Departments which Lead Colleges

 

There are huge campuses in all countries where reputation never sleeps. The moment you drop the name of the campus, lips round for an appreciative 'oh' or spread for an admiring 'ah'! These master campuses have decades of reputation in academics and student achievements. These campuses have the spread, feel and presence with an X factor which often only those who were/are inside will be more able to feel and not always able to explain. At more visible levels, it is more about buildings, lab equipment, shady, cobbled pathways or the amphitheater. These colleges have their reputation built up student by batch over the years.

Though the mammoth totality which we call campus is represented as singular, the teaching departments (depts), Cells, Clubs and similar bodies evenly/unevenly would have contributed to the status to which it has risen over decades. Still there are certain depts in these colleges which stand out head and shoulders above the rest with the sheer weight of what they attempt and achieve. There are many leading colleges where their reputation single-handedly rests on certain teaching depts. The reasons why it happens thus must be a primer for the aspiring colleges and depts.

In many of these colossal campuses, the reputation of the campuses has been built on a number of key teachers. Some of them were/ are mavericks, scholars, geniuses, ambitious professionals, superb teachers or simply devoted academicians. There were/are combos too, like academician-mavericks or teacher-scholars! But interestingly it has more often been a person or a couple of persons who spelt the difference. I am aware that the propagation of such an individual-centered view doesn’t augur well in an era in which fascism has admirers. But the argument has any number of examples to validate itself though the epicenter called the individual can impact the periphery in multiple ways.

Campuses, amorphous bodies, bring to mind individual teachers in many ways. The theatrical take of a lesson by faculty member, the performance poetry of another, the field visit focused mode of another one, sheer scholarship which renders them rather absent minded: the passion, energy, extent of involvement of these set the otherwise stagnant air of the classrooms / campuses on fire. Sometimes the outcome may not be what the boards of studies prescribed, but the impact would last longer. These legendary faculty members did their part in building up depts nonpareil. These breeds were given ample space to roam rope-less in the colleges of yore. They didn’t just teach. They performed. They didn’t lecture. They lived on / off their passion. They weren't building their résumé, they were inner-motivated to do what they love. A walk down campus memory lanes will show a parade of such mighty academicians and depts known for them. Depts peopled with faculty members with multiple individuals who has varied interests and who lived their academic lives enjoying their ways made many campuses known after departments. 

 The uneven quality and reputation of the depts in HEIs is often the result of the said league of teachers who 'selfishly' gave off their best and left their signatures stamped around. In many colleges, this has the domino effect of it rubbing off on certain other members of the faculty group too. Other members of the depts, campuses, will complement, supplement these king size academicians in many ways. The vigor and vibe of these giant teachers will lend confidence to certain others who may not measure up to the biggies to attempt their ways of pitching in with significant efforts. But many of them will grow and spread and will contribute to the ecosystems these reputed academics have achieved in their own ways, making it a team build itself. But this need not happen with all departments or all faculty members. The peer-pressure can occasionally lead to some shutting down and backing off too! 

To a great extent, the birth and growth of such larger-than-life depts was the result of the autonomy lent to the depts by the HEI leadership. The teasing optimality of the administrative rope is adroitly handled by the institutional leadership to make possible that such depts are given free spaces and such faculty figures free run, yet without letting the show get fully out of hand! This is a two-way street because the rope is let loose when the leadership feels that it can be. The space is given when the leadership knows that more the space, the better the outcome and growth in achievements. Autonomy is granted to the Dept/faculty member since they seem to be capable of running the show with integrity and character. Such depts cash in on the space and license granted by threatening to grow into an institution by themselves in action and aspiration. Aspirations are important because many, institutions or people, are in a different league not simply because they achieve big, but because they dare to dream big, even if they may not really make it as big in the final count. The quality of efforts, the capacious imaginations, the arrogance which stems from faith to attempt the extraordinary, these too matter in the build of Departments. Certain individuals may provide the fuel for such capacious aspirations time and again.

 This post doesn’t reserve itself to the so labelled meta-campuses. In fact, many small colleges have 'big' depts which do not get the attention they deserve as the college is labelled as minor. Amazing work is done by certain depts in the so considered small colleges which will put the mega campuses to shade. But their market value is down since the campus in which they reside is not placed high in popular reckoning. But interestingly these could be the depts which will drive up the popularity of the HEI and help force revaluations of it by the popular perceptions. A whole campus can rise around such departments which began to believe itself thanks to the driven-faculty member/s.

In many mega campuses, the popular reputation will be apparently intact, even when the overall performance has declined slowly. The vigor of yore, planted and watered by those legendary campus/dept builders, may not have probably taken deep roots in the academic ecosystem. The 'young' may not have shadowed the 'old' sufficiently to sustain the spirit and the art. The sustenance of the vision thought of here doesn’t denote blind aping. Vision can change, Mission too. But it must be a change brought in by honest, sincere, objective review. If not, the rot will be diagnosed too late to stem.

 Take care of your paisa and the rupee will take care of itself, they say! If the depts are allowed to be taken care of themselves (provided they prove worthy of the same), it augurs good for the HEIs. The breed of faculty members with minds of their own, with charisma and capability, devoted and passionate, need to be found and promoted. Such faculty members make Departments. Such Departments make colleges what they are. 

- Babu. P. K. Ph D