just something to "beat". Projects, assignments, vivas, and exams have no value. Perhaps it is so because the Professors themselves have been brought up in that manner and help propogate the same. They are all almost predicatable, there is a certain pattern, and dont actually check your conceptual understanding. If I were to compare this with my friend's Uni, there's once again a world of difference. It seems to me that you just simply cannot beat the system without first doing your ground conceptual understanding. The projects, exams, vivas, etc. are all very well conceptually structured and strictly monitored. There's always some or the other research component associated in the degree, and we all know how bad the research output of Professors and PhDs are in India, to a point that even pursuing a Masters or above in India is basically considered a joke. Case in point: For a research conference, I once saw a local Uni professor present what seems to me a mini project that can be done by a 2nd year engineering student. So, on one side, my friend has got his conceptual and applied approach going on, while on the other side via practicals he has got "job-ready" skills. I see him knowing and using industry tools and techniques with far more prowess than the average Indian student.

- Another instance, the same friend told me how at the end of each group project, you are given as an individual a total of 50 marks out of which you have to divide and give to each group member anonymously. This incentivizes and gets the students to equally contribute to the project as it all gets added to the final grade, as opposed to one-person shows in the groups here with the output being same for all. In this way (amongst many others), I see international systems to be relatively less "beatable", conceptual, job-ready, and more research focused than it's Indian counterparts. Although I do see NEP mentioning conceptual clarity and problem solving, I dont see it addressed much at the University level. And even though it mentions research to be invested in, I think it needs to be implemented in the right manner as investing "more" in the current system of research is practically useless as even that is seen by PhDs and Professors as nothing but yet another materialistic thing to "beat" or "game" or "score" or "get published" or "bag a project". Extending on that, I have also seen NEP addressing issues as "more" or "less". More focus on job-skills and vocational training, less focus on board exams, etc. Once again, at the risk of repeating myself, it's not about more or less as the framework within which it is drawing on needs to be revamped in the first place. So in general, unless the content, method, and delivery of education is not fixed conceptually, I dont see much point in the other systemic overhauls.

Having said that, do note that the above are general comments that I have found to be true not just based on my experience but based on other's too. There are ofcourse a select few great professors who teach conceptually and who do great research at, again, select few Universities in India - credit given where due.

c)
Him: "Can you help me with an interview question?"
Me: "Sure"
Him: "Can you give me a perfect answer to give for strengths and weaknesses?"
Me: "Sorry, I cant help with a retrospective/introspective question that is very personal in nature. You need to think for yourself, and come with an answer. After that, I can help you rephrase it better."

And thus started a never-ending debate on why cant I just directly give an answer. This is the very issue that has, will, and always plague India's education system: the "service" mindset. This entails a few notable characteristics: i) Almost anything and everything is seen as something to "beat" (as pointed out earlier), yet another requirement to be checked off of a list, the correct answer to be taken and furnished/"serviced" with (but never your own). Just the other day, I saw a LinkedIn post with the title "Top 60 interview questions with their correct answers", stupendously stupid I think to provide a "correct" answer to a personal/contextual question. Also just the other day, Google opened applications for 3 different apprenticeships, upon which a friend asks me to pick for him the one I can help him the best, but not the one he actually wants to think about and do. Superb. Another one, I just participated in an international hackathon. Let's just say once again that there was a "zameen aasmaan farakh", a world of difference, in the conceptual approach of our Western members, and the "service" or "checklist" approach of our Indian members.

- It pains me to especially see this lack of personal thinking in the Indian-based abroad education consultancy world. Templates for your Statement of Purposes, Letters of Recommendation, etc. are all readily given, you just have to change a few details. I absolutely cant fathom why. I understand you cannot write well in English, but you can at least think well in your native language, about what your purpose is for pursuing higher education, your goals, vision, etc. After that, you can either improve your English writing game and write your own SoP, or ask help to structure or rephrase it better. But essentially, the thinking has to be done by yourself. For those who dont know, writing an SoP even for the fun of it is truly a transformative experience, as it makes you think hard about yourself. And if even this is snatched away, then what else is left? The unintended consequences of this is that once the student lands abroad, they will always be at a back foot and will struggle to catch up because (based on others' anecdotes): i) they have not thought much about themselves and their future, so are unclear of the exact thing they want (apart from being clear they want a job ofcourse) ii) they have not worked much on their writing and hence, are not as proficient at such a core skill required in Universities abroad.

- Examples galore, here's one more. Apparently, two good marketing rules are: i) be personalized, include the name of the customer, and ii) to ask a rhetorical question or two to engage better. Sounds cool? Cool. But do you remember the "service" mindset and oh-yet-another-thing-to-be-checked-off attitude I talked about earlier? Well, apply it here and you will get a laughable marketing email subject that a well known consultancy regularly uses: "I am giving away tips @ 2 PM Luqman?". Are they confirming an event detail with me or what? I cant blame them for their non-contextualized, poorly-written "engaging" subject line. Technically speaking, there's a name, and there's a question mark (ironically without a question). So technically, they have checked off the requirements to have a good marketing email subject, right? Wrong. I know this might sound trivial to some, but it's not, and is a perfect example (I would have mentioned more, but avoiding it for the sake of "brevity", lol) of the issues I have pointed earlier. No conceptual approach to things, no contextual understanding, etc. Again, yes, the NEP addresses problem solving, but how will it address the "check-list" mindset?

d) Although so far I have focused on the "service/checklist" mindset and the lack of true conceptual thinking, understanding, creativity, and valuation of ideas, I have not focused on the aspect of rationality, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, etc. simply because they are so important, so large, so foundational in nature to be included even in this run-off-the-mill anecdotal piece on NEP. However, I will touch upon ethical reasoning briefly. This part ties with the usual larger question of what is education, and the usual broader answer that it is not only the tangible, technical degrees that count as education, but also the intangible, values of morals, ethics, innovation, empathy, etc. that truly makes for an well-rounded, educated person. Take for example the 2022 Morbi Bridge collapse, caused by it's premature reopening. Sure, technical incompetence and administrative lapses have been recorded, but before any of that, comes ethics and empathy. It takes not much to think, "Hey, if I prematurely open an incompetent bridge today for my vested interests, and if tomorrow my spouse uses it and is subjected to a bridge collapse tragedy, how would I feel?" Does NEP fix this? Can NEP lead to students thinking such questions when they are entrusted with a public-serving task? The point is, if there's any good I want for myself, I should want it for others too. With even such basic, momentary, ethical epiphanies, disasters could be avoided. Another anecdote, on an acquaintance's daughter's 7 year old birthday, her classmate refused to accept her chocolate offering on the grounds of religion, as she cited her parents' compelling teachings. Hence, on similar lines, if NEP is implemented in the context of bias, discrimination, faulty textbooks with inaccurate teachings, incompetent deans taking over competent ones, etc., we are failing our Nation's future. Bring in Ethical Reasoning, Morals, and Scientific Temperament through NEP, to bring about a true, and just nation.

Apart from all the above, my last general comment on the NEP would be something based on recent developments, or rather, recent challenges that have arised since the development and release of the first NEP 2020 framework - GenAI. We have all seen stories of how students are using ChatGPT and GenAI across the world to cheat and complete assignments in a jiffy, posing a great threat to not just knowledge absorbing but critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and skills of that like. Although we dont have all the solutions now to the alarming issues, one way might might be to start with a lesser dependence on technology, tools, and fancy gadgets for creative tasks. Although much of the last decade has seen a rise in digitally-enabled classrooms, we need to be very cautious in it's future use.

Having given a few of the above general comments on the implementation context of NEP, in the next piece, I will be exploring alternatives to achieve a value-based implementation of NEP.