<![CDATA[ India's New Move Could Produce Second-Rate Engineers ]]>
Read | Teachers protesting at Jantar Mantar get tenure extension by six months from education ministry
One might agree that there may be a few pathways in engineering that could avoid significant Mathematics and Physics, but an entire programme of study is not designed for these few possibilities. Both subjects are a part of the foundational core of engineering that everyone must learn. Understanding of natural phenomena requires a background in Physics which is usually expressed in the language of Mathematics. The laws that govern mechanical devices, electrical and magnetic equipment and the quantum world of atoms are all expressed in terms of mathematical equations.
In this context, bridge courses are likely to produce a cohort of students who will mostly be second-class citizens among the rest of the mainstream students much better versed in Mathematics and Physics. Such a cohort will always need specially-designed courses, at every stage that focus on the qualitative and minimize the quantitative. It is also very likely that upon graduation, this group will face discrimination, as also fewer opportunities in employment and in admission to higher studies. Many will proclaim, So this person is from the no Math-Physics group! It is of course possible to have several choices within the college - after admission - in terms of opting for routine or advanced Mathematics, specialized Physics or Chemistry courses. However, providing the option to skip Mathematics and Physics at the entrance-level is tantamount to removing essential pillars from the foundation.
It is worth reflecting whether institutions that can barely run half-decent undergraduate programmes in engineering will have the creativity and the ability to simultaneously conduct such parallel streams. I also wonder what institution heads and faculty will have to say about the burdens and consequences of such a policy decision.
The second issue that is striking is the discourse emanating from AICTE. This shows an unthinking eagerness to somehow align with the New Education Policy (NEP) in terms of paying obeisance to notions of a liberal education, flexibility in choosing courses and diversity in the groups of college-entering students. This is an abuse of the meaning of the words liberal and diversity. Liberal does not imply that a student can choose any course arbitrarily. Every liberal undergraduate programme has a planned sequence of courses. A student follows a plan and an overall theme - yes, even flexibility has a plan. There are prerequisite courses to be cleared before enrolling for some higher courses. A large majority of courses in engineering would require some kind of Mathematics taught at the school-exiting level.
Thirdly, the idea of making Mathematics and Physics optional for admission to engineering studies stems from a very simplistic, craft-only (popular?) view of what engineering is. An engineer is not a technician or a craftsman even though s/he may need to know enough about hands on practices. An electrician is not an electrical engineer, nor is a farmer an agricultural engineer, though the former must know about electrical wiring, meters and switches, and the latter must be familiar with agricultural patterns, crops, fertilizers and irrigation techniques. A rigorous engineering curriculum deals with a very significant amount of natural sciences expressed mostly in mathematical forms. This is much more true for degree programmes than diploma-awarding programmes which focus more sharply on the practice part than the theory. It is therefore even more surprising that a body like AICTE which is deeply involved in making engineering curricula should reflect such a simplistic worldview about engineering education.
When engineering, as a profession, evolved from the guilds of the various crafts, it was in no small measure due to the related Science and Mathematics getting internalized through the professional education often organized by the guilds themselves. Socially, the emergence of engineering professions was driven by the rise of industrial capitalism and the freeing of individuals from the authority of the guilds; intellectually, it was driven by the capacity of the craftsmen to compute, design and ultimately generalize and abstract their professional work - all of this needed Mathematics, Physics and, in some instances, Chemistry. The design of artefacts evolved from being a matter of trial and error to that of mathematical calculation and an understanding drawn from natural philosophy.
Modern engineering studies have seen an increasing use of Mathematics and the natural sciences which have lent the profession unprecedented precision, leading to tight and optimal designs. In most disciplines, this has happened to the extent that many of them have almost been renamed as engineering sciences. The important shift here is that many engineering principles are now based on the actual mechanisms of causation (the physics) rather than correlations based on empirical, experimental data alone (practical experience). Physics and Mathematics have enabled quantitative theorizing which allows for non-obvious predictions. This is essential for any fundamental or applied breakthrough in our understanding of natural phenomenon. Today, Engineering Mathematics stands as a subject in its own right and it can indeed get quite sophisticated. Leadership, competence and creativity in engineering are intrinsically linked to this core competency.
It is tragic that these attempts to avoid Mathematics and Physics come at a time when their application is becoming ubiquitous in Biology and the Life Sciences. Subjects such as Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, Biomedical Engineering as well as Biotechnology demonstrate how Mathematics and the physical sciences are the vehicle that enables cross-disciplinary education and research. Biology has now been added to the classical core triumvirate of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM), and has moved beyond being a purely descriptive discipline to an increasingly quantitative one. For instance, it may come as a surprise to many that modern vaccines are developed using mathematical models in a big way.
The tragedy deepens that such recommendations are being made in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Rather than encourage the popular trope of mathematics and science are so difficult, we should create school curricula that will make our children like these subjects. This waiver of Mathematics and Physics is probably to adjust for the pathetic state of our high (and middle) school learning of Mathematics and Science-related subjects. The answer cannot be just to waive the problem away.
AICTE should worry more about why third rate engineering colleges still exist, why so many seats in engineering institutions are going unfilled, and why so many incompetent graduates are pouring into an ever-shrinking job market. The solutions to these issues are a prerequisite to an Aatmnirbhar Bharat.source: ndtv ]]>
enWed, 03 31, 2021 09:45 am
<![CDATA[ India's New Move Could Produce Second-Rate Engineers ]]>
Read | Teachers protesting at Jantar Mantar get tenure extension by six months from education ministry
One might agree that there may be a few pathways in engineering that could avoid significant Mathematics and Physics, but an entire programme of study is not designed for these few possibilities. Both subjects are a part of the foundational core of engineering that everyone must learn. Understanding of natural phenomena requires a background in Physics which is usually expressed in the language of Mathematics. The laws that govern mechanical devices, electrical and magnetic equipment and the quantum world of atoms are all expressed in terms of mathematical equations.
In this context, bridge courses are likely to produce a cohort of students who will mostly be second-class citizens among the rest of the mainstream students much better versed in Mathematics and Physics. Such a cohort will always need specially-designed courses, at every stage that focus on the qualitative and minimize the quantitative. It is also very likely that upon graduation, this group will face discrimination, as also fewer opportunities in employment and in admission to higher studies. Many will proclaim, So this person is from the no Math-Physics group! It is of course possible to have several choices within the college - after admission - in terms of opting for routine or advanced Mathematics, specialized Physics or Chemistry courses. However, providing the option to skip Mathematics and Physics at the entrance-level is tantamount to removing essential pillars from the foundation.
It is worth reflecting whether institutions that can barely run half-decent undergraduate programmes in engineering will have the creativity and the ability to simultaneously conduct such parallel streams. I also wonder what institution heads and faculty will have to say about the burdens and consequences of such a policy decision.
The second issue that is striking is the discourse emanating from AICTE. This shows an unthinking eagerness to somehow align with the New Education Policy (NEP) in terms of paying obeisance to notions of a liberal education, flexibility in choosing courses and diversity in the groups of college-entering students. This is an abuse of the meaning of the words liberal and diversity. Liberal does not imply that a student can choose any course arbitrarily. Every liberal undergraduate programme has a planned sequence of courses. A student follows a plan and an overall theme - yes, even flexibility has a plan. There are prerequisite courses to be cleared before enrolling for some higher courses. A large majority of courses in engineering would require some kind of Mathematics taught at the school-exiting level.
Thirdly, the idea of making Mathematics and Physics optional for admission to engineering studies stems from a very simplistic, craft-only (popular?) view of what engineering is. An engineer is not a technician or a craftsman even though s/he may need to know enough about hands on practices. An electrician is not an electrical engineer, nor is a farmer an agricultural engineer, though the former must know about electrical wiring, meters and switches, and the latter must be familiar with agricultural patterns, crops, fertilizers and irrigation techniques. A rigorous engineering curriculum deals with a very significant amount of natural sciences expressed mostly in mathematical forms. This is much more true for degree programmes than diploma-awarding programmes which focus more sharply on the practice part than the theory. It is therefore even more surprising that a body like AICTE which is deeply involved in making engineering curricula should reflect such a simplistic worldview about engineering education.
When engineering, as a profession, evolved from the guilds of the various crafts, it was in no small measure due to the related Science and Mathematics getting internalized through the professional education often organized by the guilds themselves. Socially, the emergence of engineering professions was driven by the rise of industrial capitalism and the freeing of individuals from the authority of the guilds; intellectually, it was driven by the capacity of the craftsmen to compute, design and ultimately generalize and abstract their professional work - all of this needed Mathematics, Physics and, in some instances, Chemistry. The design of artefacts evolved from being a matter of trial and error to that of mathematical calculation and an understanding drawn from natural philosophy.
Modern engineering studies have seen an increasing use of Mathematics and the natural sciences which have lent the profession unprecedented precision, leading to tight and optimal designs. In most disciplines, this has happened to the extent that many of them have almost been renamed as engineering sciences. The important shift here is that many engineering principles are now based on the actual mechanisms of causation (the physics) rather than correlations based on empirical, experimental data alone (practical experience). Physics and Mathematics have enabled quantitative theorizing which allows for non-obvious predictions. This is essential for any fundamental or applied breakthrough in our understanding of natural phenomenon. Today, Engineering Mathematics stands as a subject in its own right and it can indeed get quite sophisticated. Leadership, competence and creativity in engineering are intrinsically linked to this core competency.
It is tragic that these attempts to avoid Mathematics and Physics come at a time when their application is becoming ubiquitous in Biology and the Life Sciences. Subjects such as Computational Biology, Bioinformatics, Biomedical Engineering as well as Biotechnology demonstrate how Mathematics and the physical sciences are the vehicle that enables cross-disciplinary education and research. Biology has now been added to the classical core triumvirate of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (PCM), and has moved beyond being a purely descriptive discipline to an increasingly quantitative one. For instance, it may come as a surprise to many that modern vaccines are developed using mathematical models in a big way.
The tragedy deepens that such recommendations are being made in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Rather than encourage the popular trope of mathematics and science are so difficult, we should create school curricula that will make our children like these subjects. This waiver of Mathematics and Physics is probably to adjust for the pathetic state of our high (and middle) school learning of Mathematics and Science-related subjects. The answer cannot be just to waive the problem away.
AICTE should worry more about why third rate engineering colleges still exist, why so many seats in engineering institutions are going unfilled, and why so many incompetent graduates are pouring into an ever-shrinking job market. The solutions to these issues are a prerequisite to an Aatmnirbhar Bharat.source: ndtv ]]>
Interviews2Wed, 03 31, 2021 09:45 am