Give the 4-year undergraduate programme a break!

It will give students the intellectual breadth and depth our current education system sorely lacks

For a few years now, a group of us has been working feverishly to build a liberal arts university of which India will be proud. After the success of ISB (Indian School of Business), we believe that building many more higher education institutions of the highest global standards is entirely possible. Ashoka University will open its doors in August 2014 and its Young India Fellowship Programme is already making waves. Indeed, Ashoka's core programme will be a four-year liberal arts BA. Let us not throw the four-year undergraduate programme baby with the Delhi University (DU) controversy's bathwater.

First, four-year programmes are a good idea, especially when they are part of a liberal education. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) says, "Liberal education is an approach to learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (for example: science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest. A liberal education helps students develop a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical and problem-solving, and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings."

Great idea, no? Wouldn't you want a liberal education? Of course, to deliver a liberal education is not simple and takes time, as does any professional course. First, the most enduring wisdom on a liberal education recommends a two-year general education (foundation courses proposed by DU) that allows students to explore breadth and a subsequent two years to provide depth. Hence the need for four years.

Second, is a four-year programme for everyone? Possibly. At least the AACU and even most DU academics think so. We at Ashoka University believe this is an idea whose time has come. Rote learning, a fixation with exams and marks, specialisation, engineering+MBA clones, unemployability - you all know the problems of our education system. As employers and responsible citizens, we believe the time has come to do something about this. We yearn for graduates who are critical thinkers, agile problem-solvers, effective communicators, great team members and leaders, and, above all, socially sensitive and responsible citizens in a country facing enormous social challenges. One way to change this is to offer the model outlined above - of course, adapted to an Indian context. So, even if it is not for everyone, we need to do this for at least some and, in our estimate, for many young Indians who deserve a liberal education in a country that desperately needs them to educated in this way.

Third, thousands of Indian students are flocking to US universities to get a four-year Bachelor's degree. Granted a majority of them are pursuing degrees in engineering, business and economics (seemingly with the same obsession for specialised and professional degrees leading to jobs that they would pursue in India). But what they are really going for and raving about is the experience of a liberal education. This interest in a liberal education is reaffirmed by the over 100,000 "likes" (more than any other institution in India) our Ashoka University Facebook page has received more than a year ahead of its launch.

So, the four-year BA is a good idea in and of itself, the time is right for it in India, no one (other than two institutions that we know of) offers one in India, and prospective students seem to like the idea.

Why, then, the controversy? What DU is attempting is a massive change programme, a transformation like none other. As happens with most such efforts, it may have underestimated the degree of alignment required with key stakeholders. While the vice-chancellor argues that there is enough alignment to push ahead, it is obvious that there are prominent faculty and alums who are not aligned and, worse, have chosen to be vociferous and often credible, if not convincing, opponents.

Their opposition stems, on the one hand, from the very nature of the new programme. DU seems to be proposing not just a four-year liberal education, but a two-, three- and four-year degree rolled into one, with a two-year foundation curriculum common to all. The fundamental problem with this is the "character" of a two-year education, and what it seeks to achieve, is vastly different from that of a four-year programme, leaving students, teachers and parents alike confused about the need for the new model. On the other hand, there seems to be widespread resentment and criticism for the haste in which the reforms are being implemented.

Perhaps a better alternative to overhauling the DU system in this way, while also offering a best-in-class liberal education, would be to carve out only select colleges (existing or new) to provide a genuinely liberal four-year educational experience to students, backed by a well thought-through institutional structure, culture and curriculum. After all, it is unlikely that a student at St Stephens or Lady Shri Ram will want to exit with a two-year diploma. At the very least, DU may do well to clearly segregate the two-, three- and four-year tracks from each other, with a clearly delineated pedagogic purpose and syllabus for each. In any case, we certainly hope that the DU storm does not blemish the prospects of a strong four-year liberal education model for India. We, at least, remain unwaveringly committed to it.

The authors are with 9.9 Media. Sinha is the Founding Dean of ISB and a Founder & Trustee of Ashoka University. Mrudula is an engineer who was liberally educated at the Young India Fellowship