UGC Proposal to Give Practical Work to Students, A 1970s Vision That Still Resonates
In May 1970, the University Grants Commission (UGC) proposed a fundamental reorientation of degree courses. The plan was to combine two theoretical subjects with one practical subject, creating a curriculum that would bridge the gap between classroom learning and real-world application. The subjects identified for this experiment included physics, chemistry, biology, and public health on one track, and economics, commerce, and Panchayati Raj or co-operative societies on another. Under this scheme, every student would have to undergo one year of practical experience in the field or factory. The announcement was made by Dr. Malcolm S. Adiseshiah, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Madras, who inaugurated a two-week “Contact Seminar” for college teachers participating in a two-year correspondence course for a diploma in higher education.
Dr. Adiseshiah’s diagnosis of the problem with India’s education system was sharp and remains relevant. He said that the present system was “too much urban oriented” and needed to be given a “rural bias.” This was not a criticism of cities but a recognition that India lived in its villages. A university education that prepared students only for urban, white-collar jobs was failing the vast majority of the population. The practical work requirement was designed to expose students to the realities of rural life, to the challenges of agriculture, to the functioning of local governance, and to the operations of small-scale industry.
Madurai University had been selected as one of the universities in the south for introducing the new curriculum. The Board of Studies in Madras University was working out a similar scheme to be tried in some of the colleges situated in rural areas. The choice of rural colleges was deliberate. The experiment was not to be tested in the privileged, well-funded institutions of the cities but in the resource-constrained colleges of the villages. If it worked there, it could work anywhere.
Dr. Adiseshiah also wanted educators to study the function of the evaluation system and combine various methods to judge the performance of students. This was a critique of the examination-centric model of education, which measured only the ability to memorise and regurgitate. A student who could recite the principles of Panchayati Raj but had never attended a gram sabha meeting was not educated; he was trained. The evaluation system needed to reflect the practical orientation of the curriculum.
He noted that at present, 30 per cent of students came from 20 per cent of society. This was a stark admission of the elite capture of higher education. The children of the privileged were overrepresented, while the children of farmers, labourers, and artisans were underrepresented. Steps had to be taken to extend education on a wider basis. The practical work requirement could be one such step. A student from a rural background, with practical experience in agriculture, might have an advantage over a city-bred student with only theoretical knowledge. The proposal had the potential to democratise higher education.
The proposal also had implications for the curriculum itself. A student studying economics would not just learn about supply and demand curves; he would also visit a co-operative society and understand how it functioned. A student studying public health would not just learn about epidemiology; she would also work in a primary health centre and understand the challenges of delivering healthcare in a rural setting. The practical work requirement would transform the syllabus from a list of topics to be covered to a set of problems to be solved.
Dr. Adiseshiah wanted the organisers of correspondence courses to prepare a report so that similar courses could be organised for other college teachers. The emphasis on teacher training was crucial. A curriculum reform is only as good as the teachers who implement it. Unless teachers were trained to supervise practical work, to evaluate it, and to integrate it with theoretical learning, the reform would fail.
The UGC proposal of 1970 was never fully implemented. The reasons are many: lack of resources, resistance from teachers, and a political economy that favoured the expansion of white-collar education over the deepening of practical skills. But the idea did not die. It resurfaced in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which called for vocational education to be integrated into mainstream schooling, and for students to have exposure to practical skills from Class VI onwards. The NEP’s emphasis on internships, apprenticeships, and project-based learning is a direct descendant of the 1970 proposal.
The relevance of the proposal remains. India still has a largely urban-biased education system. Students still graduate without knowing how to apply their knowledge. The rural sector still suffers from a lack of trained professionals. The gap between the 30 per cent and the 20 per cent has narrowed, but it has not closed. The children of the privileged still have access to better schools and better opportunities. The proposal’s vision of a more practical, more rural, and more equitable education system is as urgent today as it was in 1970.
The UGC’s 1970 proposal was not just a policy document; it was a diagnosis of a deeper malaise. The malaise was the disconnect between education and life. The cure was practical work. Fifty years later, the diagnosis still holds. The cure has yet to be fully applied.
A Hundred Years Ago: Water Scarcity in Bangalore
A hundred years ago, on May 11, 1926, The Hindu reported on a water scarcity in Bangalore caused by the failure of the Besargatta tank, despite an expenditure of Rs. 2 lakhs on repairs. The government ordered an immediate investigation by a board consisting of V. Rangaswami Iyengar (Retired Director of Industries), J. Bhore (Chief Engineer), Seshachar (P.W.D. Secretary), S.R. Venkatasubbe Rao (Executive Engineer, Water-supply), and Sir M. Visveswaraya as President. The report’s conclusion was stark: “Water scarcity continues as before.” A hundred years later, as Bangalore (now Bengaluru) faces a water crisis of its own, the echo of that conclusion is haunting.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What was the UGC’s proposal announced by Dr. Malcolm S. Adiseshiah in 1970?
A1: The UGC proposed to reorient degree courses by combining two theoretical subjects with one practical subject, requiring every student to undergo one year of practical experience in the field or factory. The identified subjects included physics, chemistry, biology, public health, economics, commerce, and Panchayati Raj.
Q2: What was Dr. Adiseshiah’s criticism of the existing education system?
A2: He criticised the system as being “too much urban oriented” and needing a “rural bias.” He also noted that 30 per cent of students came from 20 per cent of society, indicating an elite capture of higher education that needed to be democratised.
Q3: Which universities were selected to introduce the new curriculum?
A3: Madurai University was selected as one of the universities in the south for introducing the new curriculum. The Board of Studies in Madras University was working out a similar scheme to be tried in some colleges situated in rural areas.
Q4: What did Dr. Adiseshiah say about the evaluation system?
A4: He wanted educators to study the function of the evaluation system and combine various methods to judge the performance of students, moving away from an examination-centric model that only measured memorisation.
Q5: What was the outcome of the 1926 investigation into Bangalore’s water scarcity?
A5: Despite the formation of a high-level board headed by Sir M. Visveswaraya, the conclusion was stark: “Water scarcity continues as before.” A hundred years later, Bengaluru still faces water crises, making the echo of that report haunting.
