The National Education Policy has come up with many transformative recommendations at all levels of education. Many of them would have far-reaching consequences. We focus on one such recommendation aimed at higher education — the introduction of a four-year undergraduate programme with the provision of direct admission to PhD after the FYUP without the need for a master’s degree. This seems to be inspired by the practices followed by many leading universities abroad, especially in the United States of America, which requires 12+4 years of education to be eligible for admission to graduate studies. But replicating it in India across the board could have serious implications.

The role of a master’s degree in India must be contextualised differently for different streams of education. For instance, a four-year BTech/BE programme in engineering is designed to train students as professional engineers in a most comprehensive manner. Those who intend to pursue research in engineering, therefore, can do so without having to go through a master’s degree, such as an MTech/ME. This makes a lot of sense. In fact, it is observed that an MTech in India adds little value to the career path of an engineer who obtains a BTech from premier institutes. Incidentally, most MTech courses in the Indian Institutes of Technology, for instance, happen to be largely filled by graduates from lesser-known engineering schools who want to get an exposure to the academic excellence of IITs. Likewise for medicine, the bachelor’s degree (MBBS, including mandatory in-house training) trains candidates quite effectively to work as doctors (general practitioners). Of course, a master’s degree in the medical profession (MS or MD) is also highly valuable as it enables candidates to specialise and practise in specific domains. Further higher levels of master’s (MCh, DM and so on) and PhD degrees are meant for super-specialisation and to push the frontiers of knowledge.

Turning to Arts, Sciences and Social Sciences, the picture is somewhat different. An undergraduate programme, even in the best of institutions in India as it stands now (three-year honours programme), is barely adequate to train students as professional subject specialists. It may create a foundation of knowledge of the subject but it does not provide the ‘mastery’ that is expected of a subject specialist working in any professional stream such as research, academics, corporates, the government and civil society. The two-year master’s degree (MA/ MSc) proves to be a critical value-addition to the knowledge base in the subject after an undergraduate training. In fact, one may go to the extent of suggesting that the level of mastery acquired by graduates in engineering (BTech) or in medicine (MBBS) is attained by students of Arts, Sciences, and Social Sciences only after completing their master’s (MA/MSc). A further advanced master’s degree like an MPhil in these areas is almost as weak as MTech in terms of value-addition. Indeed, the scrapping of the MPhil by the NEP is a positive move.

The proposed FYUP is designed to overcome the limitation of the existing three-year undergraduate programme by introducing an additional year of training. It also has the laudable objective of exposing undergraduates to other areas of knowledge in addition to the core subject of specialisation in these four years. But this creates a trap because the additional year of training in the new programme does not necessarily reflect greater coverage of courses in the core subject area. As a matter of fact, a quick look at the course requirements of the existing three-year honours programme in comparison with the proposed FYUP reveals that the core subject carries 108 out of 148 credits in the former case while it carries only 80 out of 160 credits in the latter. This means that the training in the core subject is actually getting squeezed in the proposed FYUP. Hence, it is difficult to visualise how it can effectively compensate for the academic value-addition of the skipped master’s degree. In terms of competence and knowledge in their respective fields, a fresh FYUP graduate can in no imaginable way be compared with graduates in Engineering (BTech) and Medicine (MBBS).

One may argue that the pre-PhD course requirements will effectively bridge this knowledge gap created by the lack of a master’s degree if they choose to proceed to PhD directly after the FYUP. But as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, the pre-PhD courses to be offered have a minimum requirement of only 16 credits, including courses on research ethics and research methods, and that too only for one year. This is in no way commensurate with the MA course requirement of 64 credits, almost entirely devoted to the core subject and spread over two years. Indeed, the leading universities in the US and Canada that follow this FYUP to PhD route invariably place an enormous emphasis on pre-PhD courses, culminating in comprehensive examinations in multiple sub-areas of the core subject spread over at least two years. We must also acknowledge that only a handful of Indian universities can compare with the level, quality and rigour of post-graduate courses offered by these leading global universities. The quality variation at the undergraduate level in Indian colleges and universities appears to be even more stark. One can imagine the level and the quality of education that will be imparted in undergraduate colleges under the FYUP. Therefore, the option of skipping the master’s to proceed to a PhD in India may leave candidates with alarmingly inadequate training and skills.

We understand that the NEP has not explicitly recommended abolishing the MA the way it has eliminated the MPhil which we are in complete agreement with. But once the option of skipping the MA is introduced, it may become the norm, making it a redundant degree leading to its natural death. But with India’s growing economy, the demand for highly trained professionals (subject specialists) with mastery in Arts, Sciences and Social Sciences will continue to expand. As argued, FYUP graduates will not be suitable to fill this gap, making it essential to retain a strong master’s programme in our universities.

While allowing direct transition to PhD from the FYUP, the policy should be to admit students to an integrated master’s/PhD programme of up to six years duration with a rigorous course work requirement for at least two years and include an exit option after that for those who either wish to leave with just a master’s degree or are found unsuitable to proceed to a PhD. This is a standard practice in leading universities in the USand Canada that follow a direct route from the FYUP to PhD without compromising on the rigorous post-graduate course work for two years leading to the award of a master’s degree. After all, we should not produce a doctor of Philosophy who is a master of none.

Amit S. Ray is Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. V. Upadhyay is a retired professor, Department of Humanities and Social Science. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Views are personal