Indigenus

No doubt a lot of options but slightly confusing as to what is the difference between path-3 & path-5, path-1 & path-4b & path-6 in terms of motivation and goals especially if all the different streams are not offered at the same place.

The education landscape as laid out is quite confusing. Why mess with a 3-year B.Sc and a 4-year B.Sc. How does one distinguish between 4 Vs 3 year programs? Why not just make all Bachelor programs 4 years?

Subhra mentions that the 4-year B.Sc programs enable students to enter work force directly. What about students who opt for the 3-year B.Sc? Are we indirectly forcing them to go in for MSc or PhD?

The objective of any undergraduate training program should be to equip students with the knowledge and skills that will allow them to be competent and entrepreneurial in the field they chose to be in. Most of our science programs at undergraduate levels do not do any research based or hands-on learning. This is a gaping hole in the system. Students come out with excellent theoretical knowledge with zero practical experience. This clearly under prepares them to enter the industry. It also prevents them from making a clear decision between higher learning and job.

A major overhaul on “how” science is taught at school and college is most crucial! Increasing the number of options with no change in the way of instruction is useless. We will only be creating a nation of smart young people who are clueless on how to be entrepreneurs.

Is there anyone who really believes that a donkey will become a horse if s/he carries on doing the same thing for few more years and/or under a differently named scheme?

It’s not the duration of the course or name that matters. It's the quality of education, coaching procedure and long term goal (from the macro level). Almost all Indian institutes are teaching institutes, including the high profile ones. And only teaching cannot sustain the quality of an educational/research institute or university for long. All the famous universities and institutes in the world are known mainly for their original research, not teaching (but to get great quality of research you should have a good, well planned teaching program).
Even faculties in high profile Indian institutes like IITs and (new) IIScs are evaluated for their teaching, not for original research. The main problem is our current education system systemically discards talented students and promotes coaching, private-tuition and mugging up from primary school to university. We all know how the quality of research is degrading in India. And that will not be affected much by changing the duration or name of any course.

The proposed new scheme for college education in science could be good. But the problem is not really the number of years that a student spends in college. The problem is how science is taught and what the goal of the Universities is. I teach in a college and when we go to correct examination papers, we are told to pass as many students as possible. Secondly, the syllabus can be anything, but the questions in the examinations should make students study the subject analytically. Now, whether they study microbiology or chemistry, all they do is memorise answers from "guides" and get good marks. Whether they do this for 3 years or 4 years makes no difference.