August 20th was the day for the speeches of the candidates running for the 2nd year Ministry of Learning (MoL) position.
First, Darshan Ramakrishnan started by discussing how he gathered information from the student body and their issues and compiled them in his manifesto. He promises that he is “someone who will work with you tirelessly.” After his speech, the student body raised concerns about the feedback form that Darshan mentioned. They informed the candidate why feedback forms are kept anonymous, but Darshan reasoned by saying the feedback may be available to people taking up the course in the upcoming years. Another student raised a concern about the candidate’s point about the course catalogue being released at the start of every academic year. They stated that there are variables of new faculty being added in and faculty dropping some courses, and they are questioning how Darshan will take that into account. He responded that the course catalogue is only for required courses so students can map out their major requirements. There was another point raised about the PSV merger with MoL (with the reason given that seniors could help out with juniors struggling with their respective courses), but PSV is not tied with MoL in any way and is a separate operating body. The candidate clarified that, be it with PSV or not, there must be a support system established that allows juniors with course-specific frustrations with seniors and allows that interaction.
Purvikalyani Prasannah comes straight to the point by elaborating on points in her manifesto. She said she “sees a great need” for a streamlined way of approaching the section swaps, which should happen before week 3. She also emphasises that she would work closely with the discipline coordinators to bring out a flowchart of courses so that students can plan what prerequisites to take up. She assures that she will always be “present, active and approachable” since she has always been an active member of the student body and has displayed it through constantly attending all the events and meetings held by the student government and body. She hopes that her “dedication and presence” are communicated so that the student body makes an informed vote. One of the students asked Purvi to elaborate on the system of swapping sections, to which she responded that the required courses must have their timetables fixed and then start working with that to move forward with the system.
Tara Govil was up next, and she, too, started explaining the points in her manifesto. She talked about how she felt that every class needed “at least a 15-minute break” and ensure that the course instructor gave students that time. She spoke about how lunch classes overlap with the lunchtime period and wants to work with the food committee and the academic office to extend the lunch times so that students don’t go hungry. She also touched upon tutorials for classes that did not presently have tutorials and talked about one-on-one tutorial sessions with the professor or teaching assistants. Tara emphasised on wanting interactive classes and making feedback open on how to make certain classes interactive rather than lecture-heavy because she sees people “doomscrolling in class”. She touched up on the buddy and accountability system because she did not have enough time to complete her speech. The student body brought up a concern about how demanding breaks and interactive classes infringe upon the professor’s time and effort. To this, Tara clarified that it be a suggestion from the academic office and OSL rather than a demand that is imposed on the professors. Another student wanted to clarify the one-on-one tutorial sessions because they sounded similar to office hours. The candidate explained that office hours are extremely short, and if there was a way to increase the time for office hours, that would be really helpful.
Trishna Saha was up last. They prefaced their goals by talking about how they would ensure that the work of the previous MoLs put forth like the updated documents of the UGC 4-year guidelines and FAQ document about the academic procedure in Krea be released as soon as possible. They go over the points in their manifesto. Trishna talks about the challenges of having a mentor who is not in the same discipline as the students and how mapping out the trajectory will be a little harder. Thus, they want to introduce peer advisory that includes 3rd and 4th-year students who can shed light on the same. They also touch on email etiquette templates to be sent across the student body, as mentioned in their manifesto. One thing worth mentioning is both Trishna and Purvi talk about promoting Krea Talks by getting in touch with clubs that fall under the common purview of the talk happening.
During the informal session, Harini Bhatia, the MoL for the batch of 2021 in Krea for the past three years, applauded the candidates for their efforts and for standing for the highly competitive position. She had some issues to bring about certain systems that the candidates offered to bring about. The system of streamlining the process of asking questions about courses and professors makes it a burden. Messaging on “On Campus” gives access to anyone to answer and differing opinions can be taken into account. The more streamlined it becomes, the assigned people to answer questions about courses or professors feel pressured, which makes other people averse to answering questions.
Harini then addresses Tara’s point on making classes more interactive by talking about how it is the student’s responsibility to pay attention in class. She brings back the point of infringing on the autonomy of professors in the way they conduct classes and most of them are willing to take feedback on how to make the classes interactive. So, Harini suggests not standardising things like this and rather talking to the professor and making sure MoLs are “not here to solve problems for [the student body]”. Rather, they are guiding them through the process. Harini then shifts to Darshan and his point about monthly meetings with the discipline coordinators in his manifesto and speech. She points out that it might become redundant, and many people won’t attend. Darshan tweaked it to have it every term. Another point brought up was the feedback being public. Darshan said it would be something similar to “Rate My Professor”. Harini pointed out that the feedback form is not for the professor’s character but how professors go about teaching the course and how the course is structured. Thus, having a “Rate My Professor” will not hold well in our university as the professors may not accept it.
The student body asked about how the candidates, if in the position of MoL, were going to work with required courses that are capped. One suggestion was that the faculty could take the course twice a year, but Trishna retaliated that the faculty was allowed to take only four courses a year. The candidates all collectively agreed upon an increase in faculty. They want to keep the course demands in mind due to the increase in students in the university; hence want the faculty in proportion to the students.
This brings us to the end of the 2nd year MoL speeches. Looking forward to the debates on 30th August!
Comments