15.11.2016
Sent by E-Mail and signed one by India Post for Record purpose
From
Prof. R. RAMARAJU
Director & Head,
Designed Environment Academy & Research Institute (DEAR INSTITUTE),
Thirupainjili Road, Pandiyapuram,
Tiruchirappalli District, Tamilnadu – 621 213.
To
| 1. |
The President Council of Architecture e-mail: [email protected] |
2. |
The Secretary to the Government Department of Higher Education E-mail: [email protected] |
Dear Sirs,
Sub: Minimum Standards at Higher Education, particularly in Architecture.
As we know, the term ‘Minimum Standards’ (MS) is being pronounced widely in the matters of approvals, recognitions, affiliations, etc., at the time of granting by the concerned Authorities. Many of us look it as a goal to be achieved. Only at the time of Inspections, the pages of ‘Minimum Standards’ (MS) are opened and looked into various clauses for trying to match our positions with its provisions. The ‘Minimum Standards’ (MS) has again to wait for next inspection to get our touch. That is the Status, the MS has now.
As pointed out in my earlier communication on Faculty status at some public Institutions, many (all) of them are found lacking far below the MS. Some of them even do not have 20% of MS, but still claim to be ‘Center of Excellence’. If so, there could be only one thing correct. Either the claim or the MS must be wrong.
However closely looking at MS, wherever the Statutory Regulations are made to govern or to regulate ‘Quality’ of something, the necessity of Minimum Standards (MS) comes in place to identify and eliminate the less quality things. That means MS is for the purpose of elimination and definitely not for improving the quality. Let us look at one simple example. The purpose of passing Mark 50 in the Examination is the level fixed as ‘minimum’ to identify and eliminate the failed ones. Fixing and enforcing 50 Marks for ‘Pass’ will no way help to get First Class, Distinction, Outstanding, etc. They are to be differently and separately dealt with to quantify various levels of improvement of quality till 100 by grading. This improvement of quality is nowhere connected with ‘Minimum Standards’. MS is the minimum as 50 Marks out of ultimate level of 100. We must be clear that the purpose of MS is for the bare minimum specified for quality. Thus, let us be clear that MS is not meant for improving or excelling in quality but to maintain the minimum quality.
One more Principle of MS must be understood first, while framing Norms of MS. The challenge here is that MS should be truly at the minimum adequate level on certain important factors to constitute a person for the required purpose. For example, broken hands or legs of mine cannot be called as ‘Ramaraju’, but even without those hands and legs, I (my body) shall be called only by my name. So, we must understand this Principle of MS, the crucial factors and matters that constitute a person with MINIMUM ADEQUATE abilities, eligible to function as an ‘Architect’.
High quality, improvement and excellence are not at all in the picture, while we are talking about ‘Minimum Standards’ (MS). They have to be dealt with on different platform. Without understanding this, often the MS is framed expecting it as a way for higher performance and higher quality. This is eventually resulting in conflict of interests. The conflict of this ‘Minimum & (towards) Maximum’ in the same Tool of MS is finally ending in great disorder. Often many Norms prescribed by CoA during the recent past years (not valid is different aspect) are contradicting with its purpose of minimum for which it is meant. One simple example of requirement & age of Computers and internet connectivity in the CoA Norms would clear this statement. Not more than three years old 40 Computers with internet connectivity is the requirement. School is only a learning place, not a working place where all should be on a Computer. Why should have all 40 and why not a minimum. Secondly, why they should not be more than 3 years. They must be adequate to run the programmes listed in the syllabus. Thirdly, why all should have internet connectivity. What is the point we would like to achieve here. Please note the life of Computer writing this communication is seventh year running. I am confident that the so-called Norms itself might have been written on the Computer more than 3 years old. I am not against all these things. But my point is here that whether the provision is talking about ‘Minimum or Maximum’.
The MS should be truly ‘the minimum’ and less than that nothing should be acceptable. But it is never been fully enforced or practically implemented at the ground. Many Authorities grant approvals or sanctions on meeting some % of MS Norms as their lowest limit, defeating the very purpose and term of Minimum Standards. If a pass Mark is 50, achieving 49 is naturally declared as ‘Fail’ only. Unfortunately none of us are clear about the Standards and Systems.
Net result is that neither the MS is a minimum nor it is achieved. Currently, the goal of most of the Institutions ends normally with achieving MS. Since there is no other Standards available for comparison, Regulators are trying to stringent the provisions on one side and the Implementers are trying to dilute them on the other side. Moreover MS is a STATIC TOOL, with which there is no scope for improvement and quality assurance. Hence, the so-called ‘Minimum Standards’ is not sufficient to ensure the quality of Education or its improvement in any manner.
The recent Draft on ‘MINIMUM STANDARDS’ circulated by CoA is not reflecting the true Principles of MS as explained above. Entirely it must be relooked into. There are many provisions illegal and even some of them fall outside the scope of Architects Act 1972. Therefore, I look forward to your immediate intervention to ensure not only the Draft MS but also the functions of CoA are in order within the law.
With regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Prof. R. Ramaraju, Director, DEAR Institute.
Copy mail sent to other concerned Officers of DHE for their consideration & follow up action.