Proposal Critique — Devanand Kedia — Vice President
Link to complete proposals:
Proposal 1: To institute an interdisciplinary dual degree program that lets a student pursue their Bachelor’s degree in the parent department and the Master’s degree in the Department of his choice.
Need: There is a visible need for the institute to help in offering projects as well as courses to students from other departments, who otherwise cannot avail of features like a Minor or Flexi-electives. However, given the current trends observed in placements, we suspect that students would assemble in hordes to register for a Master’s degree either in Maths and Computing or in Computer Science.
Feasibility: There is little reason to believe that a Vice President has the power to change the academic curriculum, as a new one (with optional BTPs and other flexibilities) has already been in the pipeline for a very long time. Given that curriculum does not fall under the purview of the Vice President, the sheer absence of groundwork with regards to faculty approval in the proposal leads us to think that the Senate would not even want to consider a change as drastic as this.
Impact: As ambitious as it sounds, having a Master’s degree from a different department would open up a lot of doors to the students undertaking the program. Nonetheless, a fear persists that this would not benefit the student community uniformly.
Proposal 2: Establishment of a Digital Cell
Need: This reporter would love to see a single online portal that can handle both Guest Room booking and printing a Grade Card without the hassles of going to the SBI, or getting a signature from the faculty adviser. There is already a Gymkhana post for a Technology Secretary who could be tasked with the above job as well.
Feasibility: There have been numerous proposals in the past that have aimed to digitize all offline procedures in the campus, but to no avail. There is clearly inertia from the administration to bring it all under one roof, and until the Vice President can assure us that this will no longer be an issue, we remain skeptical of the proposal’s implementation.
Impact: It doesn’t require a lot of ingenuity to realise that this is also quite a drastic move. Should it be executed to perfection, the benefits would be tremendous, not only to the entire student community but also the administrative sections of the institute.
Proposal 3: Semester Review and Exit Review of the VP and the General Secretaries, TSG
Need: Absolutely required. The candidate refers to both TSA’s and Awaaz’s reports that conclusively prove that the general student community would strongly prefer a more accountable body of elected officials.
Feasibility: Very feasible. It isn’t an unimaginable ask of an elected official to present their progress report twice in the academic session. The only question remains about potential impeachment in case of utter neglect on part of the official in question. Offering media bodies like TSA and Awaaz more free rein to review their tenure would help immensely in making the process smoother.
Impact: This would massively speed up execution of proposals by office-bearers. It would also enlighten the rest of the student community about the hurdles, administrative or otherwise, faced in implementation. If, as the proposal suggests, this would lead to implementation of revolutionary ideas, the institute would be served very well.
Proposal 4: Greater involvement of PG and RS students in student-run bodies
Need: Increasing PG and RS students’ participation in societies and research groups will solve the problem of the lack of representation of these groups in student activities.
Feasibility: The candidate offers no specifics as to how he envisions his plan to be implemented. Though he has claimed that Heads and Governors of student bodies with newly inducted PG/RS members have reported growth without naming them, severe time incompatibility issues and hall segregations have made it difficult to engage with the post-graduate community at large. Their under-representation, even in GC events such as Elocution or Vocals that do not require massive group efforts, is a testament to the challenges posed to executing such a proposal.
Impact: Making the PG and RS students a greater part of the student bodies will lead to holistic development, while improving cohesion among UG and PG students at the same time. However, the fact that most of the student bodies are not Gymkhana affiliated and have their own modus operandi could pose a serious roadblock to the implementation of this proposal.
Proposal 5: Gatekeeping Program — Mandatory weekly hourlong session on identifying symptoms of depression among students
Need: Recent incidents on campus have led us to strongly believe that not enough of us are sufficiently good at identifying depression among our friends and neighbours. Given the gravity of the issue, we perceive it to be a welcome measure.
Feasibility: Asking for one hour of a week may not seem much on its face, but its implementation relies heavily on the quality of coursework provided. A fundamental flaw with the proposal would be the unnecessarily frequent visits to the counselling center by students without psychological distress but who simply don’t attend classes.
Also, there is little mention about how and when they’ll conduct the prescribed regular tests to assess students’ well-being.
Impact: It would certainly make students more aware of the early-onset symptoms of ill mental health. However, this measure does little to address the issue of poor treatment being provided in the Counselling Center itself. Should any part of the execution fail, either in coursework or in conduction of regular tests, the costs associated are too high.
