RV University Professor Dr Dwarika Prasad Uniyal speaks about the challenges in teaching, evaluates National Education Policy, elaborates on the use of AI in educational institutions and how institutions are dealing with mental health issues that students face.
Published Sep 08, 2024 | 12:07 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 10, 2024 | 12:01 PM
RV University VC Prof Dr Dwarika Prasad Uniyal
Professor Dr Dwarika Prasad Uniyal is a distinguished academician and a versatile professional, currently serving as the Vice-Chancellor (in charge) and Professor at RV University in Bengaluru. With over 25 years of experience in both academia and industry, he has held key positions at prestigious institutions including IIM Kashipur.
He also served the Government of India in the past, at various levels including as a Professor of Management at Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, where he trained civil servants. In an exclusive conversation with South First, Prof Uniyal discussed a range of important topics, including the National Education Policy, research, and mental health and skill development among students. Excerpts from the interview:
Q. What’s your thought on the current education system?
A. Mixed Thoughts! Having spent almost three decades in academia, I’ve witnessed significant changes across K-12 education, undergraduate, postgraduate, and higher technical education. The academic scene has become more flexible, allowing a more liberal approach – not just within liberal arts colleges, but across the vocations. This has enabled students to pick and choose what they want to study. This shift is a far cry from the rigid system of 30 years ago, where the options were limited to a handful of fields like defence, Chartered Accountancy, medical, or engineering.
Government’s involvement in ensuring quality of education has significantly increased, leading to the establishment of more IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS. At the same time, since the early 2000s, we’ve seen significant investment from the private sector, with academic trusts, philanthropists, and business leaders contributing to the creation of large, private universities, creating more opportunities for students to pursue higher education, which I see as a positive trend.
Despite these advancements, I have mixed feelings. Even after 70 or 80 years, our gross enrolment ratio remains at just 27 percent. This leads to a lopsided development approach, where we have islands of excellence in elite institutions, surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
To address this, we need to scale up undergraduate education, which requires a shift in government strategy. The IIMs, for example, should not be limited to management education. As a former dean and someone who has taught in almost 12 out of 21 IIMs, I believe these institutions have the capacity, infrastructure, and potential to expand into offering undergraduate degrees.
Q. Will National Education Policy change the way a student learns?
A. The new education policy is a commendable one. It was long overdue. For decades, we lacked a comprehensive framework to guide the direction our education system should take. This new policy is well-conceived, and it’s evident that the team behind it worked diligently, incorporating inputs from various sections of society, including academics and industry.
However, implementing the policy is a significant challenge. Our current infrastructure, faculty training, and the ambitious proposals of the NEP require substantial investment from universities – both in terms of infrastructure and human resources – to realise even a fraction of its vision. For example, when a computer science major wants to minor in design, or a design major wants to minor in psychology, it creates logistical challenges. We need extra classrooms, additional faculty training, and more complex timetables, making it a difficult task.
Similarly, the NEP introduces multiple entry and exit points within a degree program. Until we reach a stage where the academic bank of credit is fully operational across universities, this will be challenging. Issues like fee disparities and course mapping make seamless transfers difficult, and achieving the NEP’s vision of multiple entry and exit points will require much greater coordination between institutions.
At the policy level, changes must start as early as grade 6 if we want to foster a more multidisciplinary, open, and liberal arts-focused education. The current system for grades 10, 11, and 12 is still divided into science, commerce, and humanities streams, which doesn’t align with how we run universities. Universities operate in domains like computer science, film, media, and design, but this isn’t reflected in our school system, except perhaps through electives.
Q. What do you think of allegations that multiple entry, exit points in NEP can be detrimental to students?
A. This is a new initiative, and it may be too early to fully assess its impact. Additionally, the word “allegation” has a negative connotation, so I would frame this more as increased flexibility being offered to students. I’ve seen cases where students have had to drop out for various reasons – health issues, a death in the family, or financial constraints. In the past, if they dropped out, they lost the entire year and had nothing to show for it. At least in this new system, they come away with something. Over time, with the credits they’ve earned and the certificates they’ve received, they may be able to re-enter the university system seamlessly.
There are situations where a full degree may not be necessary and just a skill certificate could suffice. Under this new system, if a student exits after the first year, they receive a certificate; after the second year, a diploma; after the third year, a degree; and after the fourth year, a degree with honours. This approach ensures that the time spent at university isn’t wasted. The commercial viability of that certificate or diploma needs to be validated. It should be recognised that even if a student doesn’t complete their full degree, their skills could still be sufficient for an entry-level job.
Q.How does your university address mental health issues that students struggle with?
A. We are very mindful of this issue, as it reflects the times we live in. In today’s world, with technology, social media, and peer pressure, students’ mental health is increasingly affected.
At RV University, we have established a full-fledged counselling department and are continually increasing the number of counsellors available. When necessary, we also bring in external experts to assist. Students have access to counselling sessions, and our faculty are trained to identify certain triggers. If a faculty member notices that a student may be facing mental health challenges, they can refer them to the counselling department for support. This is one aspect of our approach.
Q. What do you think about the general assumption that engineers are not industry ready?
A. Yes, because much of the engineering curriculum requires updating. However, simply upgrading the curriculum won’t be enough to make students job-ready, as the job market is constantly evolving. The speed at which job and skill requirements change far outpaces how quickly these changes are incorporated into the classroom, resulting in a significant lag that needs to be addressed.
In a sense, colleges often function like grammar teachers – they teach the fundamentals well, enabling students to become proficient in their fields. Whether a student becomes a novelist, a poet, or writes prose is something the industry determines. While we provide the foundational knowledge, the industry desires specific outcomes. To bridge this gap, the industry needs to engage with us more closely, offering insights on what additional skills are necessary to make graduates industry-ready.
Institutions like ours, along with our sister concerns such as RV College of Engineering and RVITM (RV Institute of Technology and Management), are working closely with the industry. They are setting up labs on campus, which is crucial for fostering this engagement. The industry must stop seeing educational institutions merely as filters or as places to recruit during placement season. They need to be involved from day one, not just at the final stage.
Q. How is your university utilising Artificial Intelligence?
Q. We have embraced AI, recognising that it’s not the enemy, but we also understand that AI is only as good as we are. The key is not about the answers AI provides but about the questions we ask. AI manifests in many different forms—it’s not just tools like ChatGPT or enhanced search engines. The real challenge is using AI to create better solutions and solve problems effectively.
If a student uses AI merely to complete an assignment or generate content, they fail. If AI is used to ask questions, they fail. We’re integrating AI in a way that faculty and students work together, using AI as a tool to solve problems and create better solutions in a more efficient way.
Of course, there are challenges. Faculty must reorient and rewire their teaching methods. Anything they teach can now be questioned, and I often tell my colleagues that we should cultivate a culture of asking “weird” questions. The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer. We must adapt to this new reality.
Entry-level software jobs are disappearing, which means we need to change our teaching approach. We must train our students to go beyond AI, to rise above it, and to excel in areas where AI can only assist. AI should be used primarily to solve problems, not just to find the right answers.
(Edited by Neena)
(South First is now on WhatsApp and Telegram)
