Responses to Professor Yashpal. Should Coaching Institutes Be Closed? Part II

I read the following article by Professor Yashpal. While I respect him as a scientist, I beg to differ from him on some points. The article is pasted after my points of difference.

1. Where is the syllabus tight and big? The IIT JEE syllabus is a subset of CBSE. It is a different matter that in most schools they just skim the surface instead of giving a scientific understanding of the concepts. (All the mathematics required to study IIT JEE physics is well within the syllabus of CBSE)

2. How many constants does a child come across during entire training of physics? Moreover in every IIT JEE exams all the constants are provided. As far as I understand, there won't be more than 12 odd constants , and it is not mandatory to memorize them. And coaching class don't simply program the children for memorizing these constants... they do something much more than that. They teach physics the way it is supposed to be taught. (Atleast I can say that about myself and most of my peers)

3. Doing well in IIT JEE is not just about making fast calculations. It is also about making correct equations and thinking about what equations would be useful. This requires IQ and proper understanding of physics.

4. Professors might have taken full night to solve an entrance paper, but the very same professors, when they had cleared IIT JEE they won't have taken as much time. Over a period of time the ability to solve certain types of problems can decline. That's a bogus logic. I am a professor of physics for IIT JEE , I can solve IIT JEE type problems quickly but perhaps if you give me some navier stokes equation or something , I might take an entire night, though I have studied it during my B.Tech (While a Fluid mechanics prof. may do it immediately). Just because a teacher is slow, nowhere warrants that the students also need to be slow.

5. The children do get as much time as they want to solve a problem during their practice sessions. (They are given take home assignments), Of course you can't give infinite time for a test however if you are suggesting a subjective type paper (as was in my times, 1995), I am game for it. But please understand the very student who is solving problems quickly in exams is able to do so because he has done so many problems taking his own time. (This experience makes the problems strike quickly).

6. Coaching institutes do not diminish bright students, they enhance them. Affordability of coaching is another matter altogether. It would be affordable if the government itself runs some good quality coaching institutes. The solution is not to close down the coaching institutes , rather the solution would be to either close down or upgrade the standards of education in formal schools. ( Every government leader should be willing to educate his kids in government institutions). For that matter the fee in formal schools is no less. An year of formal schooling in Delhi /NCR may cost as much as 1 lac rupees an year. So where is the air in that argument against coaching alone?

7. There is no tunnel vision anywhere. Only your thinking makes it so. IITians today are also as creative as ever. No basis has been provided in your allegation of "tunnel vision", has any survey been done? Or just a big shot saying something become an evidence in and of itself.
Something doesn't become truth just because a lobby of people shouts it aloud. No matter how big the lobby. It is quite possible that one person may be speaking the truth even if hundred people are saying otherwise. and vice versa is also possible.

8. Of course the Engineering students have to be taught Physics Chemistry and Mathematics. Atleast they should have a priority over the other subjects. Would you rather teach them History and Civics? They are never barred from studying literature and of course many IITians are avid readers and some of them authors too. Why should they not be taught Physics Chemistry and Mathematics? And Already many IITs do offer electives in humanities.









copied from : http://www.businessworld.in
/bw/2009_10_31_Should_Coaching_Institutes_Be_Closed.html
‘They Train Children Like Animals’

There seems to be some kind of deliberate or unintentional or accidental collusion between teaching and coaching. There is a special joy in making the syllabus as tight and big as possible. While examining the child — for example, for engineering — it is assumed that he knows everything, remembers everything — all the constants, all the variables. And he is expected to do it all very quickly.

If all that the coaching classes do is programme the mind to remember all these numbers, why have such a system? There is no need to cram the mind with irrelevant information when it is easily available. I would go so far as to say that students should be given all the constants on a sheet of paper. Special computers can have all those values — gravitational constant, Planck constant, time constant, etc.

Sometimes there are arithmetic calculations that need a lot of time. Coaching classes give tips on how to solve them fast. But why can’t the child be given a simple calculator for that? Even I have to think for half an hour for some of the questions. This has been tried with some IIT professors also, and they have taken a full night to solve the entrance paper.

The teaching shops especially train students to improve their speed; they give the children the same kinds of exercises over and over again so that they learn to do them fast. But I don’t see any logic in limiting the examination to a specified number of hours. What is the harm in giving the paper and asking the child to take as much time as needed to solve it? This will encourage the habit of thinking.

Coaching classes force you to have a tunnel vision. They create such pressure of time that the mind stops thinking creatively. They train children like animals to have a prescribed set of qualities and knowledge. Whereas, basically, you should try to judge whether the child has learnt how to think differently.

Even assessment is a difficult thing to design. If somebody does something special, is able to go off tangent and come up with something totally unexpected, then instead of rejecting it outright as incorrect, our evaluation system should be able to appreciate its uniqueness and reward the child accordingly. Coaching classes diminish the creative potential. They do not allow meandering and wandering in different directions for knowledge. Those who undergo a lot of coaching may get a lot of marks, but they come off worse as individuals.

Instead of increasing the capacity of institutes such as IITs and IIMs, a filtration system has been devised. There are different sets of holes and coaching institutes are the sieves that teach children how to fall through those holes.

It is not the fault of just the coaching institutes. Teaching institutes themselves want students who have a tunnel vision, who can walk like animals on a ledge. And coaching institutes provide them those. That is why courses have also been developed with a tunnel vision — engineering students study only physics, chemistry and maths. Why not literature too?
Then there is the question of stress. It is definitely established that a lot of stress on young minds for a long time permanently damages them. What we do is take some wonderfully bright people who work really hard, and through rigorous coaching, diminish them. Even those who are successful are diminished. Those who are unsuccessful are unhappy. Something needs to be done on that.

Coaching institutes charge lakhs. They take bright people, diminish them and promote discrimination because there might be many bright students who can’t afford the amounts demanded by these institutes. You are promoting a process of selection that rewards only those who can afford a certain kind of education. It has become almost fashionable to join coaching institutes. Question papers are also designed in such a way that you have to learn to pass through certain tunnels which only coaching institutes can teach you how to. And all this is being done at the cost of real creativity.