Edited by: Aneesha Chandra
The Spring semester is here. Once again, it is that time of the year when my peers and I contemplate the benefits of receiving a liberal arts education at a reputable institution such as Ashoka, which has become notorious for its recent scandals relating to academic freedom. Despite the criticism it has received, the university stands by its promise of giving students the best education possible. There is no doubt that Ashoka is one of the best institutions to offer holistic learning, especially given the structure of education it offers undergraduate students. Like every other liberal arts university, it prides itself on forcing us to take courses that promise to improve our critical thinking and writing skills. These are what we call ‘Foundation Courses’ or FCs.
For all the haters out there who say that we do not have a say in choosing the education we want at Ashoka because FCs are mandatory, think again. The university is not lying when it says that we have the freedom to explore disciplines and choose courses that best fit our interests. After all, each FC has three course offerings to choose from. We can choose course timings, professors, and even the order in which we take FCs. We do have a say in the matter.
The university uses its philosophy of FCs to push the idea that learning is fun. Each FC attempts to teach us a different, nuanced perspective using the same teaching methods. Provide voluminous readings, force discussion during classes, mandate class presentations, test all material, and voilà learning is made fun! Never mind the fact that interest has something to do with making learning fun.
As freshers, each of us believes that we will come out as new people after taking all nine FCs. We believe that we are well-equipped to solve any problem the world has to offer. After all, we have done nine independent courses. It is natural to assume that each of them will teach us something different. So what if some of the courses sound similar? If they are being offered as separate FCs, they for sure have something unique to offer. Take ‘Great Books’ and ‘Literature and the World’ for example. Though they ultimately use the same teaching methods to teach us identical skills, somehow both have unique ways of getting on our nerves.
From the university’s point of view, ‘Great Books’ aims to expand the scope of our reading in general. We study books from different fields and time periods to practice novel ways of thinking. On the other hand, ‘Literature and the World’ hopes to broaden our knowledge of literature and introduce dense reads from the subject. However, even to literature majors the difference seems inflated. ‘Great Books’ has become literature-esque over the last few semesters. It’s unjust to expect anything different; a professor of literature cannot favour books about atoms over books of fiction, can they?
Cynics would maintain that the two FCs are not redundant. I would ask them to do two things: read the Ashoka website and sit in both classes. It seems like even the university is unclear on the difference between both courses. The description for ‘Great Books’ with Professor Madhavi Menon is copied and pasted in the ‘Literature and the World’ section on the website. And they expect us to buy their argument that each FC has something special to offer!
Some of us who make the ambitious mistake of taking both courses in the same semester get confused and burnt out more easily. Imagine going to a ‘Great Books’ class having prepared for a quiz, only to realise that you studied the readings for ‘Literature and the World’ instead. Sometimes, the readings are common for both courses and you may be able to salvage the quiz. The other times, it is pure disaster. Instead of writing about the character Antonio, you end up writing about Antony. Even though both courses teach you the same analytical skills, no amount of impromptu analysis can save your grade because of the technical differences between the characters with the same name.
Speaking of names, deception is built into the nature of FCs. ‘Principles of Science’ looks at scientific theories and teaches problem solving techniques. ‘Quantitative Reasoning and Mathematical Thinking’ teaches the exact same thing under a different name. Spotting a difference between the two syllabi proves to be a challenge even for those of us with twenty-twenty vision. Estimation, probability, and interpreting linear and non-linear graphs are some of the core concepts taught in both the courses. Even the university website says so. If they expect us to take both courses seriously, the least they can do is put in some effort to make the course descriptions sound different! Fortunately for us, the overlap in the syllabi means that we probably do not have to study for one of the courses if we are already done with the other. Chances are the question papers will be the same with a few minor changes, like making a ‘197’ in a question to ‘791’ and switching up the order of questions.
In all seriousness, it would save us a few wasted course slots if redundant FCs were combined. Seeing that the syllabi and learning outcomes for PoS and QRMT are similar, would it not make sense for the two to become one course? This would also make the course more effective because the commonality in the styles of thinking will inspire us to make more connections between the bodies of literature in sciences and mathematics; it would bring out the nuances of interdisciplinary learning. Similarly, if ‘Great Books’ and ‘Literature and the World’ were to marry, we would get to use the vacant course slot to explore something outside our major-minor trajectories and make the most of our education at Ashoka. What will it take for the university to understand this?